KONY 2012 - Arrest kidnapper and warlord Joseph Kony

[Siatdiat]

KONY 2012? I have never heard of this Republican candidate before but based on what I have read he may be too moderate for the primary voters

I'm laughing so hard I'm crying.

[Indeed]

I compare it to Iraq specifically, because I see the most parallels between these two situations, and also because Iraq is freshest in my mind since it was most recent. We are waging war on a guerrilla group that is not just fighting for control of land/resources, but in the name of God. We are hunting a single man across multiple nations that are constantly warring with one another. And again, we are ignoring the reality of their culture if we choose to intervene. The very basis of our intervention is that this person commits atrocities, which is a pretty popular method of achieving results in this particular region of the world. Choosing to insert ourselves into the business of others is a decision I would base on the results that we are capable of achieving. I don't see it as anything but a waste of resources to attack a hydra. We lop off Kony's head today, and tomorrow even more resistance groups spring up in his absence. Indeed, that's pretty similar to how Kony came to be a powerful man to begin with. One regime ends, several groups representing various points of view now have room to exist in its place. Overall it just seems pointless to me, when ultimately little will be gained by the population we're seeking to help, and we stand to lose quite a bit ourselves.

[miokomioko]

Invisible Children's John Beaton replied to most of the points brought up against them in that "Visible Children" blog post:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-...50614970287933

[Alleya]

Has this been posted? idk

Spoiler: show

[Alleya]

Also, this should be a requirement before anyone posts about Kony:



(thanks reddit)

[archibaldcrane]

damn, i was close!

[Yugl]

I compare it to Iraq specifically, because I see the most parallels between these two situations, and also because Iraq is freshest in my mind since it was most recent. We are waging war on a guerrilla group that is not just fighting for control of land/resources, but in the name of God. We are hunting a single man across multiple nations that are constantly warring with one another. And again, we are ignoring the reality of their culture if we choose to intervene. The very basis of our intervention is that this person commits atrocities, which is a pretty popular method of achieving results in this particular region of the world. Choosing to insert ourselves into the business of others is a decision I would base on the results that we are capable of achieving. I don't see it as anything but a waste of resources to attack a hydra. We lop off Kony's head today, and tomorrow even more resistance groups spring up in his absence. Indeed, that's pretty similar to how Kony came to be a powerful man to begin with. One regime ends, several groups representing various points of view now have room to exist in its place. Overall it just seems pointless to me, when ultimately little will be gained by the population we're seeking to help, and we stand to lose quite a bit ourselves.

Huh? Other examples work just as well. Japan's belligerency was fueled by religious beliefs about the emperor and Japanese blood. Nationalism isn't that far off from the sort of belligerence that religion espouses either. It's not a uniquely defining point. Ignoring the reality of their culture? By your justification, no one should do shit about anything. After all, we can just say that any circumstance that arises such as financial collapse, banks stealing money, ethnic cleaning, concentration camps, and torture are all just "culture." Whatever the fuck that means. Your hydra argument isn't convincing either. First, you conveniently overlooked the concessions argument and repeated your earlier claim. Did we completely eliminate the Nazi? No, they still exist. It's one of those concessions we make. We don't need perfect outcomes. Second, the term "hydra" is conveniently applied to any situation where the outcome is uncertain. In almost no circumstance can you say "Someone else will not take up with the mantle" with absolute proof.

[Demosthenes11]

damn, i was close!

I chose Kenya

soclose.jpeg

[Demosthenes11]

I want to punch everyone in my fb feed in the face. "It's a shame that so many people won't do anything about this!" "Everyone watch this: Educate yourself!" "I donated, did YOU?"

fucking christ

[Blarg]

This is Uganda, most people don't realize it's so far north. We need to bomb them.
http://www.kids-online.net/world/maps/iraq.gif

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Has this been posted? idk

Spoiler: show

that was awesome

[Demosthenes11]

This is Uganda, most people don't realize it's so far north. We need to bomb them.
http://www.kids-online.net/world/maps/iraq.gif

nice try dick cheney

[Blarg]

nice try dick cheney

I like you, would you like to go hunting with me?

