[pironiro]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Until the UN starts systematically eliminating corrupt people like him on principle, nothing is going to change.

If the UN started eliminating corrupt people on principle, they would have to reenact the last half hour of the movie Untergang on themselves.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by pironiro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the UN started eliminating corrupt people on principle, they would have to reenact the last half hour of the movie Untergang on themselves.

So be it.

[Feral]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This whole Kony 2012 thing is pretty stupid. Why didn't people start criticizing him earlier? What about all the other warlords and dictators out there? How is this going to solve any long-term problems? It's just "feel-good" (or maybe "feel-bad") propaganda. Until the UN starts systematically eliminating corrupt people like him on principle, nothing is going to change.

Obviously not everyone knew. I certainly didn't know. I don't know about the other warlords or dictators, either. I have a hard enough time trying to keep up with the domestic circus, I don't typically go out of my way looking for causes. What's wrong with learning something new, and forming a new opinion? Awareness is the first step to resolving any conflict whatsoever.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Obviously not everyone knew. I certainly didn't know. I don't know about the other warlords or dictators, either.

But you did know there are tons of warlords and dictators in Africa, and that they use child soldiers, etc., right? If we know about these things, we should take action, or not, but not get riled up because of one sensationalist message.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Obviously not everyone knew. I certainly didn't know. I don't know about the other warlords or dictators, either. I have a hard enough time trying to keep up with the domestic circus, I don't typically go out of my way looking for causes. What's wrong with learning something new, and forming a new opinion? Awareness is the first step to resolving any conflict whatsoever.

Awareness be damned; if you can't prioritize your problems, you may as well wear a blindfold anyhow.

[Feral]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But you did know there are tons of warlords and dictators in Africa, and that they use child soldiers, etc., right? If we know about these things, we should take action, or not, but not get riled up because of one sensationalist message.

I had an idea, but nothing specific. That's one of the main problems. We see African problems as problems in general in AFRICA, the whole continent, but we don't know enough to be able to break it down into the countries, or into the tribes in those countries. There are different problems all over the place, and to not have a focus is to have nothing more than the same vague idea we've always had, which helps no one in any way. Now we have a marker on a map, with faces in our minds of the people there, and an idea of what they are going through, and very specific plans on how people can help, and why those are expected to work. That doesn't mean that everyone who supports this is suddenly going to drop their other causes like building wells or schools or whatever, it means they have something else to think about in addition to everything else. No one knows anything until they find out about it.

Everything starts with a first step. Because it didn't start with 'let's wipe out all violence on this gigantic, complex continent!' is it therefore a completely unworthy cause?

[Shadizar]

I remember this little known story in Africa, I think it was in some vague country... Uganda? There was something called a... genocide? Where one group systematically slaughtered the other with machetes. The local general with a large standing army was powerless to stop it and could only barely rescue some stragglers. The UN was powerless to stop it, because they had a peacekeeping military presence they had to pull out. I think it was all started by some radio DJ; once again, the power of media.

[Feral]

Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I remember this little known story in Africa, I think it was in some vague country... Uganda? There was something called a... genocide? Where one group systematically slaughtered the other with machetes. The local general with a large standing army was powerless to stop it and could only barely rescue some stragglers. The UN was powerless to stop it, because they had a peacekeeping military presence they had to pull out. I think it was all started by some radio DJ; once again, the power of media.

What year (or which genocide?). Again, a vague idea, but can't really form a solid opinion without solid facts. If these things were being reported any time before 2004, I either would not have heard about them, or would not have really cared about them. I lived in a place that was pretty much cut off from the outside world, and had no exposure to it.

It would have certainly been nice to have been born in my 30s, having already learned everything I wish to know in utero, but sadly things don't work like that.

That video has 75+ million views. I'm not entirely sure how the algorithm works for how they count views, but I know that after the first 300, it changes so they aren't just measuring who started the video and didn't finish. Don't know how long they have to watch it for for it to be a count, though, or if they even do have to finish it.

75 million is a pretty good handful either way though. Even if they aren't all full views, at least a goodly sum of them have to be.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What year (or which genocide?). Again, a vague idea, but can't really form a solid opinion without solid facts. If these things were being reported any time before 2004, I either would not have heard about them, or would not have really cared about them. I lived in a place that was pretty much cut off from the outside world, and had no exposure to it.

