So destroying them doesn't exactly help "another pack of assholes gain more power," it just helps secure the area.
Many governments (including our own) have committed atrocities. But the government of Uganda isn't going anywhere, whereas the LRA can be wiped out with minimal commitment on the part of the United States. A commitment which we should have provided years ago.Based on what logic? The government troops have committed atrocities, just not as many atrocities as the LRA?
ecf9352d-0717-413e-98a4-58bad519ec7b.jpgEver hear of the Contras? You people are still beating Reagan up over that. The Uganda op is nothing but a repeat of history.
Last edited by Kandahar; 10-15-11 at 06:54 PM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
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!!"
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. 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.
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.
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. And I take no comfort from this notion of being purely "advisors". That's how we started in Viet Nam, remember?
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. The same goes for Iraq, Afghanistan and yes, Central Africa as well.
When people are determined to slaughter each other for whatever reason... tribal, religious, power vacuum... we can forestall it, but we cannot eliminate it. Meanwhile, it will be another plot of soil upon which American blood will be spilled.
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. 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."
Time will tell. I am not optimistic.
Last edited by DiAnna; 10-15-11 at 07:22 PM.
Sure, it helps secure the area...so the surviving pack of assholes can have their way with things, like Egypt and Libya.So destroying them doesn't exactly help "another pack of assholes gain more power," it just helps secure the area.
Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
Jon Huntsman for President
Libya Has Exposed The Gap Between U.S. And European Military Power | The New Republic). Thus, the US was needed in Libya as for the Europeans to even intervene in the first place.
In addition to this, there were CIA agents in Libya aiding the rebels (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/wo...a/31intel.html) and there were also US special ops forces (Are U.S. Troops Already on the Ground in Libya? - Interviews - The O'Reilly Factor - Fox News). The West, but especially America, had a major reason to intervene in Libya as it hurt BRICS nations such as China (China urges Libya to protect investments | Reuters), Russia (Libya, Russia talk up investment cooperation in oil, gas sector | Russia | RIA Novosti) (Libya interested in Russian energy investment — RT), and Brazil (Brazil's business in Libya | Al Jazeera Blogs). By doing this it effectively curbed BRICS influence in Libya and, more importantly, China's influence in Libya. The establishment of a pro-Western government in Libya gives the US a foothold on the continent and gives them the ability to combat Chinese influence in northern Africa.
Thus, the US, while reluctant to "intervene," had major interests in Libya.
PS All will not "turn out well" for the Libyan people as the Libyan rebels have been engaging in the ethnic cleansing of black Africans in Libya (Libyan rebel ethnic cleansing and lynching of black people « Human rights investigations) (Libyan rebel ethnic cleansing and lynching of black people « In These New Times) (Revenge Feeds Instability in Libya - WSJ.com).
"And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump