Talk:2008 Nord-Kivu campaign/Archives/2011/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

Battle of Goma is a redlink. Have there been any other Battles of Goma? If not, it should be moved to Battle of Goma; after all, Battle of Gettysburg and Battle of Jutland don't include the year. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

of course, no need for disambiguation--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

MONUC countries

Which countries have soldiers in the area?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See here. --lomis (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you can also see on that page the upstanding nature by which the indians/pakis are 'peacekeeping'. Good for nothing curry munchers? No, I didn't say that, your brain just did!58.107.179.146 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Another massacre?

Hopefully that won't be another genocide of Tutsi as was seen in Rwanda (cf. Rwandan Genocide, Roméo Dallaire, etc.) CielProfond (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the conflict. The country was absolutely wrecked by fighting between every imaginable group in the first and second Congo wars and now the Tutsi government of Rwanda feels that the ceasefire did not fully protect the Tutsis in the Congo so they are funding Nkunda who is the protector of the Tutsis. Nkunda has decided that since the government isn't going to help him protect the Tutsis in the still disputed Eastern areas of the Congo that he is going to turn on the government and is threatening to destabilize the fragile stability of the region. If neighboring countries do what they did in the 1998 Congo wars they will decide to take advantage of this turmoil by plundering Congo's vast mineral resources like they did in 1998 leaving 5.4 million dead and only withdrawing under heavy U.N. pressure. The Tutsis are now deciding that they feel like destabilizing the region and taking control themselves is the best course of action, whether this is for security reasons (seems unlikely) or for economic reasons (more likely) nobody is completely sure. However to be clear this about much more than a Tutsi genocide possibility. I suggest for anybody who is going to edit this article to be fully educated on the previous Congo civil wars. PlasticJesus341 (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanations, PlasticJesus341. Indeed, as I do not know anything about the different tensions that exist in that part of the world, I did not write anything in the main article page, but wrote it here instead. I never implied or wanted to imply that Tutsi people were "angels" or not or deserved to be helped/protected or not; just that there are always two sides to every story, and that I wished to know them both. While I would understand the Tutsi motivation to basically "avenge" what was done to them in Rwanda, I do not agree with any taking over they might try, if it is to be done by force and not peaceful negotiations. Again, thank you PlasticJesus341, and peace to all. CielProfond (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it personally man I wasn't aiming any specific comments at you...relax I didn't mean to imply that you were uninformed, I am sorry if it came off kind of harsh. PlasticJesus341 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see documented evidence of the Rwandan government providing support to any of the rebel groups currently involved in conflict in Northern and/or Southern Kivu. I'm seeing and hearing a lot of claims and concerns but no real evidence.NeedEvidence (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken, PlasticJesus341, it didn't sound harsh at all. I know that I am uninformed! ;) CielProfond (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm you need evidence, I cited a prominent newspaper but obviously that wasn't enough, go check out this interview http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/27/kambale_musavuli_on_the_forgotten_war and find that financial times link which you or someone else wantonly deleted. Everyone agrees that the U.S has some huge leverage in this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasticJesus341 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Deaths

Has any of this "heavy fighting" resulted in deaths? If so this information should be included to the article Ijanderson (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It obviously has resulted in deaths, but news reporters are having a hard time talking to U.N troops who are in heavy fighting right now, so probably in the next few days information will be gathered.

Well, 45000 die a month; however, those are civilian casualties. We don't have figures on UN and CNDP deaths yet. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


Okay so the side bar here REALLY needs to be updated. 100 civilian deaths? Are you kidding me? ASide from which, that number is in conflict with the rather confusing statistic on the front page: "The continuous state of conflict affecting DR Congo since 1997 has been referred to as the deadliest since World War II, with aid agencies estimating a death rate of 1,200 to 1,400 civilians a day." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.196.38 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Peacekeepers fleeing?

This Indian media outlet reports that an Uruguayan battalion fled the region and Senegalese troops also refused to deploy. Any confirmations? Joshdboz (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as the UN says the Uruguayan Battalion is still deployed the same with the Senegalese troops at least according to what the UN Spokesperson to the Secretary General and Montevideo says. Uruguayan source

But to be honest they're being pushed back and forth by Rwandan artillery fire [rockets] and armored tanks. Both sources say "most of them[Uruguayan]are still deployed north of Goma " ...most :( ...--XChile (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Freedom Fighter"/"terrorist", etc

See Wikipedia:TERRORIST#Extremist.2C_terrorist_or_freedom_fighter.3F, which reads, in part:

the term "freedom fighters" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article.

These terms should not be re-inserted into the article. If they are, they will be removed, and users adding these POV terms face sanction up to, and including, blocks.

Also note: this page is for discussion on the improvement of this article, not for discussion of the topic in general, or the rights and wrongs of the participants. T L Miles (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And rebel. Rebel is a particularly loaded term, and while we may not be able to avoid it completely, there are a lot of places where 'CNDP forces' etc. could be used instead. I thought I'd get comment here before making any unilateral changes however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

New name

The new name fits more with the present situation on the ground. Battles occurred more or less across eastern Nord-Kivu, without having affected directly Goma as of yet. Also, it's not a single battle, as we can see from the content of the article. Another good name would be 2008 rebel offensive in DR Congo --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think this is a good idea, and I'm not trying to be difficult, but you should really go with the second choice name. It's not "Fall" in Central Africa, or really anywhere outside the temperate latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. In fact, for the southern temperate zones, it's spring. And "Fall" tends to be an Americanism of the more standard Autumn anyway. 2008 rebel offensive in DR Congo or even more neutral 2008 Nord-Kivu war are more descriptive, accurate, and portable. Sorry to be a nag. T L Miles (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
T L Miles is right. 2008 Nord-Kivu fall fighting is not good at all. I think 2008 Nord-Kivu conflict would be the best option. Offliner (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

U.S Support??

I find it odd in the beginning of the article its says Rwanda being is supported by the Americans when the article says it supports both governments especially when i go to the source its says nothing about such."The post-ceasefire environment remained tense, as it was worried that other factions, such as Tutsi-led and U.S supported Rwanda," Can someone elaborate or it will be changed --XChile (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed section as part of rewrite anyway. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 11:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove footnote 30

HI

The journalists referred to in the allAfrica report [1]were later found hiding out in a MONUC base according to a JED report [2]. I covered the story for the CPJ [3] --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How does that tie to removing the footnote? 205.200.18.71 (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

If you find anything wrong and don't know how to change it or just have a concern that something is off, please bring it up here; I've been working on this for the past month and spend a lot of time on it each day so I could probably help out. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties Question

Quick question. Casualties are listed as 100+, with 1,200 - 1,400 civilians dying per day. I'm guessing that the 100+ is because we have no idea how many in total have died, since this has gone on more than a day (and would thus have more than 1,400 deaths). Why do we bother listing total casualties at all if the number is ridiculously low? Wouldn't it be better to just leave the 1,200 - 1,400 a day, and remove the 100+ (which is useless and possibly misleading), until we have better numbers? I don't want to change anything until I hear what other people think though. Thanks! Trainik (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the 1200 figure is correct either. Looking at the source for the comment (CNN):

"...an estimated 1,200 people die every day due to ongoing epidemics and war-related causes..."

That suggests to me that the figure quoted is quite inappropriate. While actual casualty numbers may be high, even higher than this perhaps, the source for this figure does not appear to be appropriate to me. Andipi (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In that case why are we even listing casualties? It just seems we're listing lots of numbers that are at best misleading. Does anybody else think we should remove them? Trainik (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Further, the current casualty listing of 1,200-1,400 since 1997 means that upward of 4.8 million are dead. Is this reasonable to assume? Do we have any numbers? I'll check back in the morning, but if nobody objects I think we should move the casualties off of the main little box thing and somewhere less prominent in the article. Trainik (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cam's Review

Alrighty, I've finally gotten to this. Overall, this article is quite well-developed. that said, here's a few of the things that caught my eye:

  • In the "Government Responses" section, there's a very narrow list of government press releases from only a few counries. I would suggest expanding this to include the rest of the G8 (ie UK, Canada, Germany etc), the DRC's other neighbors (Uganda, Rwanda, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya)
  • Would it be possible to expand the "Background" section with some more info, possibly going farther back into the DRC's history (possibly back to the '98 war). In addition, it says "alledgedly committed war crimes", which war crimes? Was it mistreatment of prisoners, butchering of civilians?
  • A few days ago, there was a map of the Nord-Kivu regions within the DRC. Could this be added back in?
    • Includin'.
  • Perhaps a bit more background on the rebel group itself. It's been active for four years, and there's very little detailing their objectives and/or activities until a month and a half ago.
  • the prose could use a general copyedit both for flow and MoS compliance. I'd recommend putting in a request here under the "copyediting" section.
    • Gonna do that.

That's all I have for the moment. Excellent work so far! Cam (Chat) 22:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review! I'll list it at MHL first thing I get and reinclude the image.
  • I'm not sure where to get background for the rebel group, as the amount of media coverage available on the internet for that long ago is probably really really slim. I'll look around though.
  • I'm not sure what war crimes were committed, but I'm guessing they involved child soldiers; of course I won't insert that until we're sure.
  • The G8 countries haven't all released statements; at least, Canada and Germany haven't. I'll check all of the rest but nothing so far.
Thanks a lot for checking it out though! Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

This fighting is not a war seperate from the Kivu conflict, it is simply an offensive in that conflict, there have been many offensives in the Kivu conflict, each one is not its individual war. I renamed the article to reflect this.

It is a war that is *part* of the Kivu conflict. Here's my reason for picking war as the term (the following definitions are from their Wikipedia articles):
  • "An Offensive is a military operation that seeks through aggressive projection of armed force to occupy territory, gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational or tactical goal. Another term for an Offensive often used by the media is 'invasion', or the more general 'attack'."
  • "A battle is a conceptual component in the hierarchy of combat in warfare between two or more armed forces, wherein each group will seek to defeat the others within the scope of a military campaign, and are well defined in duration, area and force commitment."
  • "War is the state of prearranged conflict that creates an environment conducive to combined hostile efforts between two engaging parties in order to facilitate the transfer of power."
Note the bolded part of the last one. That is a much better descriptor than the first one, which is essentially talking about the first day of this war; the "larger goal" here is what we're going after, not the primary offensive. For example, the Iraq War is not just an offensive, even though that is how it started off. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 04:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are looking at this in technichal terms rather than practical ones. The War on Terror is not a war in a traditional sense in that it does not have defined combatants. The Iraq war is also generally not seen by the media as being part of the War on Terror. The definition you presented for offensive corresponds to this portion of the Kivu Conflict quite well. Would you call Sherman's March to the Sea or the Tet Offensive seperate wars? I think not.XavierGreen (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd call it "2008 Nord-Kivu fighting" or "2008 Nord Kivu conflict" for now, unless the sources explicitly state that it is a separate war. "Offensive" would not be neutral enough for me. Offliner (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, technical terms are all we have to go on here; the media don't really use any names for this (I've seen "crisis" and "conflict" thrown around a bit). I'd go with 2008 Nord-Kivu conflict if pressed, as offensive seems too narrow and fighting seems a bit understating. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm also for a name change, when you say 2008 Nord Kivu War it seems like it is a seperate war from the Kivu conflict, and it is not. I'm also not to big on 2008 Nord Kivu Conflict, but I am for "2008 Nord-Kivu fighting" or here is another proposal "2008 Nord-Kivu Campaign". In any case definitly not "2008 Nord-Kivu War".89.216.236.45 (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
North-Kivu Campaign sounds fine by meXavierGreen (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
2008 North-Kivu campaign.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Where did 'campaign' come from? Whose campaign? I'm not aware of this being a rebel campaign; even offensive would be a better term than that, I think. I'd go with conflict on this one. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 02:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The campaign started when the rebels advanced towards Goma and have since taken a number of towns and teritories. It's a campaign for control of Eastern Congo. Like I said, I'm not for the version "2008 Nord-Kivu conflict" because the article which covers the overall war has been named "Nord-Kivu conflict", so again it sounds like a separate war. War or Conflict should definetly not be used in the name. You should not look at it Master of Puppets as a seperate war from the overall one that started back in 2004.89.216.236.45 (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm still for war; seems that many sources are calling it that. Families Torn Apart By War In The Congo, Congo: a touch of hope in the war without end, Congo: The Bloodiest War. Granted, they could be referring to the conflict as a whole, in which case I think this article could be renamed to "conflict" and Kivu conflict to Kivu war. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 04:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
They ARE talking about the conflict as a whole. You don't just call every mayor campaign of a war a separate war. We don't call the Battle for Stalingrad the Stalingrad War or the Battle for Fallujah the Fallujah war. I mean, c'mon.89.216.236.45 (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
If you look here I already tried to explain the user that, but he ignored it and proceeded with the rename. A user who (as it seems) is not familiar enough with the topic, should not do such radical changes, and we have more than that :( --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Stalingrad and Fallujah are battles, yes; this isn't. Compare Stalingrad to the Nord-Kivu situation; Stalingrad was one big fight between two opposing forces. This has drawn in multiple sides, foreign influence, has had multiple ceasefires and further developments. And if they're referring to the conflict as a whole, I say we rename this to 'conflict' and Kivu conflict to Kivu war.
Also, let's try not to keep moving it back and forth until something is agreed on, k? No need to clutter up the log. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 20:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's not that simple as you put it, if you will now talk that there are multiple sides in this battle, then there were multiple sides in the Battle of Stalingrad by your account. Here we have The Rebels with Rwandan tank and artillery support, and on the other side we have the Congo government forces supported with Angolan and Zimbabwe government forces plus the Mai Mai militia who support the government. At Stalingrad the Germans were not the only ones fighting the Soviets, you also had soldiers from Croatia, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy etc. They were all German allies, also the Soviets were not all Russians. Also, the Battle of Stalingrad also had multiple ceasefires and further developments. What? Did you think they were fighting non-stop, of course they had several time-out's during the fighting to retrieve their dead. And the fighting was not just in the city itself but the whole region around the city, maybe even up to 100 kilometers away from the city.89.216.236.45 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Multiple sides that haven't even declared their standing, yes. Hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians tended by the UN while CNDP and the government fight it out, declare ceasefire, one breaks ceasefire and starts fighting again. Plus the Mai-Mai aren't even on a set side; they've shot at both sides.
Overall, I dunno. Either modern battles have become really complex or this has become more than just a battle. The key thing I'm going on is this quote from the lead sentence of Battle:
"Generally, a battle is a conceptual component in the hierarchy of combat in warfare between two or more armed forces, wherein each group will seek to defeat the others within the scope of a military campaign, and are well defined in duration, area and force commitment."
The bolded part does not fit this situation at all, in my opinion. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 19:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


These are the official definition of the words that could be used to deine this "Situation"

  • War

1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war 2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

  • Conflict

1: fight , battle , war <an armed conflict> 2 a: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) b: mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands 3: the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction

  • Battle

1archaic : battalion 2: a combat between two persons 3: a general encounter between armies, ships of war, or aircraft 4: an extended contest, struggle, or controversy <a battle of wits>

  • Campaign

1 : a connected series of military operations forming a distinct phase of a war 2 : a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result

  • Offensive

1 a: making attack : aggressive b: of, relating to, or designed for attack <offensive weapons> c: of or relating to an attempt to score in a game or contest ; also : of or relating to a team in possession of the ball or puck 2: giving painful or unpleasant sensations : nauseous , obnoxious <an offensive odor> 3: causing displeasure or resentment <offensive remarks>

Looking at these options we can say a battle is out. "3:a general encounter between armies, ships of war, or aircraft" says it all for that one an encounter. So the fight for a town or small area of land would be a battle. Offensive should also be lumped in with the Battle. An offensive in military turns is usually a small series of battles that leads to a goal. such as for example: it the rebles were to make a push from how ever far back they are right now from Goma up to and through the town, they may run in to a few battles outside the town and one inside and a final fight on the far side of town. That would probibly be considered "The Goma Offensive"

So that leaves us with "War" "Conflict" and "Campaign". Some might dispute the Campaign as being the same as battle or offinsive. So here is my shot at clearing that. We will look back at World War Two. In this war there were two over lying campaigns The Pacific "Campaign" and the European "Campaign". now if we break those down they consisted of more then 2 diffrent nations, and differing natoins through out it. So it almost seems as they could be considered wars but they were not they were one war with 2 major campaigns in them. though under these were smaller campaigns and "operations" (A term in no way shape or form needed for this situation).

Now for a quick chat on the war and conflict idea. First things first in the military world War and conflict are close to the same thing. They mean the same but are usually seen more as the size of the over all fighter. Conflict is usually a smaller thing then an all out war. so in this case I am going to use Conflict as it hasn' involved a full on invasion force or mass attacks. 6000-8000 rebels can't really be considers a full sized army, and a war really needed full armys not a decently armed milita group.

