Please explain to me how this:
Thats right, I help. What I dont do is hold a gun to a starngers head and force him to help and then act like I am the paragon of liberty and freedom.
Is not a strawman? Because I'm not seeing it.
B) What are you blathering on about, Citizen Spalding? Not so much the situation itself, but the stuff about taking your ball and going home, being intellectually dishonest and quite frankly childish? I mean, it would be one thing if Whiteknife was advocating tax resistance (which would be pretty cool, actually) or smashing imperialism (but, alas, I am the only who does that--Smash imperialism! Vive le Galt!) but since he isn't, what are you blathering about?
My understanding is he somehow has it in his head that he's being 'forced' to help and he doesn't like it.
The only way that could be even mildly true is if he doesn't back the government action against Kony. In which case he could say he is being coerced to help when he doesn't want too, and 'we' (the people wanting to have the government help) are wrong for 'making' him help.
If this is not in fact the argument he is trying to make then I'm not sure what he's trying to say with the
What I dont do is hold a gun to a starngers head and force him to help and then act like I am the paragon of liberty and freedom.
which seems to be completely off base to me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Government has never asked my opinion on helping the Contras, invading Grenada, Panama and Desert Storm (even though I was in the army at the time), Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, bombing Libya, etc. when do they do that? They just do what they do. Kony's been around for a while, no one cared until they found oil in Uganda. Whatever. Sounds like "same old, same old" to me.
My understanding is he somehow has it in his head that he's being 'forced' to help and he doesn't like it.
The only way that could be even mildly true is if he doesn't back the government action against Kony. In which case he could say he is being coerced to help when he doesn't want too, and 'we' (the people wanting to have the government help) are wrong for 'making' him help.
If this is not in fact the argument he is trying to make then I'm not sure what he's trying to say with the
What I dont do is hold a gun to a starngers head and force him to help and then act like I am the paragon of liberty and freedom.which seems to be completely off base to me.
I believe he was referring to the message of the Kony 2012 video, but I'll let him speak for himself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A) Did Museveni tip well, Citizen HD?Better than Bill Gates, not as well as Patti LaBelle.
Good ol' Patti.
Like I said way back when, I loved the first 18 minutes of the video. That how American foreign policy should be. It doesnt have anything to do with national security? Then the people who want to affect change should pool their resources, and devote their time, money, and energy to directly affect said change. Hell, buy aks and head over there. You can do that, and if you do, bully for you! Youre making a positive impact on the world!
After the 18 minute mark, the video switched from emphasizing personal activism to lobbying lawmakers into keeping/expanding the advisory force we have there. That is wrong imo. The military is traditionally (and should go back to) used for self-defense purposes only. The military is mostly poor kids looking for an education and who sign up to defend our nation. Iraq, Lybia, Kony, Korea, etc etc etc is not defending our nation. When lawmakers decide to put our military at risk for purposes that are NOT national security, they are taking our money and children. That is forcing people to help, hence the gun to a strangers head analogy.
Government has never asked my opinion on helping the Contras, invading Grenada, Panama and Desert Storm (even though I was in the army at the time), Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, bombing Libya, etc. when do they do that? They just do what they do. Kony's been around for a while, no one cared until they found oil in Uganda. Whatever. Sounds like "same old, same old" to me.
And I doubt they'll directly ask for mine -- and that's alright. If it's important to you then you have to take a pro-active stance and tell them how you feel on it.
Our government isn't one that's based on being passive -- the passive lose, if you want something to happen (or not happen) you have to be active. Which means telling your elected officials how you feel on subjects and finding out how they feel on those subjects and then voting accordingly.
Doing otherwise is like setting back when your friends are discussing what to eat for dinner, not speaking up and then getting huffy because your opinion wasn't heard and they are planning to eat somewhere you don't want to go.
Like I said way back when, I loved the first 18 minutes of the video. That how American foreign policy should be. It doesnt have anything to do with national security? Then the people who want to affect change should pool their resources, and devote their time, money, and energy to directly affect said change. Hell, buy aks and head over there. You can do that, and if you do, bully for you! Youre making a positive impact on the world!
After the 18 minute mark, the video switched from emphasizing personal activism to lobbying lawmakers into keeping/expanding the advisory force we have there. That is wrong imo. The military is traditionally (and should go back to) used for self-defense purposes only. The military is mostly poor kids looking for an education and who sign up to defend our nation. Iraq, Lybia, Kony, Korea, etc etc etc is not defending our nation. When lawmakers decide to put our military at risk for purposes that are NOT national security, they are taking our money and children. That is forcing people to help, hence the gun to a strangers head analogy.
So lobbying and trying to get people to have their lawmakers do something is wrong? It's the same argument the GOP is currently using to try and say that employers should be able to force their religious beliefs on their employees.
I don't buy it in the least.
However -- feel free to push this further into the light if you want and campaign for it -- just like they are campaigning against the idea that we shouldn't get involved.
Because then you'll be doing the exact same thing in reverse.
@HD--Yeah, I'd been meaning to ask you that way back when the Occupy thread was going on--how does that work? I've never heard of "not protesting" being a probation requirement before.
Comrade, I, like Cindy Sheehan and Ron Paul actually do advocate tax resistance as a form of protest. Not as a take my ball and go home thing, but as a means of non-violent protest. And, of course I am against Imperialism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize for unconciously belittling your commitment to Sparkle Motion, Comrade Knife.
Smash imperialism! Vive le Galt! F~#* Ron Paul sideways with a shovel!
(In-joke for WK and I, don't get in a huff Ron Paul supporters.)
|
|
@HD--Yeah, I'd been meaning to ask you that way back when the Occupy thread was going on--how does that work? I've never heard of "not protesting" being a probation requirement before.
I can't do anything that might get me arrested. I was told specifically to stay away from "Occupy Houston", for one.
@ houstonderek -- Makes sense from a "CYA" perspective.
Yes, lobbying is wrong, when what you are lobbying for is to take other people's money and children and throw them at something that they didnt sign up for!
Like I said, I have no problem with trying to go out and getting people to sign up and give of their money and time to end this madman. In fact, I think its great and the right way to go about it. As for whether you buy it or not, I no longer care. you will assign me a motive as you see fit and then condemn that motive. Because I guess now you assume that Im all for the GOP blocking contraceptives or whatnot (btw, how is THAT not a strawman?) Im done with you, good day sir, have fun pressuring lawmakers into sending other peoples children off to a far-away land to kill and be killed for something that YOU believe in.
"Volunteer" -- they did sign up for it, so have I. I took that oath to obey the orders of the president of the USA and defend the constitution from all enemies both external and internal.
Much like being a part of society that doesn't mean I can just decide that I don't like what society is doing, still get the biggest bulk of the benefits and then not pay my share.
Which is exactly what you are advocating -- you are saying it's wrong to do exactly what this nation is set up to do: Allow advocating for a cause and letting the nation decide to pursue it or not.
I'm not saying you stand with the GOP in blocking contraceptives only that you are using the same tortured logic as they are -- that we can't force employers to go against their religion to provide for their employees (which in their case means allowing the employer to force his religious beliefs on the employees).
You are saying that the nation can't force you to do something, but you can force the nation to not do something.
@ houstonderek -- Makes sense from a "CYA" perspective.Yeah, but it sucks, I was pretty active in a lot of things before I went on vacation.
Well I don't know the details (and don't need to) but I hope that it works out for the best.
Where?! where have I said that I can force the nation to do anything or should be able to?!? where? I beg of you, tell me where? You wanna talk straw men, well heres one big one. Point to me where?! All I ask is that we think about what it is that we are asking when we lobby for troops to be sent somewhere. You took an oath to the constitution? The one that states Congress (only) may declare war? That constitution? Yeah, volunteers didnt sign up to be flung around the world being the world police.
Tell me how we are 'forcing' anyone to do anything -- you keep repeating this but it's patently false. Either they volunteered for everything service is or the didn't. Are you going to claim we conscripted the armed forces? Once they volunteered they obey the president, who with congresses permission has sent a small number (100) to help in the capture of Kony with explicit invitation from the other countries involved.
-------------------
You are directly stating that you do not want the government sending troops overseas at all. That we should not and can not be the world police (which isn't what we are doing either -- you are completely misconstruing what is happening in this case) -- you are directly saying what the government can and cannot do which is telling it what to do.
Inaction is action -- you are advocating a position that would force inaction (that the military not be used overseas).
That in and of itself is you forcing your opinion on the nation -- just as me advocating for helping in the capture of Kony is forcing my opinion on the nation to help.
Yoou are correct in that I am advocating it. Nothing else. I said that in my opinion, its wrong. I dont see what has you so up in arms about it. And why you cant wrap your head around that sending troops is forcing everyone in the US to help. Its force because A) it costs money, which hits the people in the form of taxes, inflation, or the fact that the money could be spent on something directly beneficial and B) It would take soldiers which is force because the soldier doesnt have a choice but to go.
Now you tell me why I should not be entitled to my opinion.
Not at all -- but I'm pointing out your advocating not doing something is exactly the same thing as someone else advocating doing something.
The fact you can't see that is astounding to me.
Advocate the position all you want -- I'm down with that, just don't tell me it isn't what it is: advocating to force the government to do or not do something.
Which is what you *should* do as part of your civic duty.
I disagree with you on the substance of what you say but not your right to say it.
I simply want to be sure you understand that when you claim they are forcing people into things and you don't stand by that you are in fact doing the exact same thing by forcing people to not do things.
Think about this for a minute -- they want their tax dollars going to do this. You are in effect telling them they can't use their resources (government) to do what they want those resources to do. Primarily because part of your resources are mixed up in there too.
So what we have here (basically) are two stock holders in opposition on what to do with the company.
You are advocating to fall to the lowest common denominator.
No, Close, but still wrong. I have never once called for the use of force to make people not do anything. i stated that I think the use of the military is wrong, but I in no way advocated the stoppage of people from helping. Its a false equivalence. Forcing people (government is a monopoloy of force) to pay for/die for a cause =/= suggesting that they do it themselves, while doing nothing to stop them from petitioning said government. But thats just picking nits.
So you just want to say it's wrong and do nothing about it then.
I guess for some people it's okay to hand money to the guys who do the same despicable things as the person they are payed to kill, because the person they're sent to kill is a bad man.
What can I do? I cannot force people to do nothing ( nor would I want to, as Ive said many times, I think the first 18 minutes were great) but I do not own the monopoly on force. And our government has already proven to be very pro-world police. So I do what Ive already done: to try and make sure that people know what it is that they are asking: to send other people's blood and treasure for THEIR cause.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's our job to get rid of every bad person on Earth, we have our work cut out for us. People -- even mean people -- reproduce faster than we can possibly kill them off, short of just nuking the entire planet. At some point we need to stop intervening against every dictator on Earth, until one of them actually becomes a direct and verifiable threat to us.
I disagree, at some point you have to take a stand.
However if we as a country are going to start playing Paladin, then we need to stay playing Paladin. Not play that part when it might suit our needs or public opinion has been adjusted to fit our current political needs.
TheWhiteKnife -- I just want to say that over all I like you. I like that you are introspective enough to really consider these things. I feel you have a great basis for building up many wonderful ideas and then refuse to pick up the pieces because you feel you can't act.
I think this is because you have mistaken the roots of libertarianism and praxeology (the basis for libertarian thought) as some form of philosophy or moral frame work, which it isn't.
I offer the following links for your reading and future thoughts:
I don't mind a principled stand -- but that requires actually making a stand, otherwise it's nothing but noise in the way of progress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also love how often people can talk about how totally righteous they are. If you don't pay attention to where you're throwing that money; you could very well be funding the same kind of evils that you despise (funding a military that kidnaps and rapes to hunt down a man for kidnapping and raping). I find it more interesting that there are so very many people who are willing to toss money to other countries yet are also unsympathetic to the poverty within their own country. I think has something to do with "Third World" and "First World". If you're in a "First World" country, you're just not trying hard enough, but if you're in a "Third World" country you are dependent on that money. Never try to improve a person, just give them stuff; that's the first world way.
|
It has already been stated by several organizations who look at charity groups and such and track where the money goes... to show that these "invisible children" scum bags are making far more than they are donating along with giving the money to the ugandan government, which also is also known for using child soldiers and murdering families of said children. So please if you care write a letter to your senator that we need to send troops into that hell hole, which we do not have troops in force there at present. Nothing short of a s$#~load of firepower is the only way we will ever fix places like that.
Both sides are bad! Do nothing!
No. Now yes the Ugandan government has done wrong -- you know who else has done wrong? Everyone on the planet. You don't sit idle simply because you can't correct every wrong in the world. You work one step at a time until you have done all you can, and then you reach further.
Okay, so this topic came up at another site I'm a member of, and I'm lazy tonight so I'm just gonna copy/paste my Kony rant here.
First: Ugandan blogger and journalist's response to Kony 2012. Also, African voices respond to Kony 2012. I think it's very important that we listen to these responses, as these are people who are more familiar with the current situation, and are more likely to be directly affected by this campaign. One comment in the second link mentioned that Uganda was rated as a good tourist destination; how will this campaign effect the Ugandan tourist industry? (Hint: it probably won't be good for tourism.) How is that going to effect the Ugandan economy as a whole?
I've read a lot of criticisms about this video and the Kony 2012 campaign in general, and they raise many valid points. It's not all bad; War Child pointed out that the reason why people are aware of Kony and the situation in Uganda is because of Invisible Children and this video. The problem is that they're five or six years too late.
In 1986, the government of Tito Okello (who was Acholi, an ethnic group from northern Uganda) was kicked out by the army of Yoweri Museveni (from SW Uganda), and Museveni's been in power ever since. Thanks to British colonization, northern Ugandans traditionally dominated the military, while the south benefits economically because they could better produce the cash crops the Brits wanted. Now that a southerner was in power, the north was worried they'd lose their military dominance, and they were concerned that the new government would punish the north for supporting the old government. Enter Kony and the LRA.
That's all really simplified, but it's important backstory. The LRA has been around since 1987- 25 years. Furthermore, Museveni isn't exactly a nice guy, either. He did garner some international support upon taking power; he embraced capitalism (he was a Marxist, originally; remember, the Cold War was still going on in '86) and things did improve in the country: things improved economically, there was some stability, and his government saw one of the most effective HIV/AIDs responses on the continent. Well, actually, southern Uganda saw improvements; the north most definitely did not. Museveni's National Resistance Army (NRA) attacked citizens in the north, including an incident in Gulu in 1988, where 100, 000 people were forced form their homes, which were then burnt down. There were some reports of torture. The NRA, like the LRA, has been known to use child soldiers. Oh, and this is the same government that made homosexuality a capital crime not too long ago. While elections have been held, their legitimacy has been contested, and there have been accusations of electoral fraud. Uganda's constitution set a two-term limit for presidents, and Museveni pulled a Putin and amended the constitution so he could run again. (Well, more like Putin pulled a Museveni, but more people know who Putin is.)
tl;dr? Museveni, his government and his army are corrupt, and they're not very nice, especially to people who live in northern Uganda.
Now, I didn't know any of this until the video went viral, so in that sense, good job, Invisible Children, awareness has been raised. People know who Kony is... but apparently not who Museveni is, nor the reason why the LRA formed in the first place. Conflicts like this one are complicated, and there's always more than one side to things. Bad on IC for failing to understand that.
Also bad on IC for not doing their research. For one thing, Kony hasn't been in Uganda for five or six years. The LRA's been in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and Sudan/South Sudan. People in northern Uganda have been rebuilding, and things in the region have stabilized. Except, whoops, now the pressure is back on Kony, which could actually strengthen his otherwise defeated army. IC is pushing for military action to capture Kony, and that could really cause problems in the DRC; their president, Joseph Kabila, likely won't allow foreign troops into his country. (Kabila? Also not a nice guy.) IC also works with the Ugandan government, which I've already established isn't very nice to people in the north, the very people IC claims its trying to save.
And that brings me to my next point, and this is something that's been irritating me since the beginning: the attitude that Invisible Children and people in western countries stepping in to "save" the poor people in Africa. 'Cause, you know, when the west steps in to take some evil guy out, things always get better. (Except when they don't.) We don't have a very good track record in Africa: there are the obvious problems resulting from colonization, and Africans have every right to distrust the west for that. More recently, though, there's the failed mission in Somalia in 1992 or '93 (and some Canadian soldiers beat a Somali boy to death and took pictures of it, something we're not proud of), which set the stage for a half-arsed intervention in Rwanda that failed to stop the resulting genocide in '94, we pretty much ignored to genocide in Darfur, and does anyone remember the really bad famine in the Horn of Africa last year? (I do, but it didn't get a lot of attention.) And those are just the failures I can list off the top of my head, without needing to look anything up. Why is Invisible Children pushing for military intervention in Uganda? Most importantly, why is IC pushing for action from the west when people in Uganda aren't even asking for help?! Why do they want to arm Museveni's army now, when the LRA hasn't done anything in Uganda in five or six year?! Why is IC (and the US government) supporting Museveni in the first place?! This has a nasty habit of leading to bad things in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, South America, need I continue? Have we learned nothing from history?!
AMERICA (and Europe, and so on) IS NOT THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD, AND WE NEED TO STOP PRETENDING THAT WE CAN DO GOOD BY SWOOPING IN TO "SAVE" PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT/NEED SAVING!
