Jump to content

KONY 2012


Sean_R_LFC

Recommended Posts

Just to make it known, Kony shall die.

Well as stated on the campaign's website, they have no intention of killing Kony or anyone else. They're not trying to start a war. Sure that has a higher potential of happeining than just running in and arresting him. But the aim isn't to take him out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a WASTE of my time. I'm Angry, now!

This is a cute propaganda film.

 

So a bunch of potheads and yuppies pose for a grand inspiring picture.

KONY 2012 (sounds like a west coast AM radio station). Where's this guy's Picture.

Those pictureless banners make no impression. Wait, let's make Kony famous by using the illustration of some well known celebrity. WOW, that will get his freatures known.

Kony is invisible, yeah, billboarding a movie stars picture will help get him.

How is that Money you send spent? Does a yard sign buy rations, arms, ammo, trucks, radios, fuel for that soldier who is at risk? Whoopie-Doo, look I got a metal disk and rawhide bracelet.

 

What you need to do if you really care is:

 

Go to Uganda join the militia and hunt him down. 100,000 fit angry young people will do more when you supply your own rifle, ammuntion and equipment as your faithful donation. Don't give your money to some phoney talker.

U.S. Military Advisors did a great job in Viet Nam, and Afganistan, right?

 

Or does organizing a 'Run' or 'Dinner' or maybe a Jazz festival will feed and arm the soldiers who can only give their blood and limbs to do the job.

 

So ... maybe we can all sit at home, eat our chicken, and send in the SEALS.

Edited by lil weasel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to agree with lil weasel and his mature arse, if you guys didn't know, this so-called charity just gives the majority of the money to the Ugandan Army and pockets the rest. The Ugandan Army pretty much recruits children anyway, so they're just as bad as this conehead guy who might even not be in the country anymore. why would anybody want to finance a corrupt country's army in what is essentially a war?

 

probably didnt explain this too well as its not my strong point but i know my intentions.

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Have to agree with lil weasel and his mature arse, if you guys didn't know, this so-called charity just gives the majority of the money to the Ugandan Army and pockets the rest.

I might aswell again post this response from them about the criticism.

 

Note:

 

 

"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."

 

As someone mentioned before, some of the money will end up going to the army, but not directly through the charity. Also they know he isn't in Uganda anymore, but that country still has the strongest support to arrest him.

Edited by SmC12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still don't get why the f*ck they use the term "make him famous", it should be make him "infamous". f*ck all these "political activists" on my facebook are pissing me off.

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, because Russia Today is a viable, unbiased source of information. The "Gold Dinar" theory is widely believed to be an entirely fictitious conspiracy theory, most notably because it's supposed affect on the dollar is, according to any economist your care to mention, somewhere between "extremely unlikely" and "so completely impossible that the entire concept is just laughable". If this is false, then please, go ahead and explain how a new currency would "devastate" the dollar.

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

na89340qv0n34b09q340

Rather than getting angry at one guy, and screaming from your desk chair at one guy, why don't you all donate to causes that prevent things like this from happening?

 

Sure the guys a monster, but he's not as transparent as the child molesters roaming the streets of New York, or Los Angeles, stealing mother's children so that they don't return for dinner. The guys we can't see should be seen before we attack some guy who's probably going to be arrested soon anyways.

 

Just my two cents. smile.gif

 

****Forget all of that****

 

I recently did some research on what this actually was. I was in here blind thinking that Kony was some pedophile in Africa. Garsh, I'm an idiot.

 

Kony is evil, and definitely deserves the worst that could come to him. That's swell that you all understand this, but this invisible children KONY 2012 project is extremely un-realistic.

 

First of all, the guy who created it at least had hopes that it would get the recognition it did. In striving for this recognition and hype he wanted to get his cause to go big. Doing this in the middle of 2012 is fine, but if I understand the video correctly he wants it all finished by December. It took more than a decade to find Bin Laden, and from what I've read/heard Kony is hiding, much like Bin Laden was. Even if he's not as well hidden as Laden, most of the people on the FBI's wanted list, or anyone else who's out of our sights it's still going to take a while to find the guy.

 

Second, the way that the people's attention works doesn't fit very well with how this campaign should work. The people, and even small parts of it like this very forum forget about issues very quickly. How many of you still give a sh*t about the sex trade in Central Eurasia, or the fact that Mexican Drug Cartels are destroying lives in Mexico all the time, and the big boss of the biggest one is at large? I'm sure some of you care, but there's never any mass-hype about it. The public needs to be constantly reminded, or struck really hard on the head to care for even a week.

 

Third, the campaign seems to be whoring itself out to the people who think things like this just work because a bunch of people care. They're grabbing the arm-chair activist's attentions, and they're one of the groups of people that are extremely susceptible to the above problem. They're not doing anything except gathering peoples attention, and while that works pretty well it angers me that it works, and I'm used to writing three-point essays, so adding in a third point made me more comfortable.

 

 

Edited by zoo3891
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clem Fandango
No one can deny taking out Kony would be a positive step

But why? If the LRA is essentially defunct and Kony is basically a fugitive, why is there a huge campaign to track him down? Will it end any of the conflicts in Africa? No. The way awareness spread so quickly though the internet is astounding, but I can't help but feel it's wasted on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read a report about these f*cks. Apparently only 31% of the donated funds go to the actual cause. The rest is for their $1,000,000 in expense for travel, and another cool mill for their film making. I support taking down Kony, but you should really go through a different organization. This was really an ad to line these guys pockets more so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

once again, I never said that resource-security was the "sole" motivator for conflict.

 

and why do I have to answer a question whose answer is glaringly obvious?

war is still expensive and taxing on the nation that pursues it. just because there are plenty of opportunities to go to war for profit doesn't mean that every single one can be pursued. morale of the war-waging country and its citizens plays as large if not a larger role than that of potential resource/monetary gain.

 

duh.

 

You sort of did, though.

no, I sort of didn't.

 

I said it plays a large role in the modern era of international 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?

the fact that we don't always secure the most favorable economic outcome when these conflicts are resolved has much less to do with our military prowess (obviously) than the incompetence we suffer at the highest levels of the Federal government. when your country is stuck in the midst of its own relatively manufactured energy crisis and can only choose between 2 dichotomous extremes (the Loony Left and the Crazy Conservatives) for solutions, you'll find that it's difficult to achieve any of the objectives you originally set out for.

 

China, for instance, has a much easier time attaining most of its economic trade goals because they don't have to dick about with leadership that cannot make up its mind on how to approach long-term fiscal policy. Single-Party Communism for the win!

 

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.

well then, it's a good thing I never suggested that.

 

you can't put words in my mouth to form your counterpoint.

I don't remember saying anything about military intervention having "accelerated" in any sense. if you can find that part and quote it I will yield to your point... but you can't.

 

also, Cold War-era conflicts don't really count.

the country was simply whipped into a socio-politically charged propaganda-frenzy about THE HORRORS OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND SHARED FRUITS OF LABOR by those who were seeking power at the time. that sh*t can happen anywhere at any time assuming the public is gullible enough and still reeling from leftover, displaced patriotic fervor (success in WW2). creating a Boogeyman to spur your country's space program and production of top-secret military contracts doesn't fall into the same category as conventional warfare.

 

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(?)

1.) you're right, the current climate does not allow for safe/efficient extraction of the resources. there's no debating that.

 

2.) withdrawing doesn't mean losing control. it's pretty clear how the US is attempting to ensure that it has considerable political influence (which = economic influence) over whatever type of government is finalized in Afghanistan. whether or not this comes to fruition - given our considerable ineptitude - is yet to be seen. but their aim is fairly apparent.

 

3.) hey you're right again. I never said that the US was necessarily intelligent when it comes to their war-making decision-making. what people don't realize is that profiteering during war isn't always reflected in our GDP. a lot of it has to do with Kingmaking at home in the private sector. it's true that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a quagmire and were not planned with financial efficiency in mind. but these wars have still made plenty of people plenty of money.

 

talk about military operations "accelerating," the military itself has actually shrunk a little while private security contracting has ballooned to a record degree.

someone is making a lot of money. most likely a group of powerful individuals who control an array of paramilitary firms, NGO's, and intergovernment businesses around the world who attempt to align and support each others interests in exchange for further political influence.

 

I find it deeply ironic that you try and lecture me on strategic theory and security policy.

well I apologize for my original tone and how it's perceived.

but in that sense I was only responding to your original tone in kind: "these absurd fallacies need disputing."

if you take a jab, be willing to receive one. that's how the internet works right?

 

anyway, I don't feel the need to explain what makes me an "authority" on the subject because I never claimed to be one.

I used Wikipedia because I couldn't have imagined that anyone would start taking this so seriously. I'm sorry but it was just a fast and simple way to put up information that was sourced (if one was so inclined to look it up). I'm not about to dig up my textbooks and/or gather in-depth primary documents for a discussion on GTA Forums tounge.gif

 

I don't believe my argument has "monolithic, glaring holes" just because you say it does.

so to that point; before I tell you anything else about myself, why don't you tell me what makes YOU an authority on any of this (since you are the one insisting on credentials).

 

that's only fair I suppose.

Edited by El_Diablo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep talking about him on Fecesbook, like what the hell man? I never even heard of him until just two days ago, much like the rest of people I know. This movement is stupid in the sense that it seems like a form of social engineering and armchair activism. Now I hear reports of invisible children being quite invisible to the public. Screw them!

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one can deny taking out Kony would be a positive step

But why? If the LRA is essentially defunct and Kony is basically a fugitive, why is there a huge campaign to track him down? Will it end any of the conflicts in Africa? No. The way awareness spread so quickly though the internet is astounding, but I can't help but feel it's wasted on this issue.

Money, most people don't bother to know that a 'non-profit' makes a profit. It isn't distributed among shareholders, the real profit is in the wages paid to the upper office holders, and the contracted suppliers. Little actualy makes it to the 'need'. I believe the U.S. Treasury (IRS) allows as little as 10%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns N R0se

Hey guys, I'm starting a charity to stop a pedophile in Columbia. If I make a sad video will you send me money too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I'm starting a charity to stop a pedophile in Columbia. If I make a sad video will you send me money too?

Needs more pathos.

23088_s.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad case of myself needs money too, but, again, I'm not a student film-maker, if you make a Documentary with your own kids, and it's semi-pro, maybe, just maybe. The story reports that they have been under fire for legitimacy, but I don't think his capture will end the Wars of the World.

 

The best thing I read about it, though, was with the title and banners, some unsuspecting Citizens will wind up voting the guy in for President in the upcoming US elections!

Edited by Slamman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

arsenal_fan

I feel a bit uneasy that people a blindly giving money/faith to a cause which is going to be pratically impossible to accomplish. I would the bastard is captured or killed but he has been in hiding for nearly 6 years and probably isn't even in Uganda anymore. He is probably in another African country where he is paying another army/mercenary group to keep him safe. No matter how much Invisible Children raise, they are going to have a hard time tracking him down and even if they do, he sounds like a dangerous man and will not go down without a fight.

 

 

What I hope this campaign does though is raise more genourosity towards charities, but I'm going to stick with World Vision and Doctors without Borders thank you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

once again, I never said that resource-security was the "sole" motivator for conflict.

I hate to reiterate myself, but in the terms of interventionism, you did. Twice.

 

 

haven't you ever noticed?

the "civilized" world doesn't bother with issues like this unless there is also a resource/monetary incentive to be had.

 

 

the reason that the international community ignores stuff like this is very simple; lack of oil.

 

and why do I have to answer a question whose answer is glaringly obvious?

war is still expensive and taxing on the nation that pursues it. just because there are plenty of opportunities to go to war for profit doesn't mean that every single one can be pursued. morale of the war-waging country and its citizens plays as large if not a larger role than that of potential resource/monetary gain.

So basically, what your saying is that, despite the wealth of intelligence provisions in both military and economic terms, the threat, though unclear and ill-defined that some of these nations directly or indirectly pose, and the prospect of relative simplicity when it comes to post-conflict management, policy makers pick targets of immediate convenience rather than ones of any strategic value in this "war-for-profit" theory, and therefore don't reap the benefits of any intervention in the same way they could? Doesn't it seem odd to you that these policy makers seem to ignore interventions which, white tenuous or questionable in their motivation, are no more tenuous than some conflicts that Western powers get themselves embroiled in and a damn sight easier from an operational perspective? I mean, if I was the head of a shady government looking to profit from conflict, I'd be looking straight at the Niger Delta region and Algeria, who are both experiencing significant instability caused by terrorist groups related to those directly threatening the West, neither of whom have a strong or competent government or effective armed force, and both of whom have oil reserve and production capability which makes Libya look quite insignificant. Seen as we were seeing violent Islamism coming out of Nigeria even during the aftermath of September 11th, if conflict for profit was the motivation wouldn't they have proved a better target for intervention?

 

 

no, I sort of didn't.

 

I said it plays a large role in the modern era of international conflict.

See above. You claimed, and I quote "the reason that the international community ignores stuff like this is very simple; lack of oil". That may well be hyperbole but you did say it. That quite clearly states that the only motivation for conflict, in your eyes, is oil. True, you do re-specify it as "resource/monetary incentive" but you again repeat the claim that nations do not intervene unless there is a clear, measurable profit. This largely ignores the fact that diplomacy, friendly relations and joint policy are still more important driving forces behind interventionism than resources.

 

 

the fact that we don't always secure the most favorable economic outcome when these conflicts are resolved has much less to do with our military prowess (obviously) than the incompetence we suffer at the highest levels of the Federal government. when your country is stuck in the midst of its own relatively manufactured energy crisis and can only choose between 2 dichotomous extremes (the Loony Left and the Crazy Conservatives) for solutions, you'll find that it's difficult to achieve any of the objectives you originally set out for.

So, basically, it's a combination of incompetent leadership and aggressive, almost militant interventionist policy for individual profit? I've not studied US politics for a long time (though I did a module on US Foreign and Defence Policy since 1950 during my undergraduate, but even that was ever such a long time ago) but I fail to see this combination of factors. For one, the same lack of competence must therefore exist on every level of not only federal government, but also bureaucracy, independent think-tanks (who do more to shape strategic policy than just about any other individual entity) and throughout the executive; and whilst I've been quite critical of the US intelligence agencies and conflict management policy, both on a governmental and a military level, I don't think "universal incompetence" is the reason for this- more, in my view, a lack of cohesive directionality which is the tragic result of a nation where every branch of government is both politically impotent and vastly powerful. Another question strikes me is; if these interventions are being managed for the sole purpose of profit (either from big business or government members) then wouldn't it benefit all sides to ensure the swiftest resolution to the regular elements of armed conflict, the largest response to insurgencies and a far greater focus on post-conflict management than we've seen previously?

 

 

China, for instance, has a much easier time attaining most of its economic trade goals because they don't have to dick about with leadership that cannot make up its mind on how to approach long-term fiscal policy. Single-Party Communism for the win!

Not quite. China conducts its foreign policy by coercion and threats. They're willing to deal with anyone, willing to fund insurgencies and militias if the threat of doing so results in favourable trade, commonly use underhand tactics such as bribery and promotion of corruption at local levels to intimidate individuals and whole communities into making financial concessions or selling property and land at insanely low prices, and they use threats of trade embargoes and the blockading of vital goods to coerce governments into awarding them costly contracts at very low prices. Their foreign-focusing economic policy is pretty unpleasant and underhand, outside of the Western world anyway.

 

But I do agree with you that elected governments tend to mismanage long-term economic policy, for the principal reason that short periods of time between elections mean that little attention is given to long-term economic planning.

 

 

well then, it's a good thing I never suggested that.

you can't put words in my mouth to form your counterpoint.

I don't remember saying anything about military intervention having "accelerated" in any sense. if you can find that part and quote it I will yield to your point... but you can't.

Not explicitly, but certainly implicitly.

 

 

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. 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.

You say that this rule is “more prevalent” in the last 50 years than it was previously. Now, this may be a misinterpretation on my part, but that statement to me suggests the belief that interventionism has become more common in recent years. The reason I make this leap is that conflicts of the last century and before were, when boiled down to their route causes, almost entirely to do with resources. All conflicts whose primary aim is some kind of hegemonic domination are, by and large, resource wars, and these represent the most significant interventions outside of the last 50 years. We’ve not seen that kind of conflict in recent times, leading me to the claim that you, by proxy, are claiming conflict has become more prevalent.

