All the attention on Iran is interesting Psychologically. I am becoming more and more convinced that even the more intelligent and more logical humans are 90% irrational, self deceptive and emotionally driven. What does all this attention on Iran indicate about how we relate to foreign affairs? What does the lack of attention on Congo say about how we relate to foreign affairs? I think Americans and to a lessor but still significant degree everybody is filtering foreign affairs news through a filter of being for or against the policies of the American foreign policy hawks and their allies and the type of international global order that they seek to impose on the world. Some of us think global order imposed by American foreign policy hawks would be a good thing and some of us think that type of global order would be a bad thing. There is a psychological need for their to be a tangible enemy nation as a counterpoint to the USA or more accurately the USA's foreign policy hawks and it's allies. Russia is no longer that need symbolic counterpoint. The non-Israel centric wing of PNAC saw China as that enemy and saw invading Iraq as a necessary defense against China but their ideas are way to wonkish and Machiavellian to resonate with normal people. Normal people connect to variations on the archetypal story of valiant prince saving the damsels in distress from the evil dragon. Other than some discord fearing super-moderates, most people or at least most Americans cast the USA foreign policy hawks as either the valiant prince or cast the USA foreign policy hawks as the evil dragon. Iran gets sucked into the drama because Al Qaeda is not tangible enough to be a leading character in the foreign affairs drama. Islam itself does not work well as a Central character though some are putting Islam in that role. The Palestinians, Venezuela and North Korea don't work well as the dragon because they just are not scary enough. Some people can get worked up around the word Socialism but global advocates for Socialism are very weak especially compared to what they once were. For those that cast the American hawks as the valiant Prince Iran almost must be cast as the dragon by default. No other nation is being openly confrontational against the USA/Western Hawks. Iran is really not very relevant. Iran is more democratic and less oppressive than a large number of the world's nations though only because so many nations are completely undemocratic and repressive. The fact that Iran gets criticized for repression and these nations don't get criticized shows that it is Iran's relationship to the USA that is significant to making Iran a story and not anything about Iran itself that matters. There is not much discussion about India and Pakistan's and Israel's nuclear weapons so I don't buy that nuclear proliferation is the reason for Iran being a story. Iran is no more irrational than other nations. Iran is no more rogue than other nation's unless your definition of rogueness is whether a nation does whatever the US government wants it to. The Iranian support of Israel's enemies is as justifiable as the USA's support for Israel is. Congo should be a major story. Why isn't Congo a story? There is not clear tie in to the Western Hawks versus their enemies story. But there are 3 to 8 million war deaths in Congo and even more war deaths if you add in the Rwandan Genocide and Uganda's Wars and Sudan's Wars into the story. If you want to cast the USA hawks and historical Western imperialism as the villain you could make one big overlapping story out of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda Sudan. So why those who cast the America/Western Hawks as the evil dragon jump on this narrative? Apparently the American/Western supporters of foreign policy hawkishness somehow control the choice of playing field on this debate about whether the Western hawks are the valiant prince or the evil dragon. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/201/39218.html http://congowatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/false-narrative-whitewashing-rwanda.html http://africamatters.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-blood-diamonds.html 2 Norwegian "spies" face the death penalty in Congo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_French_and_Tjostolv_Moland http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2009&c=COD From the above link: In April the government signed a US$9 billion mining and infrastructure deal with a consortium of Chinese companies. Accusations that the state was selling off the DRC’s mineral assets cheaply provoked a parliamentary walkout in May. The sharp fall of world mineral prices, however, threatened to leave tens of thousands working in the DRC’s mining zones without income. http://www.asadismi.ws/congo.html http://www.sfbayview.com/2008/merch...g-the-corporate-financed-holocaust-in-africa/ http://www.allthingspass.com/uploads/html-135Hotel Rwanda Corrected Final 1 Nov 07.htm From above link, Was Hotel Rwanda presenting it's story without any context and does it matter if the movie received funding from a mining company that benefits from the new post 1994 Rwandan government's military control over portions of the Congo. Hotel Rwanda cast the men who became this Rwandan government as the heroes but there is more to the story that was not told. Roger Winter is a character who keeps showing up in the Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Congo, Sudan Dramas. The Rwandan genocide might to some degree have been a proxy war between the USA and France. The USA backed "Tutsi Rwandan Rebels"/Ugandan Army was going to topple the French backed Hutu Rwandan government regardless of whether or not the Hutus did their genocide of Tutsis. The Drama in Congo is not over and the Drama in Congo's neighbors also continues. A small section of Congo near Rwanda and Uganda has 80% of the world's Coltan reserves.