Democratic Republic of the Congo

[momof 2boys]

Last night I was watching Nightline. The topic was the travesties that are occuring in the Congo.  This is an area in such desperate need of help.  Hundreds of thousands of people removed from their homes.  Hundreds of children dying of starvation and disease.  On average, 100 rapes a month commited by soldiers as well as other tribal sects.  It took all I had in me to continue to watch and listen about these atrocities, because my life is so easy and I could have turned the channel and escaped the truth of their lives.  And as I watched, I wondered is the reason we have not reached out to help these individuals escape their oppression from their government because they have no oil or other value to us?  Just wondering aloud.

[sixdogsmom]

I hear you! 

  And as I watched, I wondered is the reason we have not reached out to help these individuals escape their oppression from their government because they have no oil or other value to us?  Just wondering aloud.

[Catwoman]

Before we once again overextend our resources here to once again be the saviour of some foreign country, I would much rather see those resources used for the betterment of our own country.  Like, establishing permenent homes for the homeless?  Making sure that every food bank has enough food that they never have to turn anyone away because of either too low stocks or lack thereof?  Making sure that the road systems throughout the US are up-to-date?  Making sure that our VA systems are equipped for the task of more than capably taking care of our returning and already home veterans?  I agree, that nation does need help...but let some other country take up the slack on this one for once.  We have got to quit being willing to bankrupt our nation in order to look like a hero elsewhere.  I am not a racist and would never go for isolationist tactics by our government but enough is enough.  We've already got billions and trillions that are owed us by foreign countries that will never pay us back in full.  I think we need to start taking care of our own.

[sixdogsmom]

Sounds like you would have the war in Iraq end?

[Wilma]

So what would we do?  Invade another country to save the people from oppression, stay to get them up on their feet and running and have the people back here complaining like we do about the war in Iraq?  We can't go in and destroy a government and not expect to stay and help establish another one.  And we can't do this for every underprivileged country in the world.  Maybe what we should do is send some of our industries over there, use their cheap labor to raise their living standard, then watch our own economy go to pot.

Compassion is good.  We couldn't live without it.  But the good old U S of A has just about had it with trying to save the oversea's underprivileged.  Giving of our personal time and assets doesn't always get to it's destination.  Does anyone have any idea just how much of the dollar you give actually gets to where it helps the people?  How much of it goes to support the military oppression of that country?  I hate the situation just as much as anyone else does, but the underprivileged masses have to help, too.

[momof 2boys]

My point really is what makes the difference between why we went into Iraq and why we didn't go to other places where people are oppressed with far greater casualties like the Congo.  The situtations in the Congo have been going on for some time, yet our government turns its head to it and invades Iraq.  We didn't attack Iraq because of terrorism, because there has been no proof found to connect Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.  Nor was there evidence of "weapons of mass destruction". So my question was that if Congo had had oil or other value would we have gone there?

[sixdogsmom]

I agree with you Minnie, the situation is kind of like Iran and the atrocities of Pho Phott (spelling?) in Cambodia during the Carter administration. It was said that Iran was about human rights, yet all those people were murdered without quarter in Cambodia and hardley a notice by our government. Just another indication that big oil is in the pockets of our government. No, I do not think we need 'rescue' these people; we have the United Nations to do that.

By United Nations, I do not necessarily mean military action. The United Nations have been instrumental in third world countries to relieve suffering. Yes the United States contributes largely to this effort, but every country that we can influence to support themselves and govern themselves, the safer the world will be. Not a total answer, I know. There is no correct answer I am afraid.

[Diane Amberg]

If you mean that horrible head of the Khmer Rouge, that was Pol Pot. Hundreds of thousands were killed or forced to flee. Or maybe I have the wrong situation in mind.

[Wilma]

My point really is what makes the difference between why we went into Iraq and why we didn't go to other places where people are oppressed with far greater casualties like the Congo.  The situtations in the Congo have been going on for some time, yet our government turns its head to it and invades Iraq.  We didn't attack Iraq because of terrorism, because there has been no proof found to connect Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.  Nor was there evidence of "weapons of mass destruction". So my question was that if Congo had had oil or other value would we have gone there?

Would the answer to that be Bush?  Finishing what daddy started?

[W. Gray]

Bear in mind that the people who defeated us in Viet Nam, invaded Cambodia and deposed Pol Pot some four years after they drove us out.