"Morally, it does not matter if they do not pose a threat to our country, it matters if they pose a threat to ANY person.

The idea that we as a people should not/do not want to risk our lives for the lives of others is a sick one if you think about what you're saying."

You can just barely justify a son's death to a mother if it was part of a war to defend the United States or (a weaker argument here) defend its interests. It's certainly RIGHT to go after Kony, but are good intentions enough of a reason for Americans to die? I think not. I'm all for aid to let the Africans catch him, but this group wants American involvement and I've opposed that since the advisers were sent there to begin with.

And, as the FP article above alludes towards the end, what if Kony's child soldiers open fire on the SEALS we send in to capture him? They'd have to respond to defend themselves. That looks quite bad. A picture of a white American soldier shooting a black child soldier would be so damaging as to unmake any good work that may be done. All this military cooperation will also serve to prop up Uganda's long serving dictator, keeping the country mired in authoritarianism just as many African countries are finally becoming healthy democracies. Closer military cooperation with Central African states also has the potential to give us yet another corner of the globe we had to defend in the vein of Europe and Northeast Asia, something we literally can't afford right now. And let's remember that the LRA isn't even in Uganda anymore and is down, thank goodness, to a skeleton crew. It's not like he's Kurtz from Heart of Darkness.

"Now I study International Relations, I know there is not truly such a thing as morality and/or altruism in foreign policy.

But I would at least hope that the American people believe in altruism."

They do. Look at all the aid given both by the American government and by private citizens. But you and this organization are advocating military intervention. You want American lives to be put at risk when America has not been attacked and has not interests at stake. I think that's wrong. Give them money, no people.

Wars will plague human-kind for eternity as we endlessly perpetuate religions, nations, tribes, party affiliations and so on. I'm white and you're black. I'm American and you're African. You're evil and I'm not evil. Jesus Christ is the only way. Allah is the only way. Anti-this group and anti-that group.

Infinite reasons for us to fight each other, why would ever possibly get along?

A critical look.

http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/

bump

Invictus did you read the disclaimer I am not referring to the LRA at all, I am talking generally. We could just as easily posit 1993 Rwanda.

You are right - it is hard to stomach death in conflict.

But let's do the math - intervene and some hundreds of civilians die, about fifty western troops and perhaps some hundreds of third-world combatants on either side.

Something like 1,000-1,500 dead.

Or do nothing and let slaughter occur - probably more like 10,000-15,000. You saw it in Rwanda, in Somalia, in Libya, now in Syria. The same tape plays.

The point is this - when you say "Americans shouldn't have to die for that" what I hear is "one American life is worth more than at least several hundred African lives" and that is what I am calling bullshit on. That is bullshit and you know it.

let's get two things straight:

1) Joseph Kony is not in Uganda and hasn't been for six years;

2) The LRA now numbers at most in the hundreds, and while it is still causing immense suffering, it is unclear how millions of well-meaning but misinformed people are going to help deal with the more complicated reality.

http://jezebel.com/5891269/think-twice-before-donating-to-kony-2012-the-meme-du-jour

IC is the best example of a corrupt NGO funnelling money to vile warlords (like the SPLA) while pretending to care about human rights.

"Or do nothing and let slaughter occur - probably more like 10,000-15,000. You saw it in Rwanda, in Somalia, in Libya, now in Syria. The same tape plays."

Did nothing in Libya? By "do nothing" you mean arm genocidal racist rebels? This is what your ignorant interventionism has gotten us. A progressive government replaced while an odious one. Good work, there liberals.

Our Somalia project was working before the liberals, as usual, decided that they wanted to pick a side in an internal conflict and wiped out an entire council of clan elders in a stupid effort to destroy Aidid. How did that work out?

And our interventionism in Somalia has perpetuated a civil war years longer than it would have otherwise lasted. Thanks, liberals.

Liberal strategy: Ignore a civil war when tens of thousands are dying and then galvanize public support for a wide ranging military intervention to seize the resource rich areas of Central Africa.

It's a beautiful sunny day, Siccy baby!

Get out onto that boulevard and start begging for your supper.

Putin go away I was speaking with Invictus. We have had the responsibility to protect debate over Libya at least thrice now.

I feel once again it is necessary to make a HUGE fucking distinction that exists (or should exist) in anyone's politics.

First there is description, and understanding of politicians and policies.

Putin is largely correct in his description of US foreign policy and its motivations.

Then there are the morals or views we personally hold that inform our political behavior - the normative side.

I am talking about the latter.

Of *course* Somalia was a fuck-up. That's exactly my point... it shouldn't have been. Of course every last intervention to date has been cynical and motivated by other concerns. That's not my point.

Our *failed* intervention in Somalia has indeed perpetuated their conflict.

And actually what we did in Libya was an example of one of the better interventions. Many lives saved.

Putin your mistake here is this:

You only look at the negative outcomes of what occurred when people do things you disagree with. You do not consider in your analysis the negative outcomes that might have been otherwise. When those possible negatives outweigh the negatives that actually occurred, the action can be said to be "good" or justified.

This is why Libya was justified, for any flaw you can point out, it prevented a Syria.

This is also why Iraq was NOT justified - for any flaw you can point out with what would have been a continued Saddam regime, it does not outweigh the bad that actually happened in Iraq.

Do you see what I'm doing? You know, rationally weighing the lesser of two evils?

Oh wait let's push Putin's buttons. You ready, Putin?

Let's talk about the negatives of Mao's Great Leap Forward versus what might have happened otherwise.

What could be worse than 15 million dead?

But just so we can put it to rest I agree with your points, all, about IC and LRA. This Kony business is fishy as hell, and IC is claptrap.

"This is why Libya was justified, for any flaw you can point out, it prevented a Syria."

How did it prevent a Syria? Have you been paying attention to what has been going on there since your rebels took power? Have you paid attention to what they have done to gay Libyans, to black Libyans, to anybody who doesn't abide by their fundamentalist ideology? It accelerated what the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood plans to do if Assad is toppled. Instead of a religiously tolerant, socially progressive Baath Party government whose constitution affirms the equality of women and religious minorities, we'll get a Muslim Brotherhood government that wants to slaughter anybody who isn't a Sunni Muslim.

Yes.

Yes I have Putin.

Please re-read the section of my previous post starting "Putin your mistake here is this:"

" for any flaw you can point out with what would have been a continued Saddam regime"

I'll take an UNESCO award winning government with women's equality and a thriving gay community over the goons they have in power now. Hussein was a great leader. Gaddafi was a great leader. That's why America had to destroy them. We can't have great leaders who don't follow Washington diktats.

Putin are you even reading half of what I write?

Like seriously it's kind of insulting.

"You do not consider in your analysis the negative outcomes that might have been otherwise."

What negatives 'would have otherwise occurred' had the Libyan government allowed to exist as it had for decades? High standard of living? High levels of equality? Low levels of infant mortality? A publicly subsidized education system? What on earth would be bad about this?

I got your argument, I'm trying to figure out how you think the Libyan intervention wasn't a greater evil.

It just seems to me that unless a government allows billionaires to compete in elections then you call it an evil dictatorship that needs to be removed. Never mind the litany of social indicators that are doing well. It must be an evil government. So it's a 'lesser evil' to remove it and replace it with a so-called "democracy" that is run by medieval thugs.

The whole campaign is jut so crazy. I can't say i ever expected a internet campaign to exists that overtly calls for the arming of another country. Even when it is done among Jews for Israel it is always "Support Israel" not "give money for guns so Israel can fight wars against enemies" although that is implied.

Just because washington destroys great leaders doesnt mean all leaders washington destroys are great.

@ santa and its the 'execute gays' government lets not forget

Well what I referring to with Saddam was actually the opposite of what you thought I wrote.

I supposed it is difficult for someone with a view of world as black-and-white as yours to comprehend the possibility of someone sometimes supporting US foreign policy and other times opposing it.

I was saying that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a greater evil than what would have happened with no invasion. Yes Saddam was a bad dude who gassed Kurds, but he didn't destroy the country.

The difference between that and Libya is that the people were already rebelling and were about to get slaughtered - intervention prevented it. Benghazi would have been what Homs has become.

@ thucy sure but isnt saying US bombs are the solution also kindof suscribing to a black and white worldview?

I wasn't talking about Iraq. My comment about Iraq was not related to anything you said. I am talking about Libya. You continue to ignore that the fact that in both Libya & Syria these are well armed well funded rebels who have been engaging in horrific crimes & who have a despicable ideology. They would be considered vile terrorists in any western government if they did the same thing there. Homs was overrun by terrorists. Syria liberated Homs. The people of Homs are grateful for their liberation. Assad is overwhelmingly popular in Syria. Nobody likes these terrorists so why are you lobbying for intervention on their behalf?

"Yes Saddam was a bad dude who gassed Kurds, but he didn't destroy the country."

Nobody can say with certainty whether Iran or Iraq used gas in Halabja. But the use of something that may or may not have happened in the mid-1980s as the reason why 1 million children have to die from sanctions and many hundreds of thousands more have to die and be permanently injured from war is beyond disgusting.