• 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!

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

Simon W. Moon said:
And you think that Southern California and Central Africa are environments similar enough and have problems that similar enough to one another that they should have identical solutions? Do you honestly think that? Or are you just posturing to make a point?
Click to expand...
Do we have a greater national interest in destroying the Mexican gangs in California or destroying some thugs no one has ever heard of nor cares about is some place where we seemingly have no national interest?
 
Misterveritis said:
Do we have a greater national interest in destroying the Mexican gangs in California or destroying some thugs no one has ever heard of nor cares about is some place where we seemingly have no national interest?
Click to expand...
I am not actually sure how this question relates to the question I asked. I assume that it's rhetorical.
 
Kandahar said:
Here I am drawing attention to the LRA back in February:
Here I am saying roughly the same thing about two years ago:
Click to expand...
Okay. You are an exception to the rule.

Kandahar said:
I am sorry that you didn't know who the LRA was until last week because you never bothered to find out. I'm not here to do your homework for you; there are 42 threads on this forum where someone mentions the LRA by name (40 of which preceded this story about Obama sending troops), and another 8 mentioning Joseph Kony by name (6 of which preceded this story). Run the search yourself if you don't believe me. And I suggest you learn more about the LRA, and don't assume that everyone else is just as ignorant simply because YOU hadn't heard of them prior to this week.
Click to expand...
Nor do I care that no one (except you) has heard of them before last week. Neither the one term Marxist president Obama nor you have told us what the US national interest is.

Kandahar said:
The LRA is not the only group like this in lawless parts of Central Africa, but they are by far the most prolific and brutal.
Click to expand...
Therefore, what? Should we expend our treasure and our military to police Africa?

Kandahar said:
I don't know. This thread isn't about gangs in LA, and frankly I don't give a ****. This thread is about the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are not American. Liberals cannot stand to use the US military to secure our actual national interests but have no problem whatever sending Americans to places where we have no interests.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I am not actually sure how this question relates to the question I asked. I assume that it's rhetorical.
Click to expand...
Do you believe environments have to be similar in the externals, (geography, climate,) but national interest has no bearing on where and why we spend American treasure, and possibly American blood?
 
Misterveritis said:
Nor do I care that no one (except you) has heard of them before last week. Neither the one term Marxist president Obama nor you have told us what the US national interest is.
Click to expand...

There isn't a national interest. The interest is in being able to stop brutality against other human beings at very little cost.

Therefore, what? Should we expend our treasure and our military to police Africa?
Click to expand...

In some situations, yes. This being one of them.

Perhaps you are not American. Liberals cannot stand to use the US military to secure our actual national interests but have no problem whatever sending Americans to places where we have no interests.
Click to expand...

Every military endeavor should require a cost/benefit analysis. In some humanitarian missions, the positives greatly outweigh the negatives (e.g. fighting the LRA, peacekeeping in Sierra Leone, the intervention in Rwanda that unfortunately never happened). In others, the negatives outweigh the positives (e.g. Somalia). The same is true for missions that are more about our national interests than humanitarianism, although they tend to be on a much grander scale...sometimes the positives outweigh the negatives (e.g. World War II, arguably Korea, arguably Desert Storm) and other times they don't (e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan after the first few months, Iraq II).
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
There isn't a national interest.
Click to expand...
Now there is honesty for you. The president was not so honest. He said it was in our national interest. Here is what he said but did not explain, "I believe that deploying these U.S. armed forces furthers U.S. national security interests..."

Kandahar said:
The interest is in being able to stop brutality against other human beings at very little cost.
Click to expand...
If that is the case then why did the one term Marxist president Obama not seek the agreement of the Congress before going to the United Nations and to the Europeans to seek a solution? Why would he deploy troops on a Wednesday and send a letter to Congress on a Friday evening before heading off to campaign or play golf?
 
Misterveritis said:
If that is the case then why did the one term Marxist president Obama not seek the agreement of the Congress before going to the United Nations and to the Europeans to seek a solution? Why would he deploy troops on a Wednesday and send a letter to Congress on a Friday evening before heading off to campaign or play golf?
Click to expand...

I'm really not that interested in your opinion of "the one term Marxist president." I'm more interested in the merits of the actual policy.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you believe environments have to be similar in the externals, (geography, climate,) but national interest has no bearing on where and why we spend American treasure, and possibly American blood?
Click to expand...
You seem to have a tangential understanding of my posts.

I think that different situations which are in different environments may well be best handled by different methods. That's all.

The stuff about national interest in the above quoted comment is stuff that you have made up for me.

Feel free to ignore me.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm really not that interested in your opinion of "the one term Marxist president." I'm more interested in the merits of the actual policy.
Click to expand...
But you did NOT address the actual policy, did you?

Why does he believe he is a ruler rather than a temporary president?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The stuff about national interest in the above quoted comment is stuff that you have made up for me.

Feel free to ignore me.
Click to expand...
It is appealing. Why do you believe that the president said the deployment of these troops was in our national interest? How, in your opinion, is it in our interest to spend American taxes and possibly expend American blood to stop Africans from killing Africans?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I don't.
I am not sure that it is.
Click to expand...
Okay. You don't believe the president, the one term Marxist, said deploying troops was in our national interest? The letter he sent to Congress disputes the first.

And you don't believe it is in our interest to spend our tax dollars and to spend our blood to try to stop Africans from killing Africans?
Then what do you believe? If anything? Do you just go along because you like bandwagons?
 
Misterveritis said:
Okay. You don't believe the president, the one term Marxist, said deploying troops was in our national interest? The letter he sent to Congress disputes the first.

And you don't believe it is in our interest to spend our tax dollars and to spend our blood to try to stop Africans from killing Africans?
Then what do you believe? If anything? Do you just go along because you like bandwagons?
Click to expand...
You obviously don't need me here. You can just keep carrying on the debate between us by yourself.
Have fun. thanks
 
Misterveritis said:
But you did NOT address the actual policy, did you?
Click to expand...

Yes. I explained that every military commitment should require a cost/benefit analysis, and explained why I believe that this is a wise use of our military forces.

Why does he believe he is a ruler rather than a temporary president?
Click to expand...

I really don't care what you think about Obama. It isn't relevant to whether or not it is a worthy goal to rid Central Africa of the Lord's Resistance Army.
 
Misterveritis said:
How, in your opinion, is it in our interest to spend American taxes and possibly expend American blood to stop Africans from killing Africans?
Click to expand...

To whom are you referring when you say "our" interest? The US government has no national interest at stake, if that's what you're asking. But it's in "our" interest ("our" referring to humanity) to end the brutality of one of Africa's bloodiest killers, when it will cost virtually nothing to do so.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes. I explained that every military commitment should require a cost/benefit analysis, and explained why I believe that this is a wise use of our military forces.
Click to expand...
Is there any limit to how our military and our treasure should be expended, in your view? What are the costs and more importantly, what are the benefits that accrue to the US as we begin this mission?
Kandahar said:
I really don't care what you think about Obama. It isn't relevant to whether or not it is a worthy goal to rid Central Africa of the Lord's Resistance Army.
Click to expand...
Tyranny is okay with you as long as he is "your' tyrant? I think I understand you now.
 
Kandahar said:
To whom are you referring when you say "our" interest? The US government has no national interest at stake, if that's what you're asking. But it's in "our" interest ("our" referring to humanity) to end the brutality of one of Africa's bloodiest killers, when it will cost virtually nothing to do so.
Click to expand...
You have answered the question. There is no US national interest.

So why are we there?
If we go there why not Syria? Now there is real murder and brutality there. Isn't there? And there, at least, we have some interest.
 
ludahai said:
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...
Click to expand...

I would urge you to take a look at the Chinese Presence that is already in East Africa. you may be surprised. In addition, I would urge you to take a look at how quickly the French and British militaries had to depend on US Support in the anti-Khaddaffi operation. Their ability to project and sustain power without the US has become effectively nil. As for Russia... she can, but I think still only in her Near Abroad; but I am open to being convinced otherwise.

All too likely. The UN is a useless talking shop so long as Moscow and Beijing have veto power.
Click to expand...

truth. why some wish to pretend that it is more than it is, I cannot fathom.

Nicely said...
Click to expand...

Well, yours is the nation I see suffering first from an American withdrawal :(.
 
Misterveritis said:
You have answered the question. There is no US national interest.

So why are we there?
If we go there why not Syria? Now there is real murder and brutality there. Isn't there? And there, at least, we have some interest.
Click to expand...

we don't have "some" interest - we have a LOT of interest. It is insane that we are not bombing the daylights out of that regime.
 
Misterveritis said:
You have answered the question. There is no US national interest.

So why are we there?
Click to expand...

Because we have the ability to do a lot of good at very little cost.

If we go there why not Syria? Now there is real murder and brutality there. Isn't there? And there, at least, we have some interest.
Click to expand...

The costs of intervening in Syria are far higher than in Uganda (i.e. we'd be fighting against an established government instead of a criminal gang), and the benefits are far less certain (i.e. everyone hates the LRA and the world would unarguably be better off without them, whereas it isn't clear who/what would replace the Assad regime in Syria).
 
The answer to the last question is: someone who is probably less connected to Iran.
 
cpwill said:
I would urge you to take a look at the Chinese Presence that is already in East Africa. you may be surprised. In addition, I would urge you to take a look at how quickly the French and British militaries had to depend on US Support in the anti-Khaddaffi operation. Their ability to project and sustain power without the US has become effectively nil. As for Russia... she can, but I think still only in her Near Abroad; but I am open to being convinced otherwise.

.
Click to expand...

Do you have some links showing the military presence of China in East Africa I would definately like to read them

As for Russia, it has lost the ability to truely project power beyond its immediate boarder and even then it has difficulties. The Georgian and Chechnya conflicts show that very well. It would be able to attack and beat countries of Georgian size, and maintain control over them, but ones like Azerbijian(sp) or eastern european countrieds ( excluding Estonia, Lithuania(sp) and Latvia) it would not be able to, No new weapon systems have been developêd and deployed from the end of the USSR, any new systems are seeing a large amount of problems.
truth. why some wish to pretend that it is more than it is, I cannot fathom.



Well, yours is the nation I see suffering first from an American withdrawal :(.
Click to expand...
 
Misterveritis said:
Why do you think hard evidence is necessary? What would you consider hard evidence? Supporters of the Marxist president are unlikely to find any evidence convincing. Yet, what would a Marxist do to the US that this one term president has not done or said he intends to do?
Click to expand...

So basically you have no evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom