Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 179

Thread: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

  1. #91
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I've got mixed feelings. Does someone need to step up and try to stop the slaughter in Uganda, Sudan, Somalia, et.al.? Hell yes. But why does it always have to be us? Why? Our military is stretched thinner than sushi parchment, we're broke, and again we're donning our red capes and blue tights, singing, "Here we come to save the day!!"
    there are two militaries capable of projecting and maintaining the kind of force we are discussing. that is us, and the Chinese. which one do you think is more likely to let the people of an oil rich land one day live in freedom and prosperity?

    Meanwhile, every other "civilized country" on the planet... we're the uncivilized ones, don'tcha know, because of that pesky death penalty... just shrug off the slaughter in Africa that has been going on for decades with a so-sad, too-bad attitude.
    that is correct - one of the problems with having a big state is that you end up with little people. and one of the problems with having a big welfare state is that you end up with little left over for defense.

    so don't be so hard on them - they are probably our future. Weak, insipid, dependents on a bloated and inefficient centralized state increasingly unresponsive to the wishes of the populace it claims to represent.

    And the minute we get boots on the ground over there, other countries will be making snarky remarks in the UN about America playing cowboy again.
    yup. and if we ever tried to do anything through the UN, China and Russia would probably veto it.

    There's a poll in the Poll forum asking, "Is America Arrogant?" The consensus is hell, yes. I agree. But frankly, how can we not be arrogant when every time there's a crisis, we see refuges with tears streaming down their cheeks holding signs that say "America help us" and the rest of the world kinda sits back with a lifted brow, as if waiting for us to take care of business.
    well naturally. America is an evil empire, and her military is an evil war machine that needs to be deeply cut.... until Haiti has an earthquake, Indonesia has a tsunami, Japan has a earthquake and a tsunami, Somali Pirates threaten to shut down the Gulf of Aden, and so on and so forth. You wonder how many of them acknowledge privately that were the US ever to actually cut back it's forward-leaning military presence, the world would become a lot more bloody and a lot more chaotic, but feel they have to demand a US pull back out of some misplaced sense of the-need-to-appeal-to-pride.

    Do I hope a small contingent of American advisors can bring peace to a barbaric tribal region with an illiterate populace and a cultural belief in witch doctors and human sacrifice? Of course I do, but it's not going to happen.
    I would suggest you read up on the history of the PMC "Executive Outcomes". You may take some comfort. In a few years (well, maybe a decade or two, dependent) you will be able to read up on some similar mission sets that have been undertaken by the US military, also with happy consequence.

    And I take no comfort from this notion of being purely "advisors". That's how we started in Viet Nam, remember?
    yup. though I'm not sure I see the problem with that.

    Then there's the Balkans, where I was thrilled to see the forced stoppage of genocide and ethnic cleansing, only to realize two decades later than nothing had changed, except that there was yet another piece of the planet being held together by the presence of UN "peacekeepers", many of whom are as vicious and corrupt as the "enemy" that had been vanquished. The moment the UN leaves the Balkans, war will explode again.
    that is probably correct - and the reason is that we have tried to fight that populace on the cheap; which is always only cheaper in the short term.

    there is an old engineering maxim: You can have it done quickly, You can have it done well, and You can have it done cheaply. Just pick any two. In a very real sense a similar dilemma exists in these types of military missions.

    The same goes for Iraq, Afghanistan and yes, Central Africa as well.
    Predictions of Iraq descending into Civil War (or claims that it had already) have proven to be a bit ahead of themselves. Afghanistan we will have to see if Obama can avoid the pretty picture of 'bringing the troops home' right before election.

    When people are determined to slaughter each other for whatever reason... tribal, religious, power vacuum... we can forestall it, but we cannot eliminate it
    that is not correct. we can do both those things - but eliminating it is more manpower, time, and resource intensive.

    My fervent hope is that the mission will be limited to one thing: Hunting down and eliminating the rebel leaders to temporarily end the massive bloodshed there.
    my bet would be that that is what it will be. And as a general matter of policy, I'm fine with us saying "look, if you cross X line of behavior, we'll come kill you"; I just wish we would apply it to Syria.

    But I fear it will become another quagmire of American troops standing between two groups of people determined to annihilate each other, and a finger-pointing world saying, "Look, America failed again."
    eh, the "jet set" is going to say that anyway - they need to say it. It justifies them not getting involved.

  2. #92
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I don't dispute that the US government has undertaken military missions for alterior motives. Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan is evidence of that. However, Libya is a whole 'nother matter. The US did not lead that action. France, Britain and Spain... all of whom get a large amount of oil from Libya... spearheaded NATO involvement in that. The US was a reluctant participant, and we've done very little since the initial action of using missles and artillary to take out Libya's air defenses so NATO planes, primarly French planes, could carry on in safety. France, Britain and Spain have carried the water for the Libyan mission. If it turns out well, the credit is theirs, not ours.
    actually the Libya mission has revealed the startling extent to which those militaries have atrophied. the US has been forced to supply them after - i think - day 7 or so; and has been forced to step in and fly missions assigned them in the ATO when their assets were incapable of performing. France Britain and Spain largely provided the "face" of the movement while the US (as usual) provided the support and resources. when you see that the conflict has "shifted to NATO", understand that all that that means is that the US Commander has taken off his "US" hat and put on his "NATO" hat.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    People were upset with Iraq because we entered under false pretenses and because it was a distraction from Afghanistan. If 9/11 hadn't happened and Bush or another president had argued that we should go into Iraq specifically in order to stop Saddam from being so insane and inhumane, the response to our invasion may have been much different.
    December 15, 2005


    False pretenses huh.

    This is news: Bush actually lists reasons for invading Iraq, his own words.



    The president said:




    "He has pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He has declared that the United States of America was his enemy.

    "Over the course of a decade, Saddam Hussein has refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions -- including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, and abide by the terms of a 1991 cease-fire. He deceived international inspectors, and he denied them the unconditional access they needed to do their jobs. When a unanimous Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to comply with that final opportunity. At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community. The United States did not choose war -- the choice was Saddam Husseinís. "

    At the same time, we must remember that an investigation after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way.



    It was never the obligation of the United States or the United Nations to prove Saddam had WMDs; it was Saddamís obligation, as an especially irresponsible dictator, to prove he had none. And he had not cooperated with weapons inspectors "fully," "completely" and "immediately," as the U.N. resolutions put it, for 12 years.

    Saddam had refused to respect the rights of the Iraqi people and failed to abide by all other terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that saved Saddam after his defeat in Kuwait. As Bush pointed out six months before the Iraq invasion, it was U.N. Resolution 688 that required Saddam to end the repression of Iraqis. Saddam never did end his repression. Other cease-fire resolutions obliged him to stop supporting terrorists, to return 600 Kuwaiti POWs, and to cooperate fully with arms inspectors. He never did those things either.

    Every violation of a cease-fire agreement is the equivalent of a declaration of war. Saddam invited us.

  4. #94
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    December 15, 2005
    False pretenses huh.
    We entered the war to get rid of WMD's based on crappy information and none were there. Yes, false pretenses.

  5. #95
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

    no; WMD"s were one of three interlocking reasons.

    1. WMD ownership in violation of UN mandate and the ceasefire combined with WMD production again in violation of both.
    2. Present and growing ties to international terror networks
    3. A history of violently striking out at his neighbors and his own people, to include a recorded willingness to use said WMD.


    now, we found WMD in Iraq - we didn't find what we thought we would find, but we did find some and we found more illegal missiles by counting them fly over our heads than Hans Blix did in 8 years. what we didn't find were active programs producing on the ground, though we did find that they had maintained some capability to get those programs back up and running. So, Reason #1 turned out to be less than we thought it was, Reason #2 turned out to be about what we thought it was, and Reason #3 turned out to be even worse than we thought it was.

  6. #96
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    there are two militaries capable of projecting and maintaining the kind of force we are discussing. that is us, and the Chinese. which one do you think is more likely to let the people of an oil rich land one day live in freedom and prosperity?
    Sorry, but the Chinese do not have that kind of power projection capability, yet. France, Britain and Russia all have greater power projection capacity than China, and all pale in comparison to the U.S. I do agree with the second point in this paragraph... wholeheartedly...

    yup. and if we ever tried to do anything through the UN, China and Russia would probably veto it.
    All too likely. The UN is a useless talking shop so long as Moscow and Beijing have veto power.

    well naturally. America is an evil empire, and her military is an evil war machine that needs to be deeply cut.... until Haiti has an earthquake, Indonesia has a tsunami, Japan has a earthquake and a tsunami, Somali Pirates threaten to shut down the Gulf of Aden, and so on and so forth. You wonder how many of them acknowledge privately that were the US ever to actually cut back it's forward-leaning military presence, the world would become a lot more bloody and a lot more chaotic, but feel they have to demand a US pull back out of some misplaced sense of the-need-to-appeal-to-pride.
    Nicely said...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #97
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    no; WMD"s were one of three interlocking reasons.

    1. WMD ownership in violation of UN mandate and the ceasefire combined with WMD production again in violation of both.
    2. Present and growing ties to international terror networks
    3. A history of violently striking out at his neighbors and his own people, to include a recorded willingness to use said WMD.

    now, we found WMD in Iraq - we didn't find what we thought we would find, but we did find some and we found more illegal missiles by counting them fly over our heads than Hans Blix did in 8 years. what we didn't find were active programs producing on the ground, though we did find that they had maintained some capability to get those programs back up and running. So, Reason #1 turned out to be less than we thought it was, Reason #2 turned out to be about what we thought it was, and Reason #3 turned out to be even worse than we thought it was.
    Iraq was not actively developing weapons, it didn't have the stockpiles of weapons that were used to justify the invasion and it didn't have tied to AQ which was the main terrorist tie that was used to justify invasion. Government officials lied to the public about their certainty of their accusations. It was false pretenses.

    Sure there were human rights violations and some other unlawful and inhumane actions. However, the two main justifications for the Iraq War - large stockpiles and active programs for WMDs and connected to AQ - turned up nothing. And the certainty the government claim to have was complete BS. False pretenses.

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Iraq was not actively developing weapons, it didn't have the stockpiles of weapons that were used to justify the invasion and it didn't have tied to AQ which was the main terrorist tie that was used to justify invasion. Government officials lied to the public about their certainty of their accusations. It was false pretenses.

    Sure there were human rights violations and some other unlawful and inhumane actions. However, the two main justifications for the Iraq War - large stockpiles and active programs for WMDs and connected to AQ - turned up nothing. And the certainty the government claim to have was complete BS. False pretenses.
    You just can't grasp the big picture. You focus on no WMD because that is the one reason of the many reasons Bush gave that didn't pan out.You choose to ignore the other reasons I specifically laid out in my previous post because you are a blind bitter Bush basher that would rather spout anti Bush rhetoric than see the facts. He specifically stated Saddam's abuse of Iraq citizens, the very reason obama is sending troops to Africa to take sides in a civil war. A move you libs fully support. Your hypocrisy is staggering in it's scope.

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    Mind explaining to me how President Obama is a Marxist? As far as I can tell, he is a capitalist as his entire economic team was the "Bailout Bunch" (Obama's Bailout Bunch Brings Us More of the Same: Jonathan Weil - Bloomberg)
    Of course he is a Marxist. His father and mother were Marxists. His mentor was a Marxist. He associated himself with Marxists and communists in college. He spent twenty years in a church whose central tenet was black liberation theology, also Marxist. His core beliefs are Marxist. He is anti-capitalist. A bailout is not a capitalist idea. Allowing either success or failure based on free market forces is capitalist.

    He used the bailout money as a slush fund to reward his contributors and friends. He and the group he aligned himself with are corrupt.

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    He is a big fan of Groucho.
    As liberty slips away, in twenty years, you will be asking yourself how you missed so many indicators that the president was an anti-capitalist Marxist.

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •