Jump to content

KONY 2012


Sean_R_LFC

Recommended Posts

Raising awareness for certain issues is fine, but donations to KONI 2012 help fund the Ugandan military. They're not exactly the nicest buch themselves, as they're into the whole rape and pillage thing too.

 

Don't get suckered into something just because of one viral video that exploits your emotions. Look into things before jumping onboard a dubious fad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is basically a response from them about some of the criticism they've recieved. For those who want to know where the money goes, how they handle the campaign etc.

 

 

"We do not defend any of the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Ugandan government or the Ugandan army (UPDF). None of the money donated through Invisible Children ever goes to the government of Uganda."
Edited by SmC12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Triple Vacuum Seal

 

This is basically a response from them about some of the criticism they've recieved. For those who want to know where the money goes, how they handle the campaign etc.

From an accounting perspective, the reiteration of their financial expense breakdown (response to a civilian audit if you will) is still pretty vague. I don't think that the money is wasted, but I don't think they cleared much up in terms of what is happening to the increasing profit (revenue-expenses) shown towards the bottom of the page here ===> http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?...ary&orgid=12429

 

*Hopefully it is being invested (ideally through wealth management services at firms back in the States) to hedge against the reality that everyone who is aware won't donate.

 

 

*Also the money may not directly go to the Ugandan gov't but it goes to convincing law makers in the US to do the same thing (because that's how it usually works). So by way of the transitive property, they kind of are getting money to the Ugandan gov't. (unless they are naive enough to think that this won't happen)

Edited by canttakemyid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long_Haired_Boy

Being an AMERICAN and a HUMAN BEING I find that I have to do a part to bring AWARENESS to Kony and whats been happening in central Africa.

 

You guys debating what legit or not are wasting your time, nothing is perfect on earth.

 

 

 

@oysterbarron

 

Kill yourself, your not funny neither is the joke your Mother and Dad played on mankind. dozingoff.gif

Edited by Long_Haired_Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are those action packs free? And if so where can I get them from, in order to have them sent to me in the UK?

U R B A N I T A S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Triple Vacuum Seal

 

Being an AMERICAN and a HUMAN BEING I find that I have to do a part to bring AWARENESS to Kony and whats been happening in central Africa.

 

You guys debating what legit or not are wasting your time, nothing is perfect on earth.

I'm for this initiative given that I generally look at the big picture but how the hell is questioning/pondering/debating the devotion of military resources (this includes LIVES) in another conflict halfway around the world while in a massive national debt and in a world where every international mobilization of USA military resources is heavily (and violently) criticized in hindsight wasting time?

 

As a human being, I do have regard for human life so that is why I ponder military decisions (life threatening to our troops) whether that decision be right or wrong. Thinking and questioning is always the best thing to do. You don't commit to an unprovoked war overnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long_Haired_Boy

2.5 billion barrels of oil, enough crude to supply all of Uganda's domestic was found last year and recently Obama sent over 100 troops.

 

Ponder this decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2.5 billion barrels of oil, enough crude to supply all of Uganda's domestic was found last year and recently Obama sent over 100 troops.

 

Ponder this decision.

 

its obvious that obama is taking the oil, america has been doing this for years with lots of countries

 

some rich European countries and china have been doing this as well but not as much america

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2.5 billion barrels of oil, enough crude to supply all of Uganda's domestic was found last year and recently Obama sent over 100 troops.

 

Ponder this decision.

A couple of points here

 

1) Uganda's oil reserves are nowhere near 2.5 billion barrels. Most estimates put it at closer to 800 million barrels. Still a sizeable reserve, but significantly smaller than most Asian, Arab and even many European nations.

2) Current exploitation of Uganda's oil reserves is being managed almost solely by Tullow PLC, who are a British company. What interest would the US have in propping up an oil company centred in London who does almost no business in North America? It's not as if the US can profit from it in any measurable way.

3) The issue lies in exploitability. Uganda is still a relatively unstable place, politically and economically. It doesn't yet possess sufficient infrastructure provisions to support widespread oil production networks, and gone are they days when companies are willing to invest heavily in

4) What oil production does occur is catastrophically mismanaged by the Ugandan authorities. Oil contracts have been sold at absurdly low costs by corrupt local government entities who have used the profits to line their own pockets and actively encourage the use of PMCs to displace villagers from their homes, as well as profiting from the burying of hazardous waste in rural areas and the promotion of unsafe working practices. This recent Foreign Policy article discusses it extensively.

 

In relation to earlier comments and discussion (and I hope the prior contribution is enough to dissuade any allegations of topic-derailment)

 

 

1.) guess what?

you're wrong.

I don't think I am. Oil exports of circa 400,000bb/d puts them firmly in the top third of oil producing nations by production quantity. That's only marginally less than Egypt, in a nation about 1/7th the size with around 1/4 of the population. True, it's no Saudi Arabia or even Oman but that's not a negligible quantity of oil and their exploitable reserves are still pretty sizeable- it's only been a lack of foreign investment in comparison to other neighbour states which has seen production drop off in the last two decades.

 

In short, you an I differ on views of what an oil producing nation is, but my point still stands. Surely, if conflict was solely about the securing of natural resources, then one would see more attempts by the US to capitalise on military gain by ensuring lucrative contracts with nations subject to their whims? But recent reality just hasn't borne this out. You also fail to answer my questions on a whole host of other nations that would make prime targets for war-for-profit.

 

 

2.) I didn't say Western intervention was only about oil.

You sort of did, though. By maintaining the same basic argument, whilst failing to address the points I raised about conflicts the US and Western states were involved in that don't have any material significance in this sense, you only continued with your "war for profit" argument; in relation to resources in general.

 

 

the point is that the existence of oil and/or other valuable resources is a MAJOR contributor when it comes to whether or not a country like the US will decide to stick it's nose into a conflict.

If this is the case, how come there is so little evidence of the US in particular capitalising on these conflicts in terms of obtaining favourable trade concessions and deals on resource production and distribution? Why is it always the BRIC nations, and to a lesser extent Europe, who seem to profit from post-conflict management? Exactly what has military intervention in Libya gained the US in material terms, as you allege in your original statement was the motivation?

 

 

this "rule" is more prevalent in the last 50 years than it was the previous century. obviously it wasn't always as important as it is lately.

History disputes this. The vast bulk of US interventionism came during the latter years of the Second World War, and up until the early 1970s- in response to the threat of the Soviet Union. To suggest that there's been any kind of acceleration of US military intervention since this time is an absurd fallacy that has no statistical bearing on reality. Whilst I don't deny that nations do not involve themselves in military operations unless there is some self-interest, either measurable or hypothetical, in doing so, conflict for the purposes of security resources is a very blunt and historically ineffective way of doing what can be done, by proxy, through conflicts with markedly different end-games. There's a significant distinction between engaging in a conflict directly for the gain of resource- all but the most hardened classical realist accepts that the costs of regular conflict are far higher than the financial or economic gains that can be exploited from a conflict itself- but that isn't to say that measurable gains can't be achieved by conflicts designed to bring about changes in political administrations. Though this itself has a checked past, a rational observer can dismiss "conflict for profit" in a mid-high-intensity military involvement for two reasons- firstly, because there's little, if any evidence to suggest that this in any way forms strategic decision-making (if this was the case, you'd see far more emphasis on post-conflict reconstruction than you currently do in most conflicts) and secondly because even if you were to take the motivation of resource gain as a given, the fact that there's not been any significant or measurable resource gain for the US in conflicts of this nature suggests that it's an entirely flawed strategy and therefore is unlikely to be one that's pursued time and time again.

 

 

Afghanistan has less oil than Iraq.

"Less"? Afghanistan isn't even a listed oil producing state. No doubt they have reserves- it would be geographically absurd if a nation of that size did not possess at least some- but there are significant questions about exploitability and the profits. Anyway, what reserves have been identified are already being eyed up by China, who of course have a huge geographical advantage, as well as the advantage of not being directly involved in the conflict and, according to some sources, actually assisting the Taliban.

 

 

and Afghanistan is RICH in more ways than just Black Gold.

