An ethic group in Africa being hunted down and ... eaten?

[dexvx]

Well this is a first for me. I know cannabalism has existed in the past but geez... And yes, if genocide is a crime against humanity, than you're damn right eating people is one too.

BBC Link

UN will be sending troops to stabilize the region. France will lead the UN forces as they will be deployed by next week.

BBC Link
CNN Link
More from CNN

 

[konichiwa]

NewYorker:

The true test [of the U.N.'s vitality] lies in those vexed areas of the world that hold no compelling strategic or economic interest for the United States or for any of the other veto-wielding members of the Security Council. Most immediately, the U.N. is facing that test in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where seven hundred poorly armed U.N. peacekeepers in the northeastern Ituri region have watched helplessly over the past few weeks as massacres by tribal militias have filled graves with fresh corpses at about the same clip that the dead of Saddam Hussein?s reign of terror have been exhumed in Iraq.

At least five governments have said they would consider contributing to a French-led operation. The Bush Administration has expressed support for the project but has refused to commit any troops to it.

During one of the 2000 Presidential debates, the moderator, Jim Lehrer, raised the issue of Rwanda. ?There was no U.S. intervention,? he said. Then he asked George W. Bush, ?Was that a mistake?? In a rare show of solidarity with the Clinton White House, Bush answered, ?I think the Administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation. No one liked to see it on our?you know, on our TV screens. But . . . they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.? In the run-up to the Iraq war, it appeared that Bush had changed his mind. Speaking on Al Jazeera television, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice dismissed the U.N.?s opposition to the invasion of Iraq by reminding her interviewer, ?The U.N. Security Council could not act when in Rwanda there was a genocide that cost almost a million lives. There was a very poignant statement by the President of Rwanda recently when he said sometimes the Security Council is not right when it does not act. President Bush believes that, too.? And, lest the mantle of the memory of Rwanda?s dead be wasted on only Arab audiences, the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, struck the same note: ?From a moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the U.N. Security Council will have failed to act once again.? The disingenuousness of these remarks lies, of course, in the fact that it was the United States that prevented the Security Council from acting during the Rwandan genocide, even though no American troops were ever involved or required for the U.N. force there.

The deceit is beginning to pile up...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
NewYorker:

The true test [of the U.N.'s vitality] lies in those vexed areas of the world that hold no compelling strategic or economic interest for the United States or for any of the other veto-wielding members of the Security Council. Most immediately, the U.N. is facing that test in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where seven hundred poorly armed U.N. peacekeepers in the northeastern Ituri region have watched helplessly over the past few weeks as massacres by tribal militias have filled graves with fresh corpses at about the same clip that the dead of Saddam Hussein?s reign of terror have been exhumed in Iraq.

At least five governments have said they would consider contributing to a French-led operation. The Bush Administration has expressed support for the project but has refused to commit any troops to it.

During one of the 2000 Presidential debates, the moderator, Jim Lehrer, raised the issue of Rwanda. ?There was no U.S. intervention,? he said. Then he asked George W. Bush, ?Was that a mistake?? In a rare show of solidarity with the Clinton White House, Bush answered, ?I think the Administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation. No one liked to see it on our?you know, on our TV screens. But . . . they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.? In the run-up to the Iraq war, it appeared that Bush had changed his mind. Speaking on Al Jazeera television, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice dismissed the U.N.?s opposition to the invasion of Iraq by reminding her interviewer, ?The U.N. Security Council could not act when in Rwanda there was a genocide that cost almost a million lives. There was a very poignant statement by the President of Rwanda recently when he said sometimes the Security Council is not right when it does not act. President Bush believes that, too.? And, lest the mantle of the memory of Rwanda?s dead be wasted on only Arab audiences, the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, struck the same note: ?From a moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the U.N. Security Council will have failed to act once again.? The disingenuousness of these remarks lies, of course, in the fact that it was the United States that prevented the Security Council from acting during the Rwandan genocide, even though no American troops were ever involved or required for the U.N. force there.

The deceit is beginning to pile up...

I must ask, how did the US stop the security council from taking action in Rwanda?

 

[dexvx]

I dont really want this to turn into another Bush flame war, but here are some facts to the matter:

DR Congo *has* some valuable resources. There are a decent number of gold mines up in the northernmost provinces. Its not billions of barrels of oil, but gold is vaulable enough.

It doesnt really have much to do with Rwanda, even though they're next door... we're talking about the DR Congo civil war.

I must ask, how did the US stop the security council from taking action in Rwanda?

There wasnt anything official. Rwandan intervention didnt even go the UN SC because every other nation was convinved that the United States would veto the action because of US's staunch opposition. Just like how Bush didnt want to do a UN SC vote because he thought France would veto the vote, so there would be no point in going up to a vote.

It was buried under the rubble of irrelevant news known as the "Monica Lewinsky Scandel".

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dexvx
I dont really want this to turn into another Bush flame war, but here are some facts to the matter:

DR Congo *has* some valuable resources. There are a decent number of gold mines up in the northernmost provinces. Its not billions of barrels of oil, but gold is vaulable enough.

It doesnt really have much to do with Rwanda, even though they're next door... we're talking about the DR Congo civil war.

I must ask, how did the US stop the security council from taking action in Rwanda?

There wasnt anything official. Rwandan intervention didnt even go the UN SC because every other nation was convinved that the United States would veto the action because of US's staunch opposition. Just like how Bush didnt want to do a UN SC vote because he thought France would veto the vote, so there would be no point in going up to a vote.

according the cia fact book
Exports - commodities:
diamonds, copper, coffee, cobalt, crude oil

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dexvx
I dont really want this to turn into another Bush flame war, but here are some facts to the matter:

DR Congo *has* some valuable resources. There are a decent number of gold mines up in the northernmost provinces. Its not billions of barrels of oil, but gold is vaulable enough.

It doesnt really have much to do with Rwanda, even though they're next door... we're talking about the DR Congo civil war.

I must ask, how did the US stop the security council from taking action in Rwanda?

There wasnt anything official. Rwandan intervention didnt even go the UN SC because every other nation was convinved that the United States would veto the action because of US's staunch opposition. Just like how Bush didnt want to do a UN SC vote because he thought France would veto the vote, so there would be no point in going up to a vote.

It was buried under the rubble of irrelevant news known as the "Monica Lewinsky Scandel".

Your right rwanda did not make big news here, but I dont recall the US wanting to stop or not stop what was happening there.

 

[konichiwa]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html

Congo--
Smallest estimate: 0.0 Billion barrels
Largest: 1.6 Billion

Iraq--
112
115

USA--
22.4

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dexvx
I dont really want this to turn into another Bush flame war, but here are some facts to the matter:

DR Congo *has* some valuable resources. There are a decent number of gold mines up in the northernmost provinces. Its not billions of barrels of oil, but gold is vaulable enough.

It doesnt really have much to do with Rwanda, even though they're next door... we're talking about the DR Congo civil war.

I must ask, how did the US stop the security council from taking action in Rwanda?

There wasnt anything official. Rwandan intervention didnt even go the UN SC because every other nation was convinved that the United States would veto the action because of US's staunch opposition. Just like how Bush didnt want to do a UN SC vote because he thought France would veto the vote, so there would be no point in going up to a vote.

It was buried under the rubble of irrelevant news known as the "Monica Lewinsky Scandel".

Your right rwanda did not make big news here, but I dont recall the US wanting to stop or not stop what was happening there.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dexvx
I dont really want this to turn into another Bush flame war, but here are some facts to the matter:

DR Congo *has* some valuable resources. There are a decent number of gold mines up in the northernmost provinces. Its not billions of barrels of oil, but gold is vaulable enough.

It doesnt really have much to do with Rwanda, even though they're next door... we're talking about the DR Congo civil war.

I must ask, how did the US stop the security council from taking action in Rwanda?

There wasnt anything official. Rwandan intervention didnt even go the UN SC because every other nation was convinved that the United States would veto the action because of US's staunch opposition. Just like how Bush didnt want to do a UN SC vote because he thought France would veto the vote, so there would be no point in going up to a vote.

It was buried under the rubble of irrelevant news known as the "Monica Lewinsky Scandel".

Your right rwanda did not make big news here, but I dont recall the US wanting to stop or not stop what was happening there.

Thier was a huge amount of pressure from the Administration through the then US ambassador to the UN Madeline Albright to kill the idea of intervening in Rawanda. This went all the way to the head of peacekeeping at the time Kofi Annan (thier have always been rumors of a tit for tat Annan buries the Rawanda warnings/US supports Annan as secretary general). It wasn't in the news, and not many people know about the maneuverings that went on. The US was desperate to avoid another African debacle after just having been humiliated in Somalia.

Belgium was willing to send more troops in, but ultimately withdraw thier paratroopers after it became apparent that the council at the urging of the US was not going to authorize more forces.

In the end it fell to the RPF rebels to end the genocide(with supposed secret help from France in the form of weapons and money).

BTW: While thier is crude oil in the Congo, it isn't really worth the huge expenditure in security that would be neccessary to make exploitation possible, nor the infrastructure repairs and building needed to bring it online.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dexvx
I dont really want this to turn into another Bush flame war, but here are some facts to the matter:

DR Congo *has* some valuable resources. There are a decent number of gold mines up in the northernmost provinces. Its not billions of barrels of oil, but gold is vaulable enough.

It doesnt really have much to do with Rwanda, even though they're next door... we're talking about the DR Congo civil war.

I must ask, how did the US stop the security council from taking action in Rwanda?

There wasnt anything official. Rwandan intervention didnt even go the UN SC because every other nation was convinved that the United States would veto the action because of US's staunch opposition. Just like how Bush didnt want to do a UN SC vote because he thought France would veto the vote, so there would be no point in going up to a vote.

It was buried under the rubble of irrelevant news known as the "Monica Lewinsky Scandel".

Your right rwanda did not make big news here, but I dont recall the US wanting to stop or not stop what was happening there.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

There was nothing in there about the US trying to stop other countries from providing aid to rwanda.

 

[Tab]

Great logic their konichiwa! Lets just ignore the fact that Iraqi's were being tortured by Saddam! Their is so much logic into free people from dictators and getting nothing back! Phuck Iraq! We don't need any oil! Lets just ignore the fact that they invaded Kuwait and had WMD's! Their is so much logic in that! The US will become even more powerfull when we free contries without getting anything back! Yippie! I wonder how France will do on this after the Ivory Coast!

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dexvx
I dont really want this to turn into another Bush flame war, but here are some facts to the matter:

DR Congo *has* some valuable resources. There are a decent number of gold mines up in the northernmost provinces. Its not billions of barrels of oil, but gold is vaulable enough.

It doesnt really have much to do with Rwanda, even though they're next door... we're talking about the DR Congo civil war.

I must ask, how did the US stop the security council from taking action in Rwanda?

There wasnt anything official. Rwandan intervention didnt even go the UN SC because every other nation was convinved that the United States would veto the action because of US's staunch opposition. Just like how Bush didnt want to do a UN SC vote because he thought France would veto the vote, so there would be no point in going up to a vote.

It was buried under the rubble of irrelevant news known as the "Monica Lewinsky Scandel".

Your right rwanda did not make big news here, but I dont recall the US wanting to stop or not stop what was happening there.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

There was nothing in there about the US trying to stop other countries from providing aid to rwanda.

US Documents detailing efforts by US to obtain withdrawal of UN mission to Rawanda and prevent further troop deployments.


From GWU NSA ARCHIVE


FROM GWU NSAARCHIVE

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dexvx
I dont really want this to turn into another Bush flame war, but here are some facts to the matter:

DR Congo *has* some valuable resources. There are a decent number of gold mines up in the northernmost provinces. Its not billions of barrels of oil, but gold is vaulable enough.

It doesnt really have much to do with Rwanda, even though they're next door... we're talking about the DR Congo civil war.

I must ask, how did the US stop the security council from taking action in Rwanda?

There wasnt anything official. Rwandan intervention didnt even go the UN SC because every other nation was convinved that the United States would veto the action because of US's staunch opposition. Just like how Bush didnt want to do a UN SC vote because he thought France would veto the vote, so there would be no point in going up to a vote.

It was buried under the rubble of irrelevant news known as the "Monica Lewinsky Scandel".

Your right rwanda did not make big news here, but I dont recall the US wanting to stop or not stop what was happening there.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

There was nothing in there about the US trying to stop other countries from providing aid to rwanda.

US Documents detailing efforts by US to obtain withdrawal of UN mission to Rawanda and prevent further troop deployments.


From GWU NSA ARCHIVE


FROM GWU NSAARCHIVE

I see clearly from the these documents that the US does not want to be involved, but I dont see anything about the US stopping others from participating. Maybe the UN was going to rely on the US to do all the heavy lifting in such an operation.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dexvx
I dont really want this to turn into another Bush flame war, but here are some facts to the matter:

DR Congo *has* some valuable resources. There are a decent number of gold mines up in the northernmost provinces. Its not billions of barrels of oil, but gold is vaulable enough.

It doesnt really have much to do with Rwanda, even though they're next door... we're talking about the DR Congo civil war.

I must ask, how did the US stop the security council from taking action in Rwanda?

There wasnt anything official. Rwandan intervention didnt even go the UN SC because every other nation was convinved that the United States would veto the action because of US's staunch opposition. Just like how Bush didnt want to do a UN SC vote because he thought France would veto the vote, so there would be no point in going up to a vote.

It was buried under the rubble of irrelevant news known as the "Monica Lewinsky Scandel".

Your right rwanda did not make big news here, but I dont recall the US wanting to stop or not stop what was happening there.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

There was nothing in there about the US trying to stop other countries from providing aid to rwanda.

US Documents detailing efforts by US to obtain withdrawal of UN mission to Rawanda and prevent further troop deployments.


From GWU NSA ARCHIVE


FROM GWU NSAARCHIVE

I see clearly from the these documents that the US does not want to be involved, but I dont see anything about the US stopping others from participating. Maybe the UN was going to rely on the US to do all the heavy lifting in such an operation.

Please read the action requested section of the documents:

Document 1:

"Drawing on the foregoing, USUN is instructed to inform NSC colleuges that the United States belives that the first priority of the security council is to instruct the secretary general to implement an orderly withdrawal of ALL/ALL UNAMIR Forces from Rawanda....and that we will oppose any effort at this time to preserve a UNAMIR Mission"


This document describes in detail that the US was willing to block any efforts to retain or expand UNAMIR even in the face of mounting evidence of an escalating Genocide. Realistically, any additional forces would have been Belgian or French. The Belgians were already gearing up basically thier entire parachute force along with French troops, but any intervention would have been blocked by US refusal to approve continued UNAMIR intervention. Those two countries were best situated due to historical ties and deployable troops to provide the forces needed in the theatre of operations. US utility in this case would have been in regards to transport and logistics with primary combat responsibility left to other countries. This was not a case of the "UN relying on the US for all the heavy lifting" although thier was a serious debate and dissent from the US side regarding a request for funding for surplus armored vehicles to equip African troops that would be part of a larger intervention force under UNAMIR command.

This left the response to a small French intervenation with approximately 10,000 troops which established a safe zone(Zone Turqouise", and the RPF drive towards Kilgali which eventually toppled the government.

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: charrison
I see clearly from the these documents that the US does not want to be involved, but I dont see anything about the US stopping others from participating. Maybe the UN was going to rely on the US to do all the heavy lifting in such an operation.

yeah, after all we are only the most powerful nation in the world, and at that time maybe the richest, but still, preventing a genocide really require a lot of work and commitment which is way beyond our capability, unlike Iraqis soldiers armed with semi-modern weapons, those Hutu and Tutsi armies were armed with big knives and sharp teeth, ready to eat our troops alive (literally)... we should not intervene until situation is more clear, or until a large source of oil or diamond is discovered in that country, then we will have the plan and mandate to interfere, BTW, if we're not going in, no other country should go in either, you know, don't wanna any misunderstanding or misconception about us not doing our duty as the world most powerful nation

 

[konichiwa]

*Sigh*

The influx of teen republicans coming out in force with their tired-old exclamatory arguments is getting a bit tedious.

Originally posted by: Tabb
Great logic their konichiwa! Lets just ignore the fact that Iraqi's were being tortured by Saddam!

Okay...there are plenty of people around the world getting tortured and killed by their governments. The pretense of WMD in Iraq was just that: a pretense to persuade the American people (and to a certain extent, the world public) that a preemptive attack on Iraq was called for. All these self-righteous, humanitarian issues are a moot point -- without the WMD issue this war would never have happened.

Their is so much logic into free people from dictators and getting nothing back!

Huh?

Phuck Iraq! We don't need any oil! Lets just ignore the fact that they invaded Kuwait and had WMD's!

WMD's huh? Where? Those bio-labs that Rummy claimed he had the exact locations of, that after 10 weeks are still mysteriously missing? Or the information about Saddam purchasing uranium tubes that Bush mentioned in his national address, which has since been proven as blatantly and completely false?

Their is so much logic in that! The US will become even more powerfull when we free contries without getting anything back! Yippie! I wonder how France will do on this after the Ivory Coast!

I really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[etech]

konichiwa

Okay...there are plenty of people around the world getting tortured and killed by their governments. The pretense of WMD in Iraq was just that: a pretense to persuade the American people (and to a certain extent, the world public) that a preemptive attack on Iraq was called for. All these self-righteous, humanitarian issues are a moot point -- without the WMD issue this war would never have happened.

Yes, there are plenty of people around the world getting tortured and killed by their governments. The US and the UN and other countries condemn that practice and have for the past number of years, "will you pretty please stop torturing your people" and was, as you pointed out, ignored by those despots. The chance is now that they may not so cavalierly ignore those requests. That's not a complete answer to the problem and certainly not the only reason to invade Iraq but you can add it to the list of reasons.

WMD's huh? Where? Those bio-labs that Rummy claimed he had the exact locations of, that after 10 weeks are still mysteriously missing? Or the information about Saddam purchasing uranium tubes that Bush mentioned in his national address, which has since been proven as blatantly and completely false?

Two mobile labs have been found. The reason Iraq had mobile labs with fermentors is still under investigation.

The tubes were aluminum, a very specific alloy of aluminum with very tight specs. An item which Iraq was banned by the UN to import. The could have with modification been used for the separation of uranium. It now appears they were being used for a banned missile program that was still a violation.
.

 

[konichiwa]

http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/article.php?aid=661

from the New Yorker:

Then the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. ?The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic,? ElBaradei said.

One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, ?These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.?

...referring, of course, to the documents that were used to bring Bush and Powell to the conclusion that Iraq had purchased, or attempted to purchase, depleted uranium and aluminum tubes that could have potentially been used for a budding nuclear weapons program.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Well this is a first for me. I know cannabalism has existed in the past but geez... And yes, if genocide is a crime against humanity, than you're damn right eating people is one too.

Not that I condone cannabalism, but, you know, the people are already dead when they are getting eaten, right? So it doesnt cause any extra pain and suffering

 

[Zrom999]

It now appears they were being used for a banned missile program that was still a violation.

Experts have concluded that the tubing was most likely for multiple launched artillery rockets, which Iraq was permitted to have under the resolutions.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Zrom999

It now appears they were being used for a banned missile program that was still a violation.

Experts have concluded that the tubing was most likely for multiple launched artillery rockets, which Iraq was permitted to have under the resolutions.

Do you have a link for that and or any proof that Iraq could import those aluminum tubes without being in violation of the ban?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: dexvx
Well this is a first for me. I know cannabalism has existed in the past but geez... And yes, if genocide is a crime against humanity, than you're damn right eating people is one too.

Not that I condone cannabalism, but, you know, the people are already dead when they are getting eaten, right? So it doesnt cause any extra pain and suffering

Whats your point? The Jews were gassed. A perfectly painless death. Some were shot execution style, the minority had a excruciating death.

These people have their limbs chopped off or cooked. Tell me how that is NOT worse than the genocide of the Jews that we are so familiar with.

And stop turning this into an Iraq thread, we got plenty of other Iraq threads.

 

[Zrom999]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Zrom999

It now appears they were being used for a banned missile program that was still a violation.

Experts have concluded that the tubing was most likely for multiple launched artillery rockets, which Iraq was permitted to have under the resolutions.

Do you have a link for that and or any proof that Iraq could import those aluminum tubes without being in violation of the ban?

Iraq was allowed to import aluminum tubing if it was for unbanned use. Convential rockets were not banned under the UN resolutions.

High strength aluminum is a nuclear dual-use item, which means it has both nuclear and non-nuclear uses. Under Security Council resolutions, Iraq is banned from possessing aluminum tubing above a certain strength, unless these items are imported through the UN, used for civilian or non-banned purposes, and subject to monitoring by inspectors

Link1

The explanation made sense for several reasons, they said. In the 1980s, Iraq was known to have obtained a design for 81mm rockets through reverse-engineering of munitions it had previously purchased abroad. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqis built tens of thousands of such rockets, using high-strength, 7000-series aluminum tubes it bought from foreign suppliers. U.N. inspectors in the 1990s had allowed Iraq to retain a stockpile of some 160,000 of the 81mm rockets, and an inspection of the stockpile last month confirmed that the rockets still exist, though now aging and corroded after years of exposure in outdoor depots.

Link2

ElBaradei earlier this month also told the Security Council that aluminum tubes Iraq tried to purchase were meant for artillery rockets they are allowed to have and not for enriching uranium for a nuclear program, as the Bush administration had claimed last autumn.

Link3


Possessing those tubes were not a violation since their intended use (artillery rockets, not a banned missile program )was also not a violation.

 

[etech]

Zrom999

If Iraq was being open and above board about ordering the aluminum tubes and was meeting all of the requirements of the UN sanctions than why were the shipments stopped?

from your link 1

U.S. officials have said that a number of secret shipments intended for Iraq have been stopped or intercepted. These officials have refused to name the countries or companies involved. Nonetheless, the Associated Press reported on September 13, 2002 that one of these shipments originated in China and got as far as Jordan before being intercepted.

Also as dexvx pointed out, this is off-topic to this thread. If you would like to continue this discussion will you pick another thread to do so. Let me know which thread.

 

[Zrom999]

Etech:
I just wanted to point out that you were wrong about the "banned missile program".

Now lets forget Iraq, and back to topic.

Here is some background on the conflict in DR CONGO.
Link

There are several rebel factions that seem to have control of most the country.

The rebel groups have denied the accusations claiming it was to discredit them.

"It is a setup, a concerted plan to discredit and portray Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba and Mr Roger Lumbala as evil at a time when we are about to solve the Congolese crisis."

Link2

I can't wait to see how the UN handles this, several rebel factions, a transitional gov't, interference from neighboring countries, genocide, cannibalism accusations... they have their work cut out for them.