US sending troops to Uganda

[Camikaze]

That's not strictly what the aim would be, nor would that constitute a neo-con policy if it were. The aim is to help stabilise the region. It just so happens that US policy coincides with individual security and local state security concerns. What 'we' want is not necessarily different from what 'they' want. I don't think it's too much of a projective assumption to say that individuals are benefited through poverty reduction and conflict resolution. We could say that any charity trying to alleviate poverty in Africa is engaging in neo-conservatism, but that's obviously not the case.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

@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?

I gave you some questions. You never answer them. Instead, you went around them by giving me specious and obscure arguments that seem to me that you are avoiding things that may have something to do with undermining your obvious optimism about the US role in a region surrounding Uganda and inside it.

I have to admit that I was wrong about the potential of humanitarian benefits, but I can't really see any of that happening now due to all of the US energies, and the lack of manpower, are entirely focused on surveying, intelligence gathering, and providing training to the Ugandan security apparatuses and the military. To me this doesn't indicate that the US has any long-term strategic goal in Uganda; and, if there is one, with more material and political will, it wouldn't be a no-brainer that there would be a great chance that Uganda will gain humanitarian benefits from it.

 

[Camikaze]

I answered your first set of questions, but I'm not quite sure what you're arguing in your last response. If you'd like to restate the questions, I'll attempt to answer them, but it didn't appear you were in as much disagreement as your post may have suggested.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'To me this doesn't indicate that the US has any long-term strategic goal in Uganda; and, if there is one, with more material and political will, it wouldn't be a no-brainer that there would be a great chance that Uganda will gain humanitarian benefits from it' either. Could you please elaborate?

 

[Yeekim]

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.

Bradley Manning and Westboro Baptists disagree.

Spoiler :

No, I am not entirely serious. Although rarely a month goes by without someone making a thread about how the US persecutes gays or tortures someone, so what I said about US being the first that came to mind, was completely honest.

 

[NovaKart]

The Westboro Baptist church is a lunatic fringe group and while I don't really agree with Bradley Manning's treatment I wouldn't call it torture.

 

[kochman]

The Westboro Baptist church is a lunatic fringe group and while I don't really agree with Bradley Manning's treatment I wouldn't call it torture.

Thank you!
This is really stretching to consider the Westboro BC anything near representative of "the USA"...

 

[GamezRule]

Errr, isn't this what UN Peacekeepers are for?

Not to hop back to the first page, but UN peacekeepers don't exactly have the best track record...

 

[Flying Pig]

Not to hop back to the first page, but UN peacekeepers don't exactly have the best track record...

Their track record, on the whole, is exemplary. Unfortunately, the few cases such as Rwanda where the Rules of Engagement issued by the UN have been rather lacking tend to draw more media attention than all the Kosovos, Sinais and Koreas put together.