|
On November 23 2012 20:04 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. 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.
Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship.
Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free.
|
On November 23 2012 20:25 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 20:04 AngryMag wrote:On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. 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. Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship. Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free.
In reality neither international businesses nor corporations care with whom they trade as long as they are paid. Nice way to backpedal though, from basically this:
On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:
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.
So why support the military dictatorship which wages war against its own population on multiple fronts with taxes and royalties? We don't care as long as our interests are not in danger, that is why. Your statement that these conflicts all over the continent are the lone result of inner African problems is simply not true
|
On November 23 2012 20:41 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 20:25 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 20:04 AngryMag wrote:On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. 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. Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship. Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free. In reality neither international businesses nor corporations care with whom they trade as long as they are paid. Nice way to backpedal though, from basically this: Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:
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.
So why support the military dictatorship which wages war against its own population on multiple fronts with taxes and royalties? We don't care as long as our interests are not in danger, that is why. Your statement that these conflicts all over the continent are the lone result of inner African problems is simply not true
Quoting mob mentality is not back pedaling.
|
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?
Well the short story is that, even as it is, Africa is slowly rising out of the mud. It'll be a while (don't have a grip on how long) before they're seen like Asia is today, but it's coming. Some countries will probably continue to be shit for quite some time though. For various reasons.
|
On November 23 2012 20:41 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 20:25 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 20:04 AngryMag wrote:On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. 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. Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship. Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free. In reality neither international businesses nor corporations care with whom they trade as long as they are paid. Nice way to backpedal though, from basically this: Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:
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.
So why support the military dictatorship which wages war against its own population on multiple fronts with taxes and royalties? We don't care as long as our interests are not in danger, that is why. Your statement that these conflicts all over the continent are the lone result of inner African problems is simply not true
That isn't backpeddeling.
Shell works with the situation that exists in a nation, but the ideal is far from a war-torn rebel nation.
Shell supports these regimes in the same way that a fruit vendor paying taxes supports them.
Like I already showed, it doesn't really matter what Shell does, you'll call them evil either way. Why would Shell be allowed to operate in a nation and not pay taxes? That you believe those taxes go to guns rather than roads, is a misconception on your end on how taxes work.
You're reaching pretty far here. A company paying the government mandated taxes is a long way from supporting these regimes.
Would any corporation that dealt with these nations be guilty of war crimes in your view? You think that will do these nations good? All the companies in the world withdrawing from these places, because paying taxes in your mind is equal to support for human atrocities.
|
On November 23 2012 22:37 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 20:41 AngryMag wrote:On November 23 2012 20:25 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 20:04 AngryMag wrote:On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. 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. Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship. Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free. In reality neither international businesses nor corporations care with whom they trade as long as they are paid. Nice way to backpedal though, from basically this: On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:
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.
So why support the military dictatorship which wages war against its own population on multiple fronts with taxes and royalties? We don't care as long as our interests are not in danger, that is why. Your statement that these conflicts all over the continent are the lone result of inner African problems is simply not true That isn't backpeddeling. Shell works with the situation that exists in a nation, but the ideal is far from a war-torn rebel nation. Shell supports these regimes in the same way that a fruit vendor paying taxes supports them. Like I already showed, it doesn't really matter what Shell does, you'll call them evil either way. Why would Shell be allowed to operate in a nation and not pay taxes? That you believe those taxes go to guns rather than roads, is a misconception on your end on how taxes work. You're reaching pretty far here. A company paying the government mandated taxes is a long way from supporting these regimes. Would any corporation that dealt with these nations be guilty of war crimes in your view? You think that will do these nations good? All the companies in the world withdrawing from these places, because paying taxes in your mind is equal to support for human atrocities.
Shell does much more then that.
They have such a stake in the nigerian government surviving that they don't only pay taxes, but actually offer foreign expertise (manpower, training, you name it) to nearly all government ministries, trying both to keep the current elite in power and 'spying' on the government the same time. Shell has actually built an intelligence infrastructure in Nigeria and uses it to try to supress activities it considers harmful to its business, by trying to get the nigerian government to act, or, if needed, involving other countries. Shell actively maintains the status-quo, mainly because its good for them.
|
On November 24 2012 01:24 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 22:37 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 20:41 AngryMag wrote:On November 23 2012 20:25 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 20:04 AngryMag wrote:On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. 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. Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship. Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free. In reality neither international businesses nor corporations care with whom they trade as long as they are paid. Nice way to backpedal though, from basically this: On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:
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.
So why support the military dictatorship which wages war against its own population on multiple fronts with taxes and royalties? We don't care as long as our interests are not in danger, that is why. Your statement that these conflicts all over the continent are the lone result of inner African problems is simply not true That isn't backpeddeling. Shell works with the situation that exists in a nation, but the ideal is far from a war-torn rebel nation. Shell supports these regimes in the same way that a fruit vendor paying taxes supports them. Like I already showed, it doesn't really matter what Shell does, you'll call them evil either way. Why would Shell be allowed to operate in a nation and not pay taxes? That you believe those taxes go to guns rather than roads, is a misconception on your end on how taxes work. You're reaching pretty far here. A company paying the government mandated taxes is a long way from supporting these regimes. Would any corporation that dealt with these nations be guilty of war crimes in your view? You think that will do these nations good? All the companies in the world withdrawing from these places, because paying taxes in your mind is equal to support for human atrocities. Shell does much more then that. They have such a stake in the nigerian government surviving that they don't only pay taxes, but actually offer foreign expertise (manpower, training, you name it) to nearly all government ministries, trying both to keep the current elite in power and 'spying' on the government the same time. Shell has actually built an intelligence infrastructure in Nigeria and uses it to try to supress activities it considers harmful to its business, by trying to get the nigerian government to act, or, if needed, involving other countries. Shell actively maintains the status-quo, mainly because its good for them.
Shell has indeed intwined itself a great deal with the Nigerian government, and in some cases it crosses the boundaries of what is acceptable, or even legal. I'm not defending them on those accounts, and I don't doubt that to some degree they engage in bribing officials, all things I wouldn't throw my support behind.
But none of that proves the entire premise of the discussion, the idea that these companies, or "the west" is actively sabotaging African nations for cheap resources from warlords.
As you yourself said, Shell is throwing its weight behind the Uganada government. If the goal was to destablize the region from cheap warlord oil/iron/diamonds then Shell would be pumping money into rebel groups.
I won't deny that Shell has dirty hands and plays dirty games plenty of times, I don't doubt that about any giant corporation to some degree, but there is a huge gap between charges of corruption, and suggesting that there is a doctrine of intentional sabotage, targetting African nations.
Nobody benefits from these events in the Congo. Corporations, and the west, all want stability to some degree.
Now, as someone that believes in the free market, and the rights of the individual, I'll gladly admit that I don't like Shell very much, since they actively work against both in many cases.
But what shouldn't entertain, if we want to have a healthy discussion, is this ridiculous notion that corporations benefit from these Congo-type situations. They don't.
If people want to be critical, be critical of the real problem. Fighting windmills is just a waste of time, and destructive to the discussion.
|
On November 23 2012 20:11 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 19:38 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote:
takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection.
There is something very wrong with you Kwark. 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.
Sigh, it's not merely the multiplicative effect of capital investment which lies at the bottom of the disparities between the West and the Congo. It's the fact that our political science is attempting to apply a uniform model of analysis to two vastly disparate civilisations.
When the Belgians annexed the Congo, they encountered a population which was much smaller than today (approximately 10 millions.) which was subjected to annual famines. This is because a mere century ago the indiginous tribes of the Congo had not even developed a system of surplus agriculture whereby they would hoard or trade excessive production through any system of economic exchange. It's senseless to talk about indirect development through investment into a foreign economy, where there is no economy to begin with.
While it would be wrong to say that the indigenous congoese were lazy, they did not work on the basis of patterns which responded to what we call rational profit motives. The virtue of men was to engage in hunting and warfare, and agriculture was despised as the vocation of women or slaves. Women had to perform the back-breaking labour of tilling the infertile soil of the Congo, but distained to expand plots which would multiply their burdens. There was no common medium of exchange such as money, and thus no incentive to organise what little productive labour that existed.
The hazards and violence of life in equatorial Africa is neither created by Western exploitation, nor is it within our capability to solve. People who believe that neo-liberal economic incentives are the surest way to peace are probably the same people who wonder at the foolishness of Mardonius not to have bribed the Spartans at Platea. The same Spartans, who (albeit for more complex reasons) also distained gold, lived for fighting, and distained agriculture. Nancy Mitford, writing of the wars of Louis XIV wrote flippantly that back then people didn't realise that countries could achieve far greater prosperity by living in peace rather than war. The truth is probably in the aphorism of French economist Jean-Baptise Say two centuries ago: "Whereas in France the greatest shame is to lack courage...in England it is to lack money."
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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.
Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay?
I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent.
|
It's pretty silly to say that "Sub-Sahara Africa is beyond hope."
|
On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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.
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective.
|
On November 24 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay? I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent.
Gaddaffi was moving towards Benghazi, promising a slaughter.
The man had already proven that he would be more than willing to commit one, if the situation called for it.
You have a totalitarian dictator, rolling onto a city with tanks, threatening to massacre its people, a man who has in the past committed similar atrocities.
What was the world to do? Stand by and watch as the internet would be flooded with an endless stream of footage that would make the Saw series look PG-13? Right next door to Europe, they would say. Where are your values now? Letting these thousands be murdered so your oil friend Gaddaffi can stay in power.
Because yes, Gaddaffi was actually getting back into the fold, before he completely soured all relations by being the psychopath that he truly was.
Toomuchzerg
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective.
The point is that these warlord run regions that are submerged in near perpetual chaos, do not make for cheap resources.
Stability and rule of law make for a good business climate. I'd like to see the economic output of Congo during its last civil war. I doubt it's the mountains of gold that some people seem to paint.
|
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.
That's a pretty bold statement to make. I agree it'd probably be better if an organization with a large stake in their public image stepped in to develop roads, education, police, and jobs but I'm pessimistic of organizations and corruption to begin with.
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 24 2012 03:52 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay? I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent. Gaddaffi was moving towards Benghazi, promising a slaughter. The man had already proven that he would be more than willing to commit one, if the situation called for it. You have a totalitarian dictator, rolling onto a city with tanks, threatening to massacre its people, a man who has in the past committed similar atrocities. What was the world to do? Stand by and watch as the internet would be flooded with an endless stream of footage that would make the Saw series look PG-13? Right next door to Europe, they would say. Where are your values now? Letting these thousands be murdered so your oil friend Gaddaffi can stay in power. Because yes, Gaddaffi was actually getting back into the fold, before he completely soured all relations by being the psychopath that he truly was. Show nested quote +Toomuchzerg
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective. The point is that these warlord run regions that are submerged in near perpetual chaos, do not make for cheap resources. Stability and rule of law make for a good business climate. I'd like to see the economic output of Congo during its last civil war. I doubt it's the mountains of gold that some people seem to paint.
Everyone everywhere already knew Gaddafi was a psychopath, it's just that he was a psychopath we could do business with because he was willing to allow wealth to be sent out of the country. Reagan dubbed him a "mad dog", this idea that we were in some way surprised by it is absurd. As long as he didn't do anything that wouldn't be too bad PR or cause sanctions then we were fine with the dictatorship and the profits from the oil investments. The problem comes when it no longer looks like he can maintain control at which point you immediately check whether the other side is willing to safeguard all the current concessions you enjoy and then back them in the civil war which is, of course, exactly what we did. It's is literally the textbook example, find a dictator and give him guns to oppress the country in exchange for the rights to exploit the natural resources and, if he ever gets out of line (and in this case excessive massacring to the extent that people start asking difficult questions about why we're doing business with him is getting out of line), find someone else and arm them against him in exchange for even more concessions.
As for our moral imperative to intervene in Libya because of all the atrocities that would appear on TV, I have just one word for you, Syria.
|
On November 24 2012 04:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 03:52 zalz wrote:On November 24 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay? I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent. Gaddaffi was moving towards Benghazi, promising a slaughter. The man had already proven that he would be more than willing to commit one, if the situation called for it. You have a totalitarian dictator, rolling onto a city with tanks, threatening to massacre its people, a man who has in the past committed similar atrocities. What was the world to do? Stand by and watch as the internet would be flooded with an endless stream of footage that would make the Saw series look PG-13? Right next door to Europe, they would say. Where are your values now? Letting these thousands be murdered so your oil friend Gaddaffi can stay in power. Because yes, Gaddaffi was actually getting back into the fold, before he completely soured all relations by being the psychopath that he truly was. Toomuchzerg
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective. The point is that these warlord run regions that are submerged in near perpetual chaos, do not make for cheap resources. Stability and rule of law make for a good business climate. I'd like to see the economic output of Congo during its last civil war. I doubt it's the mountains of gold that some people seem to paint. Everyone everywhere already knew Gaddafi was a psychopath, it's just that he was a psychopath we could do business with because he was willing to allow wealth to be sent out of the country. Reagan dubbed him a "mad dog", this idea that we were in some way surprised by it is absurd. As long as he didn't do anything that wouldn't be too bad PR or cause sanctions then we were fine with the dictatorship and the profits from the oil investments. The problem comes when it no longer looks like he can maintain control at which point you immediately check whether the other side is willing to safeguard all the current concessions you enjoy and then back them in the civil war which is, of course, exactly what we did. It's is literally the textbook example, find a dictator and give him guns to oppress the country in exchange for the rights to exploit the natural resources and, if he ever gets out of line (and in this case excessive massacring to the extent that people start asking difficult questions about why we're doing business with him is getting out of line), find someone else and arm them against him in exchange for even more concessions. As for our moral imperative to intervene in Libya because of all the atrocities that would appear on TV, I have just one word for you, Syria.
So we allowed Gaddaffi to come to power, nationalize (aka steal) the oil from western companies, so he could re-sell it to us, so we could at a later point overthrow him.
All for the oil. What a clever ruse.
Wealth leaving the country? He sold oil. What the hell do you think the Libyans were gonna do with the oil if not sell it? A dictator, a businessman, a theocrat, they all sell the oil that their own economies have no use for.
Money didn't leave Libya (other than the obscene amounts that Gaddaffi stole, but he didn't exactly give that to us, and we ended up giving it back to the Libyans once confiscated), the Libyan government engaged in trade that was massively unfavorable to us in terms of the % that he took, considering the fields were property of western companies up until that point.
So this guy steals the oil from western companies, sells it back at a mark-up, and we let him be dictator for how long?
And how did we react when the Iranians tried to do the same?
These spy-novel stories newver make much sense.
