Continued from earlier ...
The French troops have arrived in the D. R. Congo, and are complaining that they have been "caught in the middle" of the war there. Um. Am I missing something? Aren't they supposed to be peacekeepers?
Seriously, can *anybody* explain to me the purpose of having 2000+ "peacekeepers" who "do not have a mandate to intervene in the conflict?"
What, exactly, are they supposed to be doing there? Either be peacekeepers, or stay home. By being there, they are further complicating the situation, and spending insane amounts of money for no benefit.
It really makes me ill.
Meanwhile, the death toll is up to more than 500, thousands have fled the area, mostly to refugee camps in other places that aren't much better off, and although the people there rejoiced at the arrival of the French troops, it's not clear to me that they would have if they understood what role those troops would play - essentially overseeing the slaughter, but not interfering.
Also of great interest to me are the dozens of morons willing to share their uninformed opinions on the situation. I suppose I'm not much better than some of them, but the bulk of the folks commenting would apparently be hard-pressed to find find Bunia on a map, let alone have a chance of understanding the realities of the situation there.
Maybe it's a bit redundant to mention, but they are *French* troops.
Without starting an endless discussion, the U.S.A. has a long history of ignoring genocidal massacres, unless we happen to have some (usually economic) interest. Ask Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and others. At least the French are doing something, even if perfunctory.
Posted by: krietz on June 8, 2003 01:30 PM