digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at theirc.org

1 WAR is Killing 1,500 Daily! Pls Help by Raising Awareness

theirc.org — # 5.4 million people have died since 1998 # 45,000 people continue to die every month! This links to: Congo Crisis at a Glance | News Story | Video | Full Report | New survey released by the International Rescue Committee What can Diggers do to help? Help by Raising Awareness and / or donate money to the IRC Charity.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yellowcakewalk, on 03/28/2008, -7/+66Most deadly war since WWII. Most people are unaware of it.
    • dildoolielly, on 03/28/2008, -22/+5Amerikan "news" media has obviously been designed to make people the dumbest waste of sperm and eggs to currently walk the planet
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/28/2008, -5/+6Oh but you are enlightened and fighting for this cause daily solely because you are from ___________

        That's right you ***** pussy. You're probably suck a huge elephant blue whale of a vagina that you're actually from America.
        • pauliusuza, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Wow, just... wow
        • Rikkochet, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Ok was that typo supposed to be "such" or "you'll"? It's pretty hilarious either way but I'd like to know.
          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1such, I can't believe that typo led to suck
      • Danikar, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1People still watch tv news?
    • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -2/+30We're doing there what people wanted us to do in Iraq. We're letting the UN handle it.

      What's so wrong with that?
      • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -3/+11We are the UN, the building is in New York. 90% US troops or more. The rest of the world knows to mind their own business while secretly taking us apart.
        • Wargalas, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11Then perhaps we should pull out of the UN or publicly shame other countries such as China and Russia to start putting up more of an effort.

          If they're going to be sitting on the Security Council with veto power, they need to put in equal amounts of time, money, troops, and energy to fighting for these causes.
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3we fund the U.N..... but we can barely control it
        • thedogfatherx, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6"we fund the U.N..... but we can barely control it" DEAD ON. The UN is a waste. We should bail out of it.
      • rlbond86, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3You Fool! The war is destroying America, and there's only one man who can stop it!
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=CYQ4QvR-O0Q
        • TobiasParker, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I knew this was a rick roll but i clicked on it because in this context it made me happy.
    • airburst, on 03/28/2008, -3/+14If Bush isn't killing people the world doesn't care.
    • phybere, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Why isn't this kind of stuff ever on the news?
      I hear about Iraq every day, I wish we'd pull our heads out of our asses sometimes.
    • HanSolo69, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7If you don't support the US being in Iraq then you'd be a hypocrite to support us doing anything with this. It's also not a war, like the description says. It's a crisis, a regional conflict. It's in man's nature to kill and seek greatness. Let nature take it's course.
    • DLuckyE, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6Only problem they have is that most of their oil goes to France instead of the U.S. The French don't care much about anything (that doesn't involve themselves) and the U.S. doesn't care about anything that doesn't deliver them oil. So they're basically screwed.

      Of course it's not fair to just put this on the U.S. but lets face it all the other countries are just lapdogs apart from Russia which is planning to take over the world with female mice.

  • aki009, on 03/28/2008, -10/+45... and in other news amnesty international and many groups like it have made sure that you know of the horrors of Abu Ghraib, including the naked human pyramid.
    • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -25/+3And murder and the torture of children.

      But that happened in your college fraternity, so it's no big deal, right?
      • andrew1193, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3You should stop getting your "news" from communist lunatics.

        It just makes you look stupid.
        • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4""'The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,' Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "

          Damn Commies.

          http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/artic ...
          • andrew1193, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I rarely take the word of other persons without seeing the evidence firsthand.

            There is only one report, from one source, of anything happening to teenagers, let alone children, and one death at the prison that was ruled a homicide.
          • chicofaraby, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Sure. I'm sure Senator Graham is lying for political reasons. Seeing as how he's a commie and all.
    • keltin, on 03/28/2008, -12/+14Yes, the high-intensity torture and mutilation of flesh, with skin pulled off of the bottoms of feet, ears and noses cut off, that was horrific! Oh, wait, that wasn't Abu Ghraib, that's happening in Darfur.
      That's right! Abu Ghraib was where those war criminals actually made someone wear panties on their head...brutal.
      • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -21/+9Except you are full of *****. People were murdered at Abu Ghraib by the US military. Children were tortured. You fail as a human.
        • Dynamis, on 03/28/2008, -3/+12I'd debate your assertions but you completely miss the point. The point is that the human rights organizations should have been dealing with Darfur where they're most obviously needed. Why aren't they doing as much to raise awareness of what's happening there (It's a legitimate question that I'd really like to know the answer to - you don't need to get all pissy and personal)?
          • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -13/+6So because Darfur isn't on YOUR radar, no one is trying to raise awareness?

            I'll stop pointing out that the US military murdered and tortured at Abu Ghraib the day the right wingers stop trying to make it seem OK for the US military to murder people and torture children. Deal?
          • Dynamis, on 03/28/2008, -3/+8Just answer the question
          • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -10/+7I did.

            Your question: "Why aren't they doing as much to raise awareness of what's happening there?"
            The answer: They are. You know about it. All human rights organizations can do is make it known, they can't make you care. If Darfur isn't on your radar, it's not because you don't KNOW about it.
          • poidh, on 03/28/2008, -5/+7Dynamis won this one. chicofaraby lost.
          • Rikkochet, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5I'll answer the question since chico can't: because it's too dangerous for humanitarian groups to go into DR Congo. Helping others is great as long as it's not TOO risky.
            [Edit: Should mention that that's just major aid groups - there ARE feet on the street in DR Congo that are working hard, but not enough]
          • node3, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3They *ARE* raising the issues of Darfur, the Congo, etc. *You're* just not hearing about them because FOX, CNN, etc., can't make as much money as they can with Abu Graib and "is your mechanic ripping you off, news channel 7 investigates."
          • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3"I'll answer the question since chico can't:"

            Translation: I'll tell you my opinion since I don't like the facts.
    • Liam76, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6Well they aren't israel so it is ok.
    • MrErr, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Actually some of these groups have been making it known about darfur and congo. We just have not been listening. You will find that these issues make news in other countries in Africa and Europe, even canada above us, but our problem is that no one is interested in what happens in Africa. In fact most people here did not even know that Shiites and Sunnis were at odds with each other in Iraq, but now that we are there, everyone knows about the rivalry.