Okay, that part was largely a rant. Bottom line is, though, is that people from Uganda don't want this, and they don't have a high opinion of Invisible Children in general, as deomstrated by the video link I posted, other video links all over YouTube, this blog post (one of many), and so on.
I get the opinion that this Kony 2012 campaign has been in the works for a while, and it shows in the fact that this video is being released now (as opposed to when it was relevant). It also shows on their website. Look at their "Culturemakers" and "Policymakers". (Why so many white people?!) Why is George Bush there, but not the sitting president, Barack Obama? Why is Condoleezza Rice there, but not current Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton? What's John Kerry doing there at all? Also, Rush Limbaugh? Seriously? The same guy who defended the LRA a few months ago? For a 2012 campaign, they sure have a lot of irreverent "policymakers" (and they're lacking the relevant ones), and at least one "culturemaker" who disagrees with their message.
It smells like a publicity stunt, quite frankly. It's like they planned to do this sort of thing in an election year.
Okay, I've run out of rage. Here are some things I've been reading (besides Wikipedia):
A few words about Kony 2012.
On Invisible Children's Kony 2012 campaign.
Kony 2012: Doing more harm than good.
War Child: Kony 2012: Our response.
Save helpless faraway Africans from the comfort of your armchair!
And finally...
One does not simply destabilize a Ugandan warlord by liking a status.
Links are fun -- we were doing stuff about it in 2010 -- a bit late to be getting upset about it.
Never mind the fact the bill also includes money specifically for helping northern Uganda.
I would like to point out the entire reasoning behind not going for him is, "He's leaving us alone right now, and bothering other countries."
Great rational there. Just more "Both sides are bad do nothing!"
It doesn't even address what we have already been doing and are currently doing -- because once we have some information we wouldn't stop gather some more and be sure our efforts are going to be for the better.
No one has stated that simply 'getting Kony' will solve everything -- in fact many people have said, "that would be great lets be sure that's not where we stop." This includes most of your links Fionnabhair.
Now Kony2012 has raised awareness about the area, we should help make the area safer and better for the people there -- but knee jerk reactions won't do this either.
I'm not saying we should have a military response (though we do have boots on the ground), only that our response shouldn't be shrugging.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abraham, nobody is telling anyone to sit around. However if you aren't paying attention to what you're doing, you could very well make problems worse. Sometimes you have to step back and make sure what you're doing is right. If you aren't doing that, you're being irresponsible and could very well contribute to the miserable state of the world. Congratulations on being proactive, but I think it's much better to be proactive in a way that actually advocates your ideals. It's a pain to have people sit on their asses when you're trying to accomplish a goal to help everyone, it's an even bigger pain when someone escalates problems because they don't know what they're doing.
|
|
Let's see. This is because it's Obama doing it. If it were a Republican president, Abraham would be spouting off about the oil and gas and how it's all a sham. Difference between Libya and Syria? Libya has oil. Ghaddafi was defanged. Wasn't a threat to anyone outside his domain anymore. But he sits on a ton of oil Europe wants. Bashir? He's a state sponsor of terrorism, runs an Iranian puppet state, and is a rat bastard, but it's "complicated" (i.e. Syria has no oil to speak of).
Same B.S., different president.
I will fully agree to that Ragnarok Aeon -- I'm not saying we should jump on this immediately but we should certainly be working forward on it.
I'll be honest: When I first saw the Kony2012 videos I avoided them. I was aware that the Ugandan government was/had been horrible and that the entire situation was a mess. I was aware that the LRA was worse, and I honestly believe I still have too much on my plate to do anything directly.
However that doesn't mean I can't write my congressman an 'attaboy' for voting for our reasonable and responsible Bill S.1067/H.R. 2478. It wasn't a fly in there with troops and make things worse approach. In fact it was very nuanced in how things were to play out in order for our monetary aid to be doled out.
The basic assumption that people will see this video and simply jump the shark and therefore this video is a bad thing is ridiculous especially considering our current involvement with trying to solve these issues already.
Let's see. This is because it's Obama doing it. If it were a Republican president, Abraham would be spouting off about the oil and gas and how it's all a sham. Difference between Libya and Syria? Libya has oil. Ghaddafi was defanged. Wasn't a threat to anyone outside his domain anymore. But he sits on a ton of oil Europe wants. Bashir? He's a state sponsor of terrorism, runs an Iranian puppet state, and is a rat bastard, but it's "complicated" (i.e. Syria has no oil to speak of).
Same B.S., different president.
Really? That's what you think of me Houstonderek? I would like to see us doing more about Syria -- however I don't think it's likely. The fact we are sitting on the sidelines with our thumbs up our butts while citizens are getting slaughtered by what is supposed to be their own government makes me mad.
However I do understand the idea of fools rush in -- us going in there guns blazing would be horrible.
I'm just glad that there at least some movement on it before 20 years have passed unlike in Uganda, and that the movement hasn't simply been 'rush troops in there'.
We tried that approach twice in the pass decade -- it doesn't work.
That doesn't mean we don't need to try and help.
Well, this little adventure has even less relevance to us strategically than Iraq did, and you were pretty outspoken about how that was a waste. What else should I think?
Iraq was a waste -- we did it wrong. You don't topple a government kick everyone out and then expect it to just sit itself back up right as rain. You must have more boots on the ground, you have to keep the peace and order in the itinerary and we didn't do that.
It was a waste because of how piss poor of a job we did there. I however do not blame the military for this -- in fact I am amazed at how well our military has managed to handle the over all situation. There is not another time in history where a military has handle as long of a conflict as we have had (in both Iraq and Afghanistan) and had so few losses or so few bad incidents (which we still have had too many of).
However if our strategy had been right going in we could have gotten it done faster.
Do I think President Obama would have had the right strategy going in? I don't think he would have gone in the way President Bush did and honestly I wish we had finished the whole thing in our first scuffle with Saddam back in the 90s.
|
|
I'm just tired of us playing the world cop role. We have a nation being torn in two right here between the Atlantic and Pacific by a culture war that has no end in sight. We need to fix our own problems and stop worrying about the world's problems. And, when Obama's two forays into military adventure are in nations with oil and natural gas reserves big enough to matter, I think it's "same old, same old".
I'm just tired of us playing the world cop role. We have a nation being torn in two right here between the Atlantic and Pacific by a culture war that has no end in sight. We need to fix our own problems and stop worrying about the world's problems. And, when Obama's two forays into military adventure are in nations with oil and natural gas reserves big enough to matter, I think it's "same old, same old".
Right because the only reason anyone would have gotten involved in Libya was oil.
Now where is your second adventure on this one? Are you talking about Uganda (yeah right), Afghanistan (because we were already there), the non-action in Syria, or the continuing not military action with Iran?
|
|
Syria has no oil to speak of (400,000 bbd is nothing). Iran's time is coming, eventually the Chinese and Russians will get out of the way, and, yeah, no one seemed to give a rat's ass about Uganda until now. After they found nice oil and natural gas deposits.
Libya, again, was neutered. Not a threat to anyone. Europe was still smarting because Ghadaffi nationalized the oil, but blowing s%!~ up and being an all around rat bastard was never a big enough reason to take him out. Nah, they waited until oil prices got really nice and high.
Again, they didn't get involved when he was an active sponsor of terrorism. So, all this humanitarian "rah rah" bs is just that, bs.
Of course we started in Uganda back in 2009 with that bill, which throws your whole rant off a bit.
Syria having no oil has no impact on my opinion that we should help stop the government from shelling its own people or mining the routes out of the country.
And we didn't have any action against Syria before -- no one cared?
How about on December 12, 2003, when President George W. Bush signed the Syria Accountability Act? Because we didn't care then right? The U.N. was involved as early as 2005 and that's with 5 minutes of looking.
Also Syria does have natural gas and light crude reserves -- while not huge they are there and it is rather nicely placed... if you recall there's a lot of petroleum passing through the straits of Hormuz.
However I still maintain that economics aren't the reason we should get involved, and I don't think we should jump the shark here either (though I do think there is probably more we could do faster).
I find it absolutely hilarious that you dismiss the Syrian oil reserves but think that 100 troops in Uganda is a grab for oil when they have smaller reserves and don't even have the capacity to access them yet.
Now would calming the area down make it easier for that oil to be accessed? Yes -- but that's hardly fair grounds to decry people wanting to help others, and the same could be said of any area with natural resources.
|
|
Dude, you only care about this because it's the recent cause celebre in certain circles.
Where's your concern about Mugabe? He's as bad, if not worse, than Kony. Lots of people dying under his watch. Where was your cry for action during Darfur? Myanmar was a hell hole for years, not a peep about our need to invade them. North Korea is hell on earth, why aren't you calling for an invasion there?
Nah, go after a marginalized dude not even in the country he's "terrorizing" six years after he left. That'll show 'em.