|
On November 24 2012 04:46 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 04:05 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 03:52 zalz wrote:On November 24 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay? I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent. Gaddaffi was moving towards Benghazi, promising a slaughter. The man had already proven that he would be more than willing to commit one, if the situation called for it. You have a totalitarian dictator, rolling onto a city with tanks, threatening to massacre its people, a man who has in the past committed similar atrocities. What was the world to do? Stand by and watch as the internet would be flooded with an endless stream of footage that would make the Saw series look PG-13? Right next door to Europe, they would say. Where are your values now? Letting these thousands be murdered so your oil friend Gaddaffi can stay in power. Because yes, Gaddaffi was actually getting back into the fold, before he completely soured all relations by being the psychopath that he truly was. Toomuchzerg
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective. The point is that these warlord run regions that are submerged in near perpetual chaos, do not make for cheap resources. Stability and rule of law make for a good business climate. I'd like to see the economic output of Congo during its last civil war. I doubt it's the mountains of gold that some people seem to paint. Everyone everywhere already knew Gaddafi was a psychopath, it's just that he was a psychopath we could do business with because he was willing to allow wealth to be sent out of the country. Reagan dubbed him a "mad dog", this idea that we were in some way surprised by it is absurd. As long as he didn't do anything that wouldn't be too bad PR or cause sanctions then we were fine with the dictatorship and the profits from the oil investments. The problem comes when it no longer looks like he can maintain control at which point you immediately check whether the other side is willing to safeguard all the current concessions you enjoy and then back them in the civil war which is, of course, exactly what we did. It's is literally the textbook example, find a dictator and give him guns to oppress the country in exchange for the rights to exploit the natural resources and, if he ever gets out of line (and in this case excessive massacring to the extent that people start asking difficult questions about why we're doing business with him is getting out of line), find someone else and arm them against him in exchange for even more concessions. As for our moral imperative to intervene in Libya because of all the atrocities that would appear on TV, I have just one word for you, Syria. So we allowed Gaddaffi to come to power, nationalize (aka steal) the oil from western companies, so he could re-sell it to us, so we could at a later point overthrow him. All for the oil. What a clever ruse. Wealth leaving the country? He sold oil. What the hell do you think the Libyans were gonna do with the oil if not sell it? A dictator, a businessman, a theocrat, they all sell the oil that their own economies have no use for. Money didn't leave Libya (other than the obscene amounts that Gaddaffi stole, but he didn't exactly give that to us, and we ended up giving it back to the Libyans once confiscated), the Libyan government engaged in trade that was massively unfavorable to us in terms of the % that he took, considering the fields were property of western companies up until that point. So this guy steals the oil from western companies, sells it back at a mark-up, and we let him be dictator for how long? And how did we react when the Iranians tried to do the same? These spy-novel stories newver make much sense.
What exactly are you arguing? I'm thoroughly confused. We got rid of Gaddafi because it suited our interests, at acceptable costs. Are you seriously claiming that it was only out of the good of our hearts that we supported the Libyan revolution?
And just to be clear; The "good of our hearts" deal is one of the causes for our involvement. It's not the only one. Just like Iraq had a lot to do with oil, but also power politics (US/West power in the region). The world isn't one huge conspiracy, I agree, but the world is run by self interest and shady shit.
Edit: And in case you didn't understand: Supporting the revolution is a lot cheaper in all aspects than randomly invading or bombing Gaddafi (like... Iraq) and has very little chance of backfiring, especially compared with said alternative. "Why wasn't anything done sooner?" is therefore pretty obvious. And as far as "Why did we let him take power?" goes, when did anyone ever claim that shit outside of western control didn't happen? Stop painting people as conspiracy nuts. It'd do your ability to argue and get your points across a huge favor.
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 24 2012 04:46 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 04:05 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 03:52 zalz wrote:On November 24 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 11:49 Slaughter wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. 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. Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay? I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent. Gaddaffi was moving towards Benghazi, promising a slaughter. The man had already proven that he would be more than willing to commit one, if the situation called for it. You have a totalitarian dictator, rolling onto a city with tanks, threatening to massacre its people, a man who has in the past committed similar atrocities. What was the world to do? Stand by and watch as the internet would be flooded with an endless stream of footage that would make the Saw series look PG-13? Right next door to Europe, they would say. Where are your values now? Letting these thousands be murdered so your oil friend Gaddaffi can stay in power. Because yes, Gaddaffi was actually getting back into the fold, before he completely soured all relations by being the psychopath that he truly was. Toomuchzerg
