• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Us military aircraft hit in s. Sudan

Jango

Jango

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
5,587
Reaction score
2,291
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Rebel fire hit two U.S. military aircraft responding to the outbreak in violence in South Sudan on Saturday, wounding three U.S. service members and heavily damaging at least one of the aircraft, officials said. South Sudan blamed the attack on renegade troops in control of the breakaway region.

The U.S. military aircraft were heading to Bor, the capital of the state of Jonglei and scene of some of the nation's worst violence over the last week. One American service member was reported to be in critical condition. Officials said after the aircraft took incoming fire, they turned around and headed to Kampala, Uganda. From there the service members were flown on to Nairobi, Kenya for medical treatment, the officials said.
Click to expand...
News from The Associated Press

And in case you're wondering: South Sudan: Obama Sends 45 U.S. Troops to African Nation | TIME.com

So U.S. troops were deployed to South Sudan to protect our embassy and people there and our military is already coming under fire. Will be interesting to see how, or if we respond to this attack and provocation on U.S. military personnel and equipment.
 
Cool. Lets have another WAR.
 
Jango said:
News from The Associated Press

And in case you're wondering: South Sudan: Obama Sends 45 U.S. Troops to African Nation | TIME.com

So U.S. troops were deployed to South Sudan to protect our embassy and people there and our military is already coming under fire. Will be interesting to see how, or if we respond to this attack and provocation on U.S. military personnel and equipment.
Click to expand...

One might hope we leave Sudan in the care of the African League, the EU and the UN. It is inhuman to leave the responsibility to protect at the mercy of such actors, true . But the US cannot do everything. We should supply logistics, maybe some of the cost. But it is not our obligation and we should not make it so.
 
Gulf of Tonkin redux?
 
Montecresto said:
Cool. Lets have another WAR.
Click to expand...

No, let's not. We are hardly in a position to take on this cost, or the manpower demand on our military.
(Yeah, I'm thinking you are being sarcastic, but still . . .)
 
eohrnberger said:
No, let's not. We are hardly in a position to take on this cost, or the manpower demand on our military.
(Yeah, I'm thinking you are being sarcastic, but still . . .)
Click to expand...

Oh I agree man, for those and other reasons.
 
WTF are we doing in South Sudan?

:2brickwal
 
Naturally, simply closing the US embassy in lawless, chaotic nations is never an option. We must act as a world police force and try to build model nations everywhere in the world. Then everyone, except those siding with "terrorists" who we must kill in the process, will love us. USA, USA, USA...
 
Ockham said:
Ah... so lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan weren't learned yet. Swell...
Click to expand...

We will have it all under control in mere decades, don't worry be happy - support your local defense contractor.
 
Ockham said:
WTF are we doing in South Sudan?

:2brickwal
Click to expand...

Protecting our embassy, from the sounds of it. Or should we not have an embassy there and leave a fledgling nation to the wolves?
 
Kobie said:
Yeah, nation building with FORTY FIVE troops.
Click to expand...

But they are under fire so we must send 45,000 to restore order. Remember that the 9/11/2001 terror attack required 19 "troops" but our response was hardly proportional.
 
Kobie said:
Protecting our embassy, from the sounds of it. Or should we not have an embassy there and leave a fledgling nation to the wolves?
Click to expand...

So our purpose there is to save a fledgling nation from ... who or what? Again... apparently we are the stupidest mother****ers known in all history for not learning lessons after decades of war "saving" other nations.
 
I'm curious about two things:

1. Since the Sudan, and the breakaway regions of South Sudan are landlocked, did the US government seek and receive clearance from the administration of both countries, as well as from other nations whose airspace they had to cross, for military aircraft to fly through and into their air space?

2. I distinctly recall, during the discussions about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, that those who defended the administration and the state department claimed quite vociferously that the US does not use military troops to guard or defend US embassies around the world and that it would have been impossible or highly irregular to have US military in Benghazi at the consolate, or in Tripoli at the embassy, protecting Ambassador Stephens. I could be wrong, but wouldn't the American Ambassador in a country like Libya, just recently bombed into submission by NATO led and US backed forces be a more volatile place, a more important national security issue, and more in need of 45 or however many troops, than Bor, South Sudan which 99.9% of the world's population knows nothing about and cares about even less?
 
Kobie said:
Protecting our embassy, from the sounds of it. Or should we not have an embassy there and leave a fledgling nation to the wolves?
Click to expand...
Leave a fledgling nation to the wolves? The janjaweed have been confirmed to have links to al-Qaeda and islamic terrorist since all the way back in 2004. We tried to instigate some wars in more oil rich countries first. Since those didn't pan out now we're in Sudan. I doubt it'll go anywhere though, there just isn't enough profit.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But they are under fire so we must send 45,000 to restore order. Remember that the 9/11/2001 terror attack required 19 "troops" but our response was hardly proportional.
Click to expand...

What.
 
Jango said:
News from The Associated Press

And in case you're wondering: South Sudan: Obama Sends 45 U.S. Troops to African Nation | TIME.com

So U.S. troops were deployed to South Sudan to protect our embassy and people there and our military is already coming under fire. Will be interesting to see how, or if we respond to this attack and provocation on U.S. military personnel and equipment.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I wonder what George Clooney is thinking of this, seeing as he pushed so hard for this country's existence.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But they are under fire so we must send 45,000 to restore order. Remember that the 9/11/2001 terror attack required 19 "troops" but our response was hardly proportional.
Click to expand...

What what?
 
South Sudan separated from Sudan to become a new nation in 2011 after a U.S.-backed peace process and a long civil war, and the United States and its allies have injected billions of dollars into the fledgling country.
But its future has been severely tested by ethnic strife that broke out anew a week ago, killing more than 500 people, according to the United Nations
Click to expand...
4 U.S. troops injured during evacuation mission in strife-torn South Sudan - The Washington Post

I confess to not even know there was a South Sudan; what I am wondering about though is why
the " injection" of $ billions by the US and it's allies?

Humanitarian aid? What??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom