PDA

View Full Version : Obama Sends 100 US Troops to Uganda to Help Combat Lord’s Resistance Army



bijou
10-14-2011, 03:24 PM
Two days ago 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.

The forces will deploy beginning with a small group and grow over the next month to 100. They will ultimately go to Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with the permission of those countries. ... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-sends-100-us-troops-to-uganda-to-combat-lords-resistance-army/

fettpett
10-14-2011, 05:11 PM
and yet another illegal operation that this Administration will take part it....and against Christians that want more democracy in the region

SarasotaRepub
10-14-2011, 07:04 PM
WARMONGER!!!!!!!:D

Man...Obama is a bloodthirsty bastard!!!!:eek:

fettpett
10-14-2011, 07:30 PM
WARMONGER!!!!!!!:D

Man...Obama is a bloodthirsty bastard!!!!:eek:

well he never said he was against war, just against war started by Republican's :D

NJCardFan
10-14-2011, 08:19 PM
And now a word from the left....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g04aCp3ej-I

TexasFred
10-14-2011, 08:42 PM
Why do the above words have such a familiar *ring* to them? It’s almost like we have heard them before, like maybe from another Democratic POTUS? Maybe in 1961 or so?

djones520
10-14-2011, 09:08 PM
and yet another illegal operation that this Administration will take part it....and against Christians that want more democracy in the region

Might want to get your facts straight a bit. An act passed last year authorized this.

And the LRA is an organization that was declared a terrorist group by the last Administration.

In the last 3 years they've conducted multiple massacres. They've pressed more then 10,000 children into service, killing their family and teachers when they objected. Most of those children have died, being forced untrained into front lines of combat. The leaders of the organization all have international arrest warrants out for them.

These are the types of people that we should be happy to see go.

fettpett
10-14-2011, 10:28 PM
Might want to get your facts straight a bit. An act passed last year authorized this.

And the LRA is an organization that was declared a terrorist group by the last Administration.

In the last 3 years they've conducted multiple massacres. They've pressed more then 10,000 children into service, killing their family and teachers when they objected. Most of those children have died, being forced untrained into front lines of combat. The leaders of the organization all have international arrest warrants out for them.

These are the types of people that we should be happy to see go.

I was just going by what I heard today about it from Rush...hell he'd never even heard of them till today. If they are a terrorist group, great kill them.

Starbuck
10-14-2011, 11:26 PM
From what I have learned about 'em we should target them with drones and kill 'em all.

Then leave Uganda to the Ugandans......maybe that's not asking too much.:confused:

MountainMan
10-15-2011, 01:35 AM
Might want to get your facts straight a bit. An act passed last year authorized this.

And the LRA is an organization that was declared a terrorist group by the last Administration.

In the last 3 years they've conducted multiple massacres. They've pressed more then 10,000 children into service, killing their family and teachers when they objected. Most of those children have died, being forced untrained into front lines of combat. The leaders of the organization all have international arrest warrants out for them.

These are the types of people that we should be happy to see go.

Maybe so but there truly is no NATIONAL interest in this conflict. I say no troops to Uganda.

djones520
10-15-2011, 09:27 AM
Maybe so but there truly is no NATIONAL interest in this conflict. I say no troops to Uganda.

That's a differant issue. I was just making sure that Fett knew it was a bit more then Obama saying it's ok to kill Christians.

newshutr
10-15-2011, 11:32 AM
I'm going to float an idea here. Probably will be torn apart but give it a moment's thought, please.

In the raid on OBL's compound, all we were told was a teaser of there was a "treasure trove" of information. Remember it's not what is said...it's HOW it's said. Now recently, we've seen drone strikes take out important leaders and terrorists. Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan.

Any one of the impression that there was information pertaining to al-shabab, the African al-qaida? That these 100 special op force members are laying a ground work for intelligence and strikes pertaining to info that was part of that treasure trove?

Am I the only one that gets this feel out of that?

Starbuck
10-15-2011, 11:46 AM
I'm going to float an idea here. Probably will be torn apart but give it a moment's thought, please.

In the raid on OBL's compound, all we were told was a teaser of there was a "treasure trove" of information. Remember it's not what is said...it's HOW it's said. Now recently, we've seen drone strikes take out important leaders and terrorists. Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan.

Any one of the impression that there was information pertaining to al-shabab, the African al-qaida? That these 100 special op force members are laying a ground work for intelligence and strikes pertaining to info that was part of that treasure trove?

Am I the only one that gets this feel out of that?

I never made that connection, but that's just because I never thought of it. Good theory, I suppose.

I would like to weigh in on the "we are killing Christians" nonsense that I have read:
We are going to kill killers and criminals. If left alone they would someday have their own country recognized by the U.N.. I don't know whether they are Christians or not, and quite frankly, don't care what they claim to be. If the reports I have heard about them are even partly true, then I think we should take them out.

newshutr
10-15-2011, 11:49 AM
I never made that connection, but that's just because I never thought of it. Good theory, I suppose.

I would like to weigh in on the "we are killing Christians" nonsense that I have read:
We are going to kill killers and criminals. If left alone they would someday have their own country recognized by the U.N.. I don't know whether they are Christians or not, and quite frankly, don't care what they claim to be. If the reports I have heard about them are even partly true, then I think we should take them out.

read this article..the second page has Iran as a player in Africa..

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/17/al-qaeda%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cchristian%E2%80%9D-dictator-ally/

DumbAss Tanker
10-15-2011, 02:19 PM
I'm going to float an idea here. Probably will be torn apart but give it a moment's thought, please.

In the raid on OBL's compound, all we were told was a teaser of there was a "treasure trove" of information. Remember it's not what is said...it's HOW it's said. Now recently, we've seen drone strikes take out important leaders and terrorists. Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan.

Any one of the impression that there was information pertaining to al-shabab, the African al-qaida? That these 100 special op force members are laying a ground work for intelligence and strikes pertaining to info that was part of that treasure trove?

Am I the only one that gets this feel out of that?

Specifically, it's hard to say, but there is a basic truism that if you aren't there for people when they need you, they won't be there for you when you need them. Because of this, the 'Solely in our own national interest' gets a lot more complicated than internet forum posters want it to be. We do need to have friends and associates in all sorts of places where we don't have an immediate interest at stake, if we can foresee a reasonable chance we will have interests at stake there in time. The question then becomes, just how much investment and risk is that worth to us? The scale of what's involved here now is probably within most people's tolerance, as long as the dreaded mission creep can be kept at bay.

Tipsycatlover
10-15-2011, 02:41 PM
The national interest is that Afria is obama's homeland.

Starbuck
10-15-2011, 05:05 PM
Specifically, it's hard to say, but there is a basic truism that if you aren't there for people when they need you, they won't be there for you when you need them. Because of this, the 'Solely in our own national interest' gets a lot more complicated than internet forum posters want it to be. We do need to have friends and associates in all sorts of places where we don't have an immediate interest at stake, if we can foresee a reasonable chance we will have interests at stake there in time. The question then becomes, just how much investment and risk is that worth to us? The scale of what's involved here now is probably within most people's tolerance, as long as the dreaded mission creep can be kept at bay.

Wisdom, this is.
http://www.jeremyperson.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/yoda.jpg

djones520
10-15-2011, 05:08 PM
Specifically, it's hard to say, but there is a basic truism that if you aren't there for people when they need you, they won't be there for you when you need them. Because of this, the 'Solely in our own national interest' gets a lot more complicated than internet forum posters want it to be. We do need to have friends and associates in all sorts of places where we don't have an immediate interest at stake, if we can foresee a reasonable chance we will have interests at stake there in time. The question then becomes, just how much investment and risk is that worth to us? The scale of what's involved here now is probably within most people's tolerance, as long as the dreaded mission creep can be kept at bay.

Always nice to see someone who gets the big picture.

Nubs
10-15-2011, 05:11 PM
Might want to get your facts straight a bit. An act passed last year authorized this.

And the LRA is an organization that was declared a terrorist group by the last Administration.

In the last 3 years they've conducted multiple massacres. They've pressed more then 10,000 children into service, killing their family and teachers when they objected. Most of those children have died, being forced untrained into front lines of combat. The leaders of the organization all have international arrest warrants out for them.

These are the types of people that we should be happy to see go.

Why not just hire Executive Outcomes?

They will clean it up practically overnight at 1% of the cost.

Odysseus
10-16-2011, 10:45 AM
Specifically, it's hard to say, but there is a basic truism that if you aren't there for people when they need you, they won't be there for you when you need them. Because of this, the 'Solely in our own national interest' gets a lot more complicated than internet forum posters want it to be. We do need to have friends and associates in all sorts of places where we don't have an immediate interest at stake, if we can foresee a reasonable chance we will have interests at stake there in time. The question then becomes, just how much investment and risk is that worth to us? The scale of what's involved here now is probably within most people's tolerance, as long as the dreaded mission creep can be kept at bay.

Everything that you are saying is true. However, this mission strikes me as problematical for several reasons. First, it is a troop deployment against an enemy that has not targeted Americans and not been run past congress. That makes it Constitutionally suspect. Second, these instructors may end up going along on operations with African troops who have a poor history of reaction under fire, due to poor training. This puts those instructors in harm's way, and at risk of capture by a barbaric enemy, with little in the way of protection. We'd have been better off putting a full infantry regiment on the ground and giving them liberal rules of engagement, along with the instructors, but liberals don't think that way. They have an unrealistic view of what can be done by a small force, thanks to their lack of experience with the military and too much exposure to Hollywood fantasy. Every president ought to be made to see Blackhawk Down before they do something like this.

Ultimately, the downsides of this mission outweigh the potential upsides, as the scale of the deployment is too small to accomplish anything but put Americans in harm's way.

DumbAss Tanker
10-16-2011, 11:19 AM
First, it is a troop deployment against an enemy that has not targeted Americans and not been run past congress.

That was my first thought as well, but then I found out the whole thing is bootstrapped from a 2009 law (Before the Dems lost control of the House) to aid the LRA's victims, which is now being referred to as a '2010 law' (No doubt from its effective date or FY rather than when it was actually passed) in order to make it appear bipartisan. I thought the Congressional Dems were wrong to micromanage and screw with the military assistance mission advisors in Salvo when Reagan was President, now that the shoe is on the other foot, I can't really fault the process even if I don't like the current President or his choices. I believe Obozo has the Congressional cover on this one for a MAAG.

Madisonian
10-16-2011, 03:57 PM
Always nice to see someone who gets the big picture.

Using that logic you could say that we should have troops in almost every country on the planet.

txradioguy
10-16-2011, 04:09 PM
Why do the above words have such a familiar *ring* to them? It’s almost like we have heard them before, like maybe from another Democratic POTUS? Maybe in 1961 or so?


I think you're on to something here my friend.

djones520
10-16-2011, 05:44 PM
Using that logic you could say that we should have troops in almost every country on the planet.

Only if your trying to build a straw man. How's it going?

Odysseus
10-16-2011, 08:43 PM
That was my first thought as well, but then I found out the whole thing is bootstrapped from a 2009 law (Before the Dems lost control of the House) to aid the LRA's victims, which is now being referred to as a '2010 law' (No doubt from its effective date or FY rather than when it was actually passed) in order to make it appear bipartisan. I thought the Congressional Dems were wrong to micromanage and screw with the military assistance mission advisors in Salvo when Reagan was President, now that the shoe is on the other foot, I can't really fault the process even if I don't like the current President or his choices. I believe Obozo has the Congressional cover on this one for a MAAG.

Unless the congressional aid legislation specifically authorized the use of force, I stand by my assessment. There is a big difference between allocating funding for humanitarian aid for the victims of a terror group and authorizing military force against that group. The Bush administration had a small group of advisers on the ground in 2008 from AFRICOM, and that mission was a colossal failure, as the leadership managed to escape the Ugandan and other African troops and went on a killing spree in retaliation. Obama is probably hoping that the larger advisory contingent will yield better results, but without going through the Constitutional requirements, he's risking American lives without authorization.

djones520
10-16-2011, 08:57 PM
Unless the congressional aid legislation specifically authorized the use of force, I stand by my assessment. There is a big difference between allocating funding for humanitarian aid for the victims of a terror group and authorizing military force against that group. The Bush administration had a small group of advisers on the ground in 2008 from AFRICOM, and that mission was a colossal failure, as the leadership managed to escape the Ugandan and other African troops and went on a killing spree in retaliation. Obama is probably hoping that the larger advisory contingent will yield better results, but without going through the Constitutional requirements, he's risking American lives without authorization.

The act specifically states the authorization to use military force. So not sure where you think there is a hold up.


(1) providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining Lord’s Resistance Army fighters;



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1067

Odysseus
10-16-2011, 09:35 PM
The act specifically states the authorization to use military force. So not sure where you think there is a hold up.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1067

I stand corrected. However, that simply undermines the means that he is using. If he has the authorization to use force, then he'd better use enough force to accomplish the mission. One hundred observer/trainers won't accomplish anything except a photo op, and I don't enjoy NOK notification enough to want to go and explain to somebody that their loved one died for a photo op. Obama needs to deploy at least a full infantry brigade, with enough heavy support to engage and destroy anything that they come up against, and they have to have ROE that allow them to go after the bad guys. Otherwise, this is just one more masturbatory indulgence masquerading as policy.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-16-2011, 09:42 PM
I was just going by what I heard today about it from Rush...hell he'd never even heard of them till today. If they are a terrorist group, great kill them.

Is Rush really sympathizing with the LRA?

Odysseus
10-16-2011, 09:49 PM
Is Rush really sympathizing with the LRA?

Nobody is sympathizing with the LRA. What we are doing is asking why American troops are being put in harm's way to deal with them.

txradioguy
10-17-2011, 12:39 AM
And what threat exactly does the LRA pose to our national interests? Which Americans have they killed or captured?

txradioguy
10-17-2011, 12:44 AM
The Norwegian Nobel Committee just called...they want Obama's Peace Prize back.

Tipsycatlover
10-17-2011, 07:28 AM
The LRA is fighting the muslims. That's all that's necessary.

Tipsycatlover
10-17-2011, 07:32 AM
This clears it up.

It's a favor to George Soros.


http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2011/10/15/212-4/

TEL AVIV — An influential “crisis management organization” that boasts billionaire George Soros as a member of its executive board recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform.
The president-emeritus of that organization, the International Crisis Group, is the principal author of Responsibility to Protect, the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the U.S.-led NATO campaign in Libya.

Soros’ own Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine that has been cited many times by activists urging intervention in Uganda.

Authors and advisers of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, including a center founded and led by Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, also helped to found the International Criminal Court.

Several of the doctrine’s main founders also sit on boards with Soros, who is a major proponent of the doctrine.

Soros himself maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. His organizations have been the leading efforts purportedly to facilitate more transparency in Uganda’s oil industry, which is being tightly controlled by the country’s leadership.

djones520
10-17-2011, 07:42 AM
The LRA is fighting the muslims. That's all that's necessary.

That is such an assinine response.

Your cool with murdering parents to steal children, slap a gun in their hand, and then sending them into a meat grinder, just to kill a few Muslims?

Your cool with massacring entive villages because their Muslim?

Here's a clue idiot. The vast majority of Uganda's population is made up of Christians. The LRA is waging war against the government of Uganda, not against Muslims. They kill anyone who gets in their way.

In 2008 they attacked a Christian Concert on Christmas day, killed almost 200 people and forced more then 100 children into their ranks. In another location they trapped 45 people in a Christian church, and hacked them to death with machetes.

December of 2009 more then 300 killed in the Congo. Surviving adults where turned to slaves. Boys where forced to become soldiers. Girls where to become sex slaves.

But hey, their killing some Muslims (maybe) so it's all good.

You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:

djones520
10-17-2011, 07:55 AM
Nobody is sympathizing with the LRA. What we are doing is asking why American troops are being put in harm's way to deal with them.

At best, Rush was just talking shit out of his ass without knowing what he was talking about.

Here's the transcript.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians

Notice at the bottom after this long tirade, it turns out he finds out he realizes he had no clue what he was talking about the entire time? Love it... :rolleyes:

Tipsycatlover
10-17-2011, 08:30 AM
That is such an assinine response.

Your cool with murdering parents to steal children, slap a gun in their hand, and then sending them into a meat grinder, just to kill a few Muslims?

Your cool with massacring entive villages because their Muslim?

Here's a clue idiot. The vast majority of Uganda's population is made up of Christians. The LRA is waging war against the government of Uganda, not against Muslims. They kill anyone who gets in their way.

In 2008 they attacked a Christian Concert on Christmas day, killed almost 200 people and forced more then 100 children into their ranks. In another location they trapped 45 people in a Christian church, and hacked them to death with machetes.

December of 2009 more then 300 killed in the Congo. Surviving adults where turned to slaves. Boys where forced to become soldiers. Girls where to become sex slaves.

But hey, their killing some Muslims (maybe) so it's all good.

You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:

This is a war of survival! In Africa. This is how it's fought. To expect the Christians to merely lay and down and die is the same as obama telling the Christians in Egypt to show restraint as they are slaughtered by muslims. How DARE they fight back. Doesn't this make them hypocrites?

fettpett
10-17-2011, 09:42 AM
At best, Rush was just talking shit out of his ass without knowing what he was talking about.

Here's the transcript.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians

Notice at the bottom after this long tirade, it turns out he finds out he realizes he had no clue what he was talking about the entire time? Love it... :rolleyes:

it's rare...one of the few times he was wrong, Hell he even said he didn't know who they were and was going completely off the cuff about it.


Is that right? The Lord's Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? Child kidnapping, torture, murder, that kind of stuff? Well, we just found out about this today. We're gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it. But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys -- and they claim to be Christians.

Yes he's against the action, but he's going by the information he has at hand, not some in depth analysis of the situation. I'm sure today he'll talk about it and reverse his opinion on who they are, but not his argument that it's not cause to send our troops in.

This is more the preview of the UN...not that they would