"Why the HELL did Obama put troops in Africa? I’ll tell you why. "

[Pirate Smile]

Posted in full with the author's permission:

Why the HELL did Obama put troops in Africa? I’ll tell you why.

By Eclectablog on October 17th, 2011

President Obama put troops into northern African to rid the planet and Sudan one of the most evil groups of terrorists you’re likely to ever learn about. From Christianity Today:

Sixty years after Allied soldiers liberated the Nazi death camps, the world stands silent in the face of another holocaust—one so horrifying that U.N. officials call it “one of the worst human-rights crises of the past century.”

The perpetrators commit atrocities with such malevolence that even the most irreligious people familiar with their acts describe them as “unrestrained evil.” The targets of the butchery are children. They rape, mutilate, and kill them with a rapaciousness that staggers the imagination. Worse, they compel children to kill one another and their own families, fighting as “soldiers” in an armed force deliberately composed of children.

Perhaps the greatest atrocity is teaching these children that they spread this carnage by the power of the Holy Spirit to purify the “unrepentant,” twisting Christianity into a religion of horror to their victims. It is spiritual warfare at its very worst, and it could not be more satanic.

Religion of Evil

The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is one of the larger terrorist organizations in the world. It has killed more people than many other violent groups, yet few Westerners have ever heard of it, since nearly all its violence is perpetrated in the border region between Uganda and Sudan in East Africa.

On a continent plagued with endless guerilla warfare, where war crimes are standard fighting fare, the LRA stands apart as an especially odious group. LRA crimes against humanity are so repulsive that its only former ally, the Islamic government of Sudan, jettisoned its relationship with the LRA to improve Sudan’s international relations.

I’m about as antiwar as a person can be but do you stand by and let this happen? When a small contingent of Americans can do something tangible about it? I’ll come down on the side of “hell no”. If you disagree with that, I’d ask you to read through the Christianity Today article and then come back and chat. I warn you, once you get past the first page, you had better have a strong stomach and a steely heart. You’re gonna need it.

There’s a sample after the jump. Be warned, it’s rough.

LRA child soldiers attack villages, shooting and cutting off people’s lips, ears, hands, feet, or breasts, at times force-feeding the severed body parts to victims’ families. Some cut open the bellies of pregnant women and tear their babies out. Men and women are gang-raped. As a warning to those who might report them to Ugandan authorities, they bore holes in the lips of victims and padlock them shut. Victims are burned alive or beaten to death with machetes and clubs. The murderous task is considered properly executed only when the victim is mutilated beyond recognition and his or her blood spatters the killer’s clothing.

These are children doing these things. Children forced to do so by some insanely evil people.

So, am I okay with President Obama sending 100 our soldiers over there to cut the head off of this evil, beast? Hell yes, I am. Hell yes.

Why the HELL did Obama put troops in Africa? To send demons back to Hell.

And, yeah, Limbaugh defended them today because they’re “Christians”.

http://www.eclectablog.com/2011/10/why-hell-did-obama-put-troops-in-africa.html

[trumad]

1. I guess we need to send

Some to North Korea as well.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. That's impossible without starting a war

Why should the fact that we can't stop human rights abuses everywhere prevent us from stopping them in places we can?

[robinlynne]

112. well said.

[Pirate Smile]

5. These governments want & need our help. North Korea does not want it.

[hedgehog]

2. This is Step 1. Step 2; find out who is shipping in weapons and make them stop.

In many ways, the colonial powers never left Africa; they just out-sourced the carnage.

[TheWraith]

8. Most of the weaponry in Africa is old Soviet bloc stuff.

From 1947 onward they built about 100 million AK-type automatic rifles.

[sad sally]

24. Deleted

[TheWraith]

30. Gosh, a link from a paranoid lunatic fringe "New World Order" website.

One also talking about how the Rothschilds and the Committee of 300 control the world. How clearly that debunks all the established facts known to the rest of the world and credible media. :eyes:

[Tx4obama]

4. K&R n/t

[lib2DaBone]

6. Was there gold nearby...... or maybe Oil?

Freedom and democracy? Not a prime motivator.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Bodhi BloodWave]

76. so Feingold is a corporate stooge then

that just wants to grab all the wealth in the area rather then actually defeat LRA

[stevenleser]

9. There is an element of the anti-war crowd that insists on making any war into a conspiracy.

serving myself up some :popcorn: for when they arrive.

[cprise]

12. Then you go first

...as a ground soldier in the Army (not the Air Force).

Good luck!

[stevenleser]

15. Already served and now too old and beaten up, but thanks for not addressing the comment. nt

[cprise]

21. Don't let that stop you.

lib2DaBone made a comment that applies to many, many military adventures this country has gotten into or created. And you did not address the substance of HIS question, so I assume your retort to me was in bad faith (i.e. you do not control the discourse here).

The question of who profits needs to be asked constantly whenever "humanitarian intervention" is being advocated. I am sorry that rubs your sanctimonious attitude the wrong way.

[stevenleser]

94. I wouldnt let it stop me. The military would. So, now that that ridiculous angle is over, whats next

and please, get over yourself.

[AngkorWot]

16. Meh.

If the candidate of their choice were president, they probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

[stevenleser]

18. I dont think most people are influenced by that. The group I am talking about

is antiwar 100% of the time. I am still anti the same wars I was against and in favor of the same ones I was in favor of under Bush and Obama.

[cprise]

25. There's a group of people who smear anyone who questions military intervention

as being "100% anti-war". I call that 100% logical fallacy.

[MH1]

99. Why is '100% anti-war' a smear?

I have little problem with someone being consistently 100% anti-war. A coherent moral argument can be made for being 100% anti-war. However IF they use conspiracy theories and lies to rationalize their anti-war stand rather than a coherent moral argument, THAT's a problem.

I don't think it's fair to call '100% anti-war' a smear.

[stevenleser]

105. It isnt a smear. I respect many of those folks. Even some who use conspiracy theories to justify

being anti war in certain circumstances.

[Caretha]

119. And which of those wars

under Bush were you in favor of?

Waiting for a reply. :)

[Liberty Belle]

10. I interviewed an ex-Ugandan child soldier once. He was so traumatized

by things he was made to do that he could not even speak of them. Instead he sought atonement by helping others, starting a nonprofit to help other boys in Uganda escape this horrific fate. He told me he can never be alone or the memories overwhelm him; even in the car, he must keep a radio on to draw his mind away from the dark shadows in his past.

[Pirate Smile]

19. Horrific. Thanks for sharing what you learned.

[Beartracks]

11. But Rush, don't let facts stop you from trying to "score" against Obama. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. Thank you Mr. President.

:kick:

[geek tragedy]

14. To the conspiracists, two words:

Samantha effing Power.

[Pirate Smile]

17. Exactly. She has to be feeling good about the choices she made when this kind of decision gets made.

Samantha Power: Obama and Me

Jon Wieneron February 29, 2008 - 12:35am ET


Samantha Power is Barack Obama's senior foreign policy adviser, but when his office first called her in 2005, she thought, "who is this guy?"
Her 2003 book on genocide, "A Problem from Hell," won a Pulitzer Prize, and she's a professor at the Kennedy School at Harvard. In a recent interview I asked her why Obama called her. "His office said he had just read my book, and he wanted to talk about, literally, 'a smart, tough, and humane foreign policy.' No one from the US government had every called me - no mayor, no school board head."

And why didn't she know who he was? "I had been out of the country, in Sudan, at the time of Barack Obama's national coming out, which was the Democratic National Convention of 2004." When she asked around, she heard he was a great speaker. "So I went onto iTunes and downloaded his speech and got on the shuttle down to Washington and listened to the speech on the plane. And I had a cry. I couldn't believe the speech, couldn't believe the country he was telling me I lived in.

"And then I went and met with him. We were supposed to meet for an hour. One hour gave way to two, then three. Entering the fourth hour, I heard myself saying, 'why don't I quit my job at Harvard and come and intern in your office and answer the phones or do whatever you want?' It was literally that spontaneous."
Had she been thinking about a job in Washington? "No," she replied. "I had never had any aspiration to go anywhere near government."

What was it about that three-hour conversation that changed her mind? "It was the rigor of the interrogation that I was subjected to," she said. "He really pushed me. Barack is incredibly empirical and non-ideological. He's very aware of the tectonic plate shifts in the global order - the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, the loss of influence by the US -- and how those affect your ability to get what you want, on anything from global warming to getting out of Iraq to stopping genocide. I thought, if you're interested in helping change the world in your small way, grandiose as that sounds, even if I was just answering his phones, I would have more impact than writing these big books that I put out every half decade or so."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/samantha-power-obama-and-me

[ClarkUSA]

20. I was disgusted when $ome said THE CO$T was THE reason the U.S. shouldn't have sent help.

This, in light of knowing who Mr. Kony is and what the LRA has been doing for decades.

The lack of conscience exhibited in such a sentiment is as shocking as it is disgusting.

[MadHound]

22. I already know why,

Why the LRA has been ignored for decades now, until recently. It was only until recently that oil reserves were found in Uganda that rival those of Saudi Arabia. Got to get our imperial occupation force in there to control the flow of that oil, and the LRA simply provides an excuse.

[ClarkUSA]

23. Do you have any proof for your "imperial occupation force" conspiracy theory?

Does a Sith Lord enter into it? :rofl:

[MadHound]

27. Straight from the Obama administration's mouth

"Uganda’s oil reserves could be as much as that of the Gulf countries, a senior official at the US Department of Energy has said.

Based on the test flow results encountered at the wells so far drilled and other oil numbers, Ms. Sally Kornfeld, a senior analyst in the office of fossil energy went ahead to talk about Uganda’s oil reservoirs in the same sentence as Saudi Arabia.”You are blessed with amazing reservoirs. Your reservoirs are incredible. I am amazed by what I have seen, you might rival Saudi Arabia,” Kornfeld told a visiting delegation from Uganda in Washington DC"
<http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/uganda-oil-reserves-to-rival-saudi-arabia/>

So are you now saying that Obama is a Sith Lord?

[ClarkUSA]

29. That's not proof for your "imperial occupation force" conspiracy theory. Nice try.

FYI, George Lucas is on record as saying he sees President Barack Obama as Luke Skywalker. And he should know. :hi:

[MadHound]

34. You're the one with Star Wars hangup, not I

I printed those words with no thought of Star Wars in mind, just reality. And the reality is that the US is an imperial force in the world, has been for decades now.

And yes, that does prove the fact, whether you like it or not, that there is a large amount of oil in Uganda. The LRA has been around since the late eighties, and in fact the atrocities it commits are on the decline. So why are we going after them now?

Oh, yeah, oil

[geek tragedy]

38. You are stating falsehoods regarding the LSA, to justify

your Obama is Evil conspiracy theory.

2001; US government declares the LRA to be a terrorist organization.

Bush made several attempts to wipe them out:

http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2009/02/14/battling-christian-terrorists/

2009: RUSS FEINGOLD pushed legislation to make it our official national policy to take them out.

Just stop already.

[MadHound]

40. And again, where were we during the ninties?

When the LRA was doing its real serious work?

Oh, yeah, sitting on our hands, just like we did with Rwanda.

I can understand why Bush decided to get involved, him being the oil puppet and all.

[geek tragedy]

44. We've been trying to take him out for ten years.

Your claim that this is "all of a sudden" is a simple lie.

Also, you can't claim Obama is doing this for oil without implicating Feingold.

Sorry, this is your hatred of the President and general ignorance on full display.

[MadHound]

53. Again, where was the US during the nineties when the LRA was doing its major damage

Why did Bush get involved only when the initial oil reports started coming in.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Good night.

[geek tragedy]

59. Unlike the left and rightwing Obama haters,

I can make logical arguments.

[cprise]

65. Oh, the sweet song of "centrism"

The British Empire also had quite a record of selective humanitarianism. It was really an element of imperialism and, on the whole, it was pretty evil.

As MadHound pointed out, large oil reserves have recently been discovered in the region, making the doe-eyed appeals of the base-builders look like the bromide of useful idiots.

[geek tragedy]

68. Care to explain why Feingold and Sanders wrote legislation

making this our official US policy?

Or why the US was trying to take him out before major oil deposits were discovered?

Or how 100 dudes are going to seize oil fields?

Or why a guy who hired Samantha Power is incapable of intervening on humanitarian grounds?

Congrats on finding common ground with Limbaugh. Only flaw is you forgot to blame Soros and ACORN.

You are dismissed.

[cprise]

72. My, interventionsists do think they "own" this issue

"You are dismissed."

No I ain't.

I'm not going to stoop down your path of logical fallacy "by association", but to show it can go both ways I'll throw you a bone and tell you I also have common ground with Ron Paul and many teabaggers on the Iraq War. Gasp.

Do you as well? If so, you're a hypocrite.

[geek tragedy]

You have no argument, only accusation.

The evidence here all points to this being a humanitarian mission rather than oil grab.

Honest critics are questioning the wisdom of intervention. Dishonest ones are inventing oil grab conspiracy theories.

[geek tragedy]

83. You have no argument, only accusation.

The evidence here all points to this being a humanitarian mission rather than oil grab.

Honest critics are questioning the wisdom of intervention. Dishonest ones are inventing oil grab conspiracy theories.

[OnyxCollie]

79. "2009: RUSS FEINGOLD pushed legislation to make it our official national policy to take them out."

Not true.

From the link in your own OP:

Activists React to President Sending Troops to Africa
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/activists-react-to-president-sending-troops-to-africa/

The author of that legislation, former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., told ABC News in a statement that “our legislation did not authorize the use of force by American troops anywhere,” but he noted that the bill “did call for a comprehensive approach in dealing with the Lord’s Resistance Army, which includes military, intelligence, diplomatic, and development components.”

[onenote]

91. Try again.

Sen Feingold's own legislation made it unmistakably clear that it was the official policy of the United States to take out the leadership of the LRA:

From the legislation:

"It is the policy of the United States to work with regional governments toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict in northern Uganda and other affected areas by--

(1) providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining Lord’s Resistance Army fighters;"

I'm not sure how anyone might think that Joseph Kory and his top commanders could be apprehended or removed from the battlefield without the use of force. And what exactly would "military support" consist of (keeping in mind that "intelligence" support is listed separately from "military" support) -- organizing a military band to play when Kory was captured?

The bill may not have expressly authorized the use of force by the military, but it certainly came very close to doing so.
And insofar as whether Feingold pushed legislation to make it our official national policy to take them out -- well, as quoted above, that's exactly what his legislation did.

[Hutzpa]

93. Thought it was Obi Wan

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

35. Why are you pushing falsehoods to smear Russ Feingold?

Btw, the US declared the LRA to be a terrorist org in 2001 and made efforts to kill Kony (using Guatemalan special forces) in 2006.

[MadHound]

37. Not trying to smear Feingold, but nice strawman

Where did I mention anything about Feingold?

As far as the LRA, where was that declaration during the Clinton administration, when the LRA was doing most of its damage?

Oh, yeah, he didn't have a reason to be bothered. Now, with these oil discoveries, there is a reason to be bothered.

[geek tragedy]

41. How do you explain Bush's attempts to kill him?

Obama is acting as directed by legislation written by Russ Feingold in 2009.

Sorry, your theory is based on lies and hatred of the Presidemnt.

Just like Limbaugh.

P. S. Clinton let Rwanda happen. Nice role model.

[MadHound]

43. Well, you would know what Limbaugh is saying and thinking better than I would

Since I don't listen to the man.

And it surprises you that the oil puppet president Bush goes into a country that was just found to be sitting on top of a buttload of oil? Or do you really think that Bushboy was acting from the kindness of his heart?

Hell, even Clinton later admitted that he made a mistake in letting the Rwanda situation slide.

[geek tragedy]

45. You lied when you said we only recently tried to do something.

Your own theory is a lie on its face.

You have zero evidence the motivation is oil. Obama is acting pursuant to a statute written by Russ Feingold.

[MadHound]

49. No, stop sticking words in my mouth and calling them my lies

I noted that it had just recently been found that Ugandan oil reserves rivaled those of Saudi Arabia. The question I asked is why didn't we do something about the LRA back when they were doing their major damage back in the nineties.

No answer for that one.

Watch what happens, the same scenario that has played out so many times before will play out again.

[geek tragedy]

54. So, because Clinton failed to act that means that no

other administration could be capable of wanting to take this guy out because he's a monster?

How do you explain Feingold's bill?

[MadHound]

57. So you actually think that Bush was acting out of the goodness of his heart?

Listening to Rush and defending Bush. My, my, what a long, strange convoluted rationalization you're engaged in. Good night.

[geek tragedy]

61. Explain the Feingold legislation or

you're admitting you are pushing smears, not facts.

[Pirate Smile]

60. Clinton told Obama his biggest mistake was not doing something to stop the Rwandan genocide.

Obama seems to have tried to learn from Bill's mistakes. He did so in Libya and now he is doing so with LRA.

[geek tragedy]

62. Shhh. ODS renders that one incapable

of adult logic and reading comprehension.

They're stuck in "Obama is a poopyhead" mode.

[cprise]

69. Hotel Rwanda - A movie timed to allay protests against the Iraq War

The Bush admin heavily promoted the war as humanitarian after a certain point, and war hawks berating people for a do-nothing stance toward Saddam Hussein.

Selective humanitarianism is the PR face of imperialism AND large-scale environmental destruction.

Motives do matter, and the motives of the establishment here are demonstrably WRONG with an established M.O. But just you keep taking their word for it.

[geek tragedy]

70. You have ZERO evidence that the motive was oil.

You and your fellow travelers have REFUSED to address the fact that this action was made US policy by legislation sponsored by Russ Feingold and co-sponsored by Bernie Sanders.

Do you know who Samantha Power is?

P.S. your comment about Hotel Rwanda? An insane, despicable lie.

[cprise]

75. You have "zero evidence" that oil was the motive in Iraq

At least going by your standard of evidence. But most of us here know that oil was the motive. We look at actions and don't take the establishment's word about their own motives.


Hotel Rwanda isn't even a docu-drama. It is 'based on a true story' and re-worked to jibe with American sensibilities. The gist of it is true, but it's still propaganda in that it reinforces the Bush doctrine by attempting to shame anti-imperialists DURING the war. France was a villain in the American media (for blocking a U.N. war resolution against Iraq) at the time this movie was being filmed - It was a rebuke against the French and the U.N. and for that pro-Bush reason it became one of the most highly regarded http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100020772/the-top-10-conservative-movies-of-the-last-decade/">movies in conservative circles.

You shouldn't base your sense of moral outrage on Hollywood movies or practically anything else from the MSM.

[geek tragedy]

84. So, only people indifferent to mass rape and genocide in

Africa can claim to be anti-imperialist.

Gotcha.

[bhikkhu]

28. The "Its the oil" response generally ends the thought process

The world isn't as simple as that, and it doesn't do anyone good to become so simple themselves.

[MadHound]

36. Really?

So I guess we didn't go into Iraq for the oil, or Afghanistan for its resources, or Vietnam, or any one of a number of other imperial actions we've undertaken.

I hate to break it to you, but it is a basic fact that an empire consumes resources at a prodigious rate, and thus needs to supply itself regularly. The most effective way of doing this is by using force to steal what you need, conquering a weaker nation and taking the spoils. This is what all empires have done since time immemorial. What makes the US so different?

Nothing. Wake up and smell the empire.

[geek tragedy]

50. No, we did not invade Afghanistan for its

natural resources. Just making a false claim angrily does not make it true.

Moreover:

1). The US was trying to kill Kony BEFORE OIL WAS DISCOVERED IN UGANDA.

2). The progressive left-including Feingold, Bernie Sanders, and HRW were advocating this action back in 2009. If Obama is part of the oil conspiracy, so were they.

[MadHound]

55. Oh, so that whole "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" threat by Powell didn't happen

Geez, what's next, you going to start defending Bush over Iraq as well.

You've gone around that denial bend. Good night and good luck with that.

[bhikkhu]

67. Name a nation whose oil we have actually taken

I don't actually disagree with the basic argument, but you are grounding it on the wrong information. The US has fought and won many wars, but explain the spoils we have taken?

[bvar22]

95. Unfortunalely, "WE" don't get the loot.

"We" only PAY for the WARS with our Blood & Money.
The loot goes to the Global Resource Extraction Corporations & The Global Banks,
and then into the pockets of the Wealthiest People on the Planet.

SEE: Iraqi Oil Law.

Iraq has been converted into a NeoLiberal Unregulated Free Market HELL.
The same plan will be used for Libya.

Anyone who does NOT question the motivation for putting troops into Uganda
so soon after the disclosure of the recently discovered OIL Deposits is wearing blinders.


The removal of Gaddafi in Libya is also worth noting.
Gaddafi (warts & all) was blocking the looting of Africa by Western Corporations,
and a strong proponent of using African Resources for the development of African countries,
NOT the enrichment of Western Corporations.

” For all his dictatorial megalomania, Gaddafi is a committed pan-African - a fierce defender of African unity. Libya was not in debt to international bankers. It did not borrow cash from the International Monetary Fund for any "structural adjustment". It used oil money for social services - including the Great Man Made River project, and investment/aid to sub-Saharan countries. Its independent central bank was not manipulated by the Western financial system. All in all a very bad example for the developing world.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html

...And the Beat(down) Rolls On!



You will know them by their WORKS.


Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[a simple pattern]

103. Not one reply to this, I see.

Lalalallala, we can't hear you.

[bhikkhu]

113. What we get is markets, and market access

While WWII might have been best described as a resource war, to those who started it (and it sure wasn't us!), how we ended it in both Europe and in the east, was to create mutually beneficial markets. It worked very well for all parties where we were directly involved, as long as you look at trade, economic growth and high standards of living as beneficial. Healthy trading partners are worth far more than simple natural resources.

Most of the other wars since then are rehashing the same theme on a smaller scale - the effort to nation-build on small scales, homogenizing societies toward our own model, to create mutually beneficial markets. Of course it hasn't worked well in many cases, and no one gets any credit for good intentions or reaps any benefit whatsoever when a war is lost and a country is shattered, such as Vietnam.

[values1]

110. NOT SO FAST

No "spinner" has sold any of us who have watched the propaganda of imperialism and empire that the US has engaged in since WWII, and most likely before that.... Most of it DOES relate to energy. From fooling around in every country that can either lay down a pipe line to SELL oil or natural gas, not just to our own citizens, but round the globe, or process oil or gas, or some other product: bananas, rubber, or some other hoped for economic benefit for the sit-on-your-duff investor....etc. whatever.....or just get us some cheap labor.... For those of us who see it that way, who have lost family members doing so, we see it differently: our forces have changed from defense to aggression disguised as some "nation building" or "democracy building" gimmick. As far as human rights go, let's start with boycotts, NO TRADE AT ALL, blockades, isolation, The only time Wall Street needs a nation any more is when they want an army.

NO, we do not belong policing the world....unless the entire US agrees that that is our mission in life....and those who wish to belong to a world police force should sign up: starting with Congress and all gov. employees who promote it.

So, some have a view based on watching the play behind the scenes over the years.

[cprise]

56. No, it's "humanitarian" that usually ends the thought process in our society

And it causes people like you to smear anyone who raises uncomfortable questions about profit as pacifists and conspiracy theorists.

Average people (99% types) go to jail on dubious conspiracy charges all the time, so I suggest you start applying that label where it is more fitting instead of dismissing poor people who have justifiably grown suspicious of the wealthy and powerful.

[geek tragedy]

33. You just accused Russ Feingold of working for Big Oil.

He's the one who wrote the legislation authorizing it.

Moreover, the US has not just discovered this problem. That you didn't care didn't mean others ignored it.

Rush.

[MadHound]

39. Really?

Hmm, the LRA has been around since the late eighties, did most of its dirty work in the nineties, where was our moral outrage then? Oh, yeah, that's right, we didn't realize Uganda was sitting on all that oil, and thus, like any other African country being ripped apart by terrorism and genocide, but not possessing enticing resources that would interest the US, we ignored the situation(Rwanda anyone).

The Feingold accusation is nothing but a transparent strawman. But I do have to ask your why you put down the name Rush? Is that your name?

[geek tragedy]

42. So, you maintain that the legislation authorizing

military assistance to kill Kony was part of this oil conspiracy?

How do you explain Bush labeling the LRA a terrorist in 2001 and trying to kill him?

And, how will 100 troops seize oil fields.

Limbaugh is an Obama-hating liar who smeared Obama over this.

[MadHound]

46. Another one who knows what Limbaugh is thinking better than I do

What, do you actually listen to that fool?

Do you honestly think that the oil puppet president was behaving in a purely altruistic way, knowing that the initial reports about Ugandan oil were coming up roses? You know as well as I do that labeling a group as terrorists, and going after them on exaggerated or even trumped up charges has been the Bush MO for years, why does it surprise you that he would do so again in this case?

As far as a hundred troops, it's a start, about the same start we had going into Vietnam back in the day. Read your history.

[geek tragedy]

47. Oil was discovered in 2009. Your theory is a pack of lies.

It contradicts every available fact.

You lied when you claimed we only started paying attention when oil was discovered,

You lied to push a smear. Because your agenda is hate.

[MadHound]

51. No, the reports of the amount of oil only came back in 2009

Initial reports that Uganda has substantial oil came earlier than 2009. I'm not lying, but you are denying reality. Let me guess, you would have no problem with what I'm saying if the President running the show was a 'Pug.

[geek tragedy]

58. Why did Feingold write the bill authorizing and directing

Obama to take Kony out?

What is your evidence--besides your belief that the President is pure evil--that his motives are different than Feingold and Sanders?

Facts obviously don't matter to you. Your religious faith is that Obama is evil and is not capable of doing good.

Leftwing Limbaughism.

P.S. bush had a better record on Africa than Clinton, and was right to try to take this guy out.

[OnyxCollie]

80. "...legislation authorizing military assistance to kill Kony..."

Activists React to President Sending Troops to Africa
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/activists-... /

The author of that legislation, former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., told ABC News in a statement that “our legislation did not authorize the use of force by American troops anywhere,” but he noted that the bill “did call for a comprehensive approach in dealing with the Lord’s Resistance Army, which includes military, intelligence, diplomatic, and development components.”

Why do you keep misrepresenting Russ Feingold?

[geek tragedy]

87. These troops are being sent as advisers to aid in coordination

andcoordination and intelligence. Feingold himself has indicated his approval.

[onenote]

92. instead of accusing others of misrepresenting Feingold, why don't you read his bill

Here's what it says:

"It is the policy of the United States to work with regional governments toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict in northern Uganda and other affected areas by--

(1) providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining Lord’s Resistance Army fighters;"

Please explain how that is not legislation authorizing military assistance to kill Kory. (In case its not clear enough for you: apprehend means capture. remove means kill.)

[EC]

26. Pol Pot used kids too,

it is an evil like no other.

[Festivito]

31. What I'm not seeing is which OTHER COUNTRIES join this. Why?

Do other countries sense a lie from US?

[TheWraith]

32. Then maybe you should try actually LOOKING.

The US troops are joining forces from half a dozen other African countries.

[Festivito]

48. Try 3, No report on how many people. Won't even name the countries. No one from Europe?

What? Europe is okay with this?

[geek tragedy]

52. They don't have the expertise. nt

[Festivito]

63. Europe has expertise in the middle east, just none in central Africa?

I cannot buy that. The price is too high.

[geek tragedy]

64. 100 troops is too high? Not even a company. nt

[Festivito]

71. Europe has expertise in the middle east, just none in central Africa?

I said nothing about the quantity of troops sent by US.

[Number23]

66. So it's only good and noble and worthy if EUROPEAN countries join in?

:wtf:

[Festivito]

73. The question I asked is why aren't they included, or including themselves.

And, not just Europe. Our trading partners everywhere.

[Number23]

81. Well, in response to being told that several African countries were also going to be involved

your first response was "well what about Europe?" Seemed that you were saying the involvement of African nations was not enough.

You didn't mention anything about "trading partners." Until now.

[Festivito]

82. So?

There is tremendous moral outrageousness here.

A coalition would add credibility to the stories and the actions, aside that it might add a bit of precedent that might slow the ease at which we Iraq-as-a-verb other countries in the future.

Building a coalition with such a clear need helps develop contacts and relationships that might be needed later for another situation.

It would be nice for the action taken and for US if we had clear definitive backing from major players. Call them major players, include them as trading partners, or give example such as european countries, a good thing will still be a good thing. So?

[geek tragedy]

88. There are only 100 troops going.

They are supporting regional governments.

Do you really think we need to have 15 from France, 20 from Germany? It's only moral if Sarkozy and Merkel and Cameron sign off?

[Festivito]

96. Could, or they could add some.

Why make America appear the singular moral force in the world.

[Number23]

107. I don't think anyone has to wait for Europe to do something before deciding whether it's worthy

or not.

Glad that our government feels the same. And we had a coalition when we Iraq'ed Iraq to use your expression, so your sudden need to have another coalition before intervening in Uganda is nothing short of convoluted and bizarre.

[Festivito]

114. Then, we find each other to be "convoluted and bizarre."

No one need wait before deciding to go to war? Hmmm. Yes, you did use more words.

The Iraq coalition showed us a lot about the quality of that war, a bad coalition (of the billing) leaving a bad outcome. Clinton's coalition, a good one, left a good outcome.

Certainly, then, I'm not saying that a coalition is some perfect method, but, it does give us more information about the validity of military action in consideration of our lousy American press.

[Number23]

116. You are sounding less and less coherent

I have no idea what "you did use more words" means or what a "bad coalition of the billing" is.

There is a coalition in Uganda. If it is not suitable to your liking and to your definition, it's probably because your definition needs a bit of work.

[jeff47]

90. They don't have the money

One of the side effects of our massive military spending is our European allies have drastically cut back on their military spending. They know we'll help them if needed, so they haven't felt the need to spend that much on their own militaries.

Thanks to the Libya campaign, the British and French are very low on bombs and missiles. The decade of war in the middle east has also drained British resources. Finally, their financial crisis means rebuilding their militaries is not going to be quick.

So they can ill afford doing much more than sending a handful of advisers. Which we've already taken care of.

[Festivito]

97. They're not that much more destitute than we are.

Adding in a few translators is going to break them, while their vacationers and businesses fill airlines each day.

And, if the situation does escalate, everyone else is too poorly to help.

Sorry, nope, I cannot buy that.

[jeff47]

104. You don't buy it because you've constructed some strange situation

Plan: Send advisers to help local militaries deal with the problem.

Execution: US Sends all that are necessary.

You: But the EU should send like 5 or 6 guys to show support!!

Those 5-6 guys would accomplish almost nothing, since there's so few of them. In the mean time, those EU nations now have to concern themselves with the logistics of supporting those people who are accomplishing nothing.

Alternatively, they could avoid being morons with their military spending, and not send 5-6 guys to a foreign land to be useless.

If it blows up into a shooting war, the US will be sending far more than 100. And the lack of those 5-6 EU guys now doesn't mean they can't send troops later if the situation warrants it.

[Festivito]

115. Ah, then how many troops, beyond which it would no longer be strange. /nt

[MrSlayer]

74. Are we going Congo next? North Korea?

Must we right all the wrongs in the world? When do we go to China? Arabia? Iran?

[Fearless]

77. The world should stand for justice not one nation unilaterially.

[geek tragedy]

86. This is a regional, multilateral effort. nt

[Fearless]

98. It should be world... this negates the possibility of decisions favoring a particular group

in the area.

[totodeinhere]

78. The Bush Administration got around to trying to excuse their intervention in Iraq because of

horrific atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, terrible things happen in this world but we cannot be the world's policeman. That's what was said about Bush's involvement in Iraq in response to people who claimed that we had a moral imperative to get involved there because of Saddam's atrocities. How is this Uganda situation any different except that the president who is doing it this time has a "D" after his name? When Bush tried to use the excuse of Saddam's atrocities after his WMD excuse was discredited he was widely panned by the left, and rightly so. Yes this intervention involves a small number of troops but some of the quagmires that we have been involved in in the past have also started small like this but then for one reason or another they were escalated. I'm afraid that this involvement in Uganda could escalate as well.

[geek tragedy]

85. Because this isn't an invasion. It's not starting a war of aggression.

We're working with the local governments, not trying to overthrow them. And, these are only 100 troops.

[totodeinhere]

101. But the rationale is the same. We are intervening to stop atrocities. As usual, we have set

ourselves up as the world's policemen. And remember that our involvement in Viet Nam started with only 35 combat advisers.

[Pirate Smile]

102. I'm always kind of amazed when this type of thing comes up that people who generally seem concerned

with Human Rights all of a sudden completely disregard the atrocities and become completely isolationist.

It was a strange part of the Libya debate and it seems very strange here too.

[Hippo_Tron]

117. Saddam Hussein wasn't engaging in mass killings at the time we invaded

Just because Bush tried to make a case that it was a humanitarian intervention (after they couldn't find any weapons of mass destruction), doesn't mean it was.

[era veteran]

89. Finally using the military for good.

Anything to stop these baby killers.

We should also think about what we could do for the oppressed people of Burma. The Chinese need to lean on them with our support and prodding.
IMO Burma the most oppressed nation on the planet.

[Scurrilous]

100. K & R

:thumbsup:

[nichomachus]

106. I thought Al Qaidi was the worst. Oh, wait, that was last week --we've eliminated them

Time for a new bogeyman

[and-justice-for-all]

108. Well to some, the US does not occupy any foreign nations..

so this can't be true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x800586#800602

[Mimosa]

109. Video interview of Brazilian journo Pepe Escobar posted here on D.U.: Why US is intervening in Ugand

A long simmering struggle for Africa's resources between the US and China is partly behind this US intervention. Journalist Pepe Escobar is known for getting the facts. Check out this video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=626245&mesg_id=626245

A 2010 article from the Economist about Uganad's 'Oil Bonanaza' seems prescient today:

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


It's not necessarily a bad thing to be trying to secure our country's access to natural resources. China looks out for themselves, first, last and always. Why shouldn't the US?

[midnight]

111. I would prefer we get rid of the patriot act. It's as evil as any terroist org..

[cleanhippie]

118. There is that, along with the untapped oil and mineral deposits...