Kony 2012, the visible children?

Doubt the US would want to intervene. They aren't going to be getting any oil from it considering all the spotlight will be on them so any dodgy deals will be publicized quickly and the Ugandan government probably know already what they're going to do with it already. There's no security threat from Kony. So, there goes any economic or political incentives. And there's only the humanitarian incentive which isn't particularly powerful tool. At best, they raise their military aid to them. This groups heart is in the right place but a militarily intervention isn't going to solve this plus bearing in mind that the dude is in central African jungles which means the US will have to ask other countries permission to enter their land and search for him as well as the fact that very few soldiers are highly trained to fight in the jungles and this dude has slaughtered US/UN soldiers before when they fought in the jungle.

I think the group should lobbying congress or UN/AU to allow Ugandan forces access to central Africa/Congo jungles. That's problem the most anyone can do that will be beneficial.

Yeah, it does? Territorial disputes?

The Ugandan military doesn't use child soldiers as much as Kony does. Also, they're child soldiers mostly constant of 15-18 which aren't exactly children and the UK until 10 years ago were sending 16 year old to combat. Yes, it's unfortunate that the Ugandan military are inhumane but you still have to cooperate with them as most western nations do. They still get supplied with military aid however as an incentive for them to not recruit many child soldiers they get less military aid. Invisible inc doesn't give the majority of it's money to the military. The only thing that's going to happen once you get rid of Kony is to combat other injustices in the country. We can't get the regime out unless we have a ground invention which would be pointless and dangerous because it'll just lead to another human-rights abuse. Supplying them aid is like supplying starving children food. You don't get rid of the undermining problem but you do help to reduce it.

Yes, Invisible Children, the film-makers, are under investigation by a number of nations for, at best incredibly poor accounting. Only 20% of the funds donated to them are actually passed on to their causes. And that's where it gets worse; they favour direct military intervention. And not from the UN, but from anyone they can pay to do it. With regards to Kony, they've been funding the Ugandan army against Kony's regime. The Ugandan army is directly implicated in rape, pillage, murder and, likely, using child soldiers. Just like Kony.

And that's before we even get to the fact that, as Jon mentioned, he's not been active in Uganda for over six years and they're 'ok' with using this misinformation as it implies what bull**** merchants like to call 'moral truth'.

Kony is a bad guy, but Invisible Children are not the good guys.

There does not exist a person called 'Joseph Kony'.

I don't really care if they use child soldiers "less than" Kony. They shouldn't use them full stop so for that reason I am against this campaign.

Also, not correct. You have had to have been 18 to fight in the UK armed forces since WW1. Sorta a bit longer than 10 years, but there you go. You might have been confused by the fact that many 16 year olds lied about their age to be signed up.

Yes but you saying they shouldn't doesn't achieve ****. Every country shouldn't do a lot of things. We should try to change them from doing bad things but sometimes we have to realize we can't change them from doing such bad things and in order to stop something badder, we have to cooperate it. It's not as simple as saying, you're evil thus not working with you. That's just being idealistic.

I'm not talking about WW1. http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=15592 "
Until ten years ago it was standard practice for the UK to deploy under-18s into hostilities. They were on the frontline in the Balkans, the Gulf and the Falklands. However, since the coming into force of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict in 2002 (ratified by the UK in 2003) the routine deployment of under-18s has been prohibited in international law. The UK, like other states parties to the treaty, now takes measures to prevent the deployment of under-18s. Deployment of under-18s now appears archaic and abhorrent to the public and policy makers alike."

You're being very vague. And yes, you are right. All we can do is express opinions. That is what you and I are doing. So can we continue?

Also, you're incorrect.

There is a difference between recruiting 16 year olds and deploying them. Before this time the UK could employ 16 year old school leavers and train them so that they can be deployed for active service from the age of 18. So there have never been, legally, 16 year old soldiers fighting. If you read the article you have pasted here you would have noticed it was discussing whether "early recruitment" is good or not, not deployment, which is completely different.

These faces look familiar? Look at they guy on the right, you may have seen his face in the Koney 2012 videos.





Koney is an evil bastard, no doubt about that, but I found this article which is worth a look at.

http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/post/18890947431/we-got-trouble


I hope this group the best success, and hopefully the LRA will be taken out of the picture, not just Koney. But I found this article a rather good insight to this group.

Vague about what? I'm not disagreeing with your opinion on the Ugandan government being bad, I'm disagreeing with you're opinion that the Ugandan government is bad thus there shouldn't be any cooperation with them. By that logic, every country shouldn't be cooperating with each other because every country has done something bad and will continue to do something bad. As I said, cooperation gets us further than simply not cooperating. With cooperation, Kony could get captured then we can pressure the Ugandan government in stopping their human rights abuse.

Did you not see this part of the quote "They were on the frontline in the Balkans, the Gulf and the Falklands" so unless you have a source to counter that states there's never been a 16 year old deployed on the frontline then I'm not going to take your opinion as afact.

You are misrepresenting my argument.

The US has, on multiple occasions tried to intervene. I'd much rather support them than the Ugandan Army. I am sure you agree? - http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136673/mareike-schomerus-tim-allen-and-koen-vlassenroot/obama-takes-on-the-lra?page=show At least they don't use child soldiers.

I misread it. Fair enough. But what point are you trying to prove here? That Britain is the same as the Ugandan army? Child killers, raping, pillaging and all?

e evil then claiming the moral high ground, is well, a little bit bad.

Wow, so much misinformation.

A) This group has always favored military intervention. If you didn't know that, your fault.

B) This group main aim has never been to supply aid directly to Ugandans. Again, if you didn't know that your fault. Its main aim is to a) capture Kony and put a end to him and b) raise awareness for this cause.

C) Kony hasn't been inactive for six years, this is just bull****. His been inactive since 2009 which is 3 years.

D) They fund the Ugandan military for the same reason the US funds the Ugandan military, they're the only military that's actively pursuing this cause. The UN sent some people before and all the soliders got slaughtered by Kony's men. It works with the UN itself fyi.

E) The Ugandan military are much more humane than Kony. They commit human rights abuse no doubt but they're not on the same level as Kony and for anyone to believe they are just shows how uneducated and sheeple they are because it's most like based on the anti-Invisible children **** that's been spreading.

Don't blame the group. If you don't want to donate, don't donate. But, they aren't doing anything wrong as far as I can see.

Forgive me, but I don't think flashy $1m videos and posing with dangerous weapons are the hallmarks of true humanitarians (and looking at their $1m travel costs - using charity funds - last year, I'd be highly surprised if they didn't all fly out in first class...).

Despite me very low opinion of them - you are right. Simply don't donate if you don't want to donate. But their flashy campaign is clearly aimed at the idiots who will just buy into the cause from watching a flashy video and is rather exploitative in my opinion.

Even the Ugandan government have announced that the video is entirely misleading and that it is "for self-promotion and to garner resources for their own agenda".