[Niiro]

They don't call him Tricky Dick for nothin.

Spoiler: show

...............er, wait a sec

[Correction]

This thread taught me that there really was a General Butt Naked.

[ronin sparthos]

Let's go after Kony, it helps us wash down the problems lurking within our own borders.

[Indeed]

Huh? Other examples work just as well. Japan's belligerency was fueled by religious beliefs about the emperor and Japanese blood. Nationalism isn't that far off from the sort of belligerence that religion espouses either. It's not a uniquely defining point. Ignoring the reality of their culture? By your justification, no one should do shit about anything. After all, we can just say that any circumstance that arises such as financial collapse, banks stealing money, ethnic cleaning, concentration camps, and torture are all just "culture." Whatever the fuck that means. Your hydra argument isn't convincing either. First, you conveniently overlooked the concessions argument and repeated your earlier claim. Did we completely eliminate the Nazi? No, they still exist. It's one of those concessions we make. We don't need perfect outcomes. Second, the term "hydra" is conveniently applied to any situation where the outcome is uncertain. In almost no circumstance can you say "Someone else will not take up with the mantle" with absolute proof.

If there's a particular point that you want to make by comparing this situation to other wars, then make it already. If it's all similar, then it's all similar. If it's not, explain why not and let me make a counterpoint because I don't get where you're trying to lead me here. Just state your case plainly.

We didn't eliminate Nazi ideals, but we were able to effectively crush the third reich. We removed their leader, we imposed sanctions on the nation, we occupied their country. We still have bases in Germany to this day. When we did that, we put a stop to the genocide that was occurring in the region. The holocaust ended when Germany fell; it didn't just have people set up shop down the street to keep churning out atrocities. This is where I see a difference in Africa. What we're doing is jumping right into the middle of a giant civil conflict shitstorm, where every single state within Africa is guilty of using child soldiers. That's something that everyone there, not just the LRA, does. All the time. For decades. They're not even the only militia group currently active on the continent of Africa that is comprised of child soldiers. As far as I know, Nazi Germany did not have quite that kind of historical backing. Their ethnic cleansing bullshit wasn't something that generations and generations of people had been exposed to, and resorted to at every turn when there was political turmoil.

Africa is a quagmire of unstable governments, who are not going to become more stable by our military intervention. This isn't solving any kind of problem. What I'm saying, and what you keep ignoring, is that in order to make a lasting change, we will have to have continued involvement in the situation for a variety of reasons. Not least of which, is because there are other child soldier militias operating within this region. What on earth is stopping them from simply recruiting the remnants of this force once their leader is gone? If we don't stay behind to continue our legacy of nation building, then Africa gives us absolutely zero reason to believe that they will become capable of ruling themselves in a just and relatively atrocity-free manner, because they have never been capable of doing so. The whole reason that this man even has power is due to him rising up during a revolution and deciding to be a resistance force against the new regime. Why would history not repeat itself, given that the government is no more fit to police its rebels now than it's ever been before?

What I'm trying to understand here is how removing this one single aging leader is going to thwart anyone or fix anything. What I really want to know is what this will accomplish. In a plain, concise statement, I want a concrete answer of what exactly this is going to do.

And the hydra comparison is made because there are actually several other radical militia style groups vying for power in Africa. It's not a matter of waiting years to possibly see a successor on the horizon for Africa; it's actively eliminating the competition to make way for people who already exist.

We must just fundamentally disagree here. I think Africa is pretty much fucking doomed on their own. There's no way that they can possibly hope to get their shit straight without international assistance, because they are just weak, for lack of a better word. They have weak, corrupt governments that aren't capable of doing jack shit. There are a couple of exceptions to this rule, but most of it is pretty much just utterly at the whim of whatever warring faction wants to rape and pillage the village today. I just don't see the point in spending big bucks scooping this one droplet of piss out of the olympic swimming pool of piss that is Africa, because there's still a giant pool of piss when you're done. We're not draining the pool, we're just skimming the top occasionally and patting ourselves on the back for having done so.

