Why didn't we help these women?

Tatiana

In the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, women are enduring unspeakable acts of violence while the world remains largely unaware.

In the ongoing conflict that plagues this part of Africa, roaming bands of rebel factions have been systematically gang-raping women for years. The victims--"a minimum of tens of thousands, " says Zainab Salbi, founder of Women for Women International--are attacked in their villages or abducted into the bush and forced into sexual slavery for several men at a time. Those who survive are often left HIV pos. , robbed of everything they own, and abandoned by their husbands.

"If I could, I would tell the whole world about it day and night so they would know we are suffering here," says Nabito.

log on to http://www.womenforwomen.org/ to help.
_________________

Golf

Tat, words wouldn't express my contempt for such atrocity, actions would!

Satanus

the world remains largely unaware.

True. I have read some accounts from congo, south africa, zimbabwe, accounts which won't make it into the tv. Some things are ongoing which people would find hard to believe.

Why didn't we help these women?

We westerners tend to feel concern whenever there is suffering somewhere. One could ask why people much closer to the scene are not saving them. People on the same continent.

S

CaptainSchmideo

Let's take a look at recent history...

In Somalia, the US went in for humanitarian reasons, and found themselves in the middle of a tribal war. After American soldiers were killed in the infamous "Blackhawk Down" incident, support for involvement in this situation evaporated, and it was seen as a humiliation for the US.

Chances are this is why the Western powers did not get involved in the Rwanda and Liberia genocides that followed.

For the West, especially the US, it's damned if you don't, double damned if you do. It's hard to want to help, when such help is met with hostility and suspicion. Plus, whenever intervention is needed, it seems like it has to be permanent, because the instant the Super-Power leaves, the tribal and factional clashes start right up again (The Soviets had the same problem. When they unoccupied all their old sattelite states, all those feuds that had been put on hold during World War 2 started right up again.). So permanent intervention becomes "colonialism", and the West is the Bad Guy again.

Dansk

Chances are this is why the Western powers did not get involved in the Rwanda and Liberia genocides that followed.

More likely it's because there's no political gain.

DIY2008

That is totally sad. I've complained many times about that sort of thing, but being fourteen an here in america...it makes it pretty hard to do anything. Maybe they should send forces over there to protect the women. Not all will be saved from that dramatic thing but some will. Just pray for the women and someday, someone will save them.

Double Edge

It's seems like the European countries that use to "administer" these former colonies are VERY silent. Where is their so-called compassion for humanity for these poor souls? ....Oh, that's right, it takes sacrifice, money and facing criticism from the world .... much better to do nothing and close your eyes and ears.

Gill

What's in it for us?

Do they have oil?

How can they pay us back?

How long did we let the slaughter in Rawanda go on?

How long did we let the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia go on?

If it doesn't affect the people in power in the west then it will never be sorted.

Shame on all of us!

DIY2008

WHATS IN IT FOR YOU?!?!

Why, the glory of knowing that you just may be saving some lives. **sulks to a corner and stares angrily**

candidlynuts

i agree with gill.. the western countries dont intervene because theres no oil or resources to gain from them.

there are humanitarian agencies working their butts off to make a difference. finding one of them to support may help.

Why didn't we help these women?

Share this