Perhaps you've heard of a movie called Hotel Rwanda?

[Feral]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps you've heard of a movie called Hotel Rwanda?

I think I might have, in a news article. Is that the one where there are all of those people living in that (or those?) old abandoned hotel?

In general, I'm very leery about who I give my money to, which is why I have not and will not donate to Invisible Children. If I have to pay to see some sort of documentary that details the suffering of people I can't really help, and who the film isn't really helping (in some sort of apparent way), then I'm not going to pay to see it just to put money in the hands of the filmmakers. If it was free online somewhere, then I must have missed it, probably would have watched it.

Too many 'charities' have jaded me to donating, which may be tragic, or it may be smart, I'm not sure yet. The only international ones any more that I will donate to are Charity: Water and Heifer.

---------- Post added 03-12-2012 at 10:36 AM ----------


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is an intriguing POV.

What if this whole movement is just to get us over there for oil?

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is an intriguing POV. What if this whole movement is just to get us over there for oil?

Give me a break. The only hysteria I see is from passages like this:

Originally Posted by Al-Jazeera article

"First, because Invisible Children is a symptom, not a cause. It is an excuse that the US government has gladly adopted in order to help justify the expansion of their military presence in central Africa. Invisible Children are "useful idiots", being used by those in the US government who seek to militarise Africa, to send more and more weapons and military aid, and to build the power of military rulers who are US allies."

Let's be clear - the policy being advocated for is providing limited military advice and support to Uganda, South Sudan, CAR and DRC specifically related to capturing Jospeh Kony. Keep in mind, we already provide significant advice and support to Uganda and South Sudan on a host of other issues, and Museveni is probably exactly the type of ally that would qualify as being morally questionable, in the eyes of the author.

So we're already there, doing exactly this sort of thing he decries. If the goal were to expand U.S. government influence in Africa, they certainly don't need Joseph Kony, this policy, or any internet crusade, to do it. This policy would only be a distraction from "hegemony" (which, ironically, is exactly why some bureaucrats oppose it.) Has the U.S. ever needed an excuse before, fer chrissakes? Since when has the U.S. felt like it had to justify when and where it intervenes, for better or worse?

In short, if this were about oil, the U.S. certainly wouldn't need (or want) some internet video to draw fucking attention to it. The article is as dumb as any of the other "no blood for oil" signs, all draped under the guise of local empowerment by your typical self-impressed expatriate bragging about how much he knows about them.

We're there because the governments asked for the support. A bipartisan coalition agreed to the policy, although some are trying to defund this incredibly minute expense now. (Not because of actual cuts, but because of typical bureaucratic infighting - it takes money and time away from their programs.) The outcome will be at worst unsuccessful and at best unquestionably good. So what's the problem with this specific policy, exactly?

Aside from everything else the West has ever done, ever. Sorry!

[Feral]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Give me a break. The only hysteria I see is from passages like this: Let's be clear - the policy being advocated for is providing limited military advice and support to Uganda, South Sudan, CAR and DRC specifically related to capturing Jospeh Kony. Keep in mind, we already provide significant advice and support to Uganda and South Sudan on a host of other issues, and Museveni is probably exactly the type of ally that would qualify as being morally questionable, in the eyes of the author. So we're already there, doing exactly this sort of thing he decries. If the goal were to expand U.S. government influence in Africa, they certainly don't need Joseph Kony, this policy, or any internet crusade, to do it. This policy would only be a distraction from "hegemony" (which, ironically, is exactly why some bureaucrats oppose it.) Has the U.S. ever needed an excuse before, fer chrissakes? Since when has the U.S. felt like it had to justify when and where it intervenes, for better or worse? In short, if this were about oil, the U.S. certainly wouldn't need (or want) some internet video to draw fucking attention to it. The article is as dumb as any of the other "no blood for oil" signs, all draped under the guise of local empowerment by your typical self-impressed expatriate bragging about how much he knows about them. We're there because the governments asked for the support. A bipartisan coalition agreed to the policy, although some are trying to defund this incredibly minute expense now. (Not because of actual cuts, but because of typical bureaucratic infighting - it takes money and time away from their programs.) The outcome will be at worst unsuccessful and at best unquestionably good. So what's the problem with this specific policy, exactly? Aside from everything else the West has ever done, ever. Sorry!

I agree with you fully, but we're also at a very unique point in time. We've never had so much community input as we do with the internet. If we just went over there and said 'we're going for oil!' of course there would be huge outrage, because people are pretty tired of that shit at this point. But if the ulterior motive is oil, and if they get people behind a cause that runs parallel to the wishes of those after the oil, then if we pulled out of there, people would be outraged for our leaving.

Not saying that's at all likely, but it's an interesting possibility. I don't think they even have all that much oil anyway, do they? I thought they still mostly imported.

[Snowdragon]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hey look, more warmongering. Always fun to only get one side of the story.

It's an excuse for the USA to go to war with Uganda (same country that passed the "kill the gays" bill); we can't start yet another war without borrowing from the Chinese.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Snowdragon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's an excuse for the USA to go to war with Uganda (same country that passed the "kill the gays" bill); we can't start yet another war without borrowing from the Chinese.

More nonsense. The complaint of the author is that we're too much in bed with Museveni and Uganda. They're a key U.S. ally in East Africa, for better or worse.

So which is it? Does the U.S. want to go to war with Uganda, or are we too cozy with them? Are we borrowing too much from the Chinese, or are we in an African resources race with them? Or is it really, as one might suspect, that any old criticism will do - none of it need make much sense at all.

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not saying that's at all likely, but it's an interesting possibility. I don't think they even have all that much oil anyway, do they? I thought they still mostly imported.

They don't. At which point someone will pull up a press release from an oil exploration company that owns land there saying they've discovered possibly the biggest oil find ever there, which I' m sure has absolutely nothing to do with trying to drum up the price of their land. And completely glossing over the fact that there's oil in a lot of places - what matters is how deep you have to drill and how much it costs to get a barrel out of the ground and into a tanker.

Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree with you fully, but we're also at a very unique point in time. We've never had so much community input as we do with the internet. If we just went over there and said 'we're going for oil!' of course there would be huge outrage, because people are pretty tired of that shit at this point. But if the ulterior motive is oil, and if they get people behind a cause that runs parallel to the wishes of those after the oil, then if we pulled out of there, people would be outraged for our leaving.

Hat tip - if the ulterior motive is oil, more than one country would be involved and no one would have been told anything. It would have all happened with as little public discussion as possible. Companies see no need for restraint on this topic, and certainly don't need anything like public support.

And Joseph Kony would have quietly "disappeared" ages ago. Of course the U.S. would have found the resources to get rid of someone fucking up multinational business interests, all without any internet crusade. The whole reason it needs public attention is because it's one of those unfortunate issues that has nothing to do with business interests.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	More nonsense. The complaint of the author is that we're too much in bed with Museveni and Uganda. They're a key U.S. ally in East Africa, for better or worse.

You're really going to have to qualify that. While I'm not captain foreign policy expert over here, at no point have I said to myself regarding any US issue in Africa or elsewhere "gee, if only we had Uganda's support...."

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	More nonsense. The complaint of the author is that we're too much in bed with Museveni and Uganda. They're a key U.S. ally in East Africa, for better or worse.

US foreign policy has turned "ally" into an irrelevant title. I would consider it to mean it's merely someone the US hasn't bombed yet, but that doesn't work anymore.

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are we borrowing too much from the Chinese, or are we in an African resources race with them?

Yes and yes. Although how much we are borrowing from China is decreasing, as they are systematically reducing their financial entanglements with the US.

I take it you aren't a chess player.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're really going to have to qualify that. While I'm not captain foreign policy expert over here, at no point have I said to myself regarding any US issue in Africa or elsewhere "gee, if only we had Uganda's support...."

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	US foreign policy has turned "ally" into an irrelevant title. I would consider it to mean it's merely someone the US hasn't bombed yet, but that doesn't work anymore.

I'll simplify - the U.S. gives them millions of dollars in aid, support, and weapons to help us achieve political objectives in East Africa. I suppose that seems irrelevant? Or not important because it doesn't make our somewhat useless news?

