With Libya secured an American invasion of Africa is under way

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's something to that, but I've always had trouble reconciling it with the observation that systems of human governance only seem to sustain leaps in scope when such is necessitated by threats which are likewise organized on such a scale. So, bands give way to tribes gives way to kingdoms give way to states give way to superpowers. But it's difficult to see what global-level threat would provide the impetus to sustain global governance. Global warming doesn't seem to be sufficient (at least, not yet), which pretty much leaves alien invasion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is ridding the world of genocides and so on not in our interest, though?

States aren't ever going to do anything that is not in their interests, and any expectations otherwise are bound to be exploited or thwarted. So to me, the question seems to come down to how to best foster enlightened conceptions of our interests, and prevent such from being captured by craven influences with narrow, selfish conceptions of self-interest.

I.e., we should be rejecting the premise that exploitation of oppressed people is in the US interest. It is not. It is maybe in the narrow, immediate interest of certain specific, small, but very powerful segments of the polity. And so it is them we should oppose, not the advance of American interests as such.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Recycling the discussion will help save on e-space.

 

Whenever I consider the idea of a one world government, a quote by Carl Panzram comes to mind:

"I wish the entire human race had one neck and I had my hands around it"
​

Of course he was paraphrasing Caligula:

"Would that the Roman people had one throat, that I might slit it!"​

Either way, I see a one world government as a giant boot on the throat of mankind.

 

Such is life

'Tis better, then, to have many nations sticking knives in one another's backs?

... And here arises a question of presuppositions: Can human society only be a miserable endeavor, or can the one-world government be wrought in some manner that makes it useful to the liberty and prosperity of our entire species? In other words, it is too much to ask these folks to help make sure humanity progresses in a constructive manner; they would rather humanity not progress.​

To the other, you provide an excellent example of the harm wrought by the cultural heritage of Original Sin. Of course, I suppose that's another discussion entirely.

 

Indeed, it is an entirely different discussion altogether. However, you have presented a false dichotomy. A world united under one government or a world of nation states huh? Those are the only two choices? We must have powerful centralized national governments controlled by multinational economic forces or just one big international big brother determining the fate of all humankind huh? :bugeye: Those are the only paradigms for organizing life on the planet that you can think of huh?

I have a much greater imagination myself. I believe, and I think madanthonywayne would agree with me here, that governments are much more effective at servicing peoples needs the closer they are to them, and much more corrupt farther they get away from them. Sometimes I fantasize about the day when the bureaucracy in D.C. is dismantled, the Dept. of Ed. is gone, and the only people in charge of my sons education is my local school board. But I digress, sorry.

It sort of gets to the heart of the motivations of why this issue is important though. . . just why the media, government, and indeed, the corporations even care about if a few thousand dirt poor Africans' lives and human rights are abused deep in the jungles of the dark continent. Nope, nobody even questions why these stories make the press, and why these stories are of real interest to TPTB.

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-s...expanding-military-role-in-africa-under-obama

Let us not forget, that the main industry of the United States is the military industrial complex. Added to that, Africa is a source of raw natural resources. We have been seeking for a very long time to establish a powerful presence there. In effect, we are competing with the Chinese. Is this not a perfect opportunity? I remember the thread when we discussed the death of Osama bin Laden. Many of us knew he was already dead, and claimed the U.S. would soon find another victim, possibly Libya, we were called crazy. Sure enough, Libya was next up. Now, here is the next bad guy? The wars to fuel the war economy won't stop at this point. . . don't you see? It isn't about injustice, it's about resources and the economy. Americans have absolutely no power to stop this.

Why this? Why now? Because it's convenient, because the TPTB need something to keep them going. This and Pakistan.

If they were really concerned with the human rights abuses and were really going after Kony and the LRA, they would send in 1000 men. That would do the job, and make sure it got done right. One of my hobbies is playing strategy games. As Colin Powell would tell you, this is the way you would do it. Looking at the intelligence I have gathered, sending only 100 people is a recipe for disaster.
Can America make a difference?
100 advisers are going to be slaughtered. The only thing it this going to do is inflame American opinion toward escalation.

Kudos to S.A.M, nietzschefan, and StrawDog for seeing this for what it is.

 

Not even close.
The Health industry DWARFS the MIC for starters.

More BS.
We buy our raw materials just like the Chinese do, we don't take them by force so there is no need of a "powerful presence" in Africa to buy their materials.

And you were wrong and offered no proof of your inane conspiracy theory.
(Feel free to update Wiki with details of his death though, I look forward to you sharing your insights with the world)

Your claim to have insight is pathetic.
OBL was killed in May
The trouble in Libya started months earlier:

Nor as the above shows, is Libya an American victim.

Take it to the conspiracy threads this is just getting tedious.

Based on what operational experience do you now claim to be a military strategest?

Too bad you can't see the difference between your games and reality.

Arthur

 

To be clear, you also see any government at any scale as a proportionally-scaled boot on the throat of some corresponding subset of mankind, no?

Is 10 small boots on 10 small throats better than 1 big boot on 1 bit throat?

 

If US invade Africa, would that start WWIII?

 

I thought that one already started...in 2001..or when was that. Well, maybe it will boost the US and EU economy a titbit..

 

You clearly have no appreciation for the vastly greater destruction, death and scope of WW 2 then.

 

What's quite amusing though, is that lots of important figures shook hands with Gaddhafi, happily. Now they're looking joyfully at his rotting visage. I guess, he became too troublesome for the Europeans and the USians. I mean, before that, nobody really gave a fuck about the living standards there as long as the sticky black stuff would flow without comment.

 

Oh pardon me, one death isn't one too many for ya, I see.

 

Depends on whose it is.

But your statement devalues the massive amount of sacrifice it took to win WW2.

 

Nope, oil flowed before, it flows now. Clearly not the issue.

 

Good for you re willingness for getting involved.

 

You really seem to be in the habit of jumping to silly conclusions - ie. I am suspicious of US interventions - thus I support a child killer. What bollocks, that does not fly.

None of your above explains the sustained and increasing global reach of the US Empire Military, if you want to call it defense or national security, I am not buying it.

 

What I'd like to know is who the US is targeting there

And a bit of background to Africom and Uganda

Whats different this time around?