EPTCongo descending into civil war, again - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
lannisport
878 Posts
| ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
| ||
|
Dekoth
United States527 Posts
On November 23 2012 11:08 DeepElemBlues wrote: Attitudes like yours make it more likely. If the best people can expect from peaceful political competition is the people on the other side saying 'oh you're just a monkey rattling your cage because your idiot lost and you're best ignored,' violence begins to look more and more attractive. Just remember that no one will want to talk to you when you talk to them like that. They'll want to smack you in the mouth. Keep that up for a few decades and you'll be repeating what happened from 1820-1860. Yeah... I doubt you or "the world" would be very happy with the result, that being the conservative/libertarian side (we have all the guns + the military is dominated by conservatives + so are most police forces) curbstomping the liberal/progressive side. Think before you snide please. I was referring to the idiots starting the secede from the us petitions. Sorry but if you are starting or signing a petition to secede because obama got a second term, you are just a monkey rattling their cage and deserve to be ignored. For the record, I didn't vote for either idiot. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
On November 23 2012 12:28 Ooshmagoosh wrote: If the outside world ceased to influence African politics in any significant way (I don't know the specifics, I hardly ever read or hear anything about Africa outside of the usual "genocide everywhere" and "colonialism did this" bits), does anyone have a good guess as to what would happen over the next 20 - 30 some years? Everything would go to bigger shit than it is now. There is really no type of serious progress that occurs on the continent that is produced solely in the continent. They have exports, but they do not have the corporate structures to turn that into competition vs outside corporations who use the exports. It's a choice betwee Neo-colonialism (which in this case is made out to be worse than it really is) and starvation/regression (that is always worse than any alternative). The fact is that the way Africa is now cannot be changed, yes Europe screwed it up, yes China has its stake, and yes corporate greed has done its fair share, however all continents have those same descriptors. The fact is that the reason why Africa lags is because they are constantly unable to compete corporately, if they could compete in a globalized world, the continent would change almost over night. | ||
|
Karl Maka
Canada55 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote: Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare. Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Imperialism didn't go anywhere lol. Imperialism has evolved thanks to globalization and corporatism. Imperialism today isn't about territorial control, it's about hegemonic control, whether political, economic, and/or strategic. The US is the fastest growing empire in history. Since WW2, it essentially dominates most of Europe, parts of the Far East, plenty of 3rd world countries dependent on US and other Western corporatism, and can basically pay off any other country to do what it wants, especially in strategic zones like the Mideast. Of course, there is always the option of war against unsubmissive states. It took a couple thousand years, but since WW2, countries (well, the US and former USSR) are starting to follow the ancient Assyrian model of imperialism of hegemonic control. It's a lot cheaper, a lot more discreet, and doesn't embroil you in local problems and tensions. | ||
KwarK
United States43960 Posts
On November 23 2012 12:49 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Imperialism didn't go anywhere lol. Imperialism has evolved thanks to globalization and corporatism. Imperialism today isn't about territorial control, it's about hegemonic control, whether political, economic, and/or strategic. The US is the fastest growing empire in history. Since WW2, it essentially dominates most of Europe, parts of the Far East, plenty of 3rd world countries dependent on US and other Western corporatism, and can basically pay off any other country to do what it wants, especially in strategic zones like the Mideast. Of course, there is always the option of war against unsubmissive states. It took a couple thousand years, but since WW2, countries (well, the US and former USSR) are starting to follow the ancient Assyrian model of imperialism of hegemonic control. It's a lot cheaper, a lot more discreet, and doesn't embroil you in local problems and tensions. I've been making that point over and over throughout this topic including in the post you quoted. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
These 'rebels' are Tutsis, being armed by Rwanda. There was some speculation following the South Sudan referendum that the Rwandans would use that as precedent to detach Eastern Congo as another independent, Tutsi dominated state. What is surprising though is how incompetent the Congolese Army has been. Or rather, it isnt surprising that they are incompetent but you would think with 20,000 UN peacekeepers there and with peacekeeper tanks these guys would want to stick around and fight. Either way though, the rebels arent going anywhere far from Rwanda. That is where their supply lines are; as someone else pointed out the last time this kind of stuff started off and the Rwandans began their march to Kinshasa you had a bunch of random African states show up and block them. And while some of those countries have been weakened (Zimbabwe!) at least a couple of them are infinitely stronger (Angola!) Anyway, as always with the Rwandans the international community is in a pickle. On one hand, because they sat on their hands while the genocide was happening they forced the Tutsis into the actions they are now taking. On the other hand, Rwanda wholly depends on foreign aid and to let these guys keep coming up every 4-5 years and kick over the Congo because they think they are Prussia is tremendously costly. Another interesting question -- what is Uganda going to do. The last war ultimately ended because the Rwandans and Ugandas fell out over looting Eastern Congo but this time around the Ugandan dictator is older, looks much more vulnerable and has to keep unleashing the cops on the opposition. Will risk another war against a real enemy, and this time with some of his best troops off in Somalia? As everyone else observed: sucks for the Africans. With the vast amounts of natural resources out there, with their great soil and with cheap labor they should be killing it instead of getting killed [and some are. The other day Ghanda's GDP was revised to make it a middle income country and Botswana/Angola will probably never be poor again but as long as the Congo is fucked up there will be no peace in Africa. Too many very expensive, very easily smugable things are hidden in those jungles and hills.] | ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
On November 23 2012 12:44 docvoc wrote: Everything would go to bigger shit than it is now. There is really no type of serious progress that occurs on the continent that is produced solely in the continent. They have exports, but they do not have the corporate structures to turn that into competition vs outside corporations who use the exports. It's a choice betwee Neo-colonialism (which in this case is made out to be worse than it really is) and starvation/regression (that is always worse than any alternative). The fact is that the way Africa is now cannot be changed, yes Europe screwed it up, yes China has its stake, and yes corporate greed has done its fair share, however all continents have those same descriptors. The fact is that the reason why Africa lags is because they are constantly unable to compete corporately, if they could compete in a globalized world, the continent would change almost over night. Somewhat-ish off topic, but: If the African countries suddenly stopped killing each-other and worked together to rebuild the continent, but decided to keep their resources under state or local control (or at the very least, mostly between the African states), how do you think the governments of the 'rest of the world' would react? I know that's kind of a weird wacky hypothetical that nobody could possibly have a real answer to, like If I asked what the esports scene would look like today if Flash was Japanese, but...humor me. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
