Should the US/UN/NATO have intervened in the Congo?
 

The Congolese civil war is mostly over but during the last 5 or 6 years some estimates suggest as many as 3.3 million people died as a result of that conflict.

It hardly even made the news in the west most days, but should the rest of the world have done more to intervene and prevent these casualties and suffering? I know eventually the west sent some troops (French I think) but millions had already died.

Would you rather we had intervened here instead of in Iraq?

I think it would've made a more convincing argument for our humanitarian goals if we had intervened in the Congo than the war in Iraq did. However, our government has a primary obligation to deal with perceived threats to the our own country. (I'm not going to get into an argument over whether the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was real or imagined.) Since our armed forces are stretched too thin to do both, I'd hope more European nations would get involved in the Congo.

Sadly if those who run the world have no economic or political interests, for real gain or to be bartered for, then no one gives a fuck.

Not visible on a daily basis, then interest wains to the point of extinction.

Call it humanity in the 21st century.

That's kinda the way I'm seeing it - Iraq aside, it seems that no one - US, Europe, whoever - has much interest in actually saving lives and sorting out a terrible situation unless there is a strategic or economic value. There have been countless wars in Africa and millions dead directly from war - and from the side effects of war like famine and disease - but while we are happy to intervene in other areas, we wash our hands of Africa where some of the greatest suffering in the world occurs.

One word:

Somolia

I disagree with a blanket statement that we never help Africa, simply because people can list Somalia as a counterexample, as if that did anything to detract from the fact that Africa is dying every day. We very, very rarely do anything in Africa, but there is plenty to be exploited in Africa, namely precious stones and metals. I think the problem is not knowing where to start.

I use Somolia due to the fact that we TRIED to get involved there, and all we got was a major black-eye. That is likely why we haven't been really involved in anything else in Africa.

Another word:

Bosnia.

Does congo want help? Or would we just find ourselves being shot at by all sides? If we go in and take out the enemies of one side, what would the world call us? We could go in and draw a line down the middle of the country, but all that would do is give all sides a starting point for territorial arguements and further death.

If we were to go in, what would the people of Congo like from us? Would they like us to feed all sides so that they can continue to kill themselves? Do they want us there to watch?

It seems to me that this fight will go on no matter what we do there. People that want to kill eachother badly enough are gonna find a way to do it.

Good theory except a bit flawed - in most African civil wars these warring armed groups practically enjoy no popular support, so it's not like the whole country was divided and contributing to the war effort. Those who suffer the most are the civilians between factions and I'm pretty sure that they in most cases make up the majority of the population.

It is spelled "Somalia" BTW.

The US did indeed send 25,000 troops to Somalia - and left after a few of them were killed in action, replaced by a UN force. That's one of the few notable examples and pales compared tothe hundreds of thousands deployed elsewhere - not just now but throughout the 20th century.

Another word;

Rwanda.

Absolutely. 800,000 killed in 3 months while the rest of the world say on its collective ass.

Not to pick nits, Lebell, but I looked all over Africa for Bosnia and heard it shouting to me from Europe.