US to send troops to Uganda to help fight LRA rebels

[the_tyrant]

this is interesting: http://www.lracrisistracker.com/

frankly I think this is progress
I mean, compared to the mercenaries and gun runners this is much better

[yubba]

The LRA has been at their work for what, 20+ years now? How many times did we hear people talk about "why isn't Obama doing something about it" after he got elected. The same question was asked about Bush.

Now something is getting done. Late - absolutely. But at least there is action.

I don't like the vast majority of the President's policies, but this is a good move.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it was a pretty good end run around congress and the consitution, that's what the problem is, where in the consitution does it say the President can just send troops into foreign lands anytime he feels like it ????

[Oberon]

Oh aye, there's nothing wrong with the motive behind it...however the whole of Africa is one giant mess and has been for over a century, this is essentially a PR move, probably in light of the upcoming elections, most likely to appeal to the left and to the humanitarians. No doubt there will be connections found between the LRA and Al'Qaeda, if there hasn't been already. So that will be an attempt to touch base with the centrists. He knows he'd never get it through Congress before 2013, and so he goes around it...again.
America is getting war weary...you do not combat war weariness with more wars. Simple fact. You either go for a quick and decisive victory to boost morale, or you bug out and go isolationist for a decade or two until people have forgotten or until someone declares war on you.

There is a deeper strategic meaning behind this though, and that is the second African colonization (or third, I guess) by Chinese businesses and oil companies. Europe isn't particularly interested in Africa at the moment (well, aside from Libya obviously) and the UK has too much history there to get involved, so the only people who can counter the growing Chinese weight in Africa is the US, and as oil gets more and more precious, there will be a new rush to carve up the oil reserves in Africa to make sure that America is the one still standing when the traditional sellers start to run dry.
Whether or not this will be a consistent approach or whether the next government will overturn it and leave Africa to China remains to be seen.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by magicstix

I think the problem isn't necessarily what the President is doing, but more his flagrant disregard for the law and the outright lying in his reasoning for the deployment of the troops. He's said that it's a national security issue (it's not) he's said he's carrying out Congressional mandates (he's not) and he's dropped the letter on us on a Friday like a document dump to avoid media scrutiny.

Going in there for humanitarian reasons is certainly noble, but it should be done within the law. What he's done here is unilaterally gone off on a military adventure in Africa without consulting any of the other branches of government.

He also stated its a mission in support of foreign policy - which it is (although a policy I disagree with), and under the war powers act he can deploy troops for a limited time frame. Thus - it is legal. Whether we like it or not.

Originally Posted by Platapus

I guess the older I get the more cold-hearted I get, but I still wonder what is there in Uganda that is worth a single American life?

While I agree with the sentiment to a point - we could have said the same thing about Europe in WW1 and WW2. When I say this is a "good move" - I am speaking not about the policy which I disagree with, but about the consistency in acting where there is a specific need to help preserve human life. Of course - then one has to ask - where is the consistency regarding Iran or Egypt or Syria then........

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

He also stated its a mission in support of foreign policy - which it is (although a policy I disagree with), and under the war powers act he can deploy troops for a limited time frame. Thus - it is legal. Whether we like it or not.



While I agree with the sentiment to a point - we could have said the same thing about Europe in WW1 and WW2. When I say this is a "good move" - I am speaking not about the policy which I disagree with, but about the consistency in acting where there is a specific need to help preserve human life. Of course - then one has to ask - where is the consistency regarding Iran or Egypt or Syria then........

The War Powers Act is explicitly designed to check the President's power. The President is either required to go to Congress first, or may act without Congress if the US has been directly attacked or attack is imminent.

If an attack on the US was imminent, it's unlikely we would've ever heard about the commitment of troops until after they took out the threat, so the fact that the President has informed Congress more than likely proves that this is not in the national security interest in and of itself.

[TLAM Strike]

Am I the only one suprised that the 1st murderous sub-Saharan rebel army Obama decides to send troops against it the "Christian" one?

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Am I the only one suprised that the 1st murderous sub-Saharan rebel army Obama decides to send troops against it the "Christian" one?

TLAM, I don't miss the irony. However, just because they claim the mantle and blessing of the Almighty, doesn't make it so. Their actions are so anti-thetical to the commonly understood meaning of "Xtian" (at least here in the west) that the claim is ludicrous.

While one can debate theology all day long, the reality is that no organization that puts kids in the sex market, commits genocide and other horrors, is going to be taken seriously as a "Xtian" group in today's world. A few centuries ago - many groups that are now "mainstream" did exactly that - and were accepted. But not today.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

TLAM, I don't miss the irony. However, just because they claim the mantle and blessing of the Almighty, doesn't make it so. Their actions are so anti-thetical to the commonly understood meaning of "Xtian" (at least here in the west) that the claim is ludicrous.

While one can debate theology all day long, the reality is that no organization that puts kids in the sex market, commits genocide and other horrors, is going to be taken seriously as a "Xtian" group in today's world. A few centuries ago - many groups that are now "mainstream" did exactly that - and were accepted. But not today.

Any time a group claims religion as an excuse for war its BS. But the point still stands that President Obama is sending troops to combat the LRA but not any of the Islamic militias and rebels that have been murdering civilians all across Africa. If you are to oppose genocide, you don't do it selectively.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Any time a group claims religion as an excuse for war its BS. But the point still stands that President Obama is sending troops to combat the LRA but not any of the Islamic militias and rebels that have been murdering civilians all across Africa. If you are to oppose genocide, you don't do it selectively.

On the other hand, if you do it unselectively, will you ever have enough resources to do that?

And in fairness, the US does occasionally hit the Islamic militants in Somalia etc. with drone strikes. To be honest, I don't think 100 boots intended for training and intelligence support are going to be any more effective than a predator or two making a hit every once in a while. Or, in other words, not terribly effective at all.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by CCIP

To be honest, I don't think 100 boots intended for training and intelligence support are going to be any more effective than a predator or two making a hit every once in a while. Or, in other words, not terribly effective at all.

100 or 200 men can stabilize countries in the region, no doubt about it. The UK and the French did that on some occasions the last 30 years.
Doesn't matter if they are called LRA or Eastside Boys or RUF, they have many names down there. If you hit them real good and without mercy they are really fast in running and surrendering these guys down there are not Talibans or Al Quaida.

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

100 or 200 men can stabilize countries in the region, no doubt about it. The UK and the French did that on some occasions the last 30 years.
Doesn't matter if they are called LRA or Eastside Boys or RUF, they have many names down there. If you hit them real good and without mercy they are really fast in running and surrendering these guys down there are not Talibans or Al Quaida.

Unfortunately these troops we're sending are probably going to come back home with some worse than usual psychological scars. Going up against the LRA means they're going to be killing more than a few children soldiers.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by magicstix

Unfortunately these troops we're sending are probably going to come back home with some worse than usual psychological scars. Going up against the LRA means they're going to be killing more than a few children soldiers.

Of course you kill more than a few Child soldiers, you whack them all.
That's the deal down there in the region, it was the same when the French were in Kolwezi 1978 and on many French Ops afterwards, whack them all and go home when the Job is done.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

There's oil there?

BOMB THEM!

LOL

Originally Posted by Oberon

Poor sods, getting caught up in another African mess. Still, I guess they're making their presence felt before China buys up the rest of Africa and its oil.

Never a truer word....they've certainly got the $

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

If you are to oppose genocide, you don't do it selectively.

Come on, be realistic. When in the history of the world had any country taken any military action that was not selective?

[Osmium Steele]

The new movie, "Machinegun Preacher", is about a man named Sam Childers. He built and runs an orphanage in South Sudan and has literally fought the LRA on numerous occasions to keep them away from his orphanage.

He gave a radio interview in 2007 in which he claimed the LRA was funded by the imams in northern Sudan, and that Joseph Kony, the LRA founder, and the LRA kill christians whenever they find them. He'd be in a position to know.

Joseph Kony is christian by background, but is just a whackjob. His 11th commandment prohibits bicycle riding?!?

I cringe everytime the MSM calls the LRA a christian army, as if their actions prove some kind of moral equivilancy between Christianity and Islam. To my knowledge, there are not 100 million screaming, chanting, marching, effigy burning christians worldwide who support the LRA's actions.