      So next time you say "in other news", actually check out other newspapers.
      • Pake, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Unless you're in Africa, it doesn't matter if you're in Europe or the America's, you won't hear anything about them.
      • breadfred, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1You are correct. I thought that the Digg audience would have access to more the one news source. This has been big news all over Europe. Ah I forgot.. there is no economical interest for the good old US of A so it is not broadcasted widely over the American news chanbels. Please broaden your view of the world and caheck other news sources as wel. It will broaden your mind and make you a better judge on the situation the world finds itself in.
        I check the BBC, the American news channels, and Aljazeera regularly. Newver trust a single source for your judgement. And as I am dutch, I also check the dutch news articles. Not saying that this gives you the ultimate truth, it just gives you a bit of perspective.
    • jayfarer, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Amnesty International works on more than one issue at a time, you know.
    • node3, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2http://www.google.com/search?q=site:amnesty.org+co ...

      The fact is, AI exposes atrocities *everywhere* they find them, we just never listen to them. Even the atrocities at Abu Graib didn't reach you via AI, it reached you via FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc. If you want to complain about anyone, complain about the news media which picks and chooses which stories to report to the American people.
    • Mikhail101, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1well yea they should its America in Iraq not some other country that is not apart of the UN.
  • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -30/+24The profit margins aren't large enough in central Africa for America to care. Sorry.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/28/2008, -3/+26Fine. Lets send in troops, and how long it takes before you are bitching about American intervention into local affairs.
      • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -18/+3Sure, because there is nothing in between ignoring a situation and sending in the US military to bomb civilians and torture people.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/28/2008, -0/+14So let me get this straight: you want us to do something about it, but you don't want us to actually do anything.

          Oh, I get it now. We are supposed to ask them nicely to stop killing each other.
          • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -14/+3I can't make your mind work. If you can't see anything in between the two extremes you are proposing it's because you are dim. Which explains why you are a right winger in the first place.
          • Otto, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11chico: No, he has a point. What is you alternative plan? How exactly do you expect to stop the fighting and strife? Answer with a legitimate idea/plan, or STFU.

            Frankly, I think we should stay the hell out of it. Their country, their problem.
          • bigdoof, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10chico: Ok, put your money where you mouth is. To stop a conflict between two apparently well armed sides engaged in a lengthy war with 1,500 daily casualties, what can we do about it other than send troops in and "restore order"? Run around with walkie talkies and just tell everyone to calm down? Hug everyone and just let them "talk it out?"

            Finding the irony in diggers rejecting meddling in another country's business when it comes to Iraq, but demanding action when it comes to the Congo does not necessarily make you a "right winger." It makes you a realist.
          • FatherVic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6No... he just remembers the last time the left was screaming "atrocities" and we finally took action. Now we are being accused of "illegal war" and such. Once bitten, twice shy, my friend.
          • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8@chico

            Great answer to disguise the fact that you have no valid suggestions. The question is simple, how do you stop another country's civil war without intervening militarily?

            When in doubt, throw meaningless partisan insults at your opponent. Good strategy, it'll get you far in any political argument.
          • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -9/+1Back in the old days there was this thing called "diplomacy." A Republican named Roosevelt used it to end a war between Japan and Russia. He didn't ignore the problem and he didn't illegally invade anyone.

            Read a freaking book, people.

          • randeepjalli0, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8Do you really want to debate the treaty of portsmouth? Serisouly, one of the terms of the treaty was that Russia acknowledged Japan's "Great Military Might", which shortly thereafter, led to the fall of the czar and the rise of the Bolsheviks, all roosevelt succeded in doing was getting the czar overthrown, the russians and japanese still hate each other(over WWII, which was indirectly caused by this) and technically i dont think they even have diplomatic ties with each other....
          • bigdoof, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6"Big Stick" Roosevelt? If there was ever a wrong guy to invoke in an argument like this...

            Russia, at the time, was under increasing internal pressure and impending revolution. They couldn't fight a war with Japan while sustaining control of their own country; they pushed for peace as a result. Roosevelt was there as a somewhat neural third party, but he did not need to pressure either side using the magic that you call "diplomacy."

            A high school textbook isn't always the solution to everything, and waving your hands and saying "diplomacy" doesn't solve a thing. Diplomacy relies on economic or military pressure. If you can't flex your military and economic sanctions have little effect, what else can you do? Wish your way out of the situation?
          • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -10/+1So if diplomacy can't end bad feelings for all time, it's not worth doing. Are you sure?

          • bigdoof, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Read again: diplomacy is not just talking about your problems and magically things get all better. Diplomacy relies on the threat of force, either through miliary strength, economic pressure, or cataclystic cultural change. When the other side doesn't respect either, you cannot do a thing. That's why Fiji can't lead diplomacy efforts on the world stage; they lack the military muscle and the economic backing.

            I'm not sure why you brought up Roosevelt, he's the perfect example of this. He forcibly formed Pamama when Columbia didn't want the US around. He invaded Cuba. His foreign affars doctrine relied on wanton military might and swinging it around with authority.
          • Mothrog, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4chicofaraby, I think you're the one that needs to read a book. Make sure it contains something about Neville Chamberlain.
          • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -6/+2"I'm not sure why you brought up Roosevelt,"

            Exactly because he was the "big stick" guy. Even he knew that the USA didn't have to get involved militarily in other countries' wars. The knuckleheads up the thread proposed that the only courses open were warfare or nothing. Roosevelt was more than willing to kill brown people for United Fruit. But even HE realized that wars can be ended by diplomacy. It's not magic. I never claimed it was. But it's not ineffective either.
          • PolishLogic, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3@chicofaraby

            You still haven't answered the question posed to you by numerous posters. You've merely gone off on multiple tangents.

            As a sidenote: wars between countries can sometimes be ended via diplomacy. As for civil wars, that's RARELY the case.
          • bigdoof, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4chico: I'm not sure if you don't understand your own position, or maybe you just can't articulate it.

            Roosevelt took an active part in intervening in other countries affairs through the use of EXTENSIVE military force. He also played hardball "diplomacy," which was only made possible because he had no qualms invading whatever South American country that was annoying him at any given time.

            If you truly use Roosevelt as a template, we should immediately meddle in Congo's affairs. If they refuse to stop the civil war, we immediately invade and occupy it for decades, a la Roosevelt in Cuba.

