Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gary Ng who wrote (92627)	4/12/2003 2:17:33 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I do not think there is a good answer. There IS an answer- we don't really care about Africa- but it isn't a very humanitarian answer. Which, of course, is why I find the whole thing so very interesting.

To: Gary Ng who wrote (92627)	4/12/2003 4:11:53 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<, Obviously we couldn't stand by and let Iraq happen, and the death toll there is nothing compared to the Congo, not to mention the refugees I sincerely hope that someone on this thread can answer this or at least offer their view.>> 1. If the US went into Africa on the sole mission of saving oppressed people or stop neighborhood wars we would truly be the "Big Brother" that would terrify any Nation guilty of similar occurrences of various magnitudes Practically every country in Africa and in South America ( how could we tolerate the situation with 5mm Mexicans living on the Mexico city dump?) would qualify for similar treatment or missions. 2. We do not have to money to spare, being now in economic difficulty as are most Nations like Japan and France, as examples. Therefore Congress would not pass laws to fund the operation unless there would be some economic benefit either now or in the future. 3. Africa is case to be considered by the United Nations but I think it would be impossible to develop a consensus for action other than to provide food or medical aid, since China may well be considered as a country who does not treat her minorities or dissidents in a humane manner. In summary, there must be a very clear cut reason other than common inhumanities for a country to invade. another. The US does not "start things' in other countries, or try to cure problems, unless we are attacked or threatened in some manner. Sig

To: Gary Ng who wrote (92627)	4/12/2003 8:40:27 AM
From: quehubo	Respond to of 281500

Gary - There are many countries in Africa that have no real impact on the global economy. Any threat to the global oil supply that increases prices or decreases oil supply will have an impact on the entire globe. Even the Africans who we give so much too. Saddam has helped transfer billions of dollars to oil producing nations. He has caused the destruction of his and Irans oil production facilities in the Iran Iraq war, He destroyed Kuwaits, and the globe has been paying a higher price since 1991 because of Iraq.

To: Gary Ng who wrote (92627)	4/12/2003 12:03:43 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

I don't know what is being done about the Congo. If you live in the US, write your Congressman, write the President. Ask them to act. Emails will work, so will phone calls. Also write the black members of Congress, even if they don't represent you, because they may have more reason to care about Africans. Also write or call the embassies of neighboring countries and countries that you think can help. Also write or call the UN, if that's your preference. Another thing that must be done and is imperative but won't show results for a while - no aid without accountability. No more throwing money at a problem just to see it wind up in Swiss bank accounts in the name of the local honcho.