US sending troops to Uganda

[Joecoolyo]

How many of the kids that will be forced to go over there signed up to protect crooked African governments?

How many kids make it into the Green Berets?

 

[Artifis]

What I don't get is why he didn't go through congress. Again. I mean, his letter to Congress did speak about his actions being "in furtherance of the Congress's stated policy". But doesn't any president have to at least ask for its opinion on sending troops anywhere?

Yeah. This is not Israel, so it is not worth talking about.

I do hope that you were joking..

If America truly cared about those people, it would invade in full-force. This is akin to lip service.

And full out invasion has always worked out well in this day and age...?

 

[Lord of Elves]

I didn't know if they were combat troops or not. If they aren't now, I'm sure we'll have some there soon.

Because speculative predictions validate my argument.

 

[Defiant47]

And full out invasion has always worked out well in this day and age...?

It worked with Iraq and it worked* with Afghanistan.

Not to say that those operations were carried out in the best way or for the right reasons, of course.

* - I'm Canadian, and from our viewpoint, our mission in Afghanistan is complete.

 

[Artifis]

It worked with Iraq and it worked* with Afghanistan.

Not to say that those operations were carried out in the best way or for the right reasons, of course.

* - I'm Canadian, and from our viewpoint, our mission in Afghanistan is complete.

Did it really? Perhaps in toppling dictatorships. But that's about as far as it went. Iraq is the 9th most unstable country in the world. Not many look to it as a shining beacon of American success. Foreign-policy wise, it has been quite the disaster.

Afghanistan has hardly turned out better.

When you say "worked", what do you mean? I'm curious, especially with your qualifier that they weren't "carried out in the best way or for the right reasons".

 

[GhostWriter16]

How is sending 100 troops to Uganda going to not put Americans first?

It doesn't, it was more of a general principle.

 

[innonimatu]

Supporting brutal regimes so that countries won't align with your enemy does not count as humanitarian intervention, at least in my book.

The you should watch the newsreels about events in Africa during and after the formal independences there. Plenty of humanitarian excuses even then.

You know that latest little massacre in Rwanda? You know how it came about? Hint: search about what the very humanitarian and well-intentioned (and they probably did believe themselves to be!) belgian government did just before pulling out of the territory, how it handled the transfer of power. And that's just an example.

Your whole theory about perpetuating humanitarian interventions is simply wrong. The United States, China, and any other "colonial power" have economic and political concerns for the continent of Africa, sometimes with a dose of humanitarian good intentions. They don't want instability, since that directly harms those interests and costs them money.

Plus, there's a difference between supporting a dictator like Mobutu and stopping someone who has quite clearly committed crimes against humanity.

You won't find anyone to support in those african civil wars who has not committed "crimes against humanity". There are two kinds of people in those wars (as in most wars): the "criminals", and the dead. And many of the dead, rest assured, were no saints before they got killed either. War breeds those demons. More war won't end them.

As for wanting instability, there's instability and then there's instability. You want to know what western companies in the Congo region think about instability? Watch the little portion of archival BBC video which Adam Curtis dug up for the third part of his "All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace", starting at 7:30 min. It's a spokesman of the Union Minière du Haut Katanga speaking to shareholders in London, I'll quote:

We've seen more that half a million people butchered, mutilated, raped, mutilated, and torn limb from limb. Only this week we're heard of massacres in Stanleyville, of mass shooting down, and of unarmed women and children being murdered. Of the burning alive of 60 men tied together and soaked in petroleum. Through all these events, your directors and I have asked ourselves only one question: to what extent would the operations of your company be affected. We are pleased to report that the events of this particular week, taking place as they did in Stanleyville over a thousand miles away from the main seat of our mining operations, need not in any way directly concern us.

Of course, in reality the Union Minière du Haut Katanga was concerned: it was its money which financed the Katanga rebellion and war in the first place! During the colonial era it had been the de facto ruling power there and was not about to lose it without a fight.
After its mercenaries and puppets lost the war and Congo became stable the dictator, Mobutu, managed to seize its mining operations. But only after the civil war ended. Which was my whole point: instability benefits foreign interests which get a free run for the resources, stability empowers local rulers to seize the assets of those interests. It's as true now as it was then! It's no accident that all the countries which were recently targeted by these humanitarian interventions (Iraq, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, Libya) ended up with weaker governments...

I've said it before about the civil war caused by NATO in Libya , and I'll repeat it now, though with little hope of my intended audience wanting to listen: you liberal interventionists are a bunch of foolish supporters of mass murder who self-congratulate yourselves virtuous even as you cheer further death and destruction in the targets of your cherished "humanitarian interventions".
And I won't say anything more because, frankly, it's useless. You'll only see things if you are ever forced to live through a civil war, or see personally and first-hand the consequences of a foreign-fed civil war.

 

[Silurian]

From Warchild

The rebels often masquerade as military soldiers, or pounce as villagers gather together for occasions such as church services. They launch vicious attacks, killing the weak and the old with machetes, swords or stones, and cutting off people’s ears, lips and noses to serve as a warning to others. The rebels capture those who can be useful to them, including children strong enough to carry weapons. The captives are tied together and marched to camps where they are violently indoctrinated and turned into soldiers, porters, cooks, or sex slaves. Captives are often forced to kill or rape family members, making it impossible for them to think about returning home. Those who do resist or try to escape are tortured and killed..

http://www.warchild.org.uk/issues/the-lords-resistance-army

100 US special forces should do some good training people to fight against this evil group.

 

[innonimatu]

Did it really? Perhaps in toppling dictatorships. But that's about as far as it went. Iraq is the 9th most unstable country in the world. Not many look to it as a shining beacon of American success. Foreign-policy wise, it has been quite the disaster.

Afghanistan has hardly turned out better.

No, it has been quite the success. And so has Afghanistan. Don't confuse the official propaganda with the real goals. The goal is wars of resources is always, always, to weaken the targeted countries, so as to better control them. If Iraq (or Afghanistan) became stable and self-sufficient, it would kick out the americans from all those bases, and take control over its foreign and trade policy. The US won't be aiming for that kind of "success", will it? Likewise for all the other interventionist imperial powers.

 

[bhsup]

How many of the kids that will be forced to go over there signed up to protect crooked African governments?

Ridiculous argument. You join to serve. You serve at the behest of the commander in chief of the armed forces. He can send you wherever he wants to send you and has the moral and legal authority to do so simply by virtue of being commander in chief. You don't like it? Probably shouldn't have signed up. You do not deserve the privilege of deciding which orders are okie dokie with your personal opinions.

 

[Artifis]

No, it has been quite the success. And so has Afghanistan. Don't confuse the official propaganda with the real goals. The goal is wars of resources is always, always, to weaken the targeted countries, so as to better control them. If Iraq (or Afghanistan) became stable and self-sufficient, it would kick out the americans from all those bases, and take control over its foreign and trade policy. The US won't be aiming for that kind of "success", will it? Likewise for all the other interventionist imperial powers.

Success from a self-centred purely American viewpoint without consideration of the rest of the world is hardly wise. What America has done is to weaken its standing magnificently in the region.

Ridiculous argument. You join to serve. You serve at the behest of the commander in chief of the armed forces. He can send you wherever he wants to send you and has the moral and legal authority to do so simply by virtue of being commander in chief. You don't like it? Probably shouldn't have signed up. You do not deserve the privilege of deciding which orders are okie dokie with your personal opinions.

It is my assumption that the forces which are sent here, since they're so few in quantity, are mostly volunteers.

 

[amadeus]

I wonder how the relatives of the 30,000 Ugandans will feel.

I'll worry about that when Uganda becomes a U.S. state.

Because speculative predictions validate my argument.

I guess my speculation is unmerited given the infrequency of our government escalating conflicts abroad.

Ridiculous argument. You join to serve. You serve at the behest of the commander in chief of the armed forces. He can send you wherever he wants to send you and has the moral and legal authority to do so simply by virtue of being commander in chief. You don't like it? Probably shouldn't have signed up. You do not deserve the privilege of deciding which orders are okie dokie with your personal opinions.

I know they're all volunteers in the sense that they joined the armed forces, but they shouldn't be lied to and told they'd be protecting America when in reality they're dispatched to stop some thug in Uganda on behalf of another thug.

As for the bolded part, I think that applies to almost anyone considering joining the military today. Why risk life and limb to try and prop up hostile (Afghanistan) or incompetent (Iraq) governments? Why send yourself to these places when it's clear neither the Afghans, Iraqis, nor even Americans still want us there?

 

[GoodGame]

I have no clue who these people are other than they sound looney and violent.

 

[Defiant47]

Did it really? Perhaps in toppling dictatorships. But that's about as far as it went. Iraq is the 9th most unstable country in the world. Not many look to it as a shining beacon of American success. Foreign-policy wise, it has been quite the disaster.

More Iraqi lives have been saved because of American operations than if Saddam Hussein would have been left in power. It now has a real chance at democracy and real political and social progress.

Your metric is inappropriate, given the fact that North Korea is probably one of the most stable countries in the world. Of course a dictatorship will be more stable than an emerging democracy. That's not the point.

Afghanistan has hardly turned out better.

Afghanistan was done to thwart international terrorism, as well as to help the locals against the brutal Taliban. The Taliban are not in complete control, and terrorism has been severely hampered. Al-Qaeda hasn't had many successes recently, and I daresay it's because we've been raiding what was previously their training and operating grounds.

I'm curious, especially with your qualifier that they weren't "carried out in the best way or for the right reasons".

Iraq was done for the wrong reasons in the wrong way. It turned out being the right thing to do (military interventionism), but that doesn't necessarily make it right. Just like stopping the abusive husband from beating his wife and children because you want his oil, not because you want to save them.

Afghanistan, well... it's a difficult operation as is. I'm sure there would have been better ways to handle it, but it's been an ongoing learning situation. Hindsight's always 20/20.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I know they're all volunteers in the sense that they joined the armed forces, but they shouldn't be lied to and told they'd be protecting America when in reality they're dispatched to stop some thug in Uganda on behalf of another thug.

As for the bolded part, I think that applies to almost anyone considering joining the military today. Why risk life and limb to try and prop up hostile (Afghanistan) or incompetent (Iraq) governments? Why send yourself to these places when it's clear neither the Afghans, Iraqis, nor even Americans still want us there?

Because it's their job mang, hell, even Wikipedia mentions it in the first paragraph:

...a reference to one of their primary missions, training and advising foreign indigenous forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Berets

 

[NovaKart]

This is really different from Iraq and Afghanistan. The US is not trying to overthrow Uganda's government and occupy the country.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ridiculous argument. You join to serve. You serve at the behest of the commander in chief of the armed forces. He can send you wherever he wants to send you and has the moral and legal authority to do so simply by virtue of being commander in chief. You don't like it? Probably shouldn't have signed up. You do not deserve the privilege of deciding which orders are okie dokie with your personal opinions.

Too bloody right. You're a bloody soldier! There will come times when your CO is laying out the mission, and he will be able to work out how many of his men aren't coming back from this one. He can probably point at one or two men and say that he's confident that they'll either be killed or wounded - but he's still going to expect every man to go, and he'll be there with them. If you can't stomach the thought of following an order that you think means certain death, you're in the wrong profession!

 

[Ayatollah So]

But doesn't any president have to at least ask for its opinion on sending troops anywhere?

Only if you think that the Constitution means what it says, and that it matters. The Supreme Court and even past Congresses have preferred to leave all the cards in the prez's hands, so ...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why is the US government helping to prop up such a despicable government? One which is so incredibly homophobic that they want to execute anybody who is gay? While this terrorist group is quite likely very reprehensible, so is the Uganda government and many others in Africa.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Why is the US government helping to prop up such a despicable government? One which is so incredibly homophobic that they want to execute anybody who is gay? While this terrorist group is quite likely very reprehensible, so is the Uganda government and many others in Africa.

Because they're not going to go anywhere if the LRA continues romping around Africa?