            You bash Bush and Republicans because it seems like the "cool" thing to do, but at the same time, you're all for Big Stick Diplomacy. Put down the American History textbook go back to recess.
        • onetimer, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8Don't bother, DRINKxREDxBULL. Even if we were to start sending this guys 1 cent of aid, you'd have the whiners on digg complaining about there tax dollars being "robbed"
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8I'm am seriously dumber for having read a couple of your comment streams chicofaraby. If the world was full of people like you in the 40's Hitler would have died fat and happy from old age. God, I could just see you back then, "open a dialogue with him, send him a couple of cases of jack, invite him out to vacation in florida and talk, ask him why he's so mad, and LAST BUT NOT LEAST put sanctions on him"

          If we did anything to stop that you'd be crying the next morning like the complete America hating bitch you are today. And it's pretty clear you aren't able to come up with anything "between military force and nothing" for this situation either.
          • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -10/+1People like me were the ones who opposed Hitler. Neville Chamberlain was a conservative.

            It's not my fault you are dumb.
          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Well then you did one of the shoddiest jobs in history at doing it without military force.
          • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1You think WW2 was fought without military force? You really ARE dumb.
          • Rikkochet, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7I hear ya NonLeftishDiggr.. I read way too many of its comments before blocking it.
            Stupidity is aggravating, but inspires us to accomplish things in our lives so we avoid becoming "that".
          • FatherVic, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1@chico...
            UK Conservative and Unionist Party doesn't mean the same as it does here in the usa. The UK Conservative party is and has always been "social cohesion, and its adherents support social institutions that maintain harmony between different interest groups, classes, and—more recently—different races or religions. These institutions have typically included the welfare state, the BBC, and local government. Some are also supporters of the European Union"
            Hardly the definition of an American Conservative.
            If you read your history... Neville Chamberlain was the "champion" of "talk it out" diplomacy. He signed all kinds of treaties with Hitler before and after Czechoslovakia was invaded. His strategy failed. Putting the label "conservative" on his chest to bridge the gap between his core political beliefs and modern day American Conservatives is intellectually dishonest.
      • ozymandias2012, on 03/28/2008, -1/+599% of that 1 cent would be spent on Ak-47s.
      • Pillage, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5That's because we shot ourselves in the foot when we made it illegal for Executive Outcomes to be able to operate in places like this.
    • betterth, on 03/28/2008, -14/+3Sorry, white people aren't invovled, the west doesn't care.

      Also, you don't have in excess of one hundred billion barrels of oil.

      Better luck next time!
    • airburst, on 03/28/2008, -4/+9So what is your grand plan Chico? You make a lot of snarky comments but don't offer any alternatives.
    • chanop, on 03/28/2008, -10/+6No Oil in the Congo, not worth liberating...........
      • Manchowder, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2This is exactly why Darfur (filled with oil) is a genocide.
        Yet Congo (cooperating corporate client state) is not a genocide.
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Don't digg him down. It's a sad reality.
    • playuhh, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2It's okay... AWARENESS will solve all of these problems. Whoever dugg him down... I'm a little confused... don't digg me down please explain? and why the hell is it a snarky comment? I see the digging down of the guy above me too... which by my powers of deduction I deduce I will be dugg down as well... BELOW I read comment: "CNN, FOX, and MSNBC don't care. Does not involve oil or white people." and he's been dugg up 40 so far... maybe its because he said "America doesn't care" which maybe it seems that he is implying to you that "AMERICA" speaks for ALL americans... but to me that just represents the current administration who REPRESENTS the United States... I mean would THEY really bother? Honestly?
  • suzywang3000, on 03/28/2008, -10/+3"Help by Raising Awareness and / or donate money to the IRC Charity."

    ...lol... sarc?
  • ScienceDoc, on 03/28/2008, -19/+75CNN, FOX, and MSNBC don't care. Does not involve oil or white people.
    • 1randomguyO8, on 03/28/2008, -5/+6I feel everyone ignores Africa and I mean EVERYONE. Why hasn't a story about the Conga made it to diggs frontpage long ago. If this was happening in say Australia or Ukraine for example it would be front page news from day 1.
      • geneticlone, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4lol no not really who cares about Ukraine or Australia anyway?
      • DollofWar, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1True. Australia is a first world and if something like that suddenly occurred in Australia, it better make headlines everywhere.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Because of saturation, people can only tolerate so much bad news out of Africa. It's been a constant barage of mass scale crisis multiple at a time in one form or another for a long long time. Right now, Constant rampant starvation, religious war in ethiopia/sudan, election crisis in Kenya, dictatorship - 100,000% inflation - and food shortage crisis in Zimbabwe really taking off now, Darfur, HUGE AIDS crisis at all times, war in the Congo....

        and shoot, I'm only a barely informed individual relative to Africa and I still can come up with all that. What would someone who knows africa come up with, triple that list? They are not all of the same severity, but I hope to illustrate the point that it's overwhelming, I don't want to watch 3 hours of bad news about Africa everyday, which is what it would take to keep up with all the crisis over there. That place needs a self-made culture overhaul in proportions never heard of before.
    • stix213, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3It is not CNN, FOX, or MSNBC's fault. The show what people want to watch. When they put people senselessly dieing in Africa for preventable reasons, people turn the channel cause the cause is all but hopeless. For everything that the Industrialized world has tried to solve in africa, our efforts have always failed or been turned around with terrible results. With nearly all the fault falling on the Africans, not the outsiders.

