CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Museveni is the best thing that ever happened to Uganda, compare him to Idi Amin.
US sending troops to Uganda
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Obama isn't the reactionary evangelist president who actually thinks abstinence-only education is a way to cure the AIDs problem.
Did you miss the part where "military training" already occurred under the GWB administration, yet nothing happened to actually resolve this problem as a result?
Why would I possibly want to compare an incredibly bad leader with another one who is obviously bad? Don't the people of Uganda deserve a reasonably decent leader who isn't "elected" in a one-party sham of a democracy? One who isn't homophobic and tortures his own people while doing nothing to actually stop the LRA?
That just says that Uganda is unlucky
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Yes, they do, but I don't think it's ever been proven that he rigged elections, or anything like that, Museveni is not a great leader, but he has done good things for his country, just compare the before and after.
jtb1127
Deity
Bring back a question that has yet to be responded to: When do foreign countries have the right to overthrow a state's leader, if ever?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Being a leader of a supposedly democratic country has nothing to do with some two-bit dictator in the country's past, no matter how good or bad he was.
And compared to all the bad he's done, the good is completely inconsequential. We shouldn't be supporting his homophobic authoritarian regime any more than we should be supporting Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other country that tortures its own citizens and others and has similar atrocious human rights records.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
How about we compare him to say, Mutesa?
We are talking about Obama sending troops there, not something Bush did years ago.
Sure Uganda deserves a better leader but it's not like we can clone Gandhi or MLK and give them one. It sounds like the alternative option is just to sit it out and leave the government to fight the LRA by itself and hope that they will be overthrown (by who?) which doesn't sound like it's going to happen and probably only the citizens will suffer.
@TT- I'm not quite sure what you're arguing? I don't think you're in disagreement with me as much as your post would suggest?
National interest isn't just about oil, though. America has a vested interest in stabilising Africa and ensuring good governance, economic growth and environmental sustainability. Defeating the LRA would be absolutely crucial to that. Humanitarian concerns could just be a supplementary benefit. I have no insight into whether it is a humanitarian mission or not, but given the US has good enough reason to help out without worrying before you even get to the humanitarian aspect, I'm cynical enough to think that this isn't the dawning of a trend of unselfishly egalitarian missions. It's not a bad thing for the US to pursue its interest in this case, because that coincides with Uganda's, and I would think Uganda's population as well. Anyway, my point is that it's not quite accurate to assume that the only reason America would have an interest in helping out anywhere is for oil.
@Forma- I don't think talking about the competence of the Ugandan government is particularly relevant, because it assumes an environment in which competence would mean something. Africa is largely ungovernable in the sense we could conceive normal governance. If the Ugandan government is simply incapable of controlling its territory, that's not a reflection on their competence, but on the realities of the region. That's simply something that is well beyond their control. You argue, for instance that the Ugandan government is not doing anything to stop problems in the north. I don't have any deep knowledge of this specific circumstances, but it seems very likely that the government is simply unable to exercise such control. It may well be that they're not pursuing perfect policies, but it's important to take into account their capability that governments are able to possibly harness in a region where borders are fairly misleading. America would seem well placed to assist in creating a situation in which competent governance could create a more functioning country, and to foster that competence along the way.
National interest isn't just about oil, though. America has a vested interest in stabilising Africa and ensuring good governance, economic growth and environmental sustainability. Defeating the LRA would be absolutely crucial to that. Humanitarian concerns could just be a supplementary benefit. I have no insight into whether it is a humanitarian mission or not, but given the US has good enough reason to help out without worrying before you even get to the humanitarian aspect, I'm cynical enough to think that this isn't the dawning of a trend of unselfishly egalitarian missions. It's not a bad thing for the US to pursue its interest in this case, because that coincides with Uganda's, and I would think Uganda's population as well. Anyway, my point is that it's not quite accurate to assume that the only reason America would have an interest in helping out anywhere is for oil.
@Forma- I don't think talking about the competence of the Ugandan government is particularly relevant, because it assumes an environment in which competence would mean something. Africa is largely ungovernable in the sense we could conceive normal governance. If the Ugandan government is simply incapable of controlling its territory, that's not a reflection on their competence, but on the realities of the region. That's simply something that is well beyond their control. You argue, for instance that the Ugandan government is not doing anything to stop problems in the north. I don't have any deep knowledge of this specific circumstances, but it seems very likely that the government is simply unable to exercise such control. It may well be that they're not pursuing perfect policies, but it's important to take into account their capability that governments are able to possibly harness in a region where borders are fairly misleading. America would seem well placed to assist in creating a situation in which competent governance could create a more functioning country, and to foster that competence along the way.
I don't really know zilch about Uganda at the present, but if the worst thing that can be said about his regime is that it´s "homophobic" (as opposed to, say, "outright genocidal"), then that's a real compliment as far as I'm concerned. When compared to its peers, anyway.
EDIT: actually, when I read "homophobic country that tortures its citizens", I immediately think about quite a different country. Albeit it also beings with "U".
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
But, if we frame the argument in reality, then Obama has to take responsibility for some of his actions.
The way Formy is framing it, Obama is just cleaning up another Bush mess... and therefore not accountable if it fails and a hero if it succeeds.
There is an obvious, and banal method to this, a pattern...
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Well, that's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the recent history of this country, and how previous US "military training" has really done nothing but to give the Ugandans the ability to invade the Congo.
Once again, I don't think the current government has any desire to actually stop the LRA. If they had, they would have been doing far more than they have done so far. They also wouldn't be sending troops to other countries or invading their neighbor if they really wanted to stop these atrocities.
I would say that not doing anything about LRA while they attack Muslims and different tribes could be considered to be quite genocidal. Over 80% of the population is apparently now displaced due to the acts of this tiny group.I don't really know zilch about Uganda at the present, but if the worst thing that can be said about his regime is that it´s "homophobic" (as opposed to, say, "outright genocidal"), then that's a real compliment as far as I'm concerned. When compared to its peers, anyway.
EDIT: actually, when I read "homophobic country that tortures its citizens", I immediately think about quite a different country. Albeit it also beings with "U".
To be fair, I don't think the US has tortured any of its citizens, although it has tortured Canadians and just about everybody else. But I doubt that it would have bothered the GWB administration too much to do so.
That is complete nonsense. I am obviously faulting Obama in this thread for even intervening in this situation whether it "succeeds" or not.
Once again, I think we need a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the US government from giving any aid to any such country in any form.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
That's what we have Jack Bauer for, after all!
I agree that we need to stop our interventions... especially while we can't even pay our own bills.
Yeah, the USA may be more homophobic than western Europe but it's not like homosexuality is illegal or anything. It would have to be a lot more homophobic to be comparable to Africa.
As for torture, I don't know what you're referring to. If you mean police brutality, that's not a result of the US government and it's not like that's never occurred in the UK or other western countries.
I really don't think that's the best way to go about improving the situation? If you wait for the perfect government to come along, you're going to be waiting a very long time, and the chances are diminished without any help in the meantime. 'The lesser evil' is not a good principle to live by, but I think in this case it's a pretty clear choice. Sure, the Ugandan government might be doing some pretty bad things, but if the alternative is prolonged conflict that will diminish the capacity of any government to exercise effective control, yet alone improve the country's situation, then it seems to me a no-brainer. Giving assistant is an active way of working towards better governance. What other way would you propose of helping a good government come about? The only other option I can think of is forced regime change, and I don't think we want that.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
This is a very neo-con way of thinking... project what we want on other countries...
The problem is, we don't know what is right for every country... we can't afford to intervene everywhere, so how do we pick and choose?
This is why we have a tendency to intervene in countries where it is almost an investment, where we can get something in return. As a result, cynism crops up... because it is clear we aren't being altruistic, but somewhat pragmatic, and people get upset because you are never going to get everyone to agree...
Note I said that forced regime change is a bad thing. As far as I'm aware, the help being provided here was agreed upon by the Ugandan government. The US is not just sending 100 troops without their approval. That isn't a projection, but a response to a request. And it's certainly not neo-con to suggest that cutting off aid from countries is a bad idea.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Ah, but the goal is to have a government that we want there... therefore, neo-con. That is basically the aim of most foreign aid, it's a foreign affairs bargaining chip, to ensure something we want in place is in place, for "freedom is the only way"...
Don't get me wrong, I agree with supporting certain movements (monetarily)... my problem is when we start sending our soldiers all over the globe. Money versus boots on the ground, it is a big difference.
Here is a problem with US foreign aid also... we swap presidents every 4 or 8 years... often we swap parties/ideologies... and have some large reversals in who/what we support... this leads to further instability/issues...
Similar threads
