I don't think you should have posted that Walter. Looking at the list of countries it is beginning to look like a good idea...



>>>I don't believe for a second that religion has anything to do with it. The main problem is that any intervention is creating more new problems and conflict. Those areas are so politically unstable and corrupted, there is not much you can do.
>>This does not apply to all african regions of course, but in the case of sudan, the international community is about powerless. A dutch politician jan pronk who was trying to do his best to get the UN into sudan and improve the desperate situation of the refugees up there. But he was expelled by the sudanese government.
>>
>>What does them being unstable and corrupt has anything to do with the world/UN doing something to save lives of thousands?
>
>>...the world community is very good at doing nothing.
>
>So you suggest invading another country for a good cause is legitimate. Like iraq? So lets, see... the international community has
>
>- To invade all islamic countries because they don't respect human rights, esspecially for women and gays
>- To invake north korea
>- To invade iran
>- To invade zimbabwe
>- To invade rwanda
>- To invade sudan
>- To invade cuba
>- To invade china
>- To invade pakistan
>- To invade south africa (say about 15 years ago)
>
>Do you really think the world would be a better place if we did? Do you really it was a good idea that the US invaded iraq to liberate the iraqies and bring democracy. I've always found that a very ignorant stance. We know the results.
>
>Iraq is a country that should not have existed in the first place. It was instated by the british after WWI, keeping 3 different ethnic groups together. It was a time bomb in the first place.
>
>>>It is a very tricky situation. Many european countries have a very bad taste in their mouths about their former african colonies. However the sad thing is that it were the europeans that applied the "divide and conquer" strategy up there. The africans learned this tactic and the rwanda genocide is an indirect result of it.
>
>>So Europe scared of them using the "divide and conquer" to defeat Europe?
>
>You did not get the point. The hutsies and tutsies (sp?) in rwanda were living in relative peace until the europeans came in and used the divide and conquer tactics to grab power.
>
>Walter,