      For example, Zimbabwe recently was a country with a food surplus, but today is in a very bad situation right now with skyrocketing inflation and food shortages, which are all caused by the Zimbabwe government's racist policy of taking land from people of white skin (many of whom were foreigners or international companies) and giving it to non-whites, many of whom did not know how to produce crops. Basically, we were helping with their food until their own government stopped us, and now they are starving to death due to their own greed, not ours.
      • biotch, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2"The show what people want to watch."
        True .. but not always.... they make news out of nothing on many occasions. They glamorize and dramatize popstar lifestyles and political comments in the hopes of convincing viewers there is something worth paying attention to. Coverage of those stories are easy and risk free. Conversely zimbabwe and darfur are incredibly risky, and resource heavy excursions. So if they can convince a large enough portion of the population that britney spears' haircut is newsworthy, why not take the risk free route. People might be watching it but many times non issue stories are exaulted to newsworthy status solely by news agencies vying for ratings. The people buy into it and as a result news agencies have become lazy and content with force feeding the masses fabricated social drama.
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I know what you mean, but people like that $hit! I think this is a case of the chicken and the egg, except that people just love celebrity gossip so the TV gives it to them... I think Nancy Grace is THE WORST show ever to be broadcast on a news station.
    • twertyto, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Spoon fed much? The world is much more complicated than what the media will tell you.
    • fuckinlogin, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Congo has 80% of the world's reserves of Coltan, 60% of the world's reserves of Cobalt and the number one supplier of high grade Copper.
      Coltan is the main source of Niobium and Tantalum. Tantalum capacitors are an essential part of mobile phones, PCs, car electronics, etc...
      The main alternative for tantalum in capacitors is... Niobium. They both also have a lot of other industrial uses (in steel alloys, etc...)
      Three years ago (I don't have current figures) $6million A DAY in cobalt was leaving Congo.
      The Rwandan and Ugandan armies (backed by... the good old US of A) were happily raping and making millions a week from coltan sales in the late 90s. Do you know how they get the male children to fight (the female children are only useful as sex slaves after all)? No waste of instruments or anything, just cut them with a machete and rub cocaine in the open wound. There you go! How ingenious!

      This is why no one cares, the resources are coming out, without protest. Not like those Iranian scumbags. How dare they set up an Oil Bourse and (soon) sell in Euros instead of Dollars?

      The other less immediate reason is that Congo's geographical position: it's right in the centre of Africa. If peace was allowed there, trade routes would open up and goods would flow more easily inside Africa. If that happens Africans might start seeing the money from their own natural resources. They might even nationalise or take control of their own industries from western multinationals. Unacceptable. Like those countries in South America. Thank god for the CIA and their replace-elected-governments-with-puppet-dictators service. Pretty cheap: lobbying sure goes a long way! Those Iranians didn't learn their lesson in when the Shah was installed by the CIA. Nationalise British oil operations: out with you, democratically elected government!

      The solution for Africa is to exploit it with cheap mining/oil operations and spend a small amount of money on local despots to keep the populace under control. Much better. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go buy a new mobile phone. I wonder how many phones I must go through before the amount of coltan it took to make it corresponds to one raped child? I'll buy a new laptop just in case, more capacitors.
  • dildoolielly, on 03/28/2008, -10/+80Roughly 168,000 people died last week from hunger or hunger-related causes, almost 75% of them were children. About 800 million people haven’t enough food at this very moment. Roughly 40000 Africans died last week of Aids

    Roughly 168,000 people will die this week from hunger or hunger-related causes, almost 75% of them will be children. Again, about 800 million people will not have enough food to eat. Roughly 40000 Africans will die this week of Aids

    US news topics so far this month...

    Aretha may lose her Detroit mansion
    New juicy pics of Senator's whore
    Hulk Hogan's wife files for divorce
    Polar Bear cubs are doing well
    Cat survives 3 weeks crossing ocean
    Large men in spandex die due to steriod abuse
    Runaway bride's former groom reportedly marries another woman
    Buddhist dog prays for worldly desires
    Heath Ledger is still dead
    Soldier tosses puppy
    Guy sleeping at Obama speech
    Hillary's fake country accent
    Pitbulls get second chance
    Lindsay Lohan's drug problems
    Redneck Skank still missing in Aruba
    Martha Stewart, Back in Action
    Duke Lacrosse lawsuit
    Anna Nicole's corpse
    ACLU courting Pedophiles
    Missing blond, blue-eyed British baby
    Shark and Alligator attacks on the rise in Florida
    McDonald's courting designers for hipper uniforms
    • Intrexed, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10africans..humma humma polarbear summat summat.. Cat survives 3 weeks crossing ocean!?!?
    • Picaroon, on 03/28/2008, -10/+18Call me an *****, but if people are dying of hunger, doesn't that mean that the population has exceeded the region's economic ability to produce food? If that's the case, what good is sending food if it's just going to make larger and larger populations dependent on aid?

      Just trying to be devil's advocate here.
      • doctechnical, on 03/28/2008, -3/+21No, there's plenty of food produced to feed every human on the planet (well, there was until we decided to start burning it in our cars). The problem is that what gets donated never gets to the people who need it, it's taken by warlords and sold. Starvation is used as a weapon by men with guns.
        • republicker, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Governments with guns.
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/28/2008, -8/+3really? So what humans do before massive global and international commerce became normal?.... because certainly no one sent someone else 1,000,000 lbs of wheat in 400BC.
      • fabthegerm, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5if you really think that hunger in africa is mainly caused by overpopulation, you really need to start reading books on this topic. seriously.
        the economy of more than 30 of africa's 52 countries depends on the local agriculture. just check out what "free trade" did to those economies and you'll stop wonderung what causes hunger.
        but, hey, enjoy your next meal at burger king...
        • makkaveli19, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2^ i hope you need the help of someone else one day. and i hope you die when no one helps you out.
          i know it sounds tough but this guy is what's wrong with the world
        • lalilulelo, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Everything that ***** says is ridiculously offensive. Completely agree with makkaveli19. Each comment is like -20...
      • procopio, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Delusional *****!
    • infraredflower, on 03/28/2008, -5/+0Actually studies have shown that raising the quality of life in an area actually helps keep the population at normal levels. When people in an area have their basic needs met, they can start focusing on improving things like education. If people are more educated (e.g., about birth control methods), they will have fewer children. Consider any first world country how many children the average family has. You will find that it is almost always lower than that ratio in a third world country.
      • doctechnical, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6That's true, but before you can ever hope to make inroads into improving the quality of life you have to have the rule of law. Until that's established anything else is just pissing into the wind.
      • toxicshok, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2You don't have to go to the third world. Just look at a housing project and then to an affluent suburb.
    • Liam76, on 03/28/2008, -1/+16Don't blame this on the US. Go look up BBC's top web stories.
      • airburst, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11But he doesn't hate the UK so if they are doing the same thing it doesn't matter.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/28/2008, -3/+7Get the FK off digg then and go earn some extra money to send that way. Lead and influence by example.... for a change. Just because there is bad ***** going on the world doesn't mean everyone on the entire globe is supposed to be miserable for their entire lives.

