Though by some tallies 4 million would be more accurate.
http://www.womenwarpeace.org/drc/drc.htmhttp://www.un.int/drcongo/enterhttp://web.amnesty.org/pages/cod-040803-background_1-enghttp://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=congohttp://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=40655&SelectRegion=Great_Lakes&SelectCountry=DRCWarning: The following website contains disturbing images:http://www.nkolo-mboka.com/genocide_57.htmlI'm not saying that the US doesn't have responsibilities in Central Africa, or that history doesn't inform the conflict, but I do argue that recent atrocities have culprits and causes that are more immediate.
As for the true intention of the poster I'm replying to, it's kind of moot because I'm basically responding to a kind of argument that's very common, e.g. the BBC's Barnaby Mason in his analysis,
Why the US wants Sudan peace, proffers interest in oil, and one might assume by extension, oil wealth, as an explanation for recent US interest in peace. Sure, the oil fields are on the table. But as a causus pax (ouch--help, I don't do latin), I'm saying that's too pat.
Thus the example of Coltan in DRC. Certainly, if you want to condemn profiteering and wanton pillaging, I'll join you. That doesn't explain the conflict.
But I'm not going to play cherchez l'huile with everything the man* from Crawford touches because the world is more complicated than that, it deserves our attention, and there are terrible consequences to ignoring or completely misunderstanding violence.