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes and yes. Although how much we are borrowing from China is decreasing, as they are systematically reducing their financial entanglements with the US. [...] I take it you aren't a chess player.

Is this the part where you enlist a metaphor from the 1950s to demonstrate a nuanced grasp of a complex, multifactorial, long-term political strategy?

[Dung]

Sirupy propaganda.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'll simplify - the U.S. gives them millions of dollars in aid, support, and weapons to help us achieve political objectives in East Africa. I suppose that seems irrelevant? Or not important because it doesn't make our somewhat useless news?

So they suck on the US teat. That's not an ally, that's a prostitute. An ally usually infers some level of equality.

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is this the part where you enlist a metaphor from the 1950s to demonstrate a nuanced grasp of a complex, multifactorial, long-term political strategy?

So the US is blindfolded, throwing darts at a dartboard then?

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'll simplify - the U.S. gives them millions of dollars in aid, support, and weapons to help us achieve political objectives in East Africa. I suppose that seems irrelevant? Or not important because it doesn't make our somewhat useless news?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, which isn't even the top amount in the region.

So you're still gonna have to qualify, on a pure $$ basis, it looks like a resounding "meh" in terms of their ally status.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So they suck on the US teat. That's not an ally, that's a prostitute. An ally usually infers some level of equality.

They profess to share U.S. foreign policy objectives. Feel free to debate whether or not they truly do or are just bought and paid for, simply for the sake of debate it seems. But by that description, none of our allies are actually allies. (Which may be your point, but in which case, it's resoundingly uninteresting to me. By any functionally relevant point.)

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , which isn't even the top amount in the region.

Your chart includes grants and credits only - not weapons sales or other diplomacy objectives. Of the defense/ diplomacy/ development approach, you're only looking at one of the three.

That said, yes, Kenya and Ethiopia are also considered strong allies. Ethiopia especially with questionable governance. But not a question we can answer, so.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They profess to share U.S. foreign policy objectives. Feel free to debate whether or not they truly do or are just bought and paid for, simply for the sake of debate it seems. But by that description, none of our allies are actually allies. (Which may be your point, but in which case, it's resoundingly uninteresting to me. By any functionally relevant point.)

It should interest you when the money flow is either worthless, or stops.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your chart includes grants and credits only - not weapons sales or other diplomacy objectives. Of the defense/ diplomacy/ development approach, you're only looking at one of the three.

Bottom chart.
Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole receives 260 million in military assistance.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, it looks like their military has an eclectic array of weaponry, predominantly old soviet surplus, with a few US items thrown in.

	That said, yes, Kenya and Ethiopia are also considered strong allies. Ethiopia especially with questionable governance. But not a question we can answer, so.

Then why make the statement that Uganda is a "key US ally" in East Africa?
If you can point out to me the crossroads between aid, defense, and diplomacy that make Uganda a "key ally", I'll shut up.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Bottom chart. Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole receives 260 million in military assistance.

That number, already an underestimate, doesn't include weapons sales, and doesn't involve the private partnership money that U.S. cooperation brings.

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then why make the statement that Uganda is a "key US ally" in East Africa? If you can point out to me the crossroads between aid, defense, and diplomacy that make Uganda a "key ally", I'll shut up.

The question we can't answer is the moral one.

Here's how Uganda helps the U.S.:
- provides/shares intelligence on terrorism, weapons and materiel trafficking
- takes a leadership role in the African Union
- provides troops to UN peacekeeping missions
- provides the most troops to the AU mission to Somalia
- supports U.S. contingency operations training
- supports the Partnership for Regional East African Counterterrorism (PREACT) efforts (probably that crossroads of aid, defense and diplomacy you were wondering about.)

and many other ways, too many to mention. Including, undoubtedly, keeping tariffs low for U.S. goods and supporting foreign private investment. Being an ally is about more than just sending troops to Afghanistan.

If you want to discuss ways the U.S. promotes global hegemony, you could point to our relationship with Museveni or a million other actions undertaken to promote U.S. interests there, or in our relationship with any of our other allies. The Kony policy being advocated is, again, the least among them. If the Kony policy were promoting these interests, there wouldn't have to be a significant advocacy effort to promote it; it would have simply already happened.

[INTelliJent]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Oh look........



Foot in the door. Wag the Dog.