 

 

also, Cold War-era conflicts don't really count.

 

the country was simply whipped into a socio-politically charged propaganda-frenzy about THE HORRORS OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND SHARED FRUITS OF LABOR by those who were seeking power at the time. that sh*t can happen anywhere at any time assuming the public is gullible enough and still reeling from leftover, displaced patriotic fervor (success in WW2). creating a Boogeyman to spur your country's space program and production of top-secret military contracts doesn't fall into the same category as conventional warfare.

What justification do you have for basically saying "let's ignore 50 years of history which has largely defined the geopolitical landscape we see today and seen an individual conflict which has not only outlasted those of the proceeding years by almost a decade, but also costs the lives of several times as many people (I am of course referring to Vietnam, in both the French and US contexts)? The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of military interventionism conducted by the West over the last five decades has been a direct response to a perceived Communist threat. You can debate all you want the validity of that threat, and I’ll gladly agree that most of it was tosh. But you can’t dismiss an entire conflict- much of it, in purely military terms, far more “conventional” than conflicts we are currently seeing- just because it doesn’t fit the pattern of an argument your making. Besides which, you could argue that COIN has become the “conventional” type of conflict for the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.

 

 

2.) withdrawing doesn't mean losing control. it's pretty clear how the US is attempting to ensure that it has considerable political influence (which = economic influence) over whatever type of government is finalized in Afghanistan. whether or not this comes to fruition - given our considerable ineptitude - is yet to be seen. but their aim is fairly apparent.

In this case, it most likely does. Whilst I’ve always been relatively hopeful about the prospects of stability in Afghanistan in the mid-term, it’s not looking likely. The problem is that the government are treated with suspicion by the vast majority of the rural population, whose only real encounters with them have been largely negative. Whilst security has improved to a degree for many, prosperity has not, especially in the wake of campaigns to remove Opium as the crop of choice which have damaged the profitability of individual farmers and isolated communities. You can’t look at Afghanistan as a cohesive nation; more as a loose collaboration of often nomadic tribes with very little influence from central government and a deep-seated suspicion of anyone outside their own ethnic, religious and family group. That’s not going to produce an environment conducive to the production and refinement of resources on any measurable scale, at any time in the future.

 

If there aim is so apparent, then why is it generally only "apparent" to a small number of people, generally with little understanding of politics, international relations or strategic theory? How come it's largely the politically uneducated (or ill-educated) which see these aims, when most political commentators fail to agree with them? That's not a slur on your part, or on the doubtlessly intelligent people who do exist and support these theories- I just find it quite bizarre that they're largely championed- and often formed- by people with little understanding of the subject matter at hand whereas most "experts" (I hate that term) in the area disagree vehemently.

 

If you’re honestly suggesting that the US authorities are so deeply incompetent as to not understand what are in actuality extremely well-known and extensively researched human trends, then I just cannot fathom how you’d believe that they’d be possible of perpetrating a “war-for-profit” strategy on any kind of scale without blundering into oblivion.

 

 

…a lot of it has to do with Kingmaking at home in the private sector. it's true that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a quagmire and were not planned with financial efficiency in mind. but these wars have still made plenty of people plenty of money.

Someone profits from everything. People profited from the Financial Crisis, but that doesn’t mean it was engineered for those people to profit. People have profited from the crisis in the Euro zone, but that doesn’t mean it was engineered for their profit. The fact is that claiming that some people “got rich” from an occurrence is in no way a suggestion that that occurrence was designed for the sole purpose of enabling them to profit. I don’t deny that people and organisations use the results of foreign policy, be it peaceful or otherwise, to fund, support and guide their operations on domestic soil, but that doesn’t implicitly or explicitly mean that these results are engineered solely for that purpose. Without any evidence to substantiate a point like that, I’m afraid it’s pure theory.

