Kony 2012 is stupid

[Luna]

What do you expect a nation that is landlocked and sits on the equator to produce exactly? We're talking about people who haven't gotten past 'survival' status and whose only interaction with social contracts is from them being force-fed down their throats with little to no understanding.

Exactly, they've become dependant on humanitarian handouts, aid packages and UN mattresses are being sold in market stalls. Instead of trade deals being established, businesses being started up or anything like that, outsiders don't want to commit because of the instability and fear, and the locals feel no need to work.

I don't take the 'force capitalism down everyone else's throat' approach, but the 'Give a man a fish and he's fed for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime' approach. If the West can't provide in the long-term, then Uganda needs development at a more fundamental level.

Which has little to do with Kony, he's in the Sudan

[Rocshi]

Exactly, they've become dependant on humanitarian handouts, aid packages and UN mattresses are being sold in market stalls. Instead of trade deals being established, businesses being started up or anything like that, outsiders don't want to commit because of the instability and fear, and the locals feel no need to work.

I don't take the 'force capitalism down everyone else's throat' approach, but the 'Give a man a fish and he's fed for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime' approach. If the West can't provide in the long-term, then Uganda needs development at a more fundamental level.

Which has little to do with Kony, he's in the Sudan

Before Uganda gained independence, it was completely reliant on Britain.

Then when it got indepence, it had absolutely nothing, because Britain had taken all of their natural resources, and not taught them how to use them.

Uganda kinda needs to be force-fed for a while.

*Dependency theorists yeahhh*

[Nick]

Before Uganda gained independence, it was completely reliant on Britain.

Then when it got indepence, it had absolutely nothing, because Britain had taken all of their natural resources, and not taught them how to use them.

Uganda kinda needs to be force-fed for a while.

*Dependency theorists yeahhh*

If a region or country cannot produce enough to support it's population, I'd rather that they die from disease and famine than helping them. Waste of resources. It's like trying to grow orchids on shifting sand dunes in the middle of the desert. Arguments about having enough food to feed the entire world population is not relevant here.

[Nick]

We should not expect anything from them. Let them go through our 18th and 19th century.

The changes that we often expect from them are not the changes that they need yet. Accelerated changes without a sufficiently stable foundation will only lead to collapse. It takes time for a society to progress and evolve.

Leave them be. My only hope is that they learn from our past mistakes. But even this is fantasy. Developing countries often tread the same destructive path developed countries have gone through.

[creedkingsx]

We should not expect anything from them. Let them go through our 18th and 19th century.

The changes that we often expect from them are not the changes that they need yet. Accelerated changes without a sufficiently stable foundation will only lead to collapse. It takes time for a society to progress and evolve.

Leave them be. My only hope is that they learn from our past mistakes. But even this is fantasy. Developing countries often tread the same destructive path developed countries have gone through.

It isn't a societal issue for them. It's a, there is an army of people killing everyone. The German army started attacking bitches around them, Europe didn't handle that on their own. North Vietnam started taking over South Vietnam, they needed more help than what we could give them. This isn't a matter of a country developing, it is a matter of a civil war that will lead to the death of many lives without the need for all the deaths.

[Nick]

It isn't a societal issue for them. It's a, there is an army of people killing everyone. The German army started attacking bitches around them, Europe didn't handle that on their own. North Vietnam started taking over South Vietnam, they needed more help than what we could give them. This isn't a matter of a country developing, it is a matter of a civil war that will lead to the death of many lives without the need for all the deaths.

I suspect matters are not so straightforward. In this case, I believe it's more of proxy war between Sudan and Uganda over supposed oilfields.

But well, civil wars are rife in Africa. Ethic and religious tension are high. Warlords and countries are vying for influence. Governments are corrupt and inefficient. Basic human right records are horrendous.

Uganda is just one of them. And LRA is basically almost wiped out anyways. Too late for military intervention. As for the rest? Whom should we support? What kind of support? Military intervention or ceasefire discussion? For military intervention, in some cases it is clear whom to side with. In others, vague.

As for your needless deaths, I quote Necrolord!

I just illustrated the barbaric nature of their tribal system, which is where Joseph Kony's war crimes comes from. Here's how to make it worse:

GIVE THE FUCKERS GUNS!

That pretty much summarizes why Africa have had so many civil wars. You give tribal nutcases wealth, power, and guns, and they're going to turn into complete monsters.

Tell that to your countries and their corporate paymasters. Stop selling guns to them. Also, stop buying those bloody resources that fund the wars. But too late anyways. Damage is already done. And I doubt that your countries are willing to stop the practice of selling weaponry to them and buying their bloody resources in return. Too profitable. I don't think any country will bother forcing a ceasefire, unless resource production was delayed by the civil wars, or they stopped buying weaponry from and selling resources to the said country.

Devour the weak, stupid and incompetent. Real life! And wars are supposed to be profitable in the long run.

[Nick]

It isn't a societal issue for them. It's a, there is an army of people killing everyone. The German army started attacking bitches around them, Europe didn't handle that on their own. North Vietnam started taking over South Vietnam, they needed more help than what we could give them. This isn't a matter of a country developing, it is a matter of a civil war that will lead to the death of many lives without the need for all the deaths.

By the way, your perspective of war is warped. From your post, I suppose you are from the US. Taking sides during a civil war DO NOT reduce war casualties. It will only make the war worse, inviting rival countries to join in directly or indirectly. Forcing a ceasefire in the other hand might make you the target for both sides instead. No one will get involved in wars unless it's to safeguard their interests. Yes. WWII and Vietnam War included.