[Mazmaz]

[Yuri-G]

This thread taught me that there really was a General Butt Naked.

watch the vice documentary if you haven't (it's on youtube). fucking awesome, as all of them are.

[Yugl]

Spoiler: show

If there's a particular point that you want to make by comparing this situation to other wars, then make it already. If it's all similar, then it's all similar. If it's not, explain why not and let me make a counterpoint because I don't get where you're trying to lead me here. Just state your case plainly.

We didn't eliminate Nazi ideals, but we were able to effectively crush the third reich. We removed their leader, we imposed sanctions on the nation, we occupied their country. We still have bases in Germany to this day. When we did that, we put a stop to the genocide that was occurring in the region. The holocaust ended when Germany fell; it didn't just have people set up shop down the street to keep churning out atrocities. This is where I see a difference in Africa. What we're doing is jumping right into the middle of a giant civil conflict shitstorm, where every single state within Africa is guilty of using child soldiers. That's something that everyone there, not just the LRA, does. All the time. For decades. They're not even the only militia group currently active on the continent of Africa that is comprised of child soldiers. As far as I know, Nazi Germany did not have quite that kind of historical backing. Their ethnic cleansing bullshit wasn't something that generations and generations of people had been exposed to, and resorted to at every turn when there was political turmoil.

Africa is a quagmire of unstable governments, who are not going to become more stable by our military intervention. This isn't solving any kind of problem. What I'm saying, and what you keep ignoring, is that in order to make a lasting change, we will have to have continued involvement in the situation for a variety of reasons. Not least of which, is because there are other child soldier militias operating within this region. What on earth is stopping them from simply recruiting the remnants of this force once their leader is gone? If we don't stay behind to continue our legacy of nation building, then Africa gives us absolutely zero reason to believe that they will become capable of ruling themselves in a just and relatively atrocity-free manner, because they have never been capable of doing so. The whole reason that this man even has power is due to him rising up during a revolution and deciding to be a resistance force against the new regime. Why would history not repeat itself, given that the government is no more fit to police its rebels now than it's ever been before?

What I'm trying to understand here is how removing this one single aging leader is going to thwart anyone or fix anything. What I really want to know is what this will accomplish. In a plain, concise statement, I want a concrete answer of what exactly this is going to do.

And the hydra comparison is made because there are actually several other radical militia style groups vying for power in Africa. It's not a matter of waiting years to possibly see a successor on the horizon for Africa; it's actively eliminating the competition to make way for people who already exist.

We must just fundamentally disagree here. I think Africa is pretty much fucking doomed on their own. There's no way that they can possibly hope to get their shit straight without international assistance, because they are just weak, for lack of a better word. They have weak, corrupt governments that aren't capable of doing jack shit. There are a couple of exceptions to this rule, but most of it is pretty much just utterly at the whim of whatever warring faction wants to rape and pillage the village today. I just don't see the point in spending big bucks scooping this one droplet of piss out of the olympic swimming pool of piss that is Africa, because there's still a giant pool of piss when you're done. We're not draining the pool, we're just skimming the top occasionally and patting ourselves on the back for having done so.

Now you're just switching your argument. You began by saying we shouldn't intervene, but are now saying that we must have sustained intervention. I explained quite clearly that we agree on the effectiveness of the video. I explained quite clearly that your attempt to take an existential fact to make a universal claim is a mistake. I've explained that accepting "culture" is a bullshit justification. I've explained that your obsession with needing to completely abolish all threats is flawed and on par with the war on violence. Lastly, I clearly explained that "hydra" is pointless because it fails to distinguish intervention in this circumstance from worthwhile intervention. As a passing comment, look to early/mid 1900s Pacific conflict (China/Korea/Japan) since you claim other examples pose too much of a difference.

Your latest claim, that Africa will not sustain itself, to the degree you find desirable, without intervention, is agreeable. However, it is not a position I would sustain using your original arguments.