      We send a lot of aid, sorry it's not 45% of our GDP, maybe you should be working towards changing the culture over there instead of telling us what to pay attention to.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4PS your save Africa blog, wiki, myspace page doesn't count
    • Uranium118, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Wow, that cat survived 3 weeks in the ocean! Unbelievable.
    • rrbest, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Well at least its not getting worse.....
    • pentak, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3Wait ... Hulk Hogan's getting divorced!? WTF?
    • MewTwo, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2Get off your high horse dumb bitch you're not doing anything about it either.
    • JCPahl, on 03/29/2008, -2/+1To be fair, the ***** "tossed" the puppy off a ***** cliff. But yeah, good point.
  • dildoolielly, on 03/28/2008, -14/+3No oil in Africa, obviously
    • dukeeeey, on 03/28/2008, -1/+18not too bright obviously
      there is lots of oil in africa, and in congo
      Congo is the 9th largest producer in africa
    • provost, on 03/28/2008, -9/+1darfur is actually about american oil interests .. you will see. They are getting people to be more aware of it slowly .. the neo-con oil brigade is taking a new approach. Let the people cry out that we need to intervene so we can go over there and take control of everything.
      This is a dramatic turn from their old way of them convincing us. They are leaving it to us to supposedly convince them. Psychological warfare at its best.
      • airburst, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4China has a lock on pumping out the oil in the Sudan. The US isn't going to take that over any time soon.
      • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3So provost, you think China would allow us to move in on their cash cow?

        Holy *****, do people even read anymore, or do they just throw out some "Bushco/Big US Oil" ***** at the drop of a hat?
      • provost, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1you do realize that before Iraq, russia had huge leverage there.. Russia has nukes still pointed at us but did we fear them? In the end, not only did we gain control over the oil pumped by proxy of a dummy government, but we got russia to absolve the iraqi foreign debt.

        Do you really think its impossible to do something in darfur? especially you, polishlogic who seems to think you are the most well read person here?
        • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Before Iraq, Russia had huge leverage there?? What does that even mean? Russia had leverage in Iraq, Darfur, or China? We're talking about a couple of situations here, so it would be nice to get something a little more specific.

          I'm assuming you're saying that before we got into a war with Iraq Russia had leverage in the Middle East. Guess what, they still do. We don't fear Russia because of the fact that if they didn't fire their nukes during the Cold War, the odds of them doing it now, totally unprovoked is pretty ***** slim. Also, Russia has other problems to worry about than Iraq, as well as having a nice friendly oil connection with Iran (and their own oil).

          Do something in Darfur? Meaning what, exactly? Ending the killing or kicking Chinese oil domination out of the area?

          I'd really be happy to have this conversation with you, but I've read your comment and I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Clarify it a bit and I'll be happy to respond.

          For the record, I never claimed to be the most well-read person here, I merely claim to have read up on these situations a bit more than quite a few people throwing around the same ol' cut and paste "Bushco" crap.
  • Keefo, on 03/28/2008, -17/+11thanks.........i am aware of this.............now....***** off as i do not care to be quite honest...
    • gravityboard, on 03/28/2008, -6/+3Goerge Bush and Keefo don't care about black people...
      • betterth, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Neither does Europe or Canada.

        I don't see the EU responding.

        So the the western world doesn't care about black people.
      • 4eloBek, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2why should they? they are tired of beggars?
    • FunkyLlama, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Congratulations, you're a heartless idiot!
      • MewTwo, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Honestly, speaking in terms of action taken... you're probably on the same page Keefo is in. Well, you might have put a bumper sticker on your car or something.
        • FunkyLlama, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I'm a lot less apathetic about it though.
  • Intrexed, on 03/28/2008, -7/+6Wilsonian/Truman/Marshall/Nixonian/Bush/American diplomacy has never really been about ethics. The only reason we ever intervene in foreign affairs is money or security, arguably the same thing. Name a single successful war in which we have not profited. If we can't profit from it in some way, there is no possible gain from intervention. The marshall plan boosted our economy, and was a key reason for our undisputed superpower status. Korea was to prevent the domino effect, now we're profiting heavily off of korea. Vietnam was for the same reason, instead we got kicked out. Iraq was essentially the same reason (substitute labor for oil). Now we are in the process of getting kicked out. Overall, there's nothing of value in Africa. Particularly in the congo. Therefore America, and Europe for that matter, do not care.
    • slvrbullet87, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4To the Victor go the spoils
    • doctechnical, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6"Name a single successful war in which we have not profited."
      The Civil War.
      • fotbr, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1On the one hand, "successful" ...depending on which side your family was on, you may or may not consider the US Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, or whatever they're calling it this week) a success.

        On the other hand, there was a lot of profit made as a result of the US Civil War.
    • Manchowder, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3The civil turned us from Agrarian society, to industrial society. Don't even try to say that slaves put out as much energy as tractors. Slaves were inefficient. Wage slavery via sharecropping and industrial farming was more productive. Yes, the civil was war profitable.
      • toxicshok, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Slaves were far more efficiently. A cotton plantation could make 10:1. The most a factory could put out was 9:1. THE MOST
      • doctechnical, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1And where do the half-million dead work into your "profit" spreadsheet? That must have been on ***** of a deal to get all those people to die for it.
  • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -1/+28I think I have an often used rallying cry for this situation: It's not our war. They're a sovereign nation. We shouldn't be interfering in how other countries are run. Let the UN do their job.

    Ouch, that's gotta sting.
    • donutwant, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11Well, where exactly is the UN in all of this?
      • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -3/+6The UN is fake they pass resolutions but never do anything, the resolutions are used when it's convenient to use our military to police the world. The CFR is the global organization pulling the strings, they determine policy. We have enough here in AmeriKa to deal with.
      • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8Providing "aid and support".....whatever that means.
        • floorman56, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Providing "aid and support".....whatever that means.

          Having sex with little girls for food
          • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Nobody is asking what your hobbies are.
    • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -11/+5I didn't notice where the article asked the US to invade, bomb civilians, shoot families at checkpoints and torture random people. It only said that we should care. But obviously you would rather spew right wing talking points.
      • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4It was more directed at comments wanting the US to act, not the article itself.
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/28/2008, -0/+12I'm sure all the people who are afraid they might die tomorrow at the hands of warlords will sure appreciate that you care. Maybe if we all just took 5 minutes out of our day to think about how much we care, then the bad men will overwhelmed by our love and see the error in their ways.
        • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Perfectly said, Red Bull.

