KONY 2012 - Page 2

Graywolves · 2012-03-09, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

It makes people like me think less of those who say "what a tragedy!" and then go back to eating their bucket of fried chicken in the suburbs before retiring to the couch to watch reality TV.

I don't watch reality and I've been trying to eat healthy!!!!

Coreldan · 2012-03-08, 07:21 AM

Whalenator · 2012-03-09, 03:21 PM

Don't even bring up the DRC in here.
That place is a lost cause.

krnasaur · 2012-03-10, 04:59 AM

Don't flame me for this, but IMO Africa just needs a do-over. That place is so volatile it is scary. They just need to re write all of the boarder and make it like 6 or 7 large countries. When the Europeans wrote the boarders for Africa most of the countries were left land-locked and have 0 way to trade. give each of the countries access to the ocean atleast they will have some way to trade/export and the governments there won't be as dirt poor as they are now. Right now if we go and send troops to stop this rebellion in 6 months another rebellion will pop up in another shitcan country.

My other idea (which will probably be less liked) is we pull ALL support from africa. Right now it seems all of our money and effort (that could be spent at home fixing our problems) are being wasted in africa because we want to build a school and teach little afika how to read, and will most likely die anyway from contaminated water or something in 6 weeks. I say let Darwinism run its course down there in Africa and they can fix their own problems.

Whalenator · 2012-03-10, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by krnasaur

Don't flame me for this, but IMO Africa just needs a do-over. That place is so volatile it is scary. They just need to re write all of the boarder and make it like 6 or 7 large countries. When the Europeans wrote the boarders for Africa most of the countries were left land-locked and have 0 way to trade. give each of the countries access to the ocean atleast they will have some way to trade/export and the governments there won't be as dirt poor as they are now. Right now if we go and send troops to stop this rebellion in 6 months another rebellion will pop up in another shitcan country.

My other idea (which will probably be less liked) is we pull ALL support from africa. Right now it seems all of our money and effort (that could be spent at home fixing our problems) are being wasted in africa because we want to build a school and teach little afika how to read, and will most likely die anyway from contaminated water or something in 6 weeks. I say let Darwinism run its course down there in Africa and they can fix their own problems.

I understand how you could think that an entire continent housing well over one billion people, all with their own opinions, thoughts and culture, could be reclaimed with such simple and arrogant ideas as rewriting borders or withdrawing support. Oh wait, scratch that. I don't understand how you could think that.

The problems that exist in Africa today -- War, Poverty, Oppression -- are all products of humanity, formed over thousands of years. The widely-believed "fact" that Africa is most a barren landscape comprised mostly of grasslands and deserts is a lie. Take it from somebody who's been there that Africa is one of the lusher continents out there. So I suppose while a hostile environment could have been a contributor to the massive humanitarian crisis Africa is today, a more likely cause is (as you mentioned) the rapid withdrawal of European influence that began in the 50's with Libya's independence. Most of the newly birthed nation-states creating during said withdrawal were in no way prepared to govern themselves, and corrupt leaders usually came to power, beginning a tradition of corruption and negligence from the top that continues to this day.

If I could choose one problem that plagues the poorer half of Africa the most, it would be leadership. Those who are in power and those struggling for power. But at this point the populace of Africa have become so accustomed to their corrupt dictators they are to the point of defending them, and the civilized part of the world can't help those that don't want help (We do anyways though).

Baneblade · 2012-03-11, 03:45 AM

Fenrys · 2012-03-11, 03:47 PM

disclaimer: I'm not really sure what's happening in Africa, and I don't support or condone brutality of any kind.

It seems like this could be a propaganda piece created by the Pentagon to get support for expanding military operations in Africa, which would allow multinational corporations to exploit the natural and human resources of the area and open new markets where usurious central banks could offer loans that will keep the population in debt-slavery for generations.

What are the Facebook Like-ers going to do other than beg somebody else, like the government, to fix the problem for them? To me, it's implied that the "somebody else" already has a plan to "fix" things, and that same "somebody else" is probably the one who created this indiscriminate memetic virus. It smells like traditional black magic.

