Article

2007-05-23 Africa Subsaharan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2007-05-23 14:10|| || Front Page|| [11 views ] Top

#1 "But the Congolese only attack one another: so that's not our problem."

Yep, sounds about right to me. Other than some feel good, compassionate, guilt trip is there a reason we should be involved?

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2007-05-23 14:45|| 2007-05-23 14:45|| Front Page Top

#2 No, there is no rational reason to get involved in the Congo's bloodshed. The Central African region made up of the Congos, {whatever names they happen to be using this week}, is important for certain mineral exports but all sides have shown eagerness to export same to anyone with money. Also, the strategic value of the Congo decreased when the Belgians lost their national redoubt there when the region became independent, and almost completely vanished with the end of the Cold War. Especially since all sides are more than happy to sell anything and everything to anyone and everyone.
Arguing against involvement by the West is : 1) the tribalism mentioned in the article; 2) automatic white liberal Western guilt that will be taken out on any troops involved; 3) the lack of any appreciable infrastructure; 4) who do you back since there are no angels there; and 5) the presence of several hemorrhagic fevers with no known treatment regimes and extremely high lethality rates.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-05-23 22:47|| 2007-05-23 22:47|| Front Page Top

23:50 trailing wife
23:49 Mark Espinola
23:48 Zenster
23:45 Mark Espinola
23:43 DMFD
23:43 WTF
23:42 Zenster
23:30 anonymous2u
23:26 DMFD
23:24 Danking70
22:50 Angie Schultz
22:49 Mac
22:47 Shieldwolf
22:45 Mac
22:44 Mac
22:36 DMFD
22:33 DMFD
22:32 DMFD
22:31 SR-71
22:21 George Orwell
22:19 George Orwell
22:08 ed
22:04 Anonymoose
22:00 George Orwell