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective. The point is that these warlord run regions that are submerged in near perpetual chaos, do not make for cheap resources. Stability and rule of law make for a good business climate. I'd like to see the economic output of Congo during its last civil war. I doubt it's the mountains of gold that some people seem to paint. Everyone everywhere already knew Gaddafi was a psychopath, it's just that he was a psychopath we could do business with because he was willing to allow wealth to be sent out of the country. Reagan dubbed him a "mad dog", this idea that we were in some way surprised by it is absurd. As long as he didn't do anything that wouldn't be too bad PR or cause sanctions then we were fine with the dictatorship and the profits from the oil investments. The problem comes when it no longer looks like he can maintain control at which point you immediately check whether the other side is willing to safeguard all the current concessions you enjoy and then back them in the civil war which is, of course, exactly what we did. It's is literally the textbook example, find a dictator and give him guns to oppress the country in exchange for the rights to exploit the natural resources and, if he ever gets out of line (and in this case excessive massacring to the extent that people start asking difficult questions about why we're doing business with him is getting out of line), find someone else and arm them against him in exchange for even more concessions. As for our moral imperative to intervene in Libya because of all the atrocities that would appear on TV, I have just one word for you, Syria. So we allowed Gaddaffi to come to power, nationalize (aka steal) the oil from western companies, so he could re-sell it to us, so we could at a later point overthrow him. All for the oil. What a clever ruse. Wealth leaving the country? He sold oil. What the hell do you think the Libyans were gonna do with the oil if not sell it? A dictator, a businessman, a theocrat, they all sell the oil that their own economies have no use for. Money didn't leave Libya (other than the obscene amounts that Gaddaffi stole, but he didn't exactly give that to us, and we ended up giving it back to the Libyans once confiscated), the Libyan government engaged in trade that was massively unfavorable to us in terms of the % that he took, considering the fields were property of western companies up until that point. So this guy steals the oil from western companies, sells it back at a mark-up, and we let him be dictator for how long? And how did we react when the Iranians tried to do the same? These spy-novel stories newver make much sense.
I suspect you're feigning idiocy in order to fail to understand a fairly basic point but whatever, I'll run you through the timeline again.
1) BP lobbied Blair to make a deal with a Gaddafi knowing he was a dictator in order to gain access to the raw materials to invest and exploit them. BP signed a deal with Gaddafi on the same day that Blair agreed to hand over the Lockerbie bomber. This isn't a spy novel, it's a matter of public record.
2) Blair sold Gaddafi guns as part of the deal, again, a matter of public record.
3) BP invested in Libya and its operations there, again, public record.
4) Gaddafi jeopardised BP's operations by being unable to quietly repress his people without causing any bad PR. You said this yourself, he announced his intentions to commit major atrocities that would damage those affiliated with him.
5) Britain, despite originally arming Gaddafi against his opposition, switch to providing military support to his opposition, again, public record.
6) BP continues to engage in exploration of Libyan waters and continues to reap the benefits of Libyan oil which, by the way, is sold on private contracts and not the open market.
No part of this is untrue. It is literally a textbook marriage of corrupt business and political interests meddling in the affairs of a foreign nation.
|
But seriously, can you guys imagine the horrors of typing on a cell phone screen WITHOUT tactile feedback? I shudder at the thought.....
Also it is my thesis that this comment is just as useful to the people of the Congo as every other comment in this thread. I guess complete impotence just turns me off of trying to find constructive solutions to problems.
|
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.
What an absolutely absurd thing to say. British control of African colonies contributed to the subjugation and enslavement of an entire race.
The abundant wealth of Africa requires extraction, refinement and a vast array of logistical concerns of which only a few African nations could afford the expense. They ought not be the richest countries in the world, as they haven't the slightest semblance of infrastructure required to acquire and trade their natural resources.
As far as imperialism, and of British involvement, you're forgetting it would be nearly impossible for most nations, including Great Britain, to intervene on unilateral terms. Great Britain is but a shadow of its former self, and can hardly lift a finger without unamious support from the EU, UN and US. The US could potentially intervene unilaterally, but at the vast expense of international condemnation and without the immeasurable aid of an international coalition.
I'd suggest you re-evaluate your position, as it is inherently biased and lacks the comprehensive analysis of an impartial observer. Furthermore I'd suggest you enlist more civil language against those who disagree with you, as your demeanor seems unbecoming of a TL mod.
User was banned for this post.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
^
The history of colonization in Africa goes back very deep, with a lot of cause and effects from each imperialist country.
It's like the state of the poor American ghettos. There is a lot of history there and you can't put all the blame on the individuals living and growing up in the ghetto. A lot of history involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