Warborn · 2012-03-11, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Fenrys

It seems like this could be a propaganda piece created by the Pentagon to get support for expanding military operations in Africa

I hope you were wearing your tinfoil hat while you wrote that. There isn't anything preventing foreign multinational corporations from operating in Uganda, and I don't see how some airstrikes on rebel groups living in jungles would necessitate US corporate involvement where previously there was none.

And as much as Obama is a puppet of corporate interests, assuming there were a serious benefit for corporations if the US were to blow up some jungle creatures and also some African guys, it would be political suicide for Obama to get the US seriously involved in Uganda when he's just ramping up for a general election. To engage in hostilities with a group called the "Lord's Resistance Army" would be ridiculous. Muslims who the government can spin as being a threat to the world via WMDs? That's something Americans can be down with murdering en masse, but even that is unpopular with people at this point. Only 40% of Americans think military action against Iran is a good idea according to recent polls, and they hit all the check boxes for people who it's okay to explode with bombs.

But Africans, who are ostensibly Christian, and who pose no threat to the USA? Never going to happen. Who'd support it? A few hipsters who want to appear proactive and apathetic douche bags who clicked "Like" on Facebook. Conversely, by the time the new year rolls around and Obama is in his second term or President Frothy Mixture or Romney are getting situated, the interest in this Kony shit will be a distant memory.

Accuser · 2012-03-11, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

There isn't anything preventing foreign multinational corporations from operating in Uganda, and I don't see how some airstrikes on rebel groups living in jungles would necessitate US corporate involvement where previously there was none.

And which multinational corporations get the contracts? As I mentioned above, the "President" of Uganda who's in his 31st year in office has a lot of control over that. The Chinese were making inroads on the East African political landscape, but here the U.S. is in a unique position to do a favor for Museveni by eliminating an armed opponent and solidifying his regime through the presence of U.S. military bases.

Originally Posted by Warborn

But Africans, who are ostensibly Christian, and who pose no threat to the USA? Never going to happen. Who'd support it? A few hipsters who want to appear proactive and apathetic douche bags who clicked "Like" on Facebook. Conversely, by the time the new year rolls around and Obama is in his second term or President Frothy Mixture or Romney are getting situated, the interest in this Kony shit will be a distant memory.

Right. The U.S. would never put military forces in a country that poses no threat to us... We've never overthrown a government for economic reasons, and our bombers drop lollipops and gumdrops for all the children of the world.

Warborn · 2012-03-11, 09:52 PM

The corporations that get the contracts are the ones who offer the best deal and grease the most palms. The only thing keeping corporations out of Uganda is their own personal interest. While certainly the US could level the whole place and then hand out no-bid contracts to companies in favour with members of the administration, there's not a lot in it for the elected officials involved in that.

And, again, how will blowing up some patches of jungle help in any way secure footholds for corporations which are otherwise shut out by competitors? Or are you suggesting the USA topple the entire Ugandan regime and commence to nation building there?

I'm as cynical as the next far-left democratic socialist, but even I wouldn't expect the US to make a habit out of bombing countries and then having their friends rebuild them. It's just not something that is sustainable, by either their politicians or, as the recent instance of a US soldier murdering a fuckload of civilians including children in Afghanistan shows, or their military.

This Kony thing is horseshit. It's ignorant or naive or self-serving assholes who want to save the world drumming up a bullshit scheme to do just that. The US government doesn't give a fuck in any real sense because there's nothing in it for them. They will do whatever will boost their numbers amongst their constituents, and at this point that means not waging war in yet another country which has nothing at all to do with the interests of Americans.

Accuser · 2012-03-11, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

The corporations that get the contracts are the ones who offer the best deal and grease the most palms...
...The US government doesn't give a fuck in any real sense because there's nothing in it for them.

Let's imagine for a moment that a corporation greases American palms. Let's imagine that those politicians then do favors for the Ugandan government and ask that American corporations get special treatment in return.

Maybe it's cheaper for these American corporations to do this than to out-bid Chinese companies... particularly when ensuring U.S. control of the region is an added long-term benefit for the U.S. government.

If you think that control of regional resources (energy in particular) isn't powerful, I suggest you take a look at Russia's influence over Eastern Europe.

EDIT:
Epic grammar fails fixed

Warborn · 2012-03-12, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Accuser

Let's imagine for a moment that a corporation greases American palms. Let's imagine that those politicians then do favors for the Ugandan government and asks that American corporations get special treatment in return.

Maybe it's cheaper for these American corporations to do this than to out-bid Chinese companies... particularly when ensuring U.S. control of the region is an added long-term benefit for the U.S. government.

If you don't think that control of regional resources (energy in particular) isn't powerful, I suggest you take a look at Russia's influence over Eastern Europe.

I'll ask it a third time. How will the USA blowing up areas of Uganda's jungles change the situation on the ground for US corporate interests intent on making money there? Or are you suggesting the US destroy the entire Ugandan regime commence to nation building as in Iraq?

If the US had any interest in toppling the Ugandan government to install a friendly regime, they'd have done what they do all the time. They'd have simply funneled money secretly to the LRA, maybe drop in some CIA personnel to help advise them in the fight against the existing Ugandan regime, and simply ask of them that, when they win and seize control of Uganda, they bow completely to US demands. That's how the USA does it. That's how they've done it over and over around the world. They would not be best suited by waging direct war against Uganda when they could wage a proxy war.

Originally Posted by Blitzkri

Should make a video of children getting manipulated into joining street gangs.

At a time when South American leaders are deliberating the legalization or decriminalization of the failed and disastrous "war on drugs", I think trying to inspire a grassroots movement to make a difference there would have been better. It's a pretty close call between the people who think drugs should be legalized vs. those who don't, but it's a better bet than waging war on guerrillas in Uganda.

Accuser · 2012-03-12, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

I'll ask it a third time. How will the USA blowing up areas of Uganda's jungles change the situation on the ground for US corporate interests intent on making money there?

Ok, I'll make it very simple.
Museveni benefits: A political opponent is eliminated, his 31 year regime gains international legitimacy and physical security through U.S. military bases.

U.S. corporations benefit: The (surprise) corrupt Museveni gives preference to U.S. corporations through exclusive or no-bid contracts as a reward for his benefits.

American politicans benefit: Campaign contributions from corporations able to operate with preferential treatment in Uganda.

U.S. geopolitical benefit: Access to resources even in the event of future crisis' (war, price spikes, etc) with the muscle to secure it. Operating bases in the event of future African conflict.

Or to put it VERY simply... ask yourself what the U.S. gains from having nearly 200 military bases scattered in dozens of countries, then apply that to Uganda.

Warborn · 2012-03-13, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

Ok, I'll make it very simple.
Museveni benefits:

He's been in power 31 years, what does he care about legitimacy?

U.S. corporations benefit:

Are US corporations shut out right now? What corporations tied to the government serve to benefit from this? How will the US becoming involved create an atmosphere better for US interests? Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Those places fucking hate the US because the US shits all over anything it tries to "save" pretty much every time.

American politicans benefit:

These people have no shortage of corporate backers or at least very wealthy individuals in their corner, provided they aren't independently wealthy like Romney already. This also goes back to the previous point. In Iraq, the US blew up the country and awarded the rebuilding contracts no-bid to their friends. If the US doesn't blow up Uganda, then where are the corporate contracts coming from?

U.S. geopolitical benefit:

They can setup bases places without needing to stage military intervention. Look at Australia, there's a US base there and those two nations have only ever been friendly. With a country possessing as much influence as the US, they could easily work out some sort of deal which is quite apart from any sort of military adventure.

Blitzkri · 2012-03-12, 02:24 AM

Should make a video of children getting manipulated into joining street gangs. Then forced to sell or do drugs. Who have their own daughters and sisters become street walkers.
We couldn't care less about our own sick and homeless."Look its a homeless guy eating out of a trash can." Most answer "So?"
You wanna help people? Help yourselves first. Yea its a shame that is happening somewhere over there. Easy to ignore if you ask me. Hard to ignore our own problems... At least for me it is.