With Libya secured an American invasion of Africa is under way

There's no jump involved. The USA is working to stop a systematic exploiter of children, and you are pushing back against that effort. Given a choice between the USA and a child killer, you have decided to side against the USA and with the child killer. Note that you could have remained neutral, but chose not to.

Did I say somewhere that that material was supposed to explain anything like that?

None of your above explains the interactions between the solar wind and Earth's magnetosphere.

Good thing I didn't call anything any of that, then.

Do you think I could borrow some of your straw men to help me stoke a fire? If you could just jump over from wherever you are to my place with a few, that would be great.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Me too.

I think you are being really naive if you think that this is just about a homicidal maniac. Do you really believe that? There are lots and lots of bad men in the world. In fact, the despots all around that area are just as bad as Kony. I have found through my research, that in just that small region, you have three leaders that are under investigation of the ICC. What has the U.S. done about the Darfur region? How about the alleged atrocities of Congolese militias? Well, you can't investigate General Museveni, after all, he's a U.S. puppet, and with out him, there would be no Western Oil contracts, right? Who gives a shit if he is an evil man that has committed atrocities, eh?

Justice Delayed for Global Court (Wall Street Journal on ICC Referral)

I think what has changed, is Peace. Or something reasonably close. That, and oil. First, it seems that the Acholi no longer had any use for Kony. For the most part, he was yesterdays news. That is what makes this whole thing so curious. Kony isn't really even operational in the territory he claimed to represent anymore. I didn't really understand why the LRA had formed in the first place, so I did some digging.

From what I gather, it has to do with land, and the survival and subsistence of the poor on their land. Corrupt politicians wanted to take the land and sell it off to international investors to make profits from whatever. Cash crops, mineral right, etc. Meanwhile, the populations that had been subsisting off of the land could either work on the land that had been ancestral, or move to the cities and get slave wage labor jobs. This was simple unacceptable to tribal elders, they had no desire to live off of the charity of the west.

So fighting ensued for many decades till a legal framework was established that respected traditional rights. I'm not sure, but it seems due to the psychological profile of this fellow Kony, once he had a taste of power, with out the fight, what was he? A nobody it seems. With peace returning to the region, his tactics became brutal because he was out of a job. Now he is not so much as a resistance fighter, but a gang member. This is really a non-issue. He commits the random acts of violence to consolidate his power, he is nothing but a warlord at this point. Something for local nations to take care of.

So why is the U.S. all of a sudden interested in an issue that was settled? Oil and regional influence it seems.
Land Disputes in Acholiland:A Conflict & Market Assessment
In this piece, I found a comment by an Acholi tribe member referring to international corporations fighting for control of the land where Oil has been found. She sounds quite educated.

And this is the link (Land Disputes in Acholiland: A Conflict and Market Assessment) to the report mentioned in this article with it's recommendations for settling the dispute between Uganda and the Acholi tribes.

From what I can tell, it seems many of these recommendations were initially "settled" upon and peace was becoming a reality as the people were returning . . . . however after bribes, corruption, and back room deals, certain areas of land, especially those located in the regions where oil was discovered in Amuru that are, shall we say, more economically lucrative? Certain judges, administrators, and parliamentarians that have been given incentives by oil companies (er. . . these are only allegations at this point mind you, but enough to cause several to step down), these policies have mysteriously been reversed. Thus, it is more than likely, the LRA will once again have a surge of new support. We can morally judge their tactics all we like, but they seem to be the only representative that is willing to stand for the indigenous rights of the people that have rightful claim to the land. Of course, this isn't in the interest of the U.S., is it?
Acholi Land, Oil and Operation Lightning Thunder
Land Grabbing, Newly Announced Mineral Resources in Northern Uganda, and Renewed War

Museveni: I’ve never received oil bribes

What's The Real Motive For U.S. Military Deployment In Central Africa?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Gen. Museveni; Ugandans today are more concerned with ejecting the U.S.-backed dictator

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This fixation on oil is pretty dumb.