So this leaves us at confict and campaign, and with a conflict being a small war. It would consist of the duration of the event. Thus with the Kivu conflict having started in 2004 and still going this being the same two factions fighting with out a end to the war. (Note: a cease fire does not end a war a resolution to the war, a declairation of surrender or an all out loss by one side would end it. As not of these have ocurred the Kivu conflict hasn't ended) The only term that can properly be used to define this situation in a specific campaign being put in to practice by one side or the other (seems the rebels are leading this campaign with an effort of taking as much of the Nord-Kivu region)

So I suggest Nord-Kivu Campaign —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewDill (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, by that definition it seems campaign is the way to go. I can support that. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm all for Campaign, although not Nord-Kivu Campaign but 2008 Nord-Kivu Campaign.89.216.236.45 (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

'Peace in Congo Requires More Than Just Pictures of Kabila and Kagame Together

Peace in Congo Requires More Than Just Pictures of Kabila and Kagame Together

As President Obama himself likes to quote, the insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Sadly that is exactly what has been happening in Congo for more than 10 years....


It is impossible not to recognize that the growing rapprochement between the Congo and Rwanda, is a signal that the Congo is likely to achieve some form of stability under the Obama Admnistration . It seems President Obama is very firm in the expectations of wanting to see both Presidents Kagame and Kabila working together for the sake of peace in the Great Lakes. While it's too early to say for sure whether this will bring the kind of stability needed to end the violence and impunity, often described by many human rights organizations as terribly systematic and endless, in Eastern Congo, it is clear that none of these two heads of state can afford to defy the United States at this time.


On one side, without implying any causal, president Kabila knows what happened to all previous presidents of Congo who attempted to resist the demands of Washington. They all failed and lost their lives in tragic circumstances. Kabila must be intelligent enough not to repeat this. He has to do what his father failed to do when it comes to dealing with the USA. Do what they ask you to do and seek to tactically negociate later!!!. He is also a young man who probably understands quite well how much president Kagame was able benefit in the past when the congolese authorities used some fatal tactics of resisting to the prescriptions from Washington


On the other side, Kagame knows that it would be his end if the USA is not behind him. He has been mostly untouchable in the region because of the unyielding support he enjoys from the most powerful country on earth,(USA) which are believed to have supported the rebellion that led him to power via Uganda in the 1990s. He does not enjoy this kind of wide support in the Europe where even some countries have tried to arrest members of his cabinet for allegedly being behind the shooting down of late Habyarimana's plane. For the moment, he has been safe because he has the USA on his side. By all accounts, President Kagame can't afford the luxury of shooting himself in the foot by opposing the prescriptions of the Obama Admnistration. In similar way, this would benefit President Kabila as this could make President Kagame look like enemy of peace in the Great Lakes.


While the current events in Congo must be applauded by all, any peace effort between Rwanda and Congo which excludes finding alternative solutions to the problems of FDLR would not be a lasting one. The need for changes in the strategies on how to effectively force the FDLR to return to Rwanda is imperative simply because the current strategies of machine guns have failed to make this happen for more than a decade now.


In watching the celebrations on the streets in North Kivu when Kagame arrived in Goma over the weekend to meet with Kabila would make one ask if the Congolese have misdiagnosed the security problem in their country. The challenging relationships between the two presidents have never been the cause of the problem. Why? The answer is quite simple; because the two capitals have worked together in past and failed to force FDLR to leave Congo with their machine-guns. One should even be reminded that Rwanda occupied that part of the Congo for more than year, reportedly for the same reasons and failed to do this with machine-guns. Maybe this time the Obama Administration will encourage Kagame to find alternative solutions on how to force the FDLR to return to Rwanda without relying on the use of machine guns.


As President Obama himself likes to quote, the insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Sadly that is exactly what has been happening in Congo for more than 10 years with regards to the FDLR. The consequences of doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results have been very disastrous and catastrophic for the Congolese people. In the last decade more than 5 million have died in Congo mostly women and children and almost half a million women and children have been raped and tortured because of the same approach of doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. Machine guns have been the biggest failure in Congo and whole region at large.


Whatever happens in Congo after the visit of the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, let's hope that this time the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results will not be repeated again in Congo with the Obama Administration. 

[1]

About the Author:

Amédé Kyubwa, MA, MPA, is the Executive Director of MJPC, a nonprofit organization that promotes peace and justice in the DRC through actions aimed at fighting against impunity, sexual violence and other serious violations of human rights in DRC. The MJPC also advocates peaceful resolution of conflicts (non-violent approaches to conflict)

For more information about MJPC and its activitts, please visit http://www.mjpcongo.org ; 

or  akyubwa@mjpcongo.org  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJPCONGO (talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MkativerataCCI (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://mjpcongo.org/08122009ENGLISH.aspx
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Nord-Kivu_campaign/Archives/2011/December&oldid=1140216651"