USA intervening in another civil war , 100 combat-equipped U.S. forces to Uganda

[CFoTsD]

President Obama authorized the deployment to Uganda of approximately 100 combat-equipped U.S. forces to help regional forces “remove from the battlefield” – meaning capture or kill – Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and senior leaders of the LRA.


Another Mogadishu in the making. What can only 100 U.S. forces do that the Uganda armies cant do? I dont understand taking the risk of a capture or a KIA of US personnel in god forsaken Uganda

 

[CFoTsD]

What a wonderful gov't to be propping up

LGBT rights in Uganda

 

[Just_Believe18]

Case in point to my earlier comments, CFoTsD. You did not disappoint.

On the surface of your tagline, it would appear alarming that U.S. troops are being sent to another country. However, if you dig deeper into the article, it's for a legitimate cause.

This is a humanitarian mission involving a very small number of U.S. troops that will not be engaging in direct combat against the atrocity committing Lord's Resistance Army. The LRA has been responsible for the brutal atrocities of raping, murdering, kidnapping and maiming tens of thousands of Africans.

Now you can attempt to further manipulate the topic by appealing to the sentiments of JUB members' resentful views of the Ugandan government. However, the purpose of the mission is to end a humanitarian crisis, regardless if it's in partnership with an anti-gay government.

If you actually finished reading the article, you will note that the US has already been helping Uganda and three other African nations counter the LRA for years (yes, even during the Bush Administration).

The decision is actually being praised by policy advisors who view more direct involvement to be helpful in the long-term stability of Africa's fragile network of governments. I would also like to point out that Obama is fully authorized to make such a decision based on the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act that was passed by both houses of Congress with overwhelming support, May 10, 2010. Such language within the Act includes:

"...providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord's Resistance Army."


In the future, if you are going to post such articles, please take the time to do your research. I shouldn't have to do it for you.

 

[CFoTsD]

Speaking of research I see why president Obama is doing this, more channeling of Reagan


Uganda president Yoweri Kaguta Museveni w/RR

Heartwarming

 

[Just_Believe18]

^ Seriously? That's all you have to say in response to your thread being criticized for the misinformed mess that it is?

 

[CFoTsD]

All of the info in OP is from ABC News. All news agencies worldwide are reporting the same.

Of course the comments in OP are mine


BTW- if want to take the MIC words as gospel go ahead

 

[Jack Springer]

You have to feel sorry for the 100 troops and their families while Obama plays commander-in-chief in an area that has no security interest of the United States.

I saw no reference in the article to Bush's involvement in Uganda.

Anyone would have to be a little taken back by the timing of this -- it happened two days ago and nothing said until today.

Sorry, but I've never heard of the LRA until this afternoon.

 

[Just_Believe18]

Yes, I know. I read the Associated Press version of the article earlier this morning. That doesn't address the point though.

The point is you are making this as some kind of criticism towards President Obama's foreign policy. Your comment:

"Another Mogadishu in the making. What can only 100 U.S. forces do that the Uganda armies cant do? I dont understand taking the risk of a capture or a KIA of US personnel in god forsaken Uganda."

This is not another Mogadishu in the making, and your source makes no mention or criticism of this being a controversial decision from the President. Based on the rebuttal I wrote above, your commentary on this topic is irrelevant and disingenuous to the subject matter.

 

[CFoTsD]

JB18, answer my question please

What can only 100 U.S. forces do that the Uganda armies cant do?

 

[Just_Believe18]

You have to feel sorry for the 100 troops and their families while Obama plays commander-in-chief in an area that has no security interest of the United States.

I saw no reference in the article to Bush's involvement in Uganda.

Anyone would have to be a little taken back by the timing of this -- it happened two days ago and nothing said until today.

Sorry, but I've never heard of the LRA until this afternoon.

Reread the article, Jack. It mentions that the U.S. has been involved in the dismantling of the LRA in four African nations for "several years" now. Are you saying Bush wasn't the President then?

No need to apologize for having never heard of the LRA until this afternoon. Any time is a good time to educate yourself on such a brutal terrorist organization:

Like I said, this is a mission to end a humanitarian crisis in Africa. A decision that has long, historical precedent, overwhelming bi-partisan support in Congress, and internationally welcomed.

 

[CFoTsD]

Saving the world got us where we are now. Good idea but impracticable because other countries in the long run pay a high price by letting 'USA help them'

 

[Just_Believe18]

JB18, answer my question please

What can only 100 U.S. forces do that the Uganda armies cant do?

The United States has long contributed groups of special forces to foreign nations to serve as trainers, reconnaissance support, etc. This is not an invasion or a new war front that the United States is committing to. They are assisting the Ugandan military in dismantling the LRA. They will not be engaged in direct combat.

 

[CFoTsD]

They will not be engaged in direct combat.

Like just helping the UN distribute food in Somalia

 

[Just_Believe18]

^ How about you stay on topic to your own thread? Or are you finished with the discussion of your topic and we can all move on to more relevant issues?

 

[CFoTsD]

I'm on topic! I was just illustrating your naivety

 

[Just_Believe18]

^ Nope. Your statement does not qualify to accuse me of being naive based on my input of your thread versus your own about the United States' involvement in Uganda against the LRA.

 

[JayHawk]

Honestly we are involved in hundreds of nations each year providing humanitarian support like doctors, dentist, building schools, roads, bridges and water projects.

The difference between this and Mogadishu? There we were involved for a long time as well to provide humanitarian aid to refugees and very needy people being pushed out of their own country due to fighting. The difference is we decided that we should take on a gang lord and started the engagement without adequate services in place.

There will not be another Mogadishu.

Both of you do know that under President Bush we started AFRICOM or Africa Command. There never was one before and as part of efforts to build civil responsible leadership in Africa GWB double then tripled the budget for Aids research in Africa. This is the other side that we do often with State. We do diplomacy with state much more often than any of you would like to think. We get them to places that could not otherwise safely be accessed.

Anybody in the room who thinks that Afghanistan and the Taliban and unstable countries are good?

Mmm K then lets keep them from creating more then MMMk?

 

[Kulindahr]

JB18, answer my question please

What can only 100 U.S. forces do that the Uganda armies cant do?

If you can't answer that, you should just admit your ignorance and get off the forum.

The president is implementing legislation passed by Congress. That's called "doing his job". So apparently you want him to not do his job.

 

[CFoTsD]

Kulindahr, having a bad day

When did you abandon your libertarianism

 

[jackoroe]

Let's address the topic at hand and not each other, gentlemen.