US sending troops to Uganda

Well, the "truth" doesn't appear to be all that clear cut. For instance, Reagan back in 1976 thought the New Deal was just great before he decided it wasn't, while many communists and socialists labeled it as being fascism.
Of course Reagan thought it was great, he appointed Greenspan to recommend jacking up taxes to bail out FDR's great bankrupt pyramid scheme. I recommend Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy by none other than the great Murray Rothbard, who has been such an inspiration in these past months.

The Great Depression was a very extraordinary circumstance which called for very extraordinary measures just so many Americans didn't starve to death. For instance, Al Capone ran a soup kitchen, as did many others who could afford to do so.
At least Capone got the money to set those up through commerce and not coercion. I abhor the violence in what he did, but you know that was a product of prohibition rather than sadism on Capone's part.

Were they ushering in "communism" or "fascism"? Or were they merely providing charity and a means for people to survive?
FDR (and to a far lesser extent, Hoover) was ushering in a collectivist, totalitarian state. Whether it had a fasces or a star and sickle on the flag is of little importance.
 
FDR (and to a far lesser extent, Hoover) was ushering in a collectivist, totalitarian state.
I suppose Huey Long's opposition to FDR then was just a communist front?
 
Only they were doing nothing of the sort. They were merely responding to an international economic collapse by providing make-work to millions of Americans.
 
Very good map. While sometimes blaming it all on religion is a little simplistic, it's true that almost all of the conflicts in Africa for as long as anyone can remember have been about things such as tribal or ethnic loyalties and religion which have been motives to kill your fellow man since the beginning of time.

Now imagine what happens when your enemies are both from a rival tribe AND of different religion! That's almost an invitation to genocide...

(Otherwise you have to accuse them of being gay or witches, which also works well in sub-Saharan Africa...)
 
We should invade Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. Any and all illegitimate governments that use violence to suppress their own populace should be invaded and overthrown. Certain areas in Africa should not only have their governments overthrown, but one of our governments instated there (using force) to ensure that peace and prosperity occurs, instead of raging genocidal warlords.

As for Iraq, it has a much better chance for the future now, and overall more Iraqi lives were saved. It is not a moot point, because those are real lives that were saved, so although doing it for the wrong reasons, some good came out of the Iraq war.

The solution is to then occupy Pakistan, the parts that aren't well-controlled by the government and have these terrorist cells popping up. Of course, you can't politically do that, and the reason I didn't include North Korea on the list above is because of the risk of their nuclear weapons.

But then again, we can't invade anything, no matter how much we want to save those people, because of the current entrenched geopolitical situation that would forbid such military action.

I have a lot that I can to respond to this. But tell me... Before I do, don't you think that what you're saying is bordering dangerously on something similar to the "White Man's Burden"? You know, go into a place and take over it because the people in there deserve something better?


The wrong reasons were the WMDs and the lies and deceit used to start the war. The right reasons were to free the Iraqis from a brutal dictator. The Iraqi war achieved the right thing for the wrong reasons.

As I believe I said before, it's like we stopped an abusive husband from beating his wife because he owed us money. Wrong reasons, but somehow we still did the right thing.

It's all very nice to say that. Unfortunately you're drawing a very clear distinction between intent and consequence; a difference that should never be made so clearly. Even if the Iraqi War did achieve a possibly better form of governance for the Iraqis, do you think the rest of the world would trust the West to go into a another war when they all know the lies and deceit that went into the Iraqi War?

If anything, you could say that it was a fluke that the Iraqi War turned out the way it did.

Lastly, can you name any war where a country was invaded primarily for the protection of its own citizens against a barbaric government? Not a political reason mind you, or an economic one, but a humanitarian one.
 
At least that approach would be consistent and not so hypocritical, especially if we included the Christian nations as well.

Africa has been embroiled in a Christian vs Muslim war for decades now. The major battles are occurring in the countries which are mixed, such as Uganda, Sudan, and Nigeria. The LRA is just the tip of the iceberg.

africa-religious-composition-map.png

I don't know... It's a bit simplistic to say that. Especially considering that Angola, a country which is hugely Christian according to the map, went through a devastating civil war from 1975-2002.

Furthermore, I am not sure how far we can use the term "Christian" to refer to the the African Christians. The combinations between orthodox Christian teachings and animism/spritualism have come up with some very funky beliefs. Therefore, to present it as a dichotomy between the Christians and the Muslims seems oversimplified.
 
Religious rivalries are of course not the only source of conflict in Africa, nobody is saying that (besides Angola, Somalia is another "nice" example). It's just that in countries which are split between two different faiths, religion is often a major source of division, hatred, and conflict in addition to ethnic, social, and political rivalries.
 
I don't know... It's a bit simplistic to say that. Especially considering that Angola, a country which is hugely Christian according to the map, went through a devastating civil war from 1975-2002.

Furthermore, I am not sure how far we can use the term "Christian" to refer to the the African Christians. The combinations between orthodox Christian teachings and animism/spritualism have come up with some very funky beliefs. Therefore, to present it as a dichotomy between the Christians and the Muslims seems oversimplified.
Did I state that all wars in Africa were due to Christians fighting Muslims? Or did I merely point out that many of them obviously had that element, such as this one and in the other countries where the population is divided on a religious basis?

Do you have any evidence these aren't really Christians, but they actually practice a hybrid form of animism/spiritualism instead? Not all Africans are Christians or Muslims. Some do practice traditional African religions. But the Christians are typically Roman Catholic or Protestant.
 
Did I state that all wars in Africa were due to Christians fighting Muslims? Or did I merely point out that many of them obviously were, such as this one and the other countries where the population is divided on a religious basis?

You didn't. But you said:

Africa has been embroiled in a Christian vs Muslim war for decades now. The major battles are occurring in the countries which are mixed, such as Uganda, Sudan, and Nigeria. The LRA is just the tip of the iceberg.

Which comes pretty close to saying that the majority of the devastating conflicts are due to religion.
 
Which comes pretty close to saying that the majority of the devastating conflicts are due to religion.
Many of the "devastating conflicts" in those particular countries where the population is divided are due to religion.

The LRA "Christians" mix their beliefs with Animist tribal beliefs, I wouldn't consider them Christian at all.
That is one tiny splinter group. They certainly aren't representative of Christians in Africa.
 
Lastly, can you name any war where a country was invaded primarily for the protection of its own citizens against a barbaric government? Not a political reason mind you, or an economic one, but a humanitarian one.

Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia...
 
Does anyone know how much of the conflict in Uganda with the LRA is religiously motivated? According to wikipedia Uganda is 84% Christian and from a brief scan of the president's wikipedia page he seems to be Christian and was alledged to have ties with a Christian fundamentalist group.
 
Does anyone know how much of the conflict in Uganda with the LRA is religiously motivated? According to wikipedia Uganda is 84% Christian and from a brief scan of the president's wikipedia page he seems to be Christian and was alledged to have ties with a Christian fundamentalist group.

Museveni doesn't blend his beliefs with Alcoli tribal traditions.

I don't think there are many Ugandans who sympathize with the LRA.
 
Some people are suggesting this is a Muslim/Christian conflict which is what I was referring to, not that Museveni has the exact same beliefs as the LRA.
 
The LRA "Christians" mix their beliefs with Animist tribal beliefs, I wouldn't consider them Christian at all.

They believe in the Christian god.
 
Well, to be honest Christianity was mixed with European pagan customs early in its history.

Still is to some extent - look at the inside of any post-Norman age cathedral and note the pillars lining the asile down to where the altar is, as well as generally filling the place. Seen that anywhere before?
 
Back
Top Bottom