On November 23 2012 16:51 Ooshmagoosh wrote: Somewhat-ish off topic, but: If the African countries suddenly stopped killing each-other and worked together to rebuild the continent, but decided to keep their resources under state or local control (or at the very least, mostly between the African states), how do you think the governments of the 'rest of the world' would react? I know that's kind of a weird wacky hypothetical that nobody could possibly have a real answer to, like If I asked what the esports scene would look like today if Flash was Japanese, but...humor me. we would try to prop up rebel groups. Support them with weapons, make the leaders and their clans rich if they give us access to ressources. If this subtle methods fail, we would create some kind of idiplomatic incident/ small scale skirmish, invade and rob them off. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
| ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On November 23 2012 17:55 Maenander wrote: I can't understand why people so often assume a prosperous Africa is not in the interests of the developed world. Some resources might become a tad more expensive, but the benefits for the world economy would far outweigh that. It's not like the fact that Australia, South Africa and Canada - all major resource exporters - are developed, independent countries hurts the large economies of the world. On the contrary: Resource exploitation is way more efficient and the wealth produces new consumer markets. This. If anything an Africa which is developed and wealthy would be a boon for resource exploitation, as that would drastically increase the total supply available. You can mine a lot more of what you need when your workers are equipped with modern equipment and hauling ore out on decent infrastructure. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
On November 23 2012 17:58 Shady Sands wrote: This. If anything an Africa which is developed and wealthy would be a boon for resource exploitation, as that would drastically increase the total supply available. You can mine a lot more of what you need when your workers are equipped with modern equipment and hauling ore out on decent infrastructure. I would argue that our goal is not maximizing ressource exploitation, but rather limiting supply for the concurrence while grabbing most of it for dirt cheap prices. Basically secure the own supply and additionally control or even cripple the competition. China (you are Chineseor of chinese descent, am I right?) is currently limiting the export of rare earths while stocking up the own reserves. Officially under the banner of sustained economic development, inofficially to strengthen China's position in "new" technology areas via cutting down the supply of the concurrence. West cries foul because our own businesses get put under pressure via increasing prices and short supply. Not meant as critisizm, just to show examples of protectionism regarding national interests. Point is, ressource maximization is not necessarily the goal politics tries to achieve. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
On November 23 2012 17:55 Maenander wrote: I can't understand why people so often assume a prosperous Africa is not in the interests of the developed world. Some resources might become a tad more expensive, but the benefits for the world economy would far outweigh that. It's not like the fact that Australia, South Africa and Canada - all major resource exporters - are developed, independent countries hurts the large economies of the world. On the contrary: Resource exploitation is way more efficient and the generated wealth creates consumers. Canada is one of the founding members of the NATO block. Rather bully than victim in the playing field of international politics. Australia is part of the Commonwealth and in tight Alliance with the NATO via Commonwealth. South Africa's wealth was created under Apartheid on the back of the majorily black population. Very wealthy white elite, dirt poor majority. Second or third highest Gini coefficient in the world. In South Africa a very small elite organizes ressource trade with international business. In other countries this situation gets created via proxy dictators or via military force. EDIT: Just looked it up, in South Africa the average income of a white person is ten (!!!!) times higher than the average income of a black person. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On November 23 2012 09:06 sekritzzz wrote: Oh hey look, someone who has actually studied colonization and its economic effects on Africa. Not really, but those books contain interesting information about social organisation and why certain civilisations failed while other thrived. I'd also add Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Collapse" to that list. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-1 | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote: Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on. Depends on how you define manpulation. Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there. People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo. Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available. But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource]. A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole. Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo? Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract? Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making. The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote: Depends on how you define manpulation. Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there. People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo. Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available. But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource]. A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole. Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo? Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract? Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making. The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers. somehow funny that you just mention Shell. Shell is currently supporting the military dictatorship in Niger against a rebel group called MEND. MEND wants a bigger piece of the oil pie for the locals. Shell is of course interested in small prices, the dictatorship is able to create these low prices. Niger's military leaders use that money created by the oil trade to wage war on the population in the Niger delta. Other businesses sell all groups involved the weapons they can afford. Everybody wins, except the locals of course. Staying in Niger. French state owned enterprise Areva supports the same military dictatorship in exchange for uranium mining rights in Tuareg territory. Miltary leaders use that money to wage war against the Tuaregs in Niger. Just putting out two examples here, initiatelly triggered by your shell comment. Situation in all these war torn countries is always similar. Sometimes rebel groups get supported, sometimes some dictatorship, whoever offers the best prices. EDIT: Forgot some kind of conclusion. Dictatorships/rebel groups/insurgents are reliable business partners because they need the money/income generated by ressource trade to engage, or wage war against their innerpolitical enemies. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On November 22 2012 19:38 KwarK wrote: If you have a computer you're probably indirectly complicit in the vast majority of the atrocities going on around the world. There's a reason the first world has so much money and it's not that we all just work harder than everyone else. You're right. The reason is that we have more infrastructure and machinery that enables higher productivity. We get more for the same amount of work. | ||
| ||
