US sending troops to Uganda

[carmen510]

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 Uganda's government, corrupt and bigoted as it is, is far more preferable to the existence of the Lord's Resistance Army. It's comparable to whether you prefer Karzai's government in Afghanistan or the Taliban; neither is a particularly good choice, but you prefer the lighter shade of grey.

 

[Cheetah]

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 no matter how you twist and turn it, there is apparently a very great degree of difference between 'very reprehensible' and 'very reprehensible'.

 

[Arwon]

News like this is like an ideological Rorschach test.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Because Uganda's government, corrupt and bigoted as it is, is far more preferable to the existence of the Lord's Resistance Army. It's comparable to whether you prefer Karzai's government in Afghanistan or the Taliban; neither is a particularly good choice, but you prefer the lighter shade of grey.

It is all a result of essentially the same problem. Only one group of "terrorists" is an enemy of the US while the other is not. We don't have to choose between one or the other when the proper answer is "neither".

 

[NovaKart]

Sometimes stability is preferable to anarchy. Anyway, I don't think Uganda's government is going under even if America decided to stay out of this.

 

[Silurian]

Because Uganda's government, corrupt and bigoted as it is, is far more preferable to the existence of the Lord's Resistance Army. It's comparable to whether you prefer Karzai's government in Afghanistan or the Taliban; neither is a particularly good choice, but you prefer the lighter shade of grey.

The Lords Resistance Army army is worse than the Taliban.

 

[Quackers]

The Lords Resistance Army army is worse than the Taliban.

Why do you say that?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sometimes stability is preferable to anarchy. Anyway, I don't think Uganda's government is going under even if America decided to stay out of this.

Some of the worst regimes in the history of the planet were rationalized on that basis. And it is still frequently used as an excuse for the US to have backed Mubarak and similar dictatorships.

Not to mention governments like Uganda and Saudi Arabia have a far greater chance of remaining in power while they do receive support from the US.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, we never should have allied with the USSR in WWII since Stalin was a worse butcher than Hitler could ever dream of being.

 

[NovaKart]

It's a difficult moral dilemma but in many cases the alternative is a worse party coming into power. That or several competing factions fighting for power. This makes the situation on the ground a lot more difficult for the citizens who have to live there.

 

[Silurian]

Why do you say that?

The Taliban use attrocities to try to get something.

From Dawn

The daily morning sightings from one of Swat’s busiest squares ‘Grain Chowk’, renamed to ‘Khooni Chowk’ or ‘bloody square’ remained largely untold, bodies hung from poles and trees; usually headless. Often the shopkeepers would find letters claiming the bodies were left as reminders for the enemy. Then there were bodies scattered on footpaths, with throats slit and left to bleed. The threats kept getting stronger, schools were given a deadline to shut down, women were threatened to remain indoors and people feared for their lives as news of a military operation loomed.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/15/pushed-into-oblivion.html

The Lords Resistance Army use attrocities to control their own child soldiers.

From UN

Although the LRA is predominantly made up of Acholi, its relationship with the population is fraught with tensions, mainly due to LRA’s brutal methods of operation. These include forced conscriptions, atrocities against civilians, large-scale abductions of children and the forced marriage of abducted women and girls with male soldiers. It is believed that tens of thousands of children have been abducted into the LRA - often forced to kill their own parents or other children in initiation rites, so they become perpetrators and find it more difficult to return to their communities. These children are used as expendable troops as porters, and forced to become “bush wives”

http://www.unddr.org/countryprogrammes.php?c=37

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

The USA does a lot of bad things, doesn't mean that every war their involved in is bad.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The USA does a lot of bad things, doesn't mean that every war their involved in is bad.

I can only think of a few justified ones.

American Revolution (Definitely justified)

War of 1812 (We were attacked first, definitely justified.)

Mexican American War (MAYBE justified to take Texas since they wanted to join us, but that's debatable. Definitely not OK to take a bunch of other crap as well and humiliate Mexico for no real reason.

Spanish American War (War listed because I don't know anything about it, and thus can't actually refute it. But not sure if circumstances even made it justifiable or no.)

World War II. Yes, World War Dos. World War I wasn't justified at all.

Korea: Again MAYBE. I'd say we handled it wrong.

Gulf War? (See Spanish/American war.)

Afghanistan.

The rest were definitely wrong, which leaves us the Civil War, World War I, Vietnam War, Iraq War, and Libya as totally unjustified.

And several other debatable ones.

So definitely we don't have a perfect track record.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I can only think of a few justified ones.

American Revolution (Definitely justified)

War of 1812 (We were attacked first, definitely justified.)

Mexican American War (MAYBE justified to take Texas since they wanted to join us, but that's debatable. Definitely not OK to take a bunch of other crap as well and humiliate Mexico for no real reason.

Spanish American War (War listed because I don't know anything about it, and thus can't actually refute it. But not sure if circumstances even made it justifiable or no.)

World War II. Yes, World War Dos. World War I wasn't justified at all.

Korea: Again MAYBE. I'd say we handled it wrong.

Gulf War? (See Spanish/American war.)

Afghanistan.

The rest were definitely wrong, which leaves us the Civil War, World War I, Vietnam War, Iraq War, and Libya as totally unjustified.

And several other debatable ones.

So definitely we don't have a perfect track record.

The Spanish American war was meant to "liberate" Cuba, when in fact it was imperialism.

I disagree with you on some of the other wars, but I had a supreme court decision from 1973 in mind as the worst thing we did. But I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The Spanish American war was meant to "liberate" Cuba, when in fact it was imperialism.

Oh I know that part, but I don't recall if Spain actually sunk our ship or not (But even if they did, I'd sink two of theirs, rather than outright invasion.)

I disagree with you on some of the other wars, but I had a supreme court decision from 1973 in mind as the worst thing we did. But I don't want to derail the thread.

I think a "Which wars were justified" thread is a good idea.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yeah, we should have used the resources related to the Civil War on finishing off the Indians.

 

[Lord of Elves]

The rest were definitely wrong, which leaves us the Civil War ... as totally unjustified.

Stop it. Just stop it. Your secessionist apologism has no basis in fact.

What is positive, at all, about allowing slavery to persist as a negative, backwards economic and social tradition that disenfranchises in the most fundamental manner an entire race of people?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Stop it. Just stop it. Your secessionist apologism has no basis in fact.

What is positive, at all, about allowing slavery to persist as a negative, backwards economic and social tradition that disenfranchises in the most fundamental manner an entire race of people?

If the invasion had been to stop slavery, I'd have been fine with it, at least from a moral perspective, and I pointed out in the thread I started that the war gained some legitimacy after the Emancipation Proclamation.

What is not OK is to try to force the states to stay in the Union, especially without even trying to force them to give up slavery (As Lincoln intended it for the first 2 years of the war.)

 

[Lord of Elves]

If the invasion had been to stop slavery, I'd have been fine with it, at least from a moral perspective, and I pointed out in the thread I started that the war gained some legitimacy after the Emancipation Proclamation.

What is not OK is to try to force the states to stay in the Union, especially without even trying to force them to give up slavery (As Lincoln intended it for the first 2 years of the war.)

We can't force the states to stay in the Union? I'm pretty certain we gave up the Articles of Confederation a long time ago.

You can't invade your own sovereign territory

 

[GhostWriter16]

We can't force the states to stay in the Union? I'm pretty certain we gave up the Articles of Confederation a long time ago.

Nowhere does the Constitution forbid secession, thus the 10th amendment allows it.

Also, yeah, you CAN, but its wrong.

You can't invade your own sovereign territory

The Federal Government has no soveregnty whatsoever. The states do. The Federal government has any power at all because the individual states agreed to a constitution to give it such.