| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:56 pm Post subject: Re: Obama deploys combat troops to Africa |
 |
|
| BBC wrote: |
Mr Obama did not provide any details about the deployment duration, but a US military spokesman later told the BBC that the "forces are prepared to stay as long as necessary to enable regional security forces to carry on independently".
|
That sounds... vaguely familiar.
I wonder if the Democrats will ever stand up to King Obama... it's sad to see a Republican have to be the one to complain about the President's "coalition of one" putting troops in new countries without even mentioning it to Congress. Oh how I long for the heady days of the Magna Carta. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Obama deploys combat troops to Africa |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| BBC wrote: |
Mr Obama did not provide any details about the deployment duration, but a US military spokesman later told the BBC that the "forces are prepared to stay as long as necessary to enable regional security forces to carry on independently".
|
That sounds... vaguely familiar.
I wonder if the Democrats will ever stand up to King Obama... it's sad to see a Republican have to be the one to complain about the President's "coalition of one" putting troops in new countries without even mentioning it to Congress. Oh how I long for the heady days of the Magna Carta. |
You know that the united states has armed forces in around 80 countries or so, and has had it for decades right? This isn't really anything new, or anything hardly unique to Obama. That anybody is surprised about 100 troops means that they haven't been paying attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: Obama deploys combat troops to Africa |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| That anybody is surprised about 100 troops means that they haven't been paying attention. |
Still, I believe that the ho-hum normalization of things which should be outrageous encourages their continuation only slightly less than an outright endorsement would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: Obama deploys combat troops to Africa |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| That anybody is surprised about 100 troops means that they haven't been paying attention. |
Still, I believe that the ho-hum normalization of things which should be outrageous encourages their continuation only slightly less than an outright endorsement would. |
You've got to pick your battles though. I have a hard time condemning him for sending 100 troops to try to capture the leader of the Lords Resistance Army. The rules of engagement are to not fire unless in self defense. Considering that the LRA is just about the worst group imaginable, what with child soldiers forced prostitution and massacring of civilians, and so on and so forth. 66,000 captured children is something that should be stopped. My understanding of this is that they are there to act as advisers, and to help supervise things and gather intelligence. As long as they only act in that capacity, I can't see anything particularly wrong with this. If it escalates than it could be troublesome. This is something that troops have done for decades in places like the Philippians, Thailand, etc. Read this to try to get a better understanding of it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/why-is-obama-sending-troops-against-the-lords-resistance-army/246748/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd likely support the effort, but I'm with McCain on being annoyed that he didn't mention it to Congress. And I find it ironic that a Republican has to lecture the Democrats on the broad use of Executive power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| I'd likely support the effort, but I'm with McCain on being annoyed that he didn't mention it to Congress. And I find it ironic that a Republican has to lecture the Democrats on the broad use of Executive power. |
Yeah, we can agree that it is not great that he didn't mention it to congress. I think that it is within the scope of the presidency though, as long as they don't engage in hostility. I think that as the commander in chief that he can send advisers with out notifying congress. I'm pretty sure about this, but maybe I'm wrong, and if anyone can find out otherwise than let me know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZIFA
Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: Dici che il fiume..Trova la via al mare
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Long overdue.
I welcome the re-involvement of western powers in africa.
I wish the US had soldiers in several african countries. It might have averted a whole lot of tragedies over the past decade.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: Obama deploys combat troops to Africa |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| That anybody is surprised about 100 troops means that they haven't been paying attention. |
Still, I believe that the ho-hum normalization of things which should be outrageous encourages their continuation only slightly less than an outright endorsement would. |
You've got to pick your battles though. I have a hard time condemning him for sending 100 troops to try to capture the leader of the Lords Resistance Army. The rules of engagement are to not fire unless in self defense. Considering that the LRA is just about the worst group imaginable, what with child soldiers forced prostitution and massacring of civilians, and so on and so forth. 66,000 captured children is something that should be stopped. My understanding of this is that they are there to act as advisers, and to help supervise things and gather intelligence. As long as they only act in that capacity, I can't see anything particularly wrong with this. If it escalates than it could be troublesome. This is something that troops have done for decades in places like the Philippians, Thailand, etc. Read this to try to get a better understanding of it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/why-is-obama-sending-troops-against-the-lords-resistance-army/246748/ |
I'm generally not a great fan of U.S. troops deployed overseas but I'd rather it be for something ethical and moral than for money or oil such as both wars in Iraq by both Bushes. The public never wavered its support for any war that was to defend ourselves or highly just (the north in the civil war, WW2). The other wars of the last century and current century eventually got the public against it because it didn't stand the sniff test over time and had people wondering why we're involved (Korean, Vietnam, Iraq). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
"�Domestic security [in Uganda] will be closely related to political risk. Many Ugandans are fed up with [President] Museveni�s seemingly interminable rule (and all the contracts and business opportunities going to his family and entourage), and no longer think that they can achieve a change of government through the ballot box. That Uganda will be an oil producer just ups the stakes in the political contest,� Bohnstedt concluded."
Yes, lets jump into the middle of another country's civil war with the obvious intention of securing oil from them. I'm sure the locals won't notice. And if they do notice, they won't care. And if they do care and hate us, it's because of our freedom and prosperity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
"�Domestic security [in Uganda] will be closely related to political risk. Many Ugandans are fed up with [President] Museveni�s seemingly interminable rule (and all the contracts and business opportunities going to his family and entourage), and no longer think that they can achieve a change of government through the ballot box. That Uganda will be an oil producer just ups the stakes in the political contest,� Bohnstedt concluded."
Yes, lets jump into the middle of another country's civil war with the obvious intention of securing oil from them. I'm sure the locals won't notice. And if they do notice, they won't care. And if they do care and hate us, it's because of our freedom and prosperity. |
Again, in this case you are wrong. Firstly, 100 men is very small, and this isn't the first time we've done this, we do this all around the world constantly, but you usually never hear about it. Secondly, if they do notice they probably will not be that upset. Even the taliban was more popular than these guys. These guys are less an insurgency than a cult, and bandits. And lastly I fail to see how 100 guys are going to overthrow the Ugandan government to steal their oil. We've been giving the Ugandan government aid and intelligence for years now, if that hasn't already secured us oil, than why would this change anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Even the taliban was more popular than these guys. These guys are less an insurgency than a cult, and bandits. And lastly I fail to see how 100 guys are going to overthrow the Ugandan government to steal their oil. We've been giving the Ugandan government aid and intelligence for years now, if that hasn't already secured us oil, than why would this change anything. |
All of this is true.
And even though I'm no expert on international sociology, I get the impression that people living in a former colony may react strongly to foreign troops on their soil (I know I would). This is amplified by the report that some voters don't think they can affect change at the ballot box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Even the taliban was more popular than these guys. These guys are less an insurgency than a cult, and bandits. And lastly I fail to see how 100 guys are going to overthrow the Ugandan government to steal their oil. We've been giving the Ugandan government aid and intelligence for years now, if that hasn't already secured us oil, than why would this change anything. |
All of this is true.
And even though I'm no expert on international sociology, I get the impression that people living in a former colony may react strongly to foreign troops on their soil (I know I would). This is amplified by the report that some voters don't think they can affect change at the ballot box. |
That is true, but trust me when I say that they hate the Lords Resistance Army more. It's one of the few things that unites Uganda is the hatred of that group. Do some research on the cult and you'll see what I mean. This is not the issue to become angry about. There are many many other better ones out there if you do a bit of digging. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What if thousands of the so-called Lord's Army attacks the 100 soldiers. Now, supposedly there are already some soldiers in Uganda. If there are a few hundred American soldiers who would be backed up the Ugandan Army if need be, then they wouldn't be in danger of being wholesale slaughtered. I am not sure how comfortable I am with deploying more soldiers, but I can't stand that army. It's horrible. Why can't Uganda manage to take the leader out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