          Hell, I care. It ***** to know that there are places in the world where ***** like this happens. But there are, and ***** like this does happen. It always has, and probably always will. However, I could do all the caring in the world, and it won't change a thing. Besides, as cold and heartless as it sounds, I have things in my immediate life that take priority over people in the Congo. That's just life.
      • poidh, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Wow. If you're not "right wing" then give me right wing every time.
    • AFJon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3I think you are right it is not our war or country and to force moral responsibility on ourselves may be unfair. But I think that moral responsibility is a personally developed concept. I may pass a kid being hit as punishment and not say anything, "its not my kid, not my family" but then again I might say something, it is all about what helps you be able to sleep at night and look yourself in the mirror knowing your a good person. Maybe those who mean to help are idealists who are simplifying the problem, but committing yourself to help another person when you stand to gain nothing is extremely admirable.
      • floorman56, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1but committing yourself to help another person when you stand to gain nothing is extremely admirable.
        No good deed goes unpunished.
        Clare Boothe Luce
    • MrErr, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Except we are part of the UN.
    • Manchowder, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1But what if we are backing the Congo leader because he gets us the rubber we want?
  • Rotzooi, on 03/28/2008, -12/+3These people are too brown for me to care.

    /s
    • FunkyLlama, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Never make the mistake of thinking Diggers will get irony. Not even with a sarcasm tag.
  • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -2/+12We have to fix America before we run all over the world intervening in civil wars, we are collapsing.
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -8/+1I'm sure we are already causingthis conflict in some way through CIA intervention or funding. Soon we will have African terrorists flying into our buildings and no freedoms at all left. Stay out of other nations!
      • toxicshok, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Thank you for your pointless antiamericanism. America is responsible for everything from the Spanish Armarda and car sickness
  • Picaroon, on 03/28/2008, -2/+44Everyone bitches and whines that America does nothing in this case. Yet everyone bitches and whines that we did do something in the case of Iraq. I am always perplexed by the movements advocating intervention in Darfur, for example. How is overturning the sovereignty of the Darfurian government any more legitimate to these people than overturning that of Iraq? Both governments are/were horrific human rights abusers.

    Plus, look at Somalia. We did our best to help out the people there and instead they all turned on us and killed some of our troops while hiding behind their families. I just don't see how America can be expected to go into Africa while we're still trying to get Iraq to settle down.
    • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -15/+3"Everyone bitches and whines that America does nothing in this case. Yet everyone bitches and whines that we did do something in the case of Iraq. "

      Again with the fallacy that there is nothing in between indifference and military subjugation of foreign countries.
      • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11Well there are always sanctions....and look how good that did in Iraq.

        Sorry, but in the area of bringing about change to a nation that is practicing the systematic killing (through force or starvation), just telling them to knock it off won't work, and hurting them economically will only result in more suffering from those already suffering. The ones in power always get what they need to survive. Saddam's citizens were short on food and medicine while Saddam and his party were fat and healthy.

        The government is corrupt. Throwing money at the problem won't help, it will end up in the leadership's hands. Throwing food at the problem won't help, it will end up in the leaderships hands (we learned both of these lessons that from Somalia). The only thing that will help is sending troops over there to make sure that aid gets to where it should go, as well as aid with a true election unlike their past elections. However, then you end up going down the exact same road that people are currently bitching about us going down in Iraq.

        Like ozymandias said, it's a catch-22, and as Picaroon said, how can we go in there while we still have our hands full elsewhere. It's sad, painful to watch, but that's life. Not everything is warm and fuzzy. If England want to step up, fine. France, Russia, China, Germany, anyone...that's great. Sorry, but we're currently busy. It happens...***** happens.
      • airburst, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6Tell us what you would do to stop government sponsored genocide?
    • ozymandias2012, on 03/28/2008, -1/+34It's a catch-22. Intervene, you're an imperialist. Don't intervene, you're heartless.
    • MrErr, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2I read the article. Where is the bitching about the US?
      • serif69, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7It's not in the article, it's in the comments and the general idea that the US should pull out of Iraq, but should go elsewhere.
    • purpmint008, on 03/28/2008, -8/+2We intervened in Iraq for oil. We don't care about human rights, no one does.
      Saddam's Iraq was a human rights abuser.
      Here's the catch: WE SUPPORTED SADDAM!
      That's right. We supported him every single time except when he went into Kuwait.
      We supported him and Turkey when they were killing kurds.
      We gave him weapons, even biochemical in the 1980s
      We went back to supporting right after the Kuwait conflict.
      I could go on and on about ***** like this.
      Get your facts right dumbass.
    • pineutrino, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1As far as I can tell, most people oppose the idea of "humanitarian intervention", or whatever you want to call it, in Iraq, because Bush and co. were using this as an excuse to invade and acquire Iraq's oil. In cases where humanitarian intervention's genuinely justified, support for it is much stronger.
      • PolishLogic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4I don't know where this "acquire Iraq's oil" comes from. It's not like one day we're going to leave Iraq and say "oh, by the way, all those oil fields now are part of the United States of America, but the rest of the land belongs to you". Iraq is selling its oil and taking the profits to use for themselves. It's not like they're just some gas station attendant. If Exxon, Chevron, etc., "owned" that oil, the price of gas would be much cheaper in the US.
    • thedogfatherx, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5A lot of people like to just bitch and complain even when they don't know what they are bitchin and complaining about.
    • L4WL3RS34L, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1But the reason we invaded Iraq was for oil. You actually think they gave a ***** about anyone there?
      • PolishLogic, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1We're doing the same thing in Iraq that people are crying about what we should be doing in the Congo...fixing a civil war. Like it or not there's oil there. Oil is the number one commodity in the world. It powers the world. So yes, we're making sure that some psychotic *****, that have perverted a part of a religion to make it call for death, do not control a large amount of the number one power source in the world. In the end it benefits the world. Do we get a decent deal? Yes. Although, considering we're putting our necks on the line for the world..doing what is in the global best interest, we should no just going after a 'break even' situation. Regardless of our cut, Iraq will be rich in the end. They'll win too. Do you think we're spending this money without hoping on seeing any return in our investment. Politically or otherwise?

