Obama Sends 100 US Troops to Uganda to Combat Lord’s Resistance Army

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: ABC News

Two days ago President Obama authorized the deployment to Uganda of approximately 100 combat-equipped U.S. forces to help regional forces “remove from the battlefield” – meaning capture or kill – Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and senior leaders of the LRA.

The forces will ultimately go to Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with the permission of those countries.

The president made this announcement in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Friday afternoon, saying that “deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.”

He said that “although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense.”

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-sends-100-us-troops-to-uganda-to-combat-lords-resistance-army/

[xchrom]

1. how much will this cost? nt

[TheWraith]

19. Well, what's the salary of 100 US combat troops?

I would guess including troops, equipment, and materiel support... probably $10 million or so. But that's just a guess.

[OnlinePoker]

59. You shouldn't count their base salary and basic equipment

This is already paid for as part of the regular cost per man. Where it adds up is the cost to get them there, the cost to keep them there, the deployment bonuses they get (if any), and the cost to ship their bodies back home when the inevitable happens.

[TheWraith]

69. Okay, you made one good point...

...then you go off on some kind of tangent at the end about their deaths being inevitable. What the fuck is that?

[neverforget]

105. Well it is a combat zone

[Honeycombe8]

156. And special equipment. And the loss of those troops being used elsewhere.

And the cost of health benefits for the inevitable serious injuries.

Added up, it's super duper expensive to send troops anywhere.

[boppers]

172. It's "super duper expensive" to *have* troops.

That's why the US Constitution discourages it.

And yet, here we are, with a standing army.

[lsewpershad]

54. Cost is not all that matters

Why does the US feel it has the right to insert itself in every conflict in the world? My god when are we going to stop working for the military-industrial complex?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

144. I wonder?

[boppers]

173. "every conflict"? Really?

Might there be some exaggeration in that phrase?

[malthaussen]

70. The Bill Estimates

$28,000,000. That being the official estimate, one can conclude it will be somewhat higher, even if no escalation occurs.

Chicken feed... if no escalation occurs.

-- Mal

[xchrom]

75. Chicken feed to who?

Ot chicken feed when you consider the increase in families using food stamps or recent grads starting life off underwater.

Don't anybody talk debt, deficits, personal responsibility or any other horse shit til this kinda shit is stopped and the MIC is slashed in half.

[ButterflyBlood]

118. This equals out to about 9 cents per American

nt

[No Elephants]

137. So?

[Ian David]

2. Okay, who would have put money on "U.S. troops in Uganda." Not me. n/t

[Harmony Blue]

5. Uganda

has a lot of coveted resources, which is why it is important to U.S. "interests".

[Muskypundit]

20. OH JESUS CHRIST.

EVERWHERE in the world has coveted natural resources to you people. First doing good things in libya meant we were going in there for the oil, not to help. "Why are we not going into the poorer parts of africa to help? They are in worse shape! It must be because they have no oil."

Fast forward a month later, when we are going into these even poorer countries to help out. "We are just going in there for the... uh.... resources!!! Yea fuck Obama, that imperialist pig!"

Get real. All of you.

[caseymoz]

43. Okay, Here's real:

Nation-states, that is the US, France, China, any country you want to name, act in their self-interests. Now they might do charity or humanitarian work, but if you look at the overall trend, their helping humanitarian ventures, especially involving deployments, coincide strongly with their self-interests. So, we went into Libya to help. Why didn't help in the Congo? Why didn't we help in Ethiopia? Why did it take us so long to help in Bosnia? Or, a big one from history, why didn't we help in Rwanda? Can you see a reason for this inconsistency?

The US isn't the only country that does this. In fact, most nations that gain any prominence will. In the '80s, Vietnam, of all countries, "helped" in Cambodia, a getting rid of that horrid Pol Pot regime. Definitely it was in their self interest, but they helped, too, and they are not given enough credit for it.

Self-interest and compassion can exist in the same action, but you have to be on guard when the latter is deliberately used to disguise the former.

PS- Frankly, I think this one to Uganda is just to help, because the deployment is tiny.

[Muskypundit]

50. I am not arguing anything you just said

Because it is correct. But I hate seeing people be so on guard that even food aid to them would be unacceptable because it would somehow aid our evil empire. And it gets old to me, seeing people stand in the way of world progress because they dont want the countries who can help, to do anything. Least it be somehow helping our self interests.

My view is that your self interests are not served by being surrounded in the world, by billions in poverty. Doing things to right that, to bring people up because it is in our self interests is a win win.

[caseymoz]

116. True, it does get irritating, but US has earned this skepticism.

There was the Marshall Plan, and the fact that CIA was allowed to rake off unknown millions from it to fund covert actions.

More recently, there was our "help" to remove a terrible, dangerous, psychopathic dictator in Iraq. The self-interest and miscalculations were only "discovered," too late. Actually, no, they were known at the time, but weren't discussed because being skeptical about it was rude and unpatriotic.

So, don't be surprised now when actual helpful enterprises are met with suspicion. Don't be surprised that it doesn't stop in your lifetime. It's known as a damaged brand-name. Unfortunately, a country re-branding itself is harsh and complicated.

[ButterflyBlood]

124. So Iraq was invaded with 100 troops in only an advisory role?

Seriously the comparison is fucking stupid.

Yes the type of skepticism is understandable and all, but that doesn't excuse making knee-jerk reactions and screaming empty rhetoric in place of actual analysis. I'm willing to bet the majority of people screaming about "another war" didn't read anything in the article beyond the excerpt here, if even that (most of the posts seem as if they only read the title.)

[caseymoz]

171. If you steal a billion dollars, you think anyone would trust you with a buck?

It's about reputation, and no, you're right, it doesn't really compare. And your point is?

See, you are spending a lot of your time being irritated. Understand, once the US has done a few dozen more real humanitarian missions that aren't propaganda fronts, you could then reasonably expect to stop hearing any more knee-jerk distrust of US motives.

If the troop levels stays about platoon-size, it really won't matter much. The Lord's Army is a scourge, and it will serve to everyone's benefit if it's taken out.

[ButterflyBlood]

188. I don't blame people for skepticism, but there are two big issues here

The first as noted that most of the knee-jerk repliers don't seem to have read anything in the article beyond the title.
The second is that while the criticism of the US's interventions is very valid, it's also often inconsistent. People would always scream about how the US only goes to countries with oil and ignores brutal conflicts in poor African countries. Well the US attempts to assist in such a conflict now...and look what happens.

It's important just to keep your head on straight and look at every situation rationally. A knee-jerk reaction is never good, even if understandable.

As for the last line, I do totally agree. I fail to see how anyone can argue that the world wouldn't be better off without the LRA.

[caseymoz]

195. A knee jerk reaction is usually a knee jerk reaction because it was right in the past.

And a lot of times, the person either guessed wrong in the past and was stung, or he guessed right but hoped he was wrong.

But, I have to admit, I myself tweeted Michael Moore when the US intervened in Libya, and I asked him, "Michael, be truthful, weren't you all with the Libyan protesters b4 this? Would you rather see them killed?" No, he didn't answer, but he has tens of thousands of followers.

However, comparisons to other countries we did not intervene in abound. I wonder if sending these troops in is actually to lend more credibility to our Libya intervention?

[AverageJoe90]

192. I like your thinking. nt

[harmonicon]

61. Sorry - what good things in Libya?

The bombing of civilians, or the deposition of a legal government in favour of a haphazard coalition of militant racists, capitalists, and royalists?

I've helped a lot of people in small ways in my life. Never did this help involve guns or bombs. Usually those things and help aren't related.

[TheWraith]

71. Thank you for our daily dose of pro-dictator spin.

I'm sure the millions of people in Libya celebrating the fact that they're getting a real government, with a constitution that protects everyone, women's rights, freedom of speech, etcetera, are completely wrong and just a bunch of militant racists and terrorists. :puke:

[harmonicon]

84. Well, the black Libyans murdered by genocidal mobs would disagree...

but, fuck them, right? It's your feel-good opinion about world events that should matter to them.

[No Elephants]

138. If Obama does it, it's great. It he doesn't, it shouldn't be done.

That seems to me to be the analysis.

[harmonicon]

155. I just don't get it. It's not that simple though, is it?

I will accept that there can be exceptions to almost every rule, but being against military intervention and for a country's right to self-determination I thought were popular ideas. Perhaps I did just imagine that - I don't remember ever really testing it around here until the last few months, and it actually seems to be a minority opinion.

[Muskypundit]

125. You take that back! GODaffi is a saint!

[Muskypundit]

73. Living in the richest part of the world, you would say that

But the biggest problem in africa is that all those little things, like aid money and food, get hijakced by terrorist and militant organizations. Not a little bit; some countries like somalia, it is nearly all of it.

Yea, I agree, in the U.S you can help a little bit; give money to the homeless, food to the hungry. You dont need military there. But the whole world is not like that, places like africa, pacifism leads to death. More death and destruction than if force to provide security was used.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[harmonicon]

132. You won't see this, but others will:

People around here seriously need to stop throwing the word "support" around. Not only have a never supported Qaddafi, but I've never supported any politician or government in any form apart from my votes in the US. I give no money to politics, and I play no role in campaigns. Words have meanings.

I find it very disturbing that valuing the people of a country's choice to determine their own form of government is now looked down upon around here. It really does trouble me. How many of us were against he Iraq war? Did that mean we loved the Hussein government?! This, "you're with us or against us" shit is out of this fucking world.... and I'm seeing it here. Un-fucking-believable.

[ButterflyBlood]

162. Uh, people of a country's choice to determine their own form of government?

Yeah that's what the operation in Libya is helping accomplish. Unless you honestly believe the vast majority of Libyans loved Gadaffi and it was only a few al-Qaeda terrorists/CIA plants who were protesting against him and getting slaughtered, and half the military defected rather than continue with this because they were infiltrated by al Qaeda/bought off by CIA/whatever baseless conspiracy Gadaffi claimed.

[harmonicon]

167. It's not a black and white issue.

Clearly many people in the country wanted the government they had and were very willing to fight and die for that. I don't think we have a place killing them for wanting to preserve something they love. You know, speaking of language, I don't think anyone was actually slaughtered. People die in wars. It's a sick and terrible thing, and I'd rather my government not make it worse. I really don't see what's so far out about this opinion.

[ButterflyBlood]

187. I'm talking about before it was a war. Let's recap:

A rough timeline:

-Nonviolent protests break out across Libya against Gaddafi.
-Gaddafi responds by ordering the non-violent protestors gunned down and even using the air force to bomb them.
-Many in the Libyan Army defect rather than carry out the orders (the incident of the pilots flying to Malta comes to mind)
-Mutinous army units fight back and start the rebellion and take over Benghazi.
-Gaddafi vows to massacre anyone standing against him and says a large scale offensive at Benghazi openly stating that he will massacre the city.
-UN imposes no-fly zone, NATO countries wipe out Gaddafi's offensive and block taking the city.

Now if you want to argue that Gaddafi is in the right there you have a rather skewed moral compass.

[harmonicon]

197. so....

These people who you think were peaceful protesters wound up - or were an excuse for - the torture and execution of those who they disagreed with (no secret - the "rebels" executed people who they'd already handcuffed), or those who they disagreed with because, you know, they were black, and they don't want blacks in Libya.

This is not our war. In war, not only is it not a requirement that one side is in the right and the other is in the wrong, but that is in fact almost never the case. No matter what Gaddafi may or may not have done or wanted to do, the fact remains that our tax dollars have gone to benefit people who have murdered, executed, raped, and pillaged. I don't think that's ok. Maybe you do.

[boppers]

177. Binary thinking is endemic.

It's simple, and stupid, and everywhere.

[ButterflyBlood]

121. "Legal government". What a laugh.

Please point me to the last time Gadaffi won an election. Even a joke rigged sham election.

[harmonicon]

133. Not the point.

Point me to where it's ok by any law to bomb the fuck out of a country because we don't like their form of government. There are many non-democracies in this world, and we don't bomb the shit out of all of them just for that.

[ButterflyBlood]

161. More like when the UN authorizes action

Because the government is slaughtering its population and moving in force to likely massacre a large city and the rebellion against the government is asking for assistance

[harmonicon]

168. Oh! The Bush Doctrine!!

Do you realize that you just fucking justified the Bush Doctrine?! What the fuck is wrong with this place?!?!

[ButterflyBlood]

186. Bush had a UN resolution backing him?

nt

[Nihil]

206. They're out in force just lately ...

A hell of a lot of DUers seem to support the Bush Doctrine these days.

Maybe they think that it is now a "kinder, gentler" Bush Doctrine
now that the rubber-stamp guy is has a nominal "D" after his name?

:shrug:

[Iliyah]

62. Thank you Muskypundit

Helping Libya's rebels was acutally for the oil so they complained, and why didn't he send troops to Africa? Well 100 troops are there, and my gawd here comes the complaints.

I agree that the US should not be the police for the world. I believe that terrorism is here to stay for a while. I don't know what this part of Africa has to do with it, but I never trusted Gaddafi and when the rebels which were supported by a lot of the Libyan people against Gaddafi to me that was a good move on the part of the US.

[JDPriestly]

3. What??????? Is Congress going to OK this? Yet another

military adventure. Uganda is a shameful mess. Agreed. But why are we going there?

Funny. Last night I was thinking about how are new trade agreements give us a strong foothold in S. America (Colombia), Central America (Panama) and S. Korea (the area of Asia surrounding Korea). We also have a presence in the Middle and FAr East -- close ties with Israel and troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I asked myself when we would try to get a controlling presence in the economy of Africa. Here we go. Predictable.

Imperialism that would have made the Romans jealous.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. FWIW they didn't OK Libya. Of course they didn't defund it either.

I guess they count that adventure as a favor chip for when the next GOP president wants to run around and crack some skulls.

[razorman]

56. Holy crap. After all our bitching about Bush's wars, now Obama has gotten us involved

in four conflicts on his own. Libya, Egypt, Somalia, and now Uganda. We don't have any business interfering in any of those places. At least no more business than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why can't we simply mind our own business?

[geek tragedy]

103. You object to saving lives in Uganda?

Or do you object to helping defeat a supremely evil group like the LRA.

[razorman]

136. Worthy goals indeed. But the same exact things could be (and were) said about Iraq

and Saddam Hussein. Why one and not the other? Using your very accurate term, there are supremely evil groups all over the world. Some even have seats at the U.N. Just because someone is being mistreated somewhere does not make it our business. We are not the world's policemen. Where does it stop? Do we invade Cuba to free Castro's political prisoners? How about reigniting the war against North Korea in order to overthrow Kim Jong-Il? Plus, whatever happened to the once-accepted axiom that we should NEVER interfere in someone else's civil war?
If we are going to do these sorts of things as a policy, fine. But we need to have clearly defined criteria for sending troops anywhere. The difference between two situations should not simply be who happens to be in the White House at a given time. As much as I admire our president, his invasions are just as wrong at his predecessor's. My vote for him in 2008 does not free him from criticism when I think he is wrong. Sorry to be so long-winded, but I am very concerned about this issue.

[Robb]

57. Congress OKed this last year.

You're going to be astounded when you find out the bill's sponsor, too.

[ellisonz]

85. I believe Robb is referring to

S.1067
Latest Title: Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009
Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. (introduced 5/19/2009) Cosponsors (64)
Related Bills: H.R.2478
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 111-172
Senate Reports: 111-108

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN01067:@@@P|/bss/111search.html|#

[Robb]

90. Indeed. Russ Feingold. (nt)

[ProgressoDem]

95. What a fascist!

:sarcasm:

[JDPriestly]

101. Thanks. At least the procedures are being followed on this one.

[No Elephants]

141. It's not who sponsors a bill that matters, unless you assume a cult of personality.

If you go by principles, the only thing that matters is whether the subject matter of the bill is a good and/or legal thing that matters.

[Robb]

175. Incorrect. It absolutely matters.

For example, I save a lot of time by not reading legislation brought by insane people like Bachmann. Conversely, I am drawn to examine that brought by intelligent people.

Feingold has forgotten more about Africa than I'll ever know. His opinion is important, because it is informed.

[stockholmer]

196. Uganda, oil, and Soros

Soros's International Crisis Group has been pushing for US armed invasion for 18 months:

LRA: A Regional Strategy beyond Killing Kony

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/uganda/157-lra-a-regional-strategy-beyond-killing-kony.aspx

-------------------------------------------------------------
Soros and Ugandan oil

Soros's Revenue Watch Institute in 2008 met with Uganda and other East African countries to discuss the formation of Uganda's national oil and gas policy. Africa Institute for Energy Governance (funded by Revenue Watch and Soros' Open Society Foundation in London) formed the Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda. PWYP pushes oil advocacy initiatives.

The Open Society Institute permeates Uganda, whilst it also has similar oil group connections in Kenya, Tanzania . It runs the Ugandan Youth Action to "identify, inspire, and support small groups of dedicated young people who can mobilize and influence large numbers of their peers and national governments via diffrent key pressure points".

This will be used as other Soros-backed Youth Action Funds have, to facilitate oil and natural resource exploitation, as well a conduit for US military intervention and base-building, such as in Kyrgyzstan. http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftazar.kg%2Findex.php%3Fdn%3Dnews%26to%3Dart%26id%3D2468&act=url

dirty business

[drdtroit]

4. Here is the "national security interest" Uganda Oil Bonanza!

A bonanza beckons
Hope and peril for the Great Lakes
Mar 31st 2010 | KAMPALA | from the print edition


A DETERMINED push by Western wildcatters and big oil companies from fast-growing Asian economies such as those of China and Malaysia may change the fortunes of several countries in remoter and trickier bits of Africa once largely ignored by foreign investors. One of the most spectacular recent finds has been in Uganda. The reserves of the Albertine rift, which takes in the Ugandan and Congolese shores of Lake Albert (see map), are said to need $10 billion for development. All being well, Uganda will soon become a mid-sized producer, alongside countries such as Mexico. Foreign investment in Uganda may nearly double this year to $3 billion. The country expects to earn $2 billion a year from oil by 2015.

The windfall may well change the country’s politics. But oil can be a curse. It is far from certain that all of the country’s 30m people will benefit. Oil executives and loyalists of Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, say the bonanza offers a chance to overhaul the country’s rickety infrastructure and to train a professional workforce. A deal in the offing will link Tullow, an Irish company much involved in the oil discovery, with Total, a French giant, and the cash-rich China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC).

However oil-rich Uganda becomes, Mr Museveni, who came to power in 1986, will still have headaches. He has spent much of his time in office papering over tribal and other divisions. A rebel militia, the Lord’s Resistance Army, which has terrorised northern Uganda for more than two decades, has finally been driven into Congo, where it continues to perpetrate massacres. But other disputes fester. Oil riches could exacerbate rather than resolve them.

