US sending troops to Uganda

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.

Tee hee hee.
 
Many of the "devastating conflicts" in those particular countries where the population is divided are due to religion.

I'm not disputing the fact that religion can be and is a source of conflict between these people. But in and of itself it isn't enough. Furthermore, I'm disputing is the blanket use of the terms "Muslim" and "Christian".

That is one tiny splinter group. They certainly aren't representative of Christians in Africa.

They aren't. But read this excerpt from an article from Der Spiegel:

Despite the best efforts of Christian and Islamic missionaries, some 40 percent of the people in Burkina Faso, western Africa, are still considered animist. In East African Ethiopia, a largely Christian domain, the figure is still thought to be 10 percent. Yet these numbers remain pure conjecture. In truth, religious distinctions have long blurred, indeed evaporated, in Africa. Someone who attends church in the morning and the mosque at midday might easily invite a voodoo priest over in the evening to read the kola nuts.

Practically everywhere the cult of the dead intermingles with Christianity, according to religious scholar Fritz Stenger from the Catholic University of East Africa in Nairobi. "There is scarcely any distinction between the secular and religious spheres; faith is omnipresent," says Stenger.

Should a child succumb to malaria, the relatives - according to Stenger - would partly blame the lack of effective medicine. However, the belief that its death was willed by God would carry greater weight. It is therefore no surprise that doctors attending to the sick often arrive with the preacher, medicine man and local sorcerer. Stenger, who has spent more than three decades in Africa, has observed this coexistence of divergent faiths throughout the so-called "Dark Continent."

I don't like to draw such a clear divide between Christian, Muslim and Animist because in Africa I feel that the line between them extremely blurred. Religion is a useful catalyst, but its importance may be a tad overstated.

Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia...

I stand corrected.

Even so, there is much reason to argue against an invasion of countries like Iraq/Afghanistan etc. One of them is the sheer size of these countries in comparison to the other conflicts you raised.
 
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.



That was literally never anyone's intention, nor anything that could in any possible way have resulted from their actions.
 
But read this excerpt from an article from Der Spiegel:
Once again, there is no doubt that some Africans still practice the traditional African religions, and some of them may very well practice all 3 religions in some strange way. That map merely didn't show those who still practice their native religions.

afrorelg.gif


I don't like to draw such a clear divide between Christian, Muslim and Animist because in Africa I feel that the line between them extremely blurred. Religion is a useful catalyst, but its importance may be a tad overstated.
Well, you may not like to, but most people do. The majority of Africans who are Christians or Muslims are really no different than their European or American counterparts who worship exactly the same god in exactly the same way.

And the importance of religion in causing conflict in places like Uganda, Sudan, and Nigeria isn't "overstated" at all. There are other factors involved, but much of the actual killing is between groups of Christians and Muslims.

Time Magazine: The Violence in Nigeria: What's Behind the Conflict?

The machete killings of hundreds of villagers near the central Nigerian city of Jos on Sunday have thrown the sectarian problems of Africa's most populous nation into the spotlight again. Nigerian officials claim the latest bloodshed — most victims were Christians, many of them women and children — was retaliation for clashes in the same city in January. In that massacre, Christian attackers killed 300 Muslims.

Nigeria has been wracked by periodic episodes of violence for decades. The country's 150 million people are divided about equally between Christians and Muslims and further splintered into about 250 tribes. Jos, some 300 miles north of Nigeria's largest city, Lagos, sits smack-dab in the center of Nigeria's tumultuous "middle belt," a so-called cultural fault line that divides the country's Muslim north from the Christian south. The "middle belt" is a melting pot where the major ethnic groups of Nigeria — Hausa-Fulani Muslims and Yoruba and Igbo Christians — usually coexist peacefully but sometimes collide.

Violence among Muslim and Christian ethnic groups was largely kept in check by a succession of military regimes until 1999, when Nigeria returned to civilian rule. While democracy permits greater freedom of religious expression in Nigeria, it has also intensified the political and economic friction between ethnic groups. Rioting in 2001 killed more than 1,000 people, and subsequent outbreaks in 2004 and 2008 killed another thousand. Smaller but no less vicious attacks in 2009 claimed dozens of lives.

Religious bloodbath puts Nigeria under threat of another civil war

Exactly one year ago, hope returned to Nigeria, as Olusegun Obasanjo became its first democratically elected president since 1983. Now, however, hope has given way to fear. Ten days of religious and ethnic rioting have summoned the dreadful shade of the Biafran civil war, and the same question as 30 years ago: is Africa's largest country, sitting astride the Islamic-Christian fault line which runs across the continent, doomed to come apart?

Exactly one year ago, hope returned to Nigeria, as Olusegun Obasanjo became its first democratically elected president since 1983. Now, however, hope has given way to fear. Ten days of religious and ethnic rioting have summoned the dreadful shade of the Biafran civil war, and the same question as 30 years ago: is Africa's largest country, sitting astride the Islamic-Christian fault line which runs across the continent, doomed to come apart?

The match that lit the fuse was the decision of a group of states in the north and west of the country, where the Islamic Hausa and Fulani peoples are a majority, to introduce Sharia law. As a consequence, more than 1,000 people have died: first Christians massacred in the northern city of Kaduna, then Hausas killed by the hundred in Aba in Nigeria's southeastern corner as groups of local Christians exacted a bloody revenge for murdered relatives, their bodies brought home on the back of a trailer.

Mr Obasanjo visited Kaduna and was horrified: "I could not believe Nigerians were capable of such barbarism against one another," he said in a televised address, vowing to resist any attempt to dismember the country.
This is exacerbated when one group controls the government and has most of the wealth from natural resources.
 
From what I've read about it so far it seems like in Uganda it's not a Christian/Muslim conflict.

You can see people mixing local traditions with Christianity or Islam everywhere but I suppose it's a lot more apparent in places like Africa and parts of Latin America. For Western Christians we've mixed traditions for so long that most people don't even know what's Christian and pagan anymore. It's only some people like the puritans and fundamentalists who try to erase that. My aunt went through a fundamentalist phase and threw out the Christmas tree one year.

Muslims do it too in the Middle East. In Turkey many people pray at the tombs of holy men even though it's forbidden in Islam.
 
That map is at least a little wrong, given that less than 50% of Ethiopia is Christian. And I doubt that more than 10% of Egypt is Christian.
 
According to Wiki, Ethiopia is 62.8 Christian and Egypt is 5-10%. But according to the Religion in Egypt article, the Copts may number much higher in Egypt, even as high has 15-20%. Many now remain secretive due to governmental persecution in the recent past.
 
...and almost no one notices!!! The DRC war was one that I would have welcomed intervention by almost anyone in. What do you think?
Why the hell should we intervene in Uganda? How is it in our national interest?
Why do lefties support this???

About time we started to do something about Central Africa.
Why? Why is that our job???
Don't you get upset when we intervene in other countries? Or do you believe us to be world police?

What the heck business do we have in Uganda? I say we send Obama and Gates to the front lines first.
Yes, I agree... more intervention in affairs that are not our own.

This is another waste of money.
Obama talked about change... let's see... ok, we're withdrawing from Iraq, which was already on the calendar before he took over... and it was the most worthy of the interventions/attacks (though we still shouldn't have gone, we have stopping genocide as a reason for doing it).
Afghanistan... invade a country to capture one man... ten years later, no end in sight, the one man is dead (albeit in another country!)... Obama, withdraw.
Libya??? WTH? WHY? First off, we were, however poorly advised, allied with Qaddafi... and why the hell do we care how it turns out anyhow? Let them kill each other.
Now, Uganda.

Wasn't war/military spending a huge part of the deficit problem that Obama campaigned against? He's got us more entangled than Bush Jr did!!! Unbelievable.
 
Wasn't war/military spending a huge part of the deficit problem that Obama campaigned against? He's got us more entangled than Bush Jr did!!! Unbelievable.

What, he went into Libya and is practically out again, and this small incursion into Uganda, while Bush Junior went into both Iraq and Afghanistan and your lot are still there? Come on, you can do better than that.
 
The Chinese may well start to take a more active role in Africa.

I suppose they have not yet trained any of their army to act in peacekeeping roles yet.
 
Why the hell should we intervene in Uganda? How is it in our national interest?
Why do lefties support this???

I don't care about American national interest, and I don't neccesarily support exactly what is being done here. However, of all the many, many groups the US has decided to sail around the wiorld to kill in my lifetime, I'll shed the least amount of tears about these maniacs.
 
The Chinese may well start to take a more active role in Africa.

I suppose they have not yet trained any of their army to act in peacekeeping roles yet.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-05-30-voa17-68687462.html

As the United Nations finds its peacekeeping missions stretched around the world, one major power is making a difference. China, a country that once criticized UN peacekeeping operations as interference with national sovereignty, is now a major troop contributor. Close to 2,200 Chinese are now wearing the characteristic blue helmets of U.N. peacekeepers.

Chinese peacekeepers are an increasing and welcome presence to over-stretched UN peacekeeping operations from Sudan to Haiti and Liberia.

With 115,000 blue helmets dispersed around the world on increasingly complex missions, the U.N. says it is grateful for the Chinese contribution. Alain Le Roy is the United Nations Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations.

"Their troops are very well disciplined of course, the organization of their command structure is extraordinary and whether you are on the ground in Haiti or Darfur, the Chinese camp can be easily recognized and the competence of the troops, their engineers, their doctors are at a very high quality," he said.

China does not provide combat troops, but it does provide medical teams, engineers, civilian police, and military observers. Chinese diplomats at the UN say they want to project a reassuring peaceful image, one of a responsible country.

And China's Ambassador to the U.N., Zhang Yesui, says as the country develops they will become more involved.

"China is still a developing country and a low income developing country but I am confident that as China develops we will be in a better situation to contribute more to United Nations Peace keeping operations," he explained.

The current commitment of 2,200 peacekeepers is not a large one for a country that has a standing army of more than 2 million, but it is valuable in terms of the image it projects in the international community, especially in Africa, where the deployment of its blue helmets coincides with a wave of Chinese investment.

"Whenever there is peace, I think there will be opportunities for investment," he added. "So I think this is very important for the business people as well."

Presently, China ranks far behind peacekeeping giants such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh or Nigeria, but its contribution has surpassed that of most western countries. China also has recently deployed several naval vessels to help combat piracy off the coast of Somalia.

Peacekeeping analyst Richard Gowan from the Center on International Cooperation sees China as filling a gap that many Western powers cannot handle.

"Western countries do not have the money and they do not have the troops to sustain significant peacekeeping outside Afghanistan and the Balkans, and China is taking advantage of that. It's filling the gap. And China is starting to look like a global power, while European countries especially are in retreat."

The U.N. hopes the Chinese surge will motivate other countries to follow suit. The United States and Britain have all down-scaled U.N. peacekeeping, focusing more on providing money rather than troops. Former UN Peacekeeping Operations Head Jean Marie Guehenno says that gives the impression to some that they do not care about U.N. operations.

And he argues Chinese involvement may encourage other large powers to get back into peacekeeping. "I think it is not at all unthinkable that at some point there would be greater re-engagement of the Western members of the Security Council in peacekeeping and I think the engagement of China is an additional factor that may push in that direction and that is a good thing," he noted.

Around the world, blue helmets are the ambassadors of a new China.
 
Why? Why is that our job???
Don't you get upset when we intervene in other countries? Or do you believe us to be world police?

I supported the Iraq War, not for WMDs, but because I wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Same thing with Afghanistan for the purposes of getting rid of al-Qaeda.

The former I supported in the interests of humanitarianism, the latter as a retaliatory action. In the case of Uganda, it's humanitarianism, and 100 troops acting as military advisers is not a full-scale invasion. We're not the world police; I don't believe in getting involved in every single conflict around the world, but I would hope that the United States takes firm action against those who perform massive gangrapes, force children to kill their parents, and commit crimes against humanity.
 
A lot of people wanted to get rid of GWB. Should anybody have overthrown and occupied the sovereign country of the US to do so?

And Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. Given actual evidence that bin Laden was responsible, or even a bit more pressure from the governments of the rest of the world, they would have quite likely simply handed him over.

By going into Uganda we are actually helping to prop up a homophobic joke of a government led by someone who also has major issues, albeit not nearly as bad.
 
Back
Top Bottom