What's this Kony thing?

[East Coast Hustle]

There would be some hilarity to be found in watching Americans run around in the jungles of the Congo trying not to be the easiest pickings since the Caribs ate the Arawaks.

[Don Coyote]

There would be some hilarity to be found in watching Americans run around in the jungles of the Congo trying not to be the easiest pickings since the Caribs ate the Arawaks.

doubly so since the focus has been on counter-IED and door kicking, not running around in the jungle.

[Cain]

Given how long it took American policymakers and soldiers to get their heads around the religious/ethnic and political divides in Iraq, I'd love to see how many horrible inaccuracies and blatant lies about Central African factions would be fed into the press by agents looking to manipulate US public perceptions.

Given, you know, that central Africa is about a thousand times as complicated as Iraq ever was.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

Man, I know this is going to upset somebody but...there seems to be this idea among people that because places are shitty means we shouldn't try to make them better.

That isn't a pro-war stance, just by the way.

Things suck everywhere, but their seems to be this idea that just because our government is shitty, then any other issues in the world don't matter. I'm not talking specifically about any PD posters, just something I've noticed about various issues on multiple forums of discussion.

However, yeah, the Kony2012 thing is mostly bullshit. Bring awareness about an issue gets them some points, but gross missrepresentations lose them a whoooole lot more. And selling merch is pretty sick. And obviously capturing Kony isn't a cure all. No more than killing Osama suddenly stopped terrorism.

Also, I'm interested in learning about how the whole thing is Christian propaganda, since the LRA considers itself to be heavily religious. I mean, obviously promoting yourself as something doesn't mean you are it...something about the idea requires citation or elaboration.

ETA: My mind blanked on the fact that LMNO provided a link with elaboration earlier on. It's good stuff. My bad for the above comment.

[Doktor Howl]

Man, I know this is going to upset somebody but...there seems to be this idea among people that because places are shitty means we shouldn't try to make them better.

I think that's up to the people that live there, Oysters.  We aren't the world's cop, nor are we the world's guidance counselors.  Even if we wanted to be, we now lack the money, the men, and the moral authority...Given what our recent "help" to other nations has amounted to.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

Man, I know this is going to upset somebody but...there seems to be this idea among people that because places are shitty means we shouldn't try to make them better.

I think that's up to the people that live there, Oysters.  We aren't the world's cop, nor are we the world's guidance counselors.  Even if we wanted to be, we now lack the money, the men, and the moral authority...Given what our recent "help" to other nations has amounted to.

I don't mean "we" as a country or "better" as in occupation. Although I agree that it should be up to them to accept the help, a lot of people give of this feeling like we shouldn't try to offer it.
I mean, even supplying money to humanitarian efforts and staying physically out of a country is help.
Not like we're rolling in the dough or anything.

But, yeah. The last thing I'm suggesting is we police the world. We have too many police at home already.

[Cain]

OK.  And how, exactly, would be sending in troops to a notoriously unstable region of the world, whose conflicts are poorly understood at best, to capture one particular war criminal, help the region any?

As I've already mentioned, sending in US troops would almost certainly collapse the government in the Congo.  The last time the Congolese government collapse, central Africa became a free-for-all, with every idiot with a machine gun and religious mania setting up a militia, while surrounding nations invaded to seize resouces or back their own proxies in the multi-sided civil war that was raging.

A collapse of the Congolese government will almost certainly, regardless of actual cause, also be blamed on Tutsi plotting, which will invariably lead to another round of blood-letting and ethnic cleansing in Congolese territories...which the government in Rwanda will not stand for.  The last time the government in Rwanda got pissed off, it managed to march troops right up to the Congolese capital, sacking a number of cities on the way and installing their own corrupt ruler.

Instability will engulf places like Angola, Zimbabwe, Uganda, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Tanzania, Burundi and Zambia.  Furthermore, the Congo's natural resources - cited by the US as critical strategic resources - would come under threat, undermining economies as far away as Brazil and India.

Can you propose a plan, with certainty, that will make things better in that region without the possibility of resulting in thousands of corpses?  If so, I suggest contacting the State Department, as they've been struggling with the same question for years without coming up with a good answer.

It's not so much of a question as "this place is shitty, lets leave it alone" as it is "siding with any particular actor among all of these shitty actors will strengthen their hand and relative position against the rest.  Do we really want to set up a central African version of Saddam Hussein, only to have to come and knock him down a peg or two in a decade's time."

Any action in the region to re-shape the balance of power invariably runs up against this problem.  Politics is a zero-sum game, and taking out any actor can potentially strengthen people who you don't want to have a free hand in regional affairs.  And that's the reason why intervention of any sort should be done rarely and only in the gravest of situations.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

Man, I know this is going to upset somebody but...there seems to be this idea among people that because places are shitty means we shouldn't try to make them better.

That isn't a pro-war stance, just by the way.

That.

I don't mean "we" as a country or "better" as in occupation.
...
But, yeah. The last thing I'm suggesting is we police the world. We have too many police at home already.

And that. I'm not suggesting sending troops, nor am I completely advocating Kony2012. I kind of wonder if you read all of my post before getting upset.

I'm just saying, food for thought, that maybe some people, not mentioning any names, are more focused on being cynical than being helpful.

Now you personally have clearly put a lot of thought into the issue...so what I'm saying doesn't apply to you. I, as I'm sure you suspected, do not have any sort of brilliant plan. I'm just putting out a thought I have whenever something terrible comes to light and people start taking sides on it.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm just saying, food for thought, that maybe some people, not mentioning any names, are more focused on being cynical than being helpful.

Well, let's not be passive-aggressive about it, hmm?

You say "cynical", I say "realism".

Or is there some magic about America or Europe, where we can solve the problems they can't handle?  Are we smarter, or something?

[Junkenstein]

Relevant to the Kony/campaign backstory, http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/

Pretty sure someone else posted it around here first, but raises several questions. As always, none good.

Given that central africa is a massive clusterfuck, how important are the more stable regimes? Mugabe springs to mind, Zimbabwe has had/is currently under sanctions not dissimilar to the old Iraq/current Iran ones. It does seem to leave the door open for Vietnam #2.

What may influence factors sooner is the crippling debt most of these countries suffer. Given the political norm to make the losing nation foot the bill for the entire thing, any potential long term conflict could literally doom large parts of Africa to perpetual debt. The asset striping would be avoided as they belong to you anyway.

[Cain]

So far, the only plan I've seen for "helping" in the region is putting a large number of troops in there.  So, you have another plan or not?  If not, why are you complaining that people aren't helping to solve a problem that you yourself do not have a solution to?  That there may not be a solution to?

The overwhelming desire to "do something" is the bane of international politics.  Especially when it comes to morally charged campaigns.  The USA has limited resources, military or otherwise, and almost unlimited theatres demanding attention (no doubt due to the money, training, arms and security that often comes with such attention).  The US also has a terrible record of using humanitarian campaigns as a guise for enriching its elite, politically connected class, and also failing to live up to its allegedly humanitarian concerns in prosecuting the conflict, or in directing its proxies in how to prosecute it.  The US has shown it cannot successfully prosecute campaigns against irregular combatants, or impose a Pax Americana in unstable parts of the world.

That alone should persuade people that getting involved would be a bad idea.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

"We" is intended to mean "people" not "Americans" or Europeans, which is why I said this earlier.

I don't mean "we" as a country

I'm not intending to be passive aggressive, I'm trying to avoid making people feel like I'm talking about them specifically, because chances are incredibly high that I'm not. Also, placing blame rarely solves arguements in my experience.

The cynicism comment is based on a lot of instances where I see people instantly decide that because worse things happen elsewhere, or because it might be hard, than it is worth putting zero interest or effort into.
Once again, that is not me suggesting any sort of military action. Military action=bad.
When somebody, like Cain, puts effort into researching and becoming knowledgeable about it...that is realism.

[Don Coyote]

I'm just saying, food for thought, that maybe some people, not mentioning any names, are more focused on being cynical than being helpful.

Well, let's not be passive-aggressive about it, hmm?

You say "cynical", I say "realism".

Or is there some magic about America or Europe, where we can solve the problems they can't handle?  Are we smarter, or something?

Maybe it's because we are whiter.

I mean straight up, it is stupid saying that someone shouldn't go fix someone's problems if they have problems, but on the other hand, we aren't the world police, we don't have any legitimate reason to go sticking our dicks into other countries that haven't asked for help, barring some country attacking us. In that case, fuck them hard and fast with lots of explosions.
Now then, what fucking legitimate reason could you come up with for the US to use military action in Africa? It's a fucking cold thing for me say but "fuck them they aren't my people, and they haven't fucking asked for my help, Why the fuck should I go into harms way for them?" I know I'll catch some flak for that, like when I was all, "I I don;t know how I feel about the wildfires in Russia."
This coming from a guy that said, "Sure I'll accept the possibility I will get shot at, blown up etc for the good of the Nation."
So, if you can come up a valid reason for send more of of my brethren in arms into another war, where many of them will get fucked up for life.
It isn't even about, "they aren't my people." It's about, "sure that situation is fucked up, but we don't have ANY fucking authority to go there. Especially since we will make things worse."

[Doktor Howl]

"We" is intended to mean "people" not "Americans" or Europeans, which is why I said this earlier.

I don't mean "we" as a country

I'm not intending to be passive aggressive, I'm trying to avoid making people feel like I'm talking about them specifically, because chances are incredibly high that I'm not. Also, placing blame rarely solves arguements in my experience.

The cynicism comment is based on a lot of instances where I see people instantly decide that because worse things happen elsewhere, or because it might be hard, than it is worth putting zero interest or effort into.
Once again, that is not me suggesting any sort of military action. Military action=bad.
When somebody, like Cain, puts effort into researching and becoming knowledgeable about it...that is realism.

Okay, I was about to bring up a few of the real problems with the USA getting involved, but

1.  Cain beat me to it, and

2.  You seem to have decided what I do and do not know about the situation.  There is no conversation, here.  There is me, trying to make my point, and you, already having decided what my point is.  Bailing on this topic, now.  You just keep on with what you're doing.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm just saying, food for thought, that maybe some people, not mentioning any names, are more focused on being cynical than being helpful.

Well, let's not be passive-aggressive about it, hmm?

You say "cynical", I say "realism".

Or is there some magic about America or Europe, where we can solve the problems they can't handle?  Are we smarter, or something?

Maybe it's because we are whiter.

I wasn't gonna go there, but since Oysters feels confident in telling me what I know and what I think, it works as well as anything else.

Oysters believes that those poor Black people just can't get on without our pearly-White assistance.