I thought the video was pretty straightforward in saying "we are about raising awareness". They didn't make any claims about feeding people, digging wells or anything else.
The video was straight forward, in it did not say how they expected this man to be captured. It seems that they want the US government to send the US Army in to do the dirty work. The majority of Americans have been crying to bring their troops home from wars that the US shouldn't be involved in as it is. Now, they think it is ok to basically invade Africa to capture the boogeyman?
They literally couldn't have done this better, and this kind of exposure for that kind of money is the bargain of the century. How telling the world about a war criminal that none of us had ever heard of yesterday morning is a bad thing, I don't know.
Could they have done this better? Sure, they could have gone into more detail of what they actually do in Africa?
Social media is a wicked beast, IMO one not to be blindly trusted.
Sure this is a bad man, who should be stopped but we have world wide organisations for this, interpol, the international criminal court etc.
This comes across as another misguided American trying to dictate his views on the world.
Adam Braun, the founder of Pencils of Promise (a non profit organization that builds schools in the developing world) just perfectly summed up my thoughts on this situation on twitter...
"Sorry but my excitement for what is happening right now can't be contained in 140 characters, so be prepared for a rant. What is happening with @invisible right now is one of the greatest things in the history of organizations trying to create good. You may call them nonprofits but that's a bull#### term, we are FOR-PURPOSE organizations- We don't exist to not profit, to force ourselves and our staffs to live in poverty, we exist to achieve a purpose and to make the world we leave behind better than the world we inherited. Any criticism of IC is wrong, think big picture and realize the cultural impact they've had in 48 hours is what brands spend hundreds of millions of dollars emulating, they hire agencies and PR and focus on "the consumer" to sell more stuff and that same ingenuity is being applied to a true purpose through #Kony2012 and it's changed the game. For a brief moment in history, people are going outside of their comfort zone and their normal routine to INSIST that others watch this film. I've been emailed, messaged and tweeted at hundreds of times in times in the last 48 hours to "WATCH THIS FILM", because it stirred something emotional in others that made them demand justice and has actually made it desirable to focus your energy on making the world better. Can you imagine if each person spent their time and energy on pursuing purpose over profit, or even reached for their own intersection of "profitable purpose". Think of how alive you felt while watching the film, how riveted you were by 29 mins when everyone claims we only have a 2 min attention span...For the kids out there, seek a life that NEVER LET'S THAT FEELING GO...There's a new wave of people and organizations out there (@invisible @dosomething @charitywater @fallingwhistles@pencilsofpromis)...Passionate, capable and driven by purpose above all else.#Kony2012 is just the start of our potential as a global, connected community to address the world's biggest problems. In our lifetime we can solve education, disease, water and beyond.We're living in a special moment. Remember this. Inhale life, and exhale your fire." -Adam Braun
I've known about IC ever since the beginning of High School when our school's leadership program would raise money for this organization that was just starting up. Unlike most people who just found out about IC, and what they were doing, I've seen the documentary they put out 5 years ago. I've never forgotten nor will I ever forget the children and the graphics that I saw in that video.
But, regardless of what organization could have released a video like this, regardless of if it was about Joseph Kony or not, I think what happened yesterday goes to show how much young people like ourselves can spread the word about a global issue in an instant. The feeling that we all got when we watched the video and how fast we responded to it just goes to show how powerful our generation can really be. Regardless of the topic, look at how we can all be affected in a matter of a few minutes, a few hours. Our generation has so much power because of the use of the internet. I'm sure the majority of our parent's had no idea what was going on last night when we were all watching the Kony video, and I'm sure my own mother, or grandparents, still have no idea until they watch the news tonight.
What I think is really cool, is how quickly we can all agree to come together for a cause. I'm interested to see how many people actually show up to the Cover The Night events all over the world. To me, it's not about just plastering posters all over the city you live in, because people will already know what's about to happen, and they will have seen the images on the posters before. What I think will be fun, is how everyone who gathers together on April 20th 2012 will all be coming together for a common cause, and I would bet money on the fact that probably 99% of people who show up will be kids and young adults like ourselves. The idea of being able to bring together so many people to show their voice and support for a cause excites me beyond belief. To me, showing our voice and our ideas using this approach will be more effective then any kind of election I will ever vote in. You don't see this happening everyday. I think that if people stick to this and still care enough about sharing their voice when April 20th finally arrives, we can show the world that our generation isn't just a bunch of useless kids that sit behind a computer screen all day, but that we can use that to make the world a better place to live in.
So all you adults with your high paying jobs and whose kids probably watched the video last night and felt inspired for even just a moment, try to keep putting down the people who actually want to try and create awareness about global issues in the world. Go on, keep putting down your kids, their dreams and their ambitions, and their generation while you sit on your computers and criticize other people's efforts. You're no better.
And for all of you criticizing Invisible Children today, here's their response to your critiquing.
"Some people literally say ‘I love the fans,’ but ‘I actually LOVE the fans.’ I mean, and I don’t even call them fans, they should just be friends because that’s the way they’ve treated me all this time" -Craig Conroy
From a woman who has been to Uganda and another reason why I'm not on this wild, blind, Kony bandwagon.
Spoiler!
Dear Jason Russell,
After being bombarded with your KONY 2012 crusade, I have no choice but to respond to your highly inaccurate, offensive, and harmful propaganda. I realized I had to respond in hopes of stopping you before you cause more violence and deaths to the Acholi people (Northern Ugandans), the very people you are claiming to protect. Firstly, I would like to question your timing of this KONY 2012 crusade in Uganda when most of the violence from Joseph Kony and the LRA (The Lord’s Resistance Army) has subsided in Uganda in the past 5 years. The LRA has moved onto neighboring countries like the DRC and Sudan. Why are you not urging action in the countries he is currently in? Why are you worried about Kony all of a sudden when Ugandans are not at this present moment?
This grossly illogical timing and statements on your website such as “Click here to buy your KONY 2012 products” makes me believe that the timing has more to do with your commercial interests than humanitarian interests. With the upcoming U.S. presidential elections and the waning interest in Invisible Children, it seems to be perfect timing to start a crusade. I also must add at this point how much it personally disgusts me the way in which you have commercialized a conflict in which thousands of people have died.
Secondly, I would like to address the highly inaccurate content of your video. Your video did not leave the viewer any more knowledgeable about the conflict in Uganda, but only emotionally assaulted. I could not help but notice how conveniently one-sided the “explanation” in your video was. There was absolutely no mention of the role of the Ugandan government and military in the conflict. Let alone the role of the U.S. government and military. The only information given is “KONY MUST BE STOPPED.”
I would like to inform you that stopping Kony would not end the conflict. (It is correctly pronounced “Kohn” by the way). This conflict is deeply embedded in Uganda’s history that neither starts nor ends with Kony. Therefore, your solution to the problem is flawed. There is no way to know the solution, without full knowledge of the problem itself. We must act on knowledge, not emotions.
Joseph Kony formed the LRA in retaliation to the brutality of President Museveni (from the south) committing mass atrocities on the Acholi people (from the north) when President Museveni came to power in 1986. This follows a long history of Ugandan politics that can be traced back to pre-colonial times. The conflict must be contextualized within this history. (If you want to have this proper knowledge, I suggest you start by working with scholars, not celebrities). President Museveni is still in power and in his reign of 26 years he has arguably killed as many, if not more Acholi people, than Joseph Kony. Why is President Museveni not demonized, let alone mentioned? I would like to give you more credit than just ignorance. I have three guesses. One is that Invisible Children has close ties with the Ugandan government and military, which it has been accused of many times. Second, is that you are willing to fight Kony, but not the U.S. Government, which openly supports President Museveni. Third, is that Invisible Children feels the need to reduce the conflict to better commercialize it.
This brings me to my third issue, the highly offensive nature of your video. Firstly, it is offensive to your viewer. The scene with your “explanation” of the conflict to your toddler son suggests that the viewers have the mental capacity of a toddler and can only handle information given in such a reductionist manner. I would like to think American teenagers and young adults (which is clearly your target audience) are smarter than your toddler son. I would hope that we are able to realize that it is not a “Star Wars” game with aliens and robots in some far off galaxy as your son suggests, but a real world conflict with real world people in Uganda. This is a real life conflict with real life consequences.
Secondly, and more importantly, it is offensive to Ugandans. The very name “Invisible Children” is offensive. You claim you make the invisible, visible. The statements, “We have seen these kids.” and “No one knew about these kids.” are part of your slogan. You seem to be strongly hinting that you somehow have validated and found these kids and their struggles.
Whether you see them or not, they were always there. Your having seen the kids does not validate their existence in any shape or form or bring it any more significance. You say “no one” knew about the kids. What about the kids themselves? What about the families of the kids who were killed and abducted? Are they “no one?” Are they not human?
These children are not invisible, you are making them invisible by silencing, dehumanizing, marketing, and invalidating them.
Last year I went to Gulu, Uganda, where Invisible Children is based, and interviewed over 50 locals. Every single person questioned Invisible Children’s legitimacy and intention. Every single person. If anything, it seemed the people saw Invisible Children as a bigger threat than Joseph Kony at the time. Why is it the very people you are trying to “help” feel more offense than relief with your aid?
“They come here to make money and use us.”
“It makes us feel terrible to be presented as being so stupid and helpless.”
These are direct quotes. This was the sentiment of the majority of the people that I interviewed in varying degrees. I definitely didn’t see or hear these voices or opinions in your video. If you are to be “saving” the Acholi people, the very least you can be doing is holding yourself accountable to them and actually listening to what they have to say.
This offensive, inaccurate misconstruction of Ugandans and its conflict makes me wonder what and whom this is really about. It seems that you feel very good about yourself being a savior, a Luke Skywalker of sorts, and same with the girl in your video who passionately states, “This is what defines us”. Therefore, I can’t help but wonder if Invisible Children is more about defining the American do-gooders (and making them feel good), rather than the Ugandans; profiteering the American military and corporations (which Invisible Children is officially and legally) than the conflict.
Lastly, I would like to address the harmful nature of your propaganda. I believe your actions will actually bring back the fighting in Northern Uganda. You are not asking for peace, but violence. The fighting has stopped in the past 5 years and the Acholi are finally enjoying some peace. You will be inviting the LRA and the fighting back into Uganda and disturbing this peace. The last time Invisible Children got politically involved and began lobbying it actually caused more violence and deaths. I beg you not to do it again.
If you open your eyes and see the actions of the Ugandan government and the U.S. government, you will see why. Why is it that suddenly in October of 2011 when there has been relative peace in Uganda for 4 years, President Obama decided to send troops into Uganda? Why is it that the U.S. military is so involved with AFRICOM, which has been pervading African countries, including Uganda? Why is it that U.S. has been traced to creating the very weapons that has been used in the violence? The U.S. is entering Uganda and other countries in Africa not to stop violence, but to create a new battlefield.
In your video you urge that the first course of action is that the Ugandan military needs American military and weapons. You are giving weapons to the very people who were killing the Acholi people in the first place. You are helping to open the grounds for America to make Uganda into a battlefield in which it can profit and gain power. Please recognize this is all part of a bigger military movement, not a humanitarian movement. This will cause deaths, not save lives. This will be doing more harm, than good.
You end your video with saying, “I will stop at nothing”. If nothing else, will you not stop for the lives of the Acholi people? Haven’t enough Acholi people suffered in the violence between the LRA and the Ugandan government? Our alliance should not be with the U.S. government or the Ugandan military or the LRA, but the Acholi people. There is a Ugandan saying that goes, “The grass will always suffer when two elephants fight.” Isn’t it time we let the grass grow?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amber Ha
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to Shasta Beast For This Useful Post:
When you get right down to it, the primary thrust of the movies and "awareness programs" is actually dedicated to making you aware of Invisible Children more than the atrocities of the LRA. So in truth, a good 47% of their expenses is fundraising/self-promotion. Now, as much as one would have to be incredibly naive to not realize that promotion and fundraising constitutes a sizable chunk of any charity's expenses, that is just a tad ridiculous in my view.
The salaries are not so much the issue - the problem is organizational efficacy in terms of where the money is going generally (31% is really not good)
Its not good if you are making the assumption that the organization only exists to raise and send money to these impoverished nations. I haven't looked at their mission statement, but I believe a core value of this charity is raising awareness and bringing attention to the tyranny that exists in countries like Uganda- to do so costs money. If they are presenting themselves as an organization whose sole intention is to raise funds to be sent overseas, then yes, 31% is not great.
In their defence though, it's a whopping 37% of their expenses in direct services
wow, it is ridiculous imo for people to look at that and get bent out of shape over the appropriation of this organization's money. IMO, the backlash at this is nothing more your typical sect of society that always like to rebel against things that have gone mainstream and garnered mass support.
Sure I have some misgivings about plastering a tyrant's name all over the place, as it kind of comes across as glorifying the guy, but I also know that this is the most successful effort, in a long time, to bring attention to the tyranny that exists in Africa.
If perfection needs to be in place before an organization can put forward a campaign to help these causes, then say goodbye to virtually every NPO.
Last edited by Flabbibulin; 03-08-2012 at 08:50 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flabbibulin For This Useful Post:
Its not good if you are making the assumption that the organization only exists to raise and send money to these impoverished nations. I haven't looked at their mission statement, but I believe a core value of this charity is raising awareness and bringing attention to the tyranny that exists in countries like Uganda- to do so costs money. If they are presenting themselves as an organization whose sole intention is to raise funds to be sent overseas, then yes, 31% is not great.
That's fair, in many cases. However, the manner in which awareness is raised is problematic. Because of the delivery method there is no room for a fulsome treatment of the issues at stake. To be realistic, it's questionable to what degree people would even be able to grasp the magnitude of the ins and outs of Ugandan local and regional civil society and politics, and the effects various types of intervention might have. But in this case the treatment is at its MOST superficial. Essentially, they have provided a villain, and cast the problem in this region as being tied to that villain - i.e., removing this man would solve the problem and make things measurably better. This is proposed to be accomplished by overwhelming force, i.e. military options. Would this actually improve conditions in Uganda? I have no idea. I am not an expert. Nor are the million or so people who may end up voting with their wallets in support not only of the Invisible Children's presented perspective on the region, superficial as it is. They may well be paying to make the problem considerably worse. This is an area, let's not forget, where the provision of medical supplies and food can itself have disastrous effects on local economies and lead to profiteering and exploitation. A well-meaning attempt to clothe people can destroy a local textile industry. How can a 30 minute video effectively account for the effects of a military intervention to a point where people can ethically support such action?
I mean there is something really really troubling about this whole thing in that I feel for the vast, VAST majority of participants it's more about being part of the movement than helping people. Buy a bracelet, show you're involved and aware - even if that awareness is vague and ill-informed. Ever since this thing showed up on my facebook feed, I feel like someone should be quoting Pope - when it comes to problems in Africa people really need to drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AR_Six For This Useful Post:
One reason why I'm having big trouble getting behind this is that when I look at my facebook wall the people who are the biggest cheerleaders for 'invisible children' fall under two categories:
1) They are either my most moonbat of friends who never met a petition they wouldn't sign, support, or get behind.
or
2) They are the kinds of people I wouldn't take advice from for even minor day to day things let alone international relations
While correlation might not equal causation, I'm willing to stay on the safe side and simply watch the video, seek out other facts and opinions, and in the meantime not buy anything from or donate a damn thing to invisible children. The whole "Don't be such a mean spirited, dream crusher, If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts . . . . . etc." attitude is BS and not an excuse to blindly follow sentiment vs. proper research of facts and opinions.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
IMO, the backlash at this is nothing more your typical sect of society that always like to rebel against things that have gone mainstream and garnered mass support.
? Who ever said that? My "sect of society" would be one that picks and chooses based on information provided. I am against the Internet bill being proposed by Toews, I don't mind Wikileaks...anonymous can do as much good as bad in my view (though they have gotten better recently, having slowly weeded out their cruel actions in favour of real social progress). Here, I don't have much support of this movement as it bills a man who other sources have deemed less important as a primary villain.
Either way, it was a bit of fun at the expense of You Need A Thneed's comments. I never meant to infer anything from the numbers itself as I have never run or worked for an organization such as Invisible Children, so I don't know what the typical scheme is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
I also know that this is the most successful effort, in a long time, to bring attention to the tyranny that exists in Africa.
And, while I appreciate this video's effort in doing that, I do think there are way better streams to give money through to help Africa. Uganda has bigger issues than bringing down Kony now and Invisible Children's primary goal seems to be more focused on that rathan than the other issues.
In other words, I like the fact that the video brought the issue up, but have questions as to the movement's direction.
Here, I don't have much support of this movement as it bills a man who other sources have deemed less important as a primary villain...
Uganda has bigger issues than bringing down Kony now and Invisible Children's primary goal seems to be more focused on that rathan than the other issues.
In other words, I like the fact that the video brought the issue up, but have questions as to the movement's direction.
Why involve bigger issues? The organization has a narrowly defined goal, which is the capture of a monstrous criminal. They aren't a nation building or humanitarian organization, so why criticize them on those grounds?
Why involve bigger issues? The organization has a narrowly defined goal, which is the capture of a monstrous criminal. They aren't a nation building or humanitarian organization, so why criticize them on those grounds?
Their narrow goal is unachievable through public pressure, the LRA has been terrorising central africa for years, it isn't supported by outside interests and as such is imune to anything but sending several thousand troops in to kill them.
? Who ever said that? My "sect of society" would be one that picks and chooses based on information provided. I am against the Internet bill being proposed by Toews, I don't mind Wikileaks...anonymous can do as much good as bad in my view (though they have gotten better recently, having slowly weeded out their cruel actions in favour of real social progress).
Just to be clear, I didn't mean "your" to be directed at you specifically. I meant "your" in the general sense. To be honest, I really only looked at the info graph in your post and wasn't sure what your actual take was on the whole thing.
Last edited by Flabbibulin; 03-08-2012 at 01:32 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flabbibulin For This Useful Post:
Why involve bigger issues? The organization has a narrowly defined goal, which is the capture of a monstrous criminal. They aren't a nation building or humanitarian organization, so why criticize them on those grounds?
It portrays him as a major source of issue in the area when there are much larger concerns at work (and where other sources have said his relevance has decreased in recent times). If they provided more context and that killing him would be a start, not the means to an end, or argued that this issue deserves priority over other issues because (for example) saving the children increase the more available workers for the future, I'd be better with it. It feels though that they put him in as the "big fish" in the area...that his death would be the magic bullet. Is it? I don't know. If it is, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong, that Invisible Children did a great job with their mission and deserve commendation.
In other words, my concern is that they don't put enough context into the issue and may not fully act in best interests of the nation. As AR_Six mentioned before, the area is very complex politically and even humanitarian actions become destructive to the local economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
Just to be clear, I didn't mean "your" to be directed at you specifically. I meant "your" in the general sense. To be honest, I really only looked at the info graph in your post.
Also to clarify, that was from Invisible Children's defence of the criticism directed at them.
Also to clarify, that was from Invisible Children's defence of the criticism directed at them.
Ya, and I personally think its pretty decent looking. I can't say I am too familiar with many NPO's, but I have seen examples of charities that are borderline criminal in the way they appropriate money... I don't see that here.
From a woman who has been to Uganda and another reason why I'm not on this wild, blind, Kony bandwagon.
Spoiler!
Dear Jason Russell,
After being bombarded with your KONY 2012 crusade, I have no choice but to respond to your highly inaccurate, offensive, and harmful propaganda. I realized I had to respond in hopes of stopping you before you cause more violence and deaths to the Acholi people (Northern Ugandans), the very people you are claiming to protect. Firstly, I would like to question your timing of this KONY 2012 crusade in Uganda when most of the violence from Joseph Kony and the LRA (The Lord’s Resistance Army) has subsided in Uganda in the past 5 years. The LRA has moved onto neighboring countries like the DRC and Sudan. Why are you not urging action in the countries he is currently in? Why are you worried about Kony all of a sudden when Ugandans are not at this present moment?
This grossly illogical timing and statements on your website such as “Click here to buy your KONY 2012 products” makes me believe that the timing has more to do with your commercial interests than humanitarian interests. With the upcoming U.S. presidential elections and the waning interest in Invisible Children, it seems to be perfect timing to start a crusade. I also must add at this point how much it personally disgusts me the way in which you have commercialized a conflict in which thousands of people have died.
Secondly, I would like to address the highly inaccurate content of your video. Your video did not leave the viewer any more knowledgeable about the conflict in Uganda, but only emotionally assaulted. I could not help but notice how conveniently one-sided the “explanation” in your video was. There was absolutely no mention of the role of the Ugandan government and military in the conflict. Let alone the role of the U.S. government and military. The only information given is “KONY MUST BE STOPPED.”
I would like to inform you that stopping Kony would not end the conflict. (It is correctly pronounced “Kohn” by the way). This conflict is deeply embedded in Uganda’s history that neither starts nor ends with Kony. Therefore, your solution to the problem is flawed. There is no way to know the solution, without full knowledge of the problem itself. We must act on knowledge, not emotions.
Joseph Kony formed the LRA in retaliation to the brutality of President Museveni (from the south) committing mass atrocities on the Acholi people (from the north) when President Museveni came to power in 1986. This follows a long history of Ugandan politics that can be traced back to pre-colonial times. The conflict must be contextualized within this history. (If you want to have this proper knowledge, I suggest you start by working with scholars, not celebrities). President Museveni is still in power and in his reign of 26 years he has arguably killed as many, if not more Acholi people, than Joseph Kony. Why is President Museveni not demonized, let alone mentioned? I would like to give you more credit than just ignorance. I have three guesses. One is that Invisible Children has close ties with the Ugandan government and military, which it has been accused of many times. Second, is that you are willing to fight Kony, but not the U.S. Government, which openly supports President Museveni. Third, is that Invisible Children feels the need to reduce the conflict to better commercialize it.
This brings me to my third issue, the highly offensive nature of your video. Firstly, it is offensive to your viewer. The scene with your “explanation” of the conflict to your toddler son suggests that the viewers have the mental capacity of a toddler and can only handle information given in such a reductionist manner. I would like to think American teenagers and young adults (which is clearly your target audience) are smarter than your toddler son. I would hope that we are able to realize that it is not a “Star Wars” game with aliens and robots in some far off galaxy as your son suggests, but a real world conflict with real world people in Uganda. This is a real life conflict with real life consequences.
Secondly, and more importantly, it is offensive to Ugandans. The very name “Invisible Children” is offensive. You claim you make the invisible, visible. The statements, “We have seen these kids.” and “No one knew about these kids.” are part of your slogan. You seem to be strongly hinting that you somehow have validated and found these kids and their struggles.
Whether you see them or not, they were always there. Your having seen the kids does not validate their existence in any shape or form or bring it any more significance. You say “no one” knew about the kids. What about the kids themselves? What about the families of the kids who were killed and abducted? Are they “no one?” Are they not human?
These children are not invisible, you are making them invisible by silencing, dehumanizing, marketing, and invalidating them.
Last year I went to Gulu, Uganda, where Invisible Children is based, and interviewed over 50 locals. Every single person questioned Invisible Children’s legitimacy and intention. Every single person. If anything, it seemed the people saw Invisible Children as a bigger threat than Joseph Kony at the time. Why is it the very people you are trying to “help” feel more offense than relief with your aid?
“They come here to make money and use us.”
“It makes us feel terrible to be presented as being so stupid and helpless.”
These are direct quotes. This was the sentiment of the majority of the people that I interviewed in varying degrees. I definitely didn’t see or hear these voices or opinions in your video. If you are to be “saving” the Acholi people, the very least you can be doing is holding yourself accountable to them and actually listening to what they have to say.
This offensive, inaccurate misconstruction of Ugandans and its conflict makes me wonder what and whom this is really about. It seems that you feel very good about yourself being a savior, a Luke Skywalker of sorts, and same with the girl in your video who passionately states, “This is what defines us”. Therefore, I can’t help but wonder if Invisible Children is more about defining the American do-gooders (and making them feel good), rather than the Ugandans; profiteering the American military and corporations (which Invisible Children is officially and legally) than the conflict.
Lastly, I would like to address the harmful nature of your propaganda. I believe your actions will actually bring back the fighting in Northern Uganda. You are not asking for peace, but violence. The fighting has stopped in the past 5 years and the Acholi are finally enjoying some peace. You will be inviting the LRA and the fighting back into Uganda and disturbing this peace. The last time Invisible Children got politically involved and began lobbying it actually caused more violence and deaths. I beg you not to do it again.
If you open your eyes and see the actions of the Ugandan government and the U.S. government, you will see why. Why is it that suddenly in October of 2011 when there has been relative peace in Uganda for 4 years, President Obama decided to send troops into Uganda? Why is it that the U.S. military is so involved with AFRICOM, which has been pervading African countries, including Uganda? Why is it that U.S. has been traced to creating the very weapons that has been used in the violence? The U.S. is entering Uganda and other countries in Africa not to stop violence, but to create a new battlefield.
In your video you urge that the first course of action is that the Ugandan military needs American military and weapons. You are giving weapons to the very people who were killing the Acholi people in the first place. You are helping to open the grounds for America to make Uganda into a battlefield in which it can profit and gain power. Please recognize this is all part of a bigger military movement, not a humanitarian movement. This will cause deaths, not save lives. This will be doing more harm, than good.
You end your video with saying, “I will stop at nothing”. If nothing else, will you not stop for the lives of the Acholi people? Haven’t enough Acholi people suffered in the violence between the LRA and the Ugandan government? Our alliance should not be with the U.S. government or the Ugandan military or the LRA, but the Acholi people. There is a Ugandan saying that goes, “The grass will always suffer when two elephants fight.” Isn’t it time we let the grass grow?