 

 

talk about military operations "accelerating," the military itself has actually shrunk a little while private security contracting has ballooned to a record degree.

someone is making a lot of money. most likely a group of powerful individuals who control an array of paramilitary firms, NGO's, and intergovernment businesses around the world who attempt to align and support each others interests in exchange for further political influence.

It’s true that the use of PMC and private security providers has accelerated massively, but that’s been a response to a significant deceleration in state-funded military support and to the increased globalisation of both threats and businesses. But the term “Private Military Contractor” conceals the fact that the vast majority of operations these organisations conduct do not involve direct deployment of armed individual. Far and away the most common use for these organisations is in a training and consultancy role, providing support through intelligence delivery, technical assistance and crisis response capability. Besides, the use of mercenaries in conflict is no more prevalent now than it has been at any other time in history- just more widely understood and scrutinised these days.

 

I also see very little alignment between NGOs, international businesses and PMCs. It doesn’t make the press much (partly because it’s quite boring to most people) but the amount of back-room dealing going on between organisations like these is pretty small, for the simple reason that they’re usually competing for a dwindling market share, thanks to the rise of foreign providers. The rapid growth in the BRIC nations has basically resulted in many organisations like these who are often regarded as colluding with each other becoming increasingly more hostile to each others actions.

 

 

so to that point; before I tell you anything else about myself, why don't you tell me what makes YOU an authority on any of this (since you are the one insisting on credentials).

 

that's only fair I suppose.

An undergraduate degree in International Relations, a master’s in Intelligence Studies, and several years working in various capacities in the defence and security, private intelligence and security consultancy market. I’m currently preparing information and researching for a distance learning PhD whilst working as an information analyst for a small consultancy firm. I’ve extensively studied the strategic theory of recent conflicts; had excerpts from papers I’ve written on counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan earmarked with the potential for publishing in a future book being written by an associate, and most recently been interviewed by The Guardian on the value of developing a single-agency-centric cyber warfare capability to protect critical infrastructure- though whether that will make it into paper I've got no idea.

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

I was just thinking, what if there was a private military contractor that actually went around killing warlords? Won't happen; maybe it's because these activists don't want to actually fight (most that I know are hipsters). They want someone else (US Military) to go get the people they don't like for them.

 

 

*The harsh reality of the campaign is that it sounds a lot like, "Hey Congress. Can you tell the military to capture this guy for us?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was just thinking, what if there was a private military contractor that actually went around killing warlords?  Won't happen; maybe it's because these activists don't want to actually fight (most that I know are hipsters).  They want someone else (US Military) to go get the people they don't like for them.

 

 

*The harsh reality of the campaign is that it sounds a lot like, "Hey Congress.  Can you tell the military to capture this guy for us?"

The laws of war dictate that PMCs (at least, those that act properly) cannot directly involve themselves in proactive military (or military style) operations, only provide reactive support, assistance, training and close support to civilians (not regular armed forces) in areas of increased risk (that's one of the distinctions in definition between a "private military contractor", whom are legal combatants and protected under Protocol Additional GC 1977 of the Geneva Convention, and mercenaries, who are not). The hiring of mercenaries (those who involve themselves proactively in military operations without being sanctioned armed bodies under the command of a nation state) is outlawed in 2001 by the UN Mercenary Convention. So a public sanctioning of a contractor to go around knocking over warlords isn't likely to get far; even if it did, it would leave the individaul responsible for hiring and funding their use open to a trial for War crimes. That said, Executive Outcomes and Sandline International had quite a history of knocking over rebel leaders, on many occasions hired by governments (though these were often authoritarian). Plus there was extensive use of mercenaries sanctioned by all sides (ZIPRA, FROLIZI and FRELIMO most notably) during the Rhodesian conflict in the 1960s and 1970s.

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
I was just thinking, what if there was a private military contractor that actually went around killing warlords?  Won't happen; maybe it's because these activists don't want to actually fight (most that I know are hipsters).  They want someone else (US Military) to go get the people they don't like for them.

 

 

*The harsh reality of the campaign is that it sounds a lot like, "Hey Congress.  Can you tell the military to capture this guy for us?"

The laws of war dictate that PMCs (at least, those that act properly) cannot directly involve themselves in proactive military (or military style) operations, only provide reactive support, assistance, training and close support to civilians (not regular armed forces) in areas of increased risk (that's one of the distinctions in definition between a "private military contractor", whom are legal combatants and protected under Protocol Additional GC 1977 of the Geneva Convention, and mercenaries, who are not). The hiring of mercenaries (those who involve themselves proactively in military operations without being sanctioned armed bodies under the command of a nation state) is outlawed in 2001 by the UN Mercenary Convention. So a public sanctioning of a contractor to go around knocking over warlords isn't likely to get far; even if it did, it would leave the individaul responsible for hiring and funding their use open to a trial for War crimes. That said, Executive Outcomes and Sandline International had quite a history of knocking over rebel leaders, on many occasions hired by governments (though these were often authoritarian). Plus there was extensive use of mercenaries sanctioned by all sides (ZIPRA, FROLIZI and FRELIMO most notably) during the Rhodesian conflict in the 1960s and 1970s.

True, but what does the UN ever do about enforcing these laws? That's why Kony is even a problem to begin with. The U.N.'s authority is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

True, but what does the UN ever do about enforcing these laws?  That's why Kony is even a problem to begin with.  The U.N.'s authority is a joke.

That's the issue with an international organisation which relies on consensus to operate. If it's in the interest of one state whose vote is needed to enforce legislation to veto its application, then the entire process falls apart. That said, there's been quite a lot of work done on combating the use of mercenaries in domestic conflict, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, one of the indictments against Gaddafi in the ICC was the use of mercenaries.

 

The laws on mercenaries wouldn't have affected the actions of Kony in any measurable way. It's hard to apply the legislation to a sub-national group like the LRA because they sit outside the definitions of a state and therefore mercenaries employed by them aren't, under the typical definition, actually mercenaries.

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

I'd say scan the "bush" for heat patterns, they could find him in the day of high-tech....not like 25 years ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say scan the "bush" for heat patterns, they could find him in the day of high-tech....not like 25 years ago

Sh*t, why didn't those 100 trained, military advisors that the US Army sent over there think of that?

 

Get this man a job!

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd say scan the "bush" for heat patterns, they could find him in the day of high-tech....not like 25 years ago

It's not Predator you nonce.

U R B A N I T A S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say scan the "bush" for heat patterns, they could find him in the day of high-tech....not like 25 years ago

It's not Predator you nonce.

Are you so certain?

 

user posted image

4XEtraA.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seriously funny sh*t

Best use of a meme image ever.

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

so the guy is a beast and needs to be found for Criminal Charges and Trial.

If the U.S. Navy SEALS go for him he will be captured and shot to avoid that trial, as they have established as the rule of the day.

 

The country as in many 'third' world areas are run by War Loards with few affected by 'established' Governments.

He's not rebeling against the government so they say. He appears to be more of a 'land pirate'.

 

Mexico has 'bandits' too. Maybe we should aim these efforts to something closer to home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mexico has 'bandits' too. Maybe we should aim these efforts to something closer to home?

Wake me up when they kidnap 30,000 children over the course of 3 decades to use as soldiers and prostitutes.

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

Wake Up! Those kids have guns, right.

How about they turn them around and mutiny? Those kids LIKE what they're doing. the MOB rules. They got food and shelter. They get to bully others. The Ideal situation they have Power doing what they do.

If those kids were in the U.S. they'd be Cripes or Bloods.

 

Horrible things are happening, by our standards, we know that.

Sure it's rough but humans are animals, the weak are always tortured and enslaved. It is just the tribal morals.

 

The Rule of Law only protects those who agree to it, else why do we need cops, judges, etc.

Look at how many 'protective' orders keep people safe.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wake Up!  Those kids have guns, right.

How about they turn them around and mutiny?

Because they're indoctrinated, in many cases through violence, to obey warlords? Because they're actively threatened by their adult superiors? The constant environment of torture, rape, and dehumanising violence? The plying of children with drugs? Essentially random murders of fighters to create a climate of fear?

 

 

Those kids LIKE what they're doing.

That's certainly not the impression you get from most of the interviews conducted with previous child soldiers. Got anything to suggest this is the case other than your own personal and rather bizarre hunches?

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

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.