đź”· Open Thread

There's not much to complain about here. Switch to the unenrolled after this year's election, then you can pick up either - any - ballot at the next primary.

It doesn't matter for municipal elections, of course, because, at least here in Boston, they aren't run on a party-affiliation basis.

I've been happily unenrolled since 2006. I hate the Democratic Party leadership in this state for all its cronyism, etc. Sadly, being unenrolled was seen as something suspect in my race for State Rep 3 years ago - everyone thought I was a Republican in sheep's clothing.

I wish they would change the "unenrolled" to something else. "Unenrolled" sounds like "unregistered" (perhaps on purpose?). Much better would be "unaligned" or "non-party" which makes more sense.

Someone on this board remarked that being unenrolled and voting in a party preliminary contradicts the belief that your vote is anonymous. True, if you pick the Republican or Democratic ballot, people will know, since it becomes part of the public record.

A small issue, but one nonetheless.
 
There are few basic problems with being unenrolled:

-You get lots of junk mail from every single party and campaign. (STUFFED MAILBOX MAKE LURKER ANGRY!)
-It violates the spirit of a primary if anyone can intentionally vote for either party's weakest candidates during a primary, in order to cause chaos, and a potential upset in the general election.
-Privacy issues concerning the "secret ballot" as Mr. Keith as already noted.

I don't really see an easy solution to these problems.
 
Am I pulling a Republican ballot in the US Presidential primary? Yes.
Am I doing it so I can vote for Herman Cain and against Mitt Romney? Yes.
Will it make a difference in the results? No.
Will it make me happy? Undoubtedly.
Is it an "abuse" of the voting privilege? Eh, sort of, kind of, but I can live with that.
 
I have no reason to doubt the photographer's claim that this is real.

The "Cabinet Minister's" office, Dubai, 10/13/2011

Picture1-1.png
 
One reason I'm wearing of flipping party/unenrolled/party/unenrolled is because, should you seek any public office at all, isn't this publicly available, and you'd be branded a flip flopper? Don't know that I'll ever run for any elected position ever, but rather keep things neat and tidy, and I'd rather not stick to unenrolled.

Also; I think "unaffiliated" would work fine, and no confusion with the Independent Party.
 
Speaking from personal experience, this may very well end badly.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ops-against-the-lords-resistance-army/246748/
Why Is Obama Sending Troops Against the Lord's Resistance Army?

By Max Fisher


The pseudo-Christian terror cult has enslaved 66,000 children in its 20-year campaign across several countries in Central Africa, but it poses no threat to the U.S. or its interests




When the Lord's Resistance Army showed up in the Central African Republican village of Obo in 2008, everyone who refused to join them was killed. One of the men they scooped up, Daba Emmanuel, would spend the next year as one of the LRA's slave-soldiers. Indoctrinated, abused, and eventually forced to perform raids like the one against Obo, he survived to tell journalist Graeme Wood his story. "We killed the old immediately, and kept the young for work," Emmanuel said.

Recalling one raid on a village in the Democratic Republic of Congo, he told Wood that his small LRA faction began by gathering all the villagers together. "We put them into the church and closed the doors," Emmanuel remembered. They'd been ordered to steal supplies and find new children to make into slaves. "We entered only to choose some small girls and boys. The rest we burnt." They killed anyone who tried to escape with machetes, logs, or stones -- new recruits like Emmanuel were not trusted with rifles. As with similar groups, it's children who make the most loyal soldiers -- once their home has been destroyed, their language forgotten, and their religion replaced with a cult-like worship of LRA leader Joseph Kony, betrayal or escape is much less likely.

Part insurgency and part cult, the Lord's Resistance Army has waged a 20-year campaign of terror across Uganda, where it originally formed in opposition to the government there, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, and Sudan. It raids villages, massacres for no other purpose than bloodlust, enslaves child soldiers and child sex slaves, drugs its captives to make them more violent, all in an apparently endless mission that has destroyed countless villages and killed thousands of civilians, transforming one of the world's least governed spaces into one of its most dangerous.

A 2009 U.S. law authorizing financial support to Uganda against the LRA cites studies finding the LRA had abducted 66,000 children and displaced two million civilians. Last year, Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth -- no hawk -- called on Obama to use U.S. military force against the Lord's Resistance Army. Roth cited the group's overwhelming humanitarian toll, its small size, and (unlike, for example, the Taliban) its extreme unpopularity among the populations it terrorizes.

The U.S. already supplies intelligence and a few million dollars to the Ugandan government in its totally failed quest to stop the LRA and to capture Joseph Kony, who is under indictment for war crimes from the International Criminal Court. On Friday, President Obama announced he would be sending approximately 100 U.S. combat troops to "act as advisors to partner forces that have the goal of removing from the battlefield Joseph Kony and other senior leadership of the LRA. Our forces will provide information, advice, and assistance to select partner nation forces." Special forces will be among them. The troops will not fire unless fired upon, but they will be able to provide much-need intelligence and organizational support to the Ugandan forces; they will also provide an important check on Uganda's troops, who might be tempted toward less-than-legal behavior as they crash around Central Africa.

Kony may be barking mad -- he performs bizarre rituals and claims to fight for "the Ten Commandments" -- but he has survived for two decades, outnumbered and outmatched by every metric, on little more than his ideology and his wits. "Kony is a brilliant tactician & knows the terrain better than anybody. He surrounds himself with scouts who have what amounts to an early warning system, which is how he's eluded capture for so long," Morehouse College assistant professor and Central Africa expert Laura Seay warned on twitter. "Kony also operates in some of the least-governed areas of the world's weakest states. Many of these places have no roads, infrastructure. All of this adds up for a potential mess for US troops, who don't know the terrain & can't count on host government troops to be helpful or even to fight. This will not be easy for only 100 US forces to carry out, especially given language barriers." Seay also points out that Kony uses children as human shield -- and as much of his fighting force -- making any direct action ethically and morally difficult.

Obama's decision to send 100 troops is a microscopically small deployment compared to the broader U.S. military diaspora: hundreds of thousands of troops in dozens of countries. The list of countries with around 100 or more U.S. troops might surprise you: Colombia, Thailand, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and Djibouti, to name a few. That list would probably be a lot longer if it included special forces deployment. Last year, Marc Ambinder reported that Obama had approved special forces bases and operations across the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia. But those operations, large and small, target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. -- something the Lord's Resistance Army could not possibly do.

If this if the humanitarian mission that the Obama administration says it is, and if it achieves the humanitarian goals it is setting out to achieve, it would be harder to find a more suitable target than the Lord's Resistance Army. Since World War Two, the U.S. has often presented its military, overwhelmingly the most powerful on Earth, as a force for good and global stability. In execution, it has been a force for furthering U.S., not global, interests -- just like every other national military. Some U.S. military actions, such as the intervention in Libya or the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, were sold as efforts for global peace, and that was probably part of the motivation, but they were also designed to promote American interests: to remove threats and replace them with friendly faces.

It's difficult to find a U.S. interest at stake in the Lord's Resistance Army's campaign of violence. The group could go on killing and enslaving for decades -- as they well might -- and the American way of life would continue chugging along. It's possible that there's some immediate U.S. interest at stake we can't obviously see. Maybe, for example, Uganda is offering the U.S. more help with peacekeeping and counterterrorism in East Africa, where the U.S. does have concrete interests, in exchange for the troops. But it certainly looks like a primarily or purely humanitarian military mission, if a very small one. The Obama administration is hoping that these 100 troops will succeed where past U.S. assistance against the LRA -- intelligence, satellite images, fuel, and millions of dollars -- has failed. Maybe they will and maybe they won't. But this seems to suggest a small but important shift in how, where, and why the U.S. uses applies military force.



Copyright © 2011 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.
 
This is just a theory but it's possible that Obama (or more likely his military advisers) are sowing the seeds/rebuilding relationships in Africa.

I would argue that Africa will be the next battleground for the War on Terror or perhaps a Post-War on Terror world. As America's influence in the Middle East wains and as the wave of Arab Spring washes over the region it looks more and more like the safe havens that terrorists held on to are migrating to Africa (this has been going on for the last 5 years but will probably become more pronounced as nations that were once friendly to terrorist organizations focus their efforts to internal reorder and grass roots change). Also, keep in mind, that Muslim extremists, for all their hate of the West, kill other Muslims far more often. This has turned many people away from their actions in the region and contributes to these organizations needing new stomping grounds.

Africa is the obvious next place for them to go. Most of the nations there are far too poor to be able to keep them at bay and with China investing so much into the continent it seems like a good place to raise capital, i.e. plunder, such as the pirates in Somalia.

Going after the LRA has the benefit of fitting into the American myth of standing up for what's right. But more realistically, I think, it will be a way for us to get in on the ground floor, both in building good will with African governments (i.e. let's make up for the whole Rawandan genocide thing), figuring out who the new players are in the terrorist world, and as a check on China (as in, hey China, we can go anywhere you want to go, just saying).
 
In this particular part of the world the whole concept of "countries" is nothing more than trivial lines on paper. Tribalism and barbarism rules. Civilization appears more advanced in Afghanistan than the villages one encounters there. No amount of intervention beyond colonial occupation is going to change anything.

There just isn't enough of a civil society in existence, nor has there even been historically, in these remote areas. If it weren't for European colonial empires and the importation of relatively modern weaponry, these people would be living as uncontacted tribes similar to those in the remote parts of the Amazon. There's very little cohesion or trust between peoples, usually for very bloody reasons.

I don't see how any action in this particular area is going to help or buy any kind of influence. These are incredibly weak and corrupt governments. Nothing short of bribery or force of arms is going to bring them to the table in any sort or reliable fashion. Nor do any of these countries really represent a strategic or overwhelming humanitarian interest.

There are plenty of other places in Africa, with strategic interests, where US forces could be successful and accomplish everything that you've stated in terms of PR or 'reliable' good will.
 
/\ My vote for the most ignorant post ever. /\

I dont even have the energy to pick apart how vastly racist and ignorant what you said is. You know even less than most people about who lives in Africa and what is over there. You should be ashamed but clearly you wouldn't appreciate the shame.
 
No offense Van, but you can talk to me when you've spent a few years of your life in Angola, Somalia and Ethiopia during civil, or worse, wars. It's even more fun with crazy trigger happy Cubans tagging along.

I am specifically talking about the rural remote areas in the countryside, which are quite vast, and even under iron fisted colonial rule weren't under the greatest control or administration. Also remember these areas were Belgian, Portuguese, and Italian controlled, which were not the best nor benevolent of the colonial powers

The countryside is nothing like the cities.
There's limitless misery and cruelty in these places, which have no law or order, beyond crazy men with guns and trucks. These remote areas were never civilized, because there was not enough population density and strong tribalism which prevented the formation of more or less homogenous civilizations like other parts of Africa.

This barbarism used to be confined to small village and tribal conflicts. The collapse of colonialism left the strongest and craziest assholes with all the weapons and vehicles. What had been a few madmen here or there a century ago or two became a force capable of hundreds of square miles with ease. You must understand that the colonial powers kept the populace more or less disarmed and when the armories were emptied by the most bloodthirsty and the colonial armies fractured during independence, it became a free for all against lots of defenseless people. This is still the case today is places like Sudan!

The colonial borders should have been erased with the end of the colonies. The central governments spend so much time fighting over the arbitrary lines that they often allow internal tribal issues to be resolved brutally by paramilitary forces or outright warlords. Unfortunately there wasn't a sane transition to independence in central Africa and a lot of Cold War opportunism, through proxies and special forces, took place making matters worse.
 
Last edited:
^^ Pretty acurate assesment, but I'd have to say if it wern't for European colonies Sub-Sahara Africa would be a MUCH happier place.
 
It would have been more like parts of Central Asia and Oceania that weren't really heavily dominated by colonial powers. The civilized areas probably would have developed more along the lines of Korea and the tribal areas wouldn't have become bloodbaths.

Many of the colonial powers also nurtured brutality in the domestic military leadership to keep the populace in line. Once that leadership was released from their handlers, they did a lot to carve out the atrocities and political nightmares which exist to this day. Couple this with your garden variety nomadic madmen (sometimes with delusions of grandeur) getting guns and trucks, and the poor hunter gathers or village communities never stand a chance.

This isn't to say that Africa can blame everything on colonialism; as there's plenty of corruption and brutality throughout the history of the developed civilizations on the continent. Much like any other primarily per-industrial civilizations I might add. But colonialism only multiplied these problems by a large magnitude. Had there been a more stable transition to independence and an absence of meddling during the Cold War, the entire continent would have been much better off than it is today.
 
Regardless of blame or histories, we need to take a step back. We're still in Iraq (not sure how many are left) and Afghanistan, we are/were on the brink of landing forces in Libya, we can't get our noses out of Israel, Syria, and Iran, and we have the powers-who-be still waiting to pounce in on North Korea and Taiwan whenever they deem the moment to be right. Now Obama is telling me we have to go babysit Uganda now, too? Fuck no, Obama, you sit the fuck down, and your warmongers and weapons contractors can kiss all of our asses after taking our taxes as payment.

We seeded terrorism by supposedly seeding democracy and friendship. Why did 9/11 happen? Because we got involved in the Middle East, and we did it in the name of fighting communism, spreading "democracy", and "strategic interests". We set ourselves up for terrorist attacks and wars that can't be won. Does that mean it was justified and we deserved it? Hell no, and the perpetrators can burn in hell. But those who instigated them and pushed them can rot in hell, too. Our occupation -- real, shadow, or otherwise -- is going to piss people off. If we want to get involved in winning over friends, send bails of wheat and bushels of apples. Not crates of guns and ships of planes. And stop assassinating people, especially when putting someone of our own choice to pull strings for us.

I'll stop rambling there, I haven't slept much and it is late, I've forgotten what my point even was now...
 
No, sick passenger is code for "dead customer ON the train". Often times it actually IS a sick passenger though - sick usually refers to some kind of bodily injury, rather than someone puking or passing out, and the delays are mainly from the MTA doing an investigation to cover their asses when that customer eventually files a lawsuit.
"Police investigation" is the code for a suicide by train. Service will be disrupted for about a half hour, usually. I've seen it mess up things for as long as 3 hours though.

I really wish I hadn't learned this.
 

Back
Top