According to Google, ~817 MILLION people live below the poverty level (<$3 / day / person / PPP), yet somehow the vast majority manage to live their lives without becoming radicalized.

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

According to Google, ~817 MILLION people live below the poverty level (<$3 / day / person / PPP), yet somehow the vast majority manage to live their lives without becoming radicalized.

I guess Gorth had to explicitly mention it's about increased likelihoods, not guarantees.

https://apnews.com/article/us-iran-war-hormuz-april-27-2026-374d81d1aac6d8f19c21e1d1e10ab103

Trump should take the deal, based off his comments previously, save himself some work.

2 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

According to Google, ~817 MILLION people live below the poverty level (<$3 / day / person / PPP), yet somehow the vast majority manage to live their lives without becoming radicalized.

Yes its a legitimate point you making. Its similar to the argument " we see so much crime from community x or y because of inequality\poverty " ( or something similar )

Its not convincing because the majority of people living in poverty don't commit crime

But as far as these insurgencies are concerned there are 2 main groups involved. Separatists aren't considered radicalized, they just want their own region

The AQ\ISIS linked groups are more radicalized and they only exist in certain African countries and there Islamic extremist ideology only resonates with some people

The vast majority of people in these indigent regions dont join them but they suffer the worst consequence of there ideology and they largely Muslim themselves

Whats also making recruitment much easier is the brutality and military response from the Juntas and Russians in trying to crush these insurrections. Not a surprise of course to see the Russians fight war like this

This has been going on for years in these 3 countries

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crmx7x3yjyko

"A shopkeeper has told the BBC how Russian mercenaries fighting jihadists in Mali carried out the cold-blooded murder of two men in front of him and then threatened to chop off his fingers and kill him too.

This is one of several similar testimonies collected by the BBC showing the tactics used by the Russian fighters as they waged a brutal counter-insurgency operation against Islamist militants in the West African nation - methods widely condemned by human rights groups."

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/28/mali-army-wagner-group-atrocities-against-civilians

"Nairobi) – Malian armed forces and Wagner Group foreign fighters have unlawfully killed and summarily executed several dozen civilians during counterinsurgency operations in Mali’s central and northern regions since December 2023, Human Rights Watch said today. Military drone strikes on a wedding celebration on February 16, 2024, and during a burial on February 17, 2024, killed at least 14 civilians, including 4 children."

4 hours ago, HoonDing said:

"Islamist radicals joined forces with northern separatists to orchestrate the biggest rebel offensive in the West African country in 14 years, with attacks on towns, cities, military bases, airports and homes of senior politicians."

Slava Ukrianaiji

Funny thing, the bigger one, 14 years ago, was when the region was under French domination. What were the French doing to stop it, it's all their fault, why haven't things improved in 130 years of French domination etc etc said Bruce, never, ever.

Funny thing as well, that was due to the primarily French decision to topple Gaddafi to unselfishly and generously try and keep then President Sarkozy out of jail for accepting definitely not bribes from Libya. Which flooded the area with unregulated arms and the completely unregulated support of anyone anti Gaddafi lead to AQIM getting a lot of them.

A painful lesson- well not really, since the people who suffered from it weren't the rich white euroweenies who caused it, they patted themselves on the back while ignoring the open air slave markets etc- which at least was learnt from when it came to Syria. Where, of course, ISIS caliph al Baghdadi's deputy and head of Al Qaeda in Syria is now feted by people like... the French President at the Elysee. Ho hum.

didn't france get kick out another part of west africa this or last year

where will they find another place to loot for fuel for all their nuclear power plant

Côte d'Ivoire was last year, and probably a bit unexpected since France had still retained enough influence to arrest Laurance Gbagbo after a disputed election only 15 years ago, and the beneficiary of that move (ie Alassane Ouatarra) is still in office. 15 years, and four 'elections' later*. Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad and Burkina Faso were the others that went earlier.

*Some might say that a 95.3% vote for a candidate is a tad suspicious but I'm sure that he was- was- just that competent and popular. Though the more cynical might have just the most tiny little thought that maybe, just maybe, his legitimacy is going to be called into question at some point in the future by the same people who'd been ignoring it previous.