MORE : http://www.economist.com/node/15825780

Can we become any more transparent?

[malthaussen]

9. It Used to Be

"Follow the money." But "follow the oil" works just as well.

-- Mal

[BREMPRO]

17. right! of course it's about oil... why else would we send troops?

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/04/07/Museveni-tightens-grip-on-Ugandas-oil/UPI-94521302211453/


publicly funded us military = private corporate oil company protection service

if we actually counted publicly subsidized externalities into the real cost of oil- like military, war, environmental degradation, spill cleanups, ground water contamination and cleanup, air pollution and health care costs from burning fossil fuels- a gallon of gas should be more like $10-15 a gallon..

[Robb]

25. For $2 billion per year? Pfft.

This conspiracy theory needs more zeroes.

[Poll_Blind]

29. I shouldn't be surprised.

PB

[Javaman]

40. We need oil to run the military...

they are the single largest user of fossil fuels in the United States. The Air Force alone accounts for the lion share.

We go to war for oil to fuel the military's need to go to war for oil.

[Le Taz Hot]

207. Your last sentence

should be a bumper sticker. Honestly. :thumbsup:

[LanternWaste]

45. How much oil revenue does the U.S. directly receive from Bosnia?

How much oil revenue does the U.S. directly receive from Bosnia?

Or was that "different"?

[Muskypundit]

126. It doesnt have to be oil. Bosnia has.... uh... resources.

Like trees. I think. Bosnia has trees, right?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. I'm starting to become a supporter of "Drill here. Drill now."

If it means we leave the rest of the world alone.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

55. Drill here, drill now does nothing to help us.

The oil goes on the commodities market, not into storage tanks in the United States.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. Yes, but at least we wouldn't be invading other countries n/t

[neverforget]

106. That won't stop us. The war machine has to be fed.

[ButterflyBlood]

117. 100 military advisors is an "invasion"? LOL.

We probably have more military advisors in Canada.

[Muskypundit]

127. Actually we do lol.

Thousands more.

[stockholmer]

135. apply some basic critical thinking as to how many long drawn-out conflicts started historically, ffs

Are you that short-minded? I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and say no.

[geek tragedy]

154. You realize that not every country is Viet Nam

right?

But, you'd rather have the torture and rape and murder of 11 year old girls continue than have the US get involved in a minor way.

[stockholmer]

160. never mentioned Viet Nam, and people are brutally murdered all over the world, the US doesnt do shit

most of time. Only when it fits into the empire puzzle in some manner do they make a move. Just look at Libya. Most of the so-called 'atrocities' that pro Gadaffi troops were supposedly doing (eg. the ludicrous charges of Viagra-fueled rape sprees, the outright falsehoods of military planes bombing/strafing thousands of Tripoli civilians, etc) were quickly proven to be bald-face lies. Now the country's infrastructure (which was by far the most advanced in Africa) is ripped apart, the rebels are brutally racially purging the populace, NATO bombs have killed thousands, and Ghaddafi is still in control of parts of the country. Not to mention that the USA and NATO have installed al-Qaeda veterans into key positions of power from the beggining.

Look at Somalia. The US pushed Ethiopia to invade and overthrow the Islamic Courts Union, who had finally overcome most of the brutal warlords. Then, because of this, the smallest, weakest part of the ICU (al Shabaab) gained strength, and vital moral currency amongst many. So the US brings in more foreign mercenaries, plus US troops, and now is trying to install the VERY SAME Islamic Courts Union leaders they overthrew just a few years back.

Madness!

But, if you want, keep supporting the war machine, as long as it is a Democratic in charge. I am not saying you personally do, but plenty on the so-called left in the US sure have no problem as long as it is Obama getting the blood-stained hands. When the war machine/security state budget is $1.5 to 2 trillion/year (it is now over 1 trillion), and that additional half a triilion to a full trillion is ripped from the heart of the American social safety net to feed the beast, maybe some of them will finally wake up. The collapse of the USA anti-war movement when Obama won sickened so many around the world.

[geek tragedy]

163. I reject your claim that the US is pure evil

whenever it acts on the world stage.

[stockholmer]

184. again (and this is the last reply) your are employing sophistry, and putting words in my mouth

I never stated AT ALL that the US is 'pure evil'. That is a frivolously unfounded assertion, and also prima facie ridiculous. Along that same skein of thought, in absolute terms, I never said that 'whenever it acts on the world stage' that the outcome is evil.

Lately, on balance, however, the tragedy of the majority of its military endeavours and sanctions regimes have been quite manifest for all to see. Millions of dead civilians (almost exclusively of colour), and the ongoing financial destruction of the US itself. I hope that this Uganda op turns out for the best, but I have grave reservations, given the recent war machine's empiric slaughters and adventurneering.

[geek tragedy]

114. You want the Lord's Resistance Army to be

"left alone."

[AverageJoe90]

193. Just like the Taliban, right?

Clinton went after the Taliban for a damn good reason(Bush screwed it all up, though).....so is Obama with Uganda.

[timtom]

204. Really! And now that we got rid of those pesky

taliban, we have our bumper crops of opium back. Allah be praised!

[Honeycombe8]

157. We don't get much oil from outside North America. Maybe 10%?

The countries we import oil the most from are Canada and Mexico, I think. Venezuela ranks up there somewhere. Other countries are far, far behind that.

[atreides1]

201. True

Unfortunately those facts are not known by a great majority of Americans, who still believe that the US gets most of it's oil from countries in the Middle East!

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

6. PermaWar. It's what's necessary for the UnitaryPresidency. nt

[Javaman]

37. +1 nt

[demosincebirth]

7. LRA are some nice guys...

Check 'em out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. There's a whole shit-load of "nice guys" like that --

around the world that we choose to do SQUAT about. Hell, some of them are our BBFs.

This move by O is NOT about them being "nice guys" -- this is just a continuation of our same ol' resource/power grab.

[Muskypundit]

23. That argument is starting to get old.

The more and more Obama does about the truly evil fucks in the world, the more and more you use that argument.

All the time now with Obama there are less and less dickweeds in the world we are choosing to do squat about. And honestly, it is probably that same argument that drives Obama to intervene in more and more places.

[malthaussen]

44. Sounds Like a Group

The tea-baggers and religious wingnuts in this country could really get behind.

I see they employ child soldiers. But wait, didn't Mr Obama just recently declare that that was okay?

-- Mal

[demosincebirth]

52. Obams said it was ok to employ child soldiers? Show me where he said that.

[malthaussen]

65. Simple Google Search: Obama Child Soldiers

Top link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/obama-child-soldiers-waives-penalties_n_995379.html

The story broke on 5 October and was bandied about here on DU a bit at the time.

-- Mal

[demosincebirth]

100. He didn't say it was OK. nt

[No Elephants]

139. Giving military funding to nations that use child soldiers kinda does say it's ok with us.

Actions speak louder than words.


So does the dollar.

[demosincebirth]

176. Ok, I'll give him a check on that.

[War Horse]

200. Rush loves him some LRA

I won't link to that POS, but here are some quotes (re: TeaBaggers):

". Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan"

"The objectives of the Lord’s Resistance Army, what they’re trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following: “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology.” Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield."

"how do you react to the news that Obama has dispatched a hundred soldiers to fight radical Christians in Africa?"

[JJW]

8. And how is US endangered?

The Prez only has authority to use troop oversea if the US is endangered, otherwise he needs Congressional authority.

He is worse than Bush.

[Demeter]

10. We Never Let Details Like Legality, Morality, or Ownership Get in the Way

and nowadays, we don't even let public outcry influence policy.

[malthaussen]

12. Another Argument

... over the War Powers Act and related nonsense will get nowhere, and the whole argument is predictable.

So long as Congress spinelessly refuses to carry out their duties as assigned to them in the Constitution to regulate the county's involvement in foreign adventures, and cravenly permits the POTUS to send troops wherever he pleases without a declaration of war, the POTUS will continue to make war as and when he pleases. This is true whoever occupies the White House.

The US has been in a near-constant state of war with somebody since the end of WWII, without declaring a single one of them.

-- Mal

[Muskypundit]

27. I think there are a couple million suffering africans

Who would beg to differ. But, of course you know we are evil as you sit inside a large, warm, well stocked house; never having to TRULY worry about that being taken away by anyone else.

How DARE we reach out to the third world and try to help them with our military. We should just let them all die and do nothing about it, because we dont like to get our hands dirty. Lets just send them more money and food aid. Yea. That will do the trick. We can trust all those blood thirsty genocidal warlords to play fair right?


I really dont understand. This is sending 100 special forces to train government forces how to defeat terrorists who kill tens of thousands of innocent people. This is not Iraq, this is not scorched earth blow up everything war policy that bush advocated. This is the polar opposite, pure LIBERAL use of the military to effect change in the world.

[Rebubula]

30. Yup...

...just like Vietnam.


Sorry...the world is full of suffering and we cannot help them all.

Going into a shithole like Uganda is just the start of another war...

[Muskypundit]

34. I beg to differ.

With the amazing, outrageous size of our military, we CAN help them all. That is what the military should be used for, instead of wholesale invasion of stable states.

The richest nation in the history of the world CAN change the world if it was a priority. And I hope to god this signals a change into making this a priority. Too many people die meaningless, cruel deaths at the hands of easily preventable things. And in this world we are the ones who can prevent it. And we should.

[malthaussen]

36. Your Idealism is Commendable

But have you taken a look at the budget lately?

-- Mal

[Posteritatis]

99. What percentage of even the defense budget do you think this costs?

People whining about cost issues and so on around here are like office controllers complaining about expenses on pencils while everyone's off buying personal trucks on the company credit card.

[LanternWaste]

46. Just like Bosnia, too....

Just like Bosnia, too....

[Javaman]

41. OIl. The Military's life blood is in danger, silly. nt

[No Elephants]

140. Self delete. Wrong spot

[ProgressoDem]

11. Good call.

I like a President who understands wholesale invasion is not a good call.

[Harmony Blue]

13. You do realize that Vietnam started out this way?

I hope you know this?

[oldhippydude]

33. yes

we started out with Advisers in Viet Nam

[LanternWaste]

47. So did Bosnia...

So did Bosnia...

Not everything done is going to be a direct mirror image of those things which came before... :shrug:

[malthaussen]

51. Agreed

But I submit it is worthwhile to hold up a mirror to these actions to ensure that they do not escalate.

-- Mal

[ButterflyBlood]

120. This might be an appropriate comparison if the LRA was comparable to North Vietnam

They are in fact nothing more than a marauding band of thugs that have been effectively defeated militarily and now can only terrorize defenseless villages in the area, not an internationally recognized government backed by a superpower and involved in a full fledged civil war like Vietnam.

[Rebubula]

14. LOL...

...you DO understand that this is how we started in Vietnam?


Take the long view.

[Muskypundit]

31. Just because you call it vietnam

Doesnt make it vietnam. The only thing that is the same is that we are sending advisers. There is a world of difference, like, we didnt create a government out of thin air in africa like we did in vietnam. The terrorists dont have popular support or sympathy from the populace, like they did in vietnam..... I could go on, but it would insult your intelligence and take up the whole website.

[era veteran]

77. They played the Commie card for Vietnam

Maybe this is the reason:
"The president said that for more than two decades the LRA has been responsible for having “murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa” and continues to “commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan that have a disproportionate impact on regional security.”

Lots better than a made up war like Iraq. I want my military used to stop these baby killers. Africa cries!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

15. Wahhhhh?????

Wow. I did not see THIS coming. :wow:

I am having bad acid flashbacks...

How many additional countries do we have Observers...uh...small troops forces in right now??

[Chipper Chat]

18. I hope none of those 100 US troops are gay.

If a gay soldier falls into the hands of the Ugandan government he could be tried and executed. (The GOP C-streeters would cheer if Perry mentioned this at an upcoming debate).

[oldhippydude]

22. the gay thing

was my first thought when i saw Uganda

[Ter]

165. How would they know?

Even if captured, he'd be batshit crazy to start talking about his b/f back at home.

[malthaussen]

21. Do We Get the Feeling

... what with Iran and now this, that Mr Obama is worried about his poll standings and is casting about for a war of his very own to get the people behind him?

-- Mal

[nichomachus]

24. I lost track -- how many wars does he have going now?

Good thing they gave him the peace prize before he did anything.

[EFerrari]

28. Six not counting these places. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq,

Somalia, Yemen, Libya. Oh, and Colombia should be counted so that's seven.

[chill_wind]

53. Speaking of Somalia

Jeremy Scahill tweet about another drone strike today

jeremyscahill
Somali official confirms drone strike by 'friendly nation' bit.ly/nLmZAy
23 hours ago

Nothing in the mainstream western media.

[malthaussen]

66. Meanwhile

al-Q is sending money, food, and medicine. Now, that's irony.

-- Mal

[boppers]

178. We also still have troops in:

Italy, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Cuba.

So, if deployment is the measure, we've at war everywhere we've been at war, with the exception of Vietnam.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[malthaussen]

81. War is the continuation of politics

... by other means. In what way is the word mis-applied in the post to which you are responding?

-- Mal

[JoeyT]

82. Pretty grumpy about definitions

and I've never seen anyone that wasn't an outright right winger use the word "lib".

[DisgustipatedinCA]

91. ultra lib? fool?

Who in the fuck are you? Is your name Robert Gates? Your little ribbon doesn't impress me, and enlisting in the military doesn't confer much specialized knowledge to you. You need to watch your mouth around here. You were telling people to fuck off yesterday, and you're calling someone a fool today. Straighten up, pissant.

[No Elephants]

143. Besides, on the internet, anyone can be a member of the military.

In fairness, he didn't tell all people to fuck off, "only" all DUers.

And because a post had gone all of 17 minutes without a response.

[24601]

94. We have zero wars going on. The last war was WWII which, since

only Congress can declare & end war ran from 7 December 41 until 28 April 1952.

We do have a few "Authorized use of Military Force" (AUMF) going on pursuant to the War Powers act - but they do not rise the legal status of war as defined by the US Government. Ref: http://www.opm.gov/staffingportal/vgmedal2.asp

Then there are additional uses of our military that don't have an AUMF.

As long as we don't have a real declared war, I'm holding out for an oak leaf cluster (subsequent award) of Obama's peace prize.

[No Elephants]

142. For purposes of this thread, that definition is circular.

It says that, for purposes of granting veteran's preference, wars are declared by Congress.

Given the war powers clause of the Constitution, it cannot say otherwise.

The real issue is whether a given military activity requires a declaration by Congress.

For that purpose, the only definition that would matter would be a definition fashioned by the SCOTUS.

Besides, Congress has authorized military action in Iraq and wherever necessary to fight the faux "war on terror" and has also apparently authorized this action. I would say that's close enough for government work.

The question whether the other actions required Congressional approval but the President failed to get it is above our pay grade.


Oh, and I don't recommend holding your breath on the cluster.

[hack89]

26. 5 million people have been killed in that region since 1998

anything we can do to end it is a good thing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War#2003_onwards:_Transitional_Government

[Posteritatis]

97. Probably closer to two, maybe three times that, even. (nt)

[Robb]

32. About time. It's hardly our first toe in the water there.

The U.S. has been providing, how do we say it, "unspecific" military assistance there for years.

I will however echo other comments on the thread in the hope that this is an endgame.

[Plucketeer]

35. It's time he reaffirmed it -

the Nobel Peace Prize he holds. Yessir, this President is one Peace-purveyin' pride of the Left!

Edit: typos

[Arctic Dave]

38. Like I said from the begining, they didn't set up AFRICOM for nothing.

Uganda has been a dumping ground for old military hardware for decades, now we give a shit about them?

[stockholmer]

134. +100,AFRICOM will soon spread its tentacles all over Africa, I truly fear a Nigerian war soon

:thumbsdown:

This was predicted for a long time by many many top analysts, who were dismissed as conspiracy theorists (I despise that term), or alarmists, or simply Anti-American. It is not with any pleasure that I note they are now being vindicated, as I predicted they would be for several years.


Obama is an empiric puppet, with full-stop bloody hands, as will be the next POTUS, and the next, etc (if the empire lasts that long).

[Javaman]

39. We've always been at war with Euro-Middle-Afra-Asia

pass me the victory gin, I need a big tug.

[Arctic Dave]

42. New thought about this. What if this about the "missing" STA missiles missing from Libya?

Makes a lot more sense then us actually giving a rats butt about a conflict that has been going on for over two decades.


What say you?

[philly_bob]

58. From what I hear, Lord's Resistance Army is brutal and insane. (nt)

[Posteritatis]

96. One of the single vilest organizations on this planet. (nt)

[russspeakeasy]

63. WTF ? are we out of Drones already ??

:puke:

[The Northerner]

64. Is there any rational justification for sending more US troops to other countries? n/t

[malthaussen]

67. Sure. The rational

... justification would be that the advisers are there to teach the government forces techniques of counter-insurgency and provide other advice that will help them combat the insurgents. The problem is that the rational justification often mutates into something else, and thus we have to be on the lookout for it.

-- Mal

[onenote]

68. A unanimous House and Senate thought so

When they passed this bill sponsored by Russ Feingold.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1067

[malthaussen]

72. Thanks for the Link

Looks like the bill breezed through pretty easily.

-- Mal

[joshcryer]

93. Thanks for the link. Wonder how long until this is touted as "illegal."

[No Elephants]

148. Do you mean "condemned" or "described" as illegal?

tout (tout)
v. tout·ed, tout·ing, touts
v.intr.
1. To solicit customers, votes, or patronage, especially in a brazen way.
2. To obtain and deal in information on racehorses.
v.tr.
1. To solicit or importune: street vendors who were touting pedestrians.
2. Chiefly British To obtain or sell information on (a racehorse or stable) for the guidance of bettors.
3. To promote or praise energetically; publicize: "For every study touting the benefits of hormone therapy, another warns of the risks" (Yanick Rice Lamb).
n.
1. Chiefly British One who obtains information on racehorses and their prospects and sells it to bettors.
2. One who solicits customers brazenly or persistently: "The administration of the nation's literary affairs falls naturally into the hands of touts and thieves" (Lewis H. Lapham).
3. Chiefly Scots and Irish Slang One who informs against others; an informer.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tout

[pasto76]

76. Yes. To help people. To stop wholesale slaughter. So people can have a regular life.

politicians fuck this up regularly. But the ideal, is why every single one of us wear a uniform.

This is the kind of deployment I would volunteer for.

[malthaussen]

78. The Same Reason, in fact

That many volunteered for Vietnam. And make no mistake, many volunteered for Vietnam.

The worry is that the presenting reason is not, in fact, the actual reason.

-- Mal

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Harmony Blue]

86. And the Ugandan government

has committed atrocities as well.

I do NOT want the U.S. to be involved in this civil war.

[Vidar]

74. I'm losing count: does this make six or seven useless, expensive wars we're in?

[geek tragedy]

87. 100 troops is not a war, and saving lives is not useless.

Even if they're African.

[ButterflyBlood]

123. Also a cost of 9 cents per American is not expensive.

So epic fail on all counts.

[No Elephants]

145. Whether money is well used or ill used has nothing to do with cost per American..

I say that as a general proposition, not in connection with this specific action.

[JoeyT]

83. I'll hold off on being upset about this until I see how it starts turning out.

If we're going to be fighting someone, at least the LRA deserve the hell out of it.

[Posteritatis]

98. Yep. (nt)

[prdel]

88. Premature ennobelation n/t

[bluestateguy]

89. What a waste of time

nt

[joshcryer]

92. Heh, irony. I've seen far left progressives sarcastically call for action in Uganda.

[geek tragedy]

102. The pacifist left doesn't give a shit about children in Uganda.

What's important to them is being able to do their Chomsky-inspired Superiority Dance.

Note that this was authorized by Congress and is multilateral in nature, and aimed not at a government but vicious band of terrorists/murderers.

And they still act as if Obama is Hitler.

[ButterflyBlood]

119. Kind of remind me of the Tea Party in a way

I've yet to see any real argument in this thread (beyond "OMG THIS IS JUST HOW VIETNAM STARTED" as if the two situations are even remotely comparable in any way whatsoever and the Lord's Resistance Army is a functioning government with international recognition and backing by a superpower), just empty rhetoric about "BLOODTHIRSTY IMPERIALISTS, OMG!" over and over. Similar to the Tea Party and their rants against the big evil gubmint.

[No Elephants]

151. Ah, yes, the "left is just like the Tea Party meme. ZZZZzzzzzz.

[geek tragedy]

153. On the issue of the LRA, the Tea Party is better.

At least, it's better than the "leave the LRA aloooooone" left

[ButterflyBlood]

189. I wouldn't generalize too much here

After all no doubt the Tea Party people will be screaming about how that evil Muslim socialist Obama is such a warmongering fascist now just like the folks here in regards to this and the vast majority of the left obviously isn't represented by such an action. Which after all is authorized by a bill unanimously passed in Congress and sponsored by Russ Feingold. And the intervention is being commended by Human Rights Watch. So the left that matters certainly isn't that way. Just a few keyboard warriors who don't bother to read any articles posted besides the title.

[values1]

107. Way Past Time To REQUIRE REFERENDUMS

It is way past time to require that all AMERICANS, not foreign
investors OR their hired lobbyists,  pass a referendum BEFORE
allowing our troops to leave US soil for some manipulated
phony "nation building" or sudden concern over
"inhumane treatment" that we've ignored for
centuries because the country did not have a resource that we
wanted. 

It's time to require that all US troops stop being abused and
get them home for some nation building here.  This nonsense
that we should keep running around policing the world is
expensive and NOT defensive to the US.  Since when did we
become such a run-around-like-a-bunch-of church
bazaar-committees sticking our nose into whatever trips Wall
Street's trigger?  Trouble is, the Wall Street investors and
owners,  their CEO jockeys, and lobbyists, and Congressmen are
NOT the ones working the real trigger or hitting the road
mines. If they are so hot to abuse the military to send them
all over the place, let them get in the front line. 

[geek tragedy]

108. This was authorized by Congress in 2010. nt

[values1]

109. You voted on no national referendum...no one did.

We should always have one for any troop use out of the US.

[No Elephants]

147. Not responsive. The poster specified why it should not be Congress's call.

Please note that I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with Reply 107. Just pointing out that your post has nothing to do with the poster's point.

[geek tragedy]

190. My comment was meant to apply to

the McKinney/Chomsky crowd.

[In Other News]

110. Sounds like they'll be "Military Advisors"

Oh fuck! :scared:

[geek tragedy]

111. Read up on the LRA.

They're a real problem that needs to be made to go away.

[marasinghe]

112. wondered when the US Govt. of the People for the corps., would dip their toes ....

.... in the crocodile infested waters of the Congo.

http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/resource-center/coltan.html

text book example of the multi-dimensional chess gambit - set the stage for a neat little flanking movement; neat little segue from Uganda to the Congo; and the World will be in iPhone paradise.

the stealth cheer-leading squad @ DU seem to be on ball from the get-go: it's the pacifists who are to blame for the killing of Ugandan innocents. that's the ticket.

:freak: :freak:

[geek tragedy]

113. So, you think Russ Feingold works for the corporations?

He sponsored the Senate bill authorizing this.

[marasinghe]

128. get back to me when the Justice Dept. prosecutes the Bushwipes for the attack on Iraq. n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

129. Wow, talk about a non sequitur

That's like almost the type of thing you'd see on Family Guy.

[No Elephants]

149. Please see Reply 141.

[ButterflyBlood]

122. Don't you ever wish people would read articles instead of post knee-jerk reactions?

This thread is like facepalm and after facepalm. And no real arguments either, just empty rhetoric which really doesn't help anyone's cause (reminds me a lot of how prior to the Iraq War I wish people would just focus on using the many valid and logical reasons why the war was such a fucking bad idea instead of just screaming "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" type slogans.)

[Harmony Blue]

146. The arguments have been made

the problem is some of you refuse to see what people are pointing out.

Since information on LRA has been provided it would only be fair to provide information on the Ugandan government.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2005/09/19/uganda-army-and-rebels-commit-atrocities-north

“Uganda has asked the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute abuses by the Lord's Resistance Army,” said Jemera Rone, Uganda researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But the Ugandan army itself has carried out serious crimes that demand prosecution.”


http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Ugandan-Official-Rejects-UN-Report-Alleging-Army-Atrocities--104124283.html


"The leaked U.N report alleges that, in 1997, Uganda’s army committed war crimes and crimes against humanity after it supported Congolese rebels to topple the late (Zairean) President Mobuto Sese Seko.
The allegations include massacres of unarmed Congolese, torture, as well as destroyed infrastructure during Congo’s conflict from 1993-2003."

http://www.ssrnetwork.net/document_library/detail/4044/the-justice-dilemma-in-uganda

And this is also what the Ugandan government stands for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

"After facing intense international reaction and promises from Western nations to cut financial aid to Uganda, on 9 December 2009, Uganda's Minister of Ethics and Integrity James Nsaba Buturo said that Uganda will revise the bill to drop the death penalty (substituting life imprisonment) for gay people with multiple offences. "

"In April 2009, a local Ugandan newspaper printed the names of suspected homosexuals, another printed tips on how to identify gays for the general public,<39> and, in October 2010, another named Rolling Stone published a story featuring a list of the nation's 100 "top" gays and lesbians with their photos and addresses. Next to the list was a yellow strip with the words "hang them". "

"On 26 January 2011, Uganda's most prominent gay activist, David Kato, was found bludgeoned to death in what authorities in Uganda are characterising as a robbery. His photograph had been published in Rolling Stone; the high court in the country ordered the newspaper to stop publishing images of gay and lesbian people after Kato and several others sued the paper.<42> Kato spoke at a United Nations-sponsored conference on the bill in December 2009. His words were barely audible because he was nervous; information in U.S. embassy cables revealed that Ugandan human rights activists and anti-homosexuality bill supporters vocally mocked him during his presentation."


Here is an idea...how about the U.S. does not involve itself in this civil war?

[geek tragedy]

152. Your position of "leave the LRA alooooone" has been

considered, and wisely rejected by those tasked with such matters.

[Harmony Blue]

158. That is not my position

My position is to leave the LRA and Ugandan government alone. The U.S. should not involve itself in a brutal civil war.

[ButterflyBlood]

130. Human Rights Watch is a fascist imperialist front!

Who knew?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/world/africa/barack-obama-sending-100-armed-advisers-to-africa-to-help-fight-lords-resistance-army.html?_r=1

Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said his group had been advocating for such a deployment. Putting more skilled advisers in the field with the armed forces of these countries would be a significant improvement over the previous level of assistance, he said. “I would not suggest that U.S. forces should be fighting the L.R.A. themselves,” he said, but “there are lot of things they can do with this kind of deployment that they weren’t able to do previously.”

:sarcasm:

[Tx4obama]

131. And here's a link to a copy of the LETTER Obama sent to Congress (and LRA photo link)

Letter: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/10/post-3.php?page=1


Also,

Here's a link to 9 photos WITH CAPTIONS of The Lord's Resistance Army
http://media.talkingpointsmemo.com/slideshow/lra?ref=fpblg

[No Elephants]

150. Sometimes, I am just glad that I do not have to make the decision.

[Harmony Blue]

159. This is a very bad precedent

equally sad that we have people cheer leading this too.

[geek tragedy]

164. No, what is sad is seeing 'progressives' who do not

think children in Africa aren't worth sacrificing ideological purity.

[Harmony Blue]

166. It appears

you can't provide a meaningful argument so you resort to assumptions and generalizations. Should I paint with a broad brush and say you support the Ugandan government anti gay stance? You do realize the Ugandan government was very close to passing a bill that stated being found gay would be punishable by death right? The Iranians try to downplay that is their policy, but the Ugandan government was very close to making it an open policy.

[geek tragedy]

182. So your response is to leave the LRA alone. nt

[rayofreason]

169. The LRA is pretty bad...

...but I don't get it.

Why should we send troops to do anything about the LRA? What can 100 soldiers, unfamiliar with the terrain, do to help chase down the LRA that has managed to survive for years? What U.S. national security interests and foreign policy will be furthered by this intervention?

This is the second puzzling thing out of the Administration, coming right on the heels of the Iranian assassination plot about which I have some well-founded skepticism.

[Harmony Blue]

170. The LRA is a shell of its former self

but the reason that the LRA group still exists is because the atrocities committed by the Ugandan government. When both sides of a conflict commit crimes the lines of good and evil are blurred.

[geek tragedy]

183. Blatantly false. Please do not make stuff up

about subjects you know nothing about.

Kony is a psychopath cult leader. Regardless of what Uganda does.

[Harmony Blue]

191. I posted links in this very thread, which is proof

And you continue to paint with a broad paint brush. Should I assume you are for the anti gay bill that Uganada passed? Both Kony and the Ugandan government have committed crimes against humanity.

That is the truth.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[clinton4life2011]

174. Obama is in a tough position.

This is a tough decision for him, as it would be for any commander-in-chief.

[Harmony Blue]

181. I am inclined to agree

that it isn't exactly an easy decision either way.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

k

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

179. "Lord’s Resistance Army "

:eyes:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

180. r

[timtom]

185. And what the hell has the United States to do

with the "Lord's Resistance Army?" Are they planning to attack the U.S.? Are they planning to assassinate a Saudi?

[Harmony Blue]

198. I will answer your questions

1. The LRA is not planning to attack the U.S.
2. They are not planning to assassinate a diplomat as far as we know

What we do know that is the LRA has weakened a lot the last decade, especially since it has used child soldiers. In other words not a sustainable resistance movement, but what has replenished the depleting ranks of the LRA was the atrocities committed by the Ugandan government forces. Had the Ugandan government forces not committed these crimes, the LRA would have been dried up by now.

The LRA are not the only ones using child soldiers in Africa. The United States can't police the world through military force as it rarely works. Reality, is improving the economic situation of the region would do a lot more. Especially education, which is what LRA thrives on (lack of education).

[timtom]

202. Thank you for answering my questions.

I agree with your solutions whole-heartedly.

My questions, truth to tell, were rhetorical in nature. And they were to specifically underscore and hightlight the very issues you brought up.

Even if I hadn't agreed with you (which I did), I would still commend you for an intelligent, measured response.

[War Horse]

199. LRA victim: 'I cannot forget and forgive'

From the BBC:

Following recent comments from Lord's Resistance Army rebel leader Joseph Kony in which he denied committing atrocities, Ugandan John Ochola, 25, responds by telling his story. He was abducted by rebels from his village, Namkora in northern Uganda, which was attacked in February 2002. During the attack 50 people were axed to death and he was one of 35 abductees.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5129350.stm

[totodeinhere]

203. I have no doubt that President Obama's intervention is well intended. And yes Congress did

vote in support of this type of intervention. And the support was bipartisan.

But my fear is that this intervention will end up like so many others. It may be well intentioned and limited at the start, but once we are involved then we inevitably encounter "mission creep" and this limited involvement using only 100 troops will escalate and before long we will be involved in another quagmire. You do realize don't you that our involvement in Viet Nam started with 35 non combat advisers?

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.