        That's just capitalism. Something this country was founded on. Another thing this country was founded on was being free of tyranny. Saddam was a tyrant. We assisted in removing that as well. Quite a few people have died in the process, but the rate is slower than the death rate under Saddam. Is that bad? The end game is nobody dying. The rate has reduced, and with any luck at all it will drop even faster.

        Look at it this way, maybe our government is not pure evil. Maybe, just maybe, we have an interest in keeping the constant flow of 14% of the world's oil flowing free and without some psychopath having control over it. Maybe that interest is not just ours, but maybe it extends globally. That's helping a ***** load of people, when you have the ability to ensure a safe and reasonable price on a 14% of the world's fuel supply. It cuts cost across the board.

        So yes, they care. They care that the people in control are normal and reasonable people who are fair, and not some dictator who kills for pleasure or spite.
  • ozymandias2012, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8"The vast majority died from non-violent causes such as malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition" This is because there's no money to be made by selling them food or medicine, therefore no interest. Although, I bet there is a lot of interest in selling them guns.
    • AladinSane, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah, we not only sell them guns, but we also sell them the desire to use them. And then we sell them giant boxes full of Homicidal Stupidity, which they then use to butcher and starve each other. Boy, if only Africans were Real People, and therefore responsible for their own actions.
  • displacednomad, on 03/28/2008, -2/+15I'm sorry, did you say 1500/day due to war? Because the website itself says:
    A new IRC survey has found that 5,400,000 people have died from war-related causes in Congo since 1998 – the world’s deadliest documented conflict since WW II. The vast majority died from non-violent causes such as malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition—easily preventable and treatable conditions when people have access to health care and nutritious food."
    Not to downplay the crisis, but sensationalizing the title or misconstruing the info will not help the cause.
    • shredswithpiks, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Is the war the biggest reason they don't have access to health care and nutritious food? I'm not asking rhetorically... is it?
      • athrasher, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0Yeah it is. I mean, without the war things still wouldn't be great by western standards(just look at the rest of Africa for that), but thinks would be much better than they are now. Both sides of the conflict(government and rebels) are pretty much trying to exterminate the opposition by whatever means necessary. A lot of this involves withholding necessary goods(food/medicine), and even using rape as a weapon of war(it's cheaper than bullets) to spread disease and create fear and disillusionment among those not actively fighting.

        The conflict in the DRC(Democratic Republic of Congo) is really the worst human rights situation in the world right now. Think about every human rights atrocity that's gotten publicity in the last couple of decades: child soldiers, blood diamonds, widespread rape, genocide, starvation, reckless land-mining. All of this is going on in the DRC, and the result is that millions are dying over a war for resources that only a few stand to benefit from to begin with.
    • offput, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Are you one of the people who sensationalizes the loss of 4000 people over five years? If so, stop being a hypocrite and care about human lives, not american lives.
      • displacednomad, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1To answer your question, no I'm not. I oppose all wars equally.
  • pos3000, on 03/28/2008, -1/+15Two words: Its Africa. It seems every time we try to get involved in a conflict in Africa it goes wrong. Hell the main reason why Africa is the way it is now happens to be because of outside involvement. Just let them sort it all out, they work it all out....eventually.
    • geneticlone, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Yeah this is some good advice for Americans to take with them, not just about Africa but for any foreign country that has not caused a conflict with the US.
      • Pake, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2But this website is asking us to raise awareness and help. By helping, even with just money, we would be intervening. So which is it, do we intervene or stand on the sideline and watch? You can't have both.
    • thedogfatherx, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I feel VERY doubtful.
    • Uranium118, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1FYI, that is 3 words.
  • Ganja420, on 03/28/2008, -2/+27HAVE U EVER SEEN THE MOVIE CONGO??? NO WAY MAN IM NOT GOING
  • captainslack, on 03/28/2008, -0/+12Maxim did an article once on the 10 ten worst places to take a vacation. Congo was #1. It described it as "a rabid dog trying to eat itself."
    A sad situation all around. The place has a lot of mineral resources and could be very wealthy if it could only stop tearing itself apart.
    • xedd, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5It's BECAUSE they have lots of valuable and desirable resources that the place is getting torn apart.

      Do you actually think outside interests are just sitting around watching it happen, shrugging their shoulders and wringing their hands and saying to each other "What a pity, what a shame..."?

      I bet they are actively financing armies and struggling to gain control (all behind the scenes) over all the areas with resources.
  • fLUx1337, on 03/28/2008, -7/+2This story would normally be BURIED for the poster not being able to spell "Please" in the title....but I guess I would be a monster to bury this story...

    To be quite honest, I don't think anything people do both online and offline will make much difference, the US government are the ones with the cold hard facts on how much its costing and how many are dying - they are still keeping the troops there, plus nobody acctully supports the war anymore, if you asked them in the street. :(
  • decker12, on 03/28/2008, -11/+2If there are no pretty white American girls involved, why would I care?
  • VikingoTJ, on 03/28/2008, -14/+5Who is the ***** burying these stories?
    • fotbr, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5Apparently the same ones burying you. Bye bye.
  • wynja, on 03/28/2008, -12/+2Do they have oil? No, well then they must not exist.
    • wynja, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Wow, you ppl really can't take a joke..... what's worse is that it's the truth. This country has nothing we want. It's not anywhere near our large trading partners, and you wonder why the government doesn't care?
      • Mothrog, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2"This country has nothing we want."

        Except of course for all those nice minerals we need to make the electronics we use every day. Learn something and in the meanwhile, do plug up your bleeding heart. It's making a mess of things.
  • boxybrzown, on 03/28/2008, -3/+13Yeah, let's intervene into another foreign civil war that's been going on for generations! Surely this time....will be different.
  • poidh, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Chicofaraby lost in this thread.
  • sloppymoney87, on 03/28/2008, -3/+6The reason no who matters is doing anything about this. is because no one cares about the congo. Anyone who knows anything about africa knows its a lost cause. You can't help these people, all they know is how to shoot each other.
    • skiblur, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3It's very sad, but I think it'st rue. A professor told us yesterday that the average lifespan in some countries over there is 36. Everyone has AIDS because they believe they can cure their AIDS by having sex with a virgin. Any actual aid sent there gets intercepted by warlords. The only thing we can really do to help is educate the people, but most of them are too busy trying to stay alive and not get shot to care.

      I personally would be terrified to go there. I wonder if there's an accurate statistic out there for probability of coming home alive.
      • thedogfatherx, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4"Everyone has AIDS because they believe they can cure their AIDS by having sex with a virgin." God that is so sad and so funny at the same time. Some peoples kids I tell ya.
  • Narrator, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Hubert Sauper, a French filmmaker, actually made a documentary about the congo war called "Kisangani Diary " which is available as an extra on the "Darwin's Nightmare" DVD. He went on a relief mission to Congo and they take a train to deliver food to refugees. The scene where they come upon maybe 50,000 people wandering around in the Jungle starving is haunting. These are refugees who are being chased by troops, starving to death and being picked off by gunfire coming from paramilitary thugs hiding in the forest. The narrator for the movie tells you that most of the people you see in the film are probably dead by now.
  • gametavern, on 03/28/2008, -3/+10Malaria and Disease are killing these people... not shooting and bombs... buried for trying to "trick" me.
  • MaceSoul, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Now THAT'S a war.
  • vikdog28, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0This, like many other issues concerning countries in Africa and other poor nations, has much to do with resources. Of course, as a world policing , America has shown itself as wholly incompetent. However, there is much that can be done that does not involve diplomacy. Simply finding a sustainable method of acquiring clean water and food will help tremendously. Many violent issues, such as the fighting in Darfur, has much to do with poverty and mismanagement of resources. The best thing that the average American can do is to support research that will benefit all nations. Problems in one region affect another and continue to snowball until someone notices a major problem has surfaced. For example, much of this fighting has to do with an influx of refugees from Rwanda.
  • xt0xicx, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2Why are we in Iraq again?
  • stix213, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4It is very sad that this many people have died in the Congo, but including malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia, malnutrition, and lack of health care as war deaths is misleading. People die from preventable causes in industrialized nations all the time, but I would never call those war deaths.

    Buried for inaccurate.
  • rrife, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Eventually the death rate will eventually start to go down.....just give it time.
  • ORBAT, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8Africa has been a festering cesspool just about forever. Just about every single African nation is pretty busy destroying itself, and all I can think is "good riddance." The only downside is that the rest of the civilized world gets all the refugees (they apparently aren't very efficient at killing each other), and we get to watch our crime rates go up the roof.

    Think I'm being racist? According to the Finnish National Statistics Bureau, in Helsinki 70% of all rapes and 40% of all violent crime (assaults etc) are committed by people with a non-Finnish ethnic background. Statistically speaking, Africans tend to have a liking to assaults and Middle-Easterners to raping. Although there was a news clip about 4 African gentlemen raping a woman with scissors, so I guess you could call them multi-taskers...
  • willskillz, on 03/28/2008, -8/+3***** THEM. Them and homotards are responsible for bringing Aids and stds into the world. Now i gotta wear a rubber everytime I bang a chick and THAT SUX
    • doctorfungi, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1You logic is a little flawed there buddy. You hate gay people because you might get an STD if you have heterosexual sex?
  • protodon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Meh. Every continent has it's own set of problems. People just like to fight.
  • dypchit, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6Can someone pass me the popcorn...this is getting good.

    Quick question: how can we turn this story into a top ten list, bush bashing, or apple fanboy story and really get it the diggs it deserves?

    Dypchit (huge apple fanboy, thinks what is going on in the world is *****, is indifferent to the current administration, thinks B.O. should be next pres bc he can get everyone to stfu for 4 years hopefully)
  • FreckleEars, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3They don't mention that 1600 people are born a day in the same country... This war is population control
    • jedmed, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1It disappoints me that I had to read down this far to find your observation. However, you articulated it very nicely.
  • endustry, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5After watching the PBS documentary on the Rwanda Genocide - a film which spends maybe five minutes on the Hutus who performed the actual killings and virtually every remaining minute lambasting the West, the UN, Clinton, Kofi Annan, etc. -- I fail to see why the West should involve itself in this issue, either. People expect action but few have ideas. Intervention is scolded as much as non-intervention is. Money only seems to finance corruption and dictatorships; sending in troops and asking them to separate the good guys from the bad guys is a setup for failure. It was the Tutsi rebels who ended the Rwanda Genocide with extreme force and violence. If it had been anyone else, especially Western soldiers, such means would have been deemed barbarous. Go ahead and digg me down for not being kneejerk PC about this. Political Correctness is already the main form of bureaucracy hindering African aid as it is.
  • NelsonR, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Wouldn't it be pleasant for countries and continents to take care of their own issue without the blame game placed upon America. We are not God, we are not the righteous, (Iraq proves that) and we have not been issued a badge by a higher power to police the world. We think we are, we attempt to be, but our reputation within the world has never been lower. Africa's problem, many African nations and in other words take care of your own problem . America is broke attempting to mediate all the human egocentric oddities of world.
  • willskillz, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3You're not helping raise awareness because we already know that whole continent is ***** up and we really don't care anymore. We need to just exterminate them all and start from scratch there. Just like God did to Sodom and Gomorrah.
    • MewTwo, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2That was so ***** up I'm digging you up.
  • adikt, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3There's a war?
  • adikt, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1http://www.cafepress.com/multiplexsupply.42870795
  • Teh1337Pirate, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3It's because most people are stupid and too fixated on Iraq boo hoo hoo poor muslims. when this has been happening for years. It's all about media attention and anti-america/presidential people.
  • tont0r, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Oh im sorry. I though we were supposed to stop meddling in other peoples business. Make up your mind.
  • LCRev, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0Well, I don't know the difference between 4000 Americans and 4000 Congolese really. The number is so small, that chances are that you don't know many, if any of the Americans at all. You only care about the "Americans" because the faceless strangers in the news are labeled "Americans". Every human life is equal to another, get that straight.
  • lusher, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Logging, mining and agricultural corporations have their grubby fingers in the cookie jar.Its never to late to care and educate yourself on the problems of the world they effect all of us.
  • thedogfatherx, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4I think we should focus on crime happening HERE IN AMERICA first.
  • adikt, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1This article gets the EG Award!
    http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1194/egyrpn7.jp ...
  • CMuffa, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1This doesn't even make sense. I read somewhere else that the population there is about 3.2 million. So where did the 2.4 million come from? Never mind...I don't really care.
  • anarchytv, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3World of Warcraft.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.