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by Zoraptor

9 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Funny thing, the bigger one, 14 years ago, was when the region was under French domination. What were the French doing to stop it, it's all their fault, why haven't things improved in 130 years of French domination etc etc said Bruce, never, ever.

Funny thing as well, that was due to the primarily French decision to topple Gaddafi to unselfishly and generously try and keep then President Sarkozy out of jail for accepting definitely not bribes from Libya. Which flooded the area with unregulated arms and the completely unregulated support of anyone anti Gaddafi lead to AQIM getting a lot of them.

A painful lesson- well not really, since the people who suffered from it weren't the rich white euroweenies who caused it, they patted themselves on the back while ignoring the open air slave markets etc- which at least was learnt from when it came to Syria. Where, of course, ISIS caliph al Baghdadi's deputy and head of Al Qaeda in Syria is now feted by people like... the French President at the Elysee. Ho hum.

No the biggest issue is always the reality and not the sensationalism and exaggeration around " French colonialism " in West Africa

The French military were invited in 2013 to fight the insurgency and stayed till 2022 where they were booted out by the Junta leaders

The region was never under French domination, it was just a French military operation. Thats like saying the region is under Russian domination now because Russia has deployed its military

And the bigger issue is the justification for the military coups, the Juntas all claimed that you needed a military government to end the insurrections. They also invited the Russians in because the French had " failed "

Now the insurrections have become worse in every country. The Juntas and Russian military operations have failed to deliver on there most important objective and they have abandoned Democracy in the process

9 hours ago, uuuhhii said:

didn't france get kick out another part of west africa this or last year

where will they find another place to loot for fuel for all their nuclear power plant

The French military leaving an African country has got nothing to do with there investments. They not related like all types of FDI (foreign direct investment ). You don't need a military footprint to invest in any country

There are still hundreds of French companies operating throughout West Africa. But in countries like Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso you are seeing forced nationalization of some foreign companies mostly around mining and that includes Canadian, Australian and French mining companies

And forced nationalization is never a good long-term strategy because it destroys trust in any government

44 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

And forced nationalization is never a good long-term strategy because it destroys trust in any government

An interesting point. Curious about your view on the best solution. How would a resource rich country make best use of its resources? Letting foreign countries have them for free never really worked in the past. If not nationalizing the resource, then what? Most common result is foreign enclaves where the corporation operating the area builds a local industry for its own imported workforce. I.e. very little benefit for the local econonmy. The Chinese are best known for it at the moment, but they were neither the first nor the worst (i.e. stripping an area of anything of value leaving the locals to pick up the clean up bill and the consequences). It breeds resentment. Taxing the hell out of corporations (good luck trying to do that)?

edit: I.e. what would you consider viable alternatives to nationalising resources?

edit2: Yes, I am perfectly well aware of it not working well in the past, mostly because such governments are just as corrupt as the corporations they seized the resources from

edit3: Hypothetical example, a Saudi corporation decides arctic ice from Greenland is the perfect fit for Saudi drinks and wants to strip mine the ice sheet. Government in Nuuk gets bribed to let said Saudi firm import know how, machinery and specialized Saudi work force to slear the ice from Greenland. What options would the Inuit population have to get part of their heritance and the wealth currently flowing into Saudi pockets?

delusional

usa nationalized military industry during ww2

building the most powerful military in 4 year

if usa still have nationalized military industry it wouldn't be paying trillion for garbage

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

An interesting point. Curious about your view on the best solution. How would a resource rich country make best use of its resources? Letting foreign countries have them for free never really worked in the past. If not nationalizing the resource, then what? Most common result is foreign enclaves where the corporation operating the area builds a local industry for its own imported workforce. I.e. very little benefit for the local econonmy. The Chinese are best known for it at the moment, but they were neither the first nor the worst (i.e. stripping an area of anything of value leaving the locals to pick up the clean up bill and the consequences). It breeds resentment. Taxing the hell out of corporations (good luck trying to do that)?

edit: I.e. what would you consider viable alternatives to nationalising resources?

edit2: Yes, I am perfectly well aware of it not working well in the past, mostly because such governments are just as corrupt as the corporations they seized the resources from

edit3: Hypothetical example, a Saudi corporation decides arctic ice from Greenland is the perfect fit for Saudi drinks and wants to strip mine the ice sheet. Government in Nuuk gets bribed to let said Saudi firm import know how, machinery and specialized Saudi work force to slear the ice from Greenland. What options would the Inuit population have to get part of their heritance and the wealth currently flowing into Saudi pockets?

I have no issue with any government owning its own resources, this works well in many places like the ME or Norway

But thats when the state funded and created its own state controlled investment

Whats happening in places like Africa or Venezuela is foreign companies created the investment and controlled it for decades and now because of a badly run state they want to take control of that investment because they want the revenue stream. And they dont give the company a choice because they are the current government, thats what I define as forced nationalisation. Its theft and it undermines the agreement of why the investor created the FDI in the first place

But agreed on nationalization is fine, so the company agrees to sell its assets to the state or sell part ownership. This works like in Botswana and its mining agreement with De Beers.

Another workable option is mining licenses aren't permanent and they need to be renewed after 15-20 years, so the state can decide to not renew a license and take ownership at the end of the 15-20 years but this way the investor knows and agrees to this deal. Its not theft even if this carries certain risk and investor anxiety

But going back to your main and most relevant question, "How would a resource rich country make best use of its resources"

You have 2 main choices, the state creates and owns the investment from beginning . Then the tax revenue is used to benefit all citizens. The Norwegian sovereign fund is just one example of this around how taxes and profits go directly into the fund

The other choice is you encourage FDI and you either grant them full ownership or you create a partnership but this must be done from the beginning and its contractually agreed to. And obviously these companies must abide by laws and regulations around things like conservation and sustainability where reasonable possible

In both these examples its the responsibility of the government to ensure the Inuit population benefit from the mining going on. And that could take different forms. We also have mining companies that commit to building things for the local community but its not well done. I firmly believe its the government who should be uplifting communities and not the investor

In South Africa the tax revenue from all our mining investments often is enough to boost GDP per quarter and SARS will sometimes report on overall tax windfalls just on high commodity prices. And all our mines are privately owned. But then the state either squanders or misallocates this increased revenue so the perception gets created that " mining doesn't help because the state doesn't own the mines "

Which is a false analysis, mining generates lots of tax revenue for our state

But what should never be acceptable is a badly run, corrupt or inefficient government suddenly looks around at successful FDI that has been in the country for decades and decides " we are going to take control of that asset because we want there revenue stream "

That's what forced nationalization is

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

The French military were invited in 2013 to fight the insurgency and stayed till 2022 where they were booted out by the Junta leaders

The region was never under French domination, it was just a French military operation. Thats like saying the region is under Russian domination now because Russia has deployed its military

Regionally all of Senegal/ Chad/ Niger/ CdI had a permanent French military presence since independence. Mali was Soviet aligned for a bit iirc, but had French military presence dating back to at least 1999*, so not 2013. That's just when Operation wotsit started. And, of course, France being the colonial power means they were 100% under French domination, then.

You only have to look at the terms under which Niger's main international currency earner operated to see that it was being run for French benefit, not Nigerien. The Japanese were paying double the price the French were for yellowcake.

*had to check french wikipedia to confirm that, so not exactly accessible.

17 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Yes its a legitimate point you making. Its similar to the argument " we see so much crime from community x or y because of inequality\poverty " ( or something similar )

Its not convincing because the majority of people living in poverty don't commit crime

Hmm, Google also tells me that "1% of individuals committing 63% of violent crimes" so maybe Gorth/Malcador math checks out. That means 817 MILLION people living in poverty is going to create a lot of wackadoos. I mean, theyre obviously not in it to uplift their community, and theyre not getting rich doing it, so its really just about inflicting violence on anyone with a different viewpoint until the cycle repeats and its their turn in the tire fire. Perhaps the true solution is giving everyone access to mental health services so they can work out that angry thats inside them?