I don't deny that Afghanistan has significant mineral wealth in a number of areas. What it seems you fail to understand is that there's an enormous distinction between physical resources and exploitable resources. Tell me, in the current climate in Afghanistan, how many of these untapped mineral resources are actually exploitable? Tell me, if the US and her allies are currently entering a phase of controlled withdrawal from Afghanistan, how can they enact your "war-for-profit" scenario? And tell me, with the conflict in Afghanistan having cost the US $900bn already and two years remaining until the withdrawal process is finalised, how do you expect the nation as a whole to profit, even if they were to directly receive 100% of all the untapped mineral wealth you speak of? If the mineral argument is so compelling, why is so little being done to defend and exploit existing small pockets of production? And how do you suggest that the point of relatively stability required for extensive exploitation, production and use of these raw materials is reached in a climate where troop numbers are actually dropping whilst Accidental Guerilla Syndrome becomes even more common than in previous years?

 

 

this is Economics and Modern Warfare 101. welcome to class.

I find it deeply ironic that you try and lecture me on strategic theory and security policy. Tell me, exactly what gives you any authority on the issue other than a few selectively quoted and hardly-explored Wikipedia articles? Are you incapable of noticing the monolithic, glaring holes in your own argument? I strongly suggest you study significantly more economics, and vastly more strategic theory.

Edited by sivispacem

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Triple Vacuum Seal

 

2.5 billion barrels of oil, enough crude to supply all of Uganda's domestic was found last year and recently Obama sent over 100 troops.

 

Ponder this decision.

Exactly and I came to the conclusion the situation sounds like say....Iraq all over again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.5 billion barrels of oil, enough crude to supply all of Uganda's domestic was found last year and recently Obama sent over 100 troops.

 

Ponder this decision.

Exactly and I came to the conclusion the situation sounds like say....Iraq all over again

It just doesn't, though. I implore you, read my last post.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Oil" is always the reason that people jump to when they only ever take a passing interest in international conflict and want to seem like they know what's *really* going on. Are resources a big factor in some international conflict? Sure, yeah. But is it as pervasive as people think? No. Power, influence and favours are still the favoured currency.

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, I thought the LRA had been essentially quashed in Uganda? I had heard that they had rather diminished in importance and that Kony and his thugs had not been perpetrating as many atrocities in recent years. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Still, the LRA is a backwards, imbecilic organisation and the Christian equivalent of all those Jihadist sects who want to enforce a theocracy on whatever poor country they're leeching off. Ultimately, the worst thing one can say about a man like Kony is that he's boring.

He's not a butcher, he's just a man with no vision, no imagination. A rank-and-file religious extremist. Boring. I wonder if he has any idea how many other zealots litter the world like cockroaches? How many hundreds and thousands of other men engage in the same mundane slaughter, each also thinking that they have a direct line to the magic man in the sky?

And if he does know, why isn't he bored? Why have none of them ever asked why this kind of zealotry never flies in the 21st century?

Deep down they must know how futile this all is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What frustrates me about this is that just because the conflict in Uganda has atrocities perpetrated on both sides, people jump out to denounce the KONY 2012 movement and call it hypocritical, or mock how 'evil' Kony is claimed to be. This is stupid; regardless of whether the government in Uganda is also in the wrong, or if the Invisible Children group put most of their money to salaries and media, this doesn't discount raising awareness for a good cause. No one can deny taking out Kony would be a positive step and strong symbol of the power of popular movement and the internet's role in it today.

 

It wouldn't fix Africa by any means. But every little helps. If you're not on the bandwagon, don't jump on the counter-bandwagon for the sake of it.

U R B A N I T A S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has this campaign been launched because Kony is a Christian? Jihadists have also used child "soldiers" to blow themselves up yet the left constantly rushes to justify such abominations and claim that they wouldn't be sending children off to their deaths if we weren't so judgemental.

Why is it okay for Islamic extremists to kill people but Christian nutjobs are given this whole concentrated attack? Why don't they get the same free pass that the intelligentsia gave bin Laden and all his baby-killing friends?

Maybe if we claim that the anti-Kony campaign is *gasp* neocolonialist, we can get Bono over there to do a benefit gig, raise some money so he and his pals can slaughter more innocent children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Has this campaign been launched because Kony is a Christian? Jihadists have also used child "soldiers" to blow themselves up yet the left constantly rushes to justify such abominations and claim that they wouldn't be sending children off to their deaths if we weren't so judgemental.

Why is it okay for Islamic extremists to kill people but Christian nutjobs are given this whole concentrated attack? Why don't they get the same free pass that the intelligentsia gave bin Laden and all his baby-killing friends?

Maybe if we claim that the anti-Kony campaign is *gasp* neocolonialist, we can get Bono over there to do a benefit gig, raise some money so he and his pals can slaughter more innocent children.

There has been no mention of Kony and the LRA's Christian 'excuse' for their heinous acts in this campaign, so I doubt this is a major factor.

U R B A N I T A S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this was already posted. I can't be arsed to go back a couple of pages confused.gif

 

Friend of mine posted it on facebook. Has some good info in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typhus, I don't think anyone actually holds the views that you just described. I haven't met a single person who has "given Bin Laden a pass". I'm also yet to hear of anyone who has rushed to defend someone who made a child blow themselves up. Yh ok you were using hyperbole, I hope. (although it's hard to tell with you sometimes) but you still seem to live in a distant reality from the things you describe. You always seem to do this. You create a ficticious reality in your head where a bunch of self hating self loathing lefty hippy arsewipes want to destroy everything, and they stick up for all the wrong people just because they are against us. I mean I don't know what you read mate but you just seem to have this view that seems really distorted.

 

I get that you don't like certain parts of the liberal and the left, but you just blow things all out of proportion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typhus, I don't think anyone actually holds the views that you just described. I haven't met a single person who has "given Bin Laden a pass". I'm also yet to hear of anyone who has rushed to defend someone who made a child blow themselves up. Yh ok you were using hyperbole, I hope. (although it's hard to tell with you sometimes) but you still seem to live in a distant reality from the things you describe. You always seem to do this. You create a ficticious reality in your head where a bunch of self hating self loathing lefty hippy arsewipes want to destroy everything, and they stick up for all the wrong people just because they are against us. I mean I don't know what you read mate but you just seem to have this view that seems really distorted.

 

I get that you don't like certain parts of the liberal and the left, but you just blow things all out of proportion.

Distorted? I don't think so. Remember the Beslan school siege? A major paper in this country started defending the female terrorists on the grounds that they were completely brainwashed and so couldn't be held accountable for their actions. The BBC frequently holds Q&A shows in which pathetic Uni students call our soldiers the 'real' terrorists and lament how bin Laden was 'murdered'. Oh, and let's not forget big, brave George Galloway, the darling of the internet activists, who can talk about peace whilst endorsing any number of backwards religious fanatics at the same time.

 

I agree, Kony and his ilk deserve punishment. The worst they can receive, especially considering that miscreant has been so happy to publicise himself whilst glossing over his numerous crimes. But I maintain that he would get a free pass if his sect was Islamic in nature, as opposed to being Christian. A Somalian pirate can kidnap Westerners, threaten to kill them, and we always hear that little voice telling us all these pretty justifications.

 

Over and over and over again, these monsters have had a cheering section in the West. You can't have missed it. Just look for the pot-smoking, atheistic, sex-addicted anarchists who make all these sly excuses for the anti-drug, teetotal, misogynistic, homophobic, religiously intolerant fascists. They're everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, a free pass? I don't think so. If he were an Islamic government, perhaps. But that's not because of Islam, it's the fact that a government committing atrocities is somehow easier for people to stomach.

 

This whole Kony thing seems so surreal to me - why, now, all of a sudden, do people care? You can't look me in the eye and tell me they didn't know this was happening. Everyone knows this is happening. If you don't, you're f*cking deluded.

 

Yet people on my friends lists post this as if it's uncovering some vast conspiracy that they've just stumbled upon. Kony? He's a drop in a much larger, scarier bucket. And nobody is going to do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They went after Ghadafi because he attempted to introduce the African gold dinar that would have almost rendered the American dollar worthless. There is just something about this whole Kony 2012 thing that screams inside job.

 

There must be some sort of alterior motive behind this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They went after Ghadafi because he attempted to introduce the African gold dinar that would have almost rendered the American dollar worthless. There is just something about this whole Kony 2012 thing that screams inside job.

 

inside job.

 

inside job.

 

inside job.

 

There's always always one.

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ulterior.

 

And I'm certain you're joking.

 

 

 

user posted image

 

and thanks for the english lesson, but.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and thanks for the english lesson, but.

And you wrote alterior, which isn't a word.

U R B A N I T A S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll make sure of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.