Oil companies don't want the land, all they want is to lease small parts of it to drill holes in the ground.

And no oil company is going to pump oil out of Uganda or any country for that matter without the country not getting it's fair share of the proceeds.

Because exploring and drilling for oil and then getting it to market is so front end costly virtually all countries make revenue sharing deals with the oil companies to do so.

But this is a global and very competitive market.

These countries aren't getting screwed by the oil companies.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most of these conflicts in Africa have their origins in resource scarcity, mostly arable land. If we end the fighting and the initial conditions are the same, it's just going to start back up again. If there is a potential resource in the area like oil, there is a chance to change the essential dynamic. Otherwise, it's just futile.

 

The Great Game is once again starting in Africa and the Middle East. This time, the main players will be the old alliance NATO countries vs. the new economies on the block, the BRIC countries.

Every major economic shift in world history has come at the cost of catasophic war. Will this time be any different?

 

I'm trying to locate a map of all the foreign military bases of the US. How many are there in the Middle East and Africa? Apparently, the official stats are not complete

Empire of Bases 2.0: Does the Pentagon really have 1,180 foreign bases?

Will it be any different? At one time, resource wars looked like this:

Now they look like this:

Whats the difference? First it was done openly, now they have to pretend that they are trying to win hearts and minds.

 

Basic questions

Just so I have it clear:

(1) Surely, people are not suggesting that Joseph Kony and the LRA ought to be allowed to run lose, terrorizing the Acholi and other peoples?

(2) Barring dissent from question (1) above, who is going to stop him?​

I mean, yes, this is a complicated issue, but maybe we can make something constructive out of this if we start with very basic considerations of reality. That is, who here is actually siding with Kony, as opposed to the U.S.? And, well, fine; let's keep our folks at home, and, well, what next in terms of Kony?

 

Should Kony be allowed to run loose? No, of course not. Should the US go in to take him out? That depends, the last time they did it they got even more people killed. Its a strange fact, but when the US goes in to save people who are terrorised, they somehow end up killing and mutilating more people than those who they are saving them from. And I don't trust the US, they don't care about Africans or Ugandans or the victims of Kony, its only after oil was discovered in Uganda in 2006 that they even got interested in the LRA. The failed mission of 2008 proves that their poorly executed missions, where the victims they are saving are a very low priority, tends to end up being even more calamitous for those they are intending to save. So given the history of chronic US incompetence in saving people around the world [did Saddam kill a million Iraqis, did Gaddafi kill 50,000 Libyans], why would anyone support this mission?

 

Concerning the bolded bit: are you suggesting that the US did?

 

What's the buzz?

Because the responsibility then does not fall to them.

No, seriously: Who else?

That's the part I don't get. Everything else? Of course the U.S. makes a mess out of things. But who? The Brits? The Russians? The Chinese? The African Union, who has failed thus far to get him? The Ugandans, who have failed miserably? Ain't gonna be the Israelis; they have their own problems to deal with. Not Egypt. Not Iran. Not India or Pakistan. Maybe a hit team from Equatorial Guinea? Yeah, I know I sound flippant, but ... well ... yeah. It's kind of an absurd situation.

Whose turn is it, then?

I want Kony. I want him quite badly. If the U.S. is going to stake whatever prestige we think we have left, whatever carpetbag bonus we won by electing Barack Obama, I think this is a better mission than picking a war with Iran.

And, practically speaking, it is now on the table. Is it time to deal with Kony or not? Personally, I think it's long past time.

Thus:

(1) The U.S. intends to deal with Kony. Whether this goes well or not remains an open question until it is resolved.

(2) If not the U.S., then who?

(3) Because the alternative is to let this devil run free.​

And I would note, of question two, not only is the question, "Who?" but also, "And just who is going to do this altruistically?" The Saud? Maybe we can send the French, and they can screw it up according to their tradition? I don't know, are the Aussies up for this mission? If so, let's give them a shot. Hell, if someone could hire some Mexican drug lords to settle the question, I'd probably give that a shot.

I get the cynicism about the U.S., but what are the alternatives?

• Send someone else. (Who?)

• Let Kony run loose. (Why?)​

Maybe Congress and the White House were wrong to put it on the agenda at all. But what's the buzz? Tell me what's a'happenin'?

 

Yeah, thats what I'm claiming - US and its allies. And I'm not even counting the 500,000 children who died under US sanctions, with Americans claiming the price was worth it.

Iraq casualty data: http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=120

Libya: http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/04/nato-refuses-to-investigate-libyan-civilian-deaths/

 

What can I say? There are no heroes. The US has come to the "aid" of several people in the last 150 years and has left all of them with a much bigger casualty list that they started with. Which one was worth it? Dresden? Hiroshima? Iran? Iraq? Palestine? Sudan? Somalia? Afghanistan? If the LRA was in Sweden, you could at least guarantee that the media interest would create some oversight. In Uganda which dictator is currently in residence? Do Americans know what is happening in Eritrea and Somalia? They don't even know who Gaddhafi is, if madant is to be believed.

We're going to see a lot of African massacres in the near future, they are sitting on top of "our oil" after all

Do we need to be cheerleaders for those killing them on our behalf?

http://concernedafricascholars.org/african-security-research-project/?p=13

Yes, its a Hobson's choice. Ugandans killed by LRA vs Ugandans killed by the US policy, training arming and selective funding of "rebels" or dictators, depending on which one is the more assiduous ass kisser. Only, the LRA MUST be dealt with and I don't believe that Americans can or will do it. Sorry, I appreciate the sentiment, but I just can't take the role of US as world police seriously anymore.

 

O.K.

The numbers are, to my mind, contentious though. For example why not use this site which documents each recorded civilian death since the invasion and puts the figure at just over 100,000?

And the 500,000 figure is skewed because it includes an estimate of all children under the age of 5 that died while sanctions were in place. 250,000, by the same groups (UNICEF) reckoning, would have died without them. That's very hard to discern without a control group.

The link about Libya only refers to, at most, a couple of hundred deaths relating to NATO strikes. The rest were part of, I presume, the uprising against Gaddafi and the subsequent war. Hardly the US's fault and a price that the Libyans seem willing to pay to get rid of Gaddafi.

I'm not condoning the US's involvement in any of these places just that the numbers seem to be a little disingenuous. :shrug:

 

SAM we've been over this before.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2832417&postcount=245

And independent pictures show that the story you are peddling simply isn't true.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Graphic_photographs_show_bodies_of_civilians_0602.html

They were not executed and their hands weren't bound with handcuffs.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/military_clears_troops_in_ishaqi_incident/

So now you are just lying.

Arthur

 

They weren't US Sanctions, they were UN Sanctions and she clarified that statment SAM, she said it was worth it to use sanctions to try to remove Saddam vs an invasion.

Why must you LIE about everything?

 

Direct quote:

And anyone who followed that incident with people resigning left right and center over the genocide of the kids while Americans kept pressing on for the sanctions, knows exactly whose sanctions they were and how much they had the Iraqi people's welfare at heart.

Israel has nuclear weapons - can you see 500,000 children dying there of sanctions anytime soon?

 

Saddam was ultimately responsible for the economic sanctions, not the US.

 

I know it was a direct quote, but it also was a live interview and she subsequently clarified what she meant by that statement, that the US felt that sanctions were preferable to an invasion.

Why must you LIE in nearly every post SAM?

Arthur

 

You mean after everyone told her what a douchebag she was, she tried to backtrack into truthiness? I'm an "actions speak louder than words" kind of person and the United States was free to take action at any point with regard to the 5000 children dying every month directly due to the US sanctions against them. The combined efforts of the United States of America to save those children of Iraq can be summed up in one word - bupkes

 

Nope, she explained what she meant.
Only pathetic Saddam supporters like you still try to get mileage out of it though.

But as Spidey said, Saddam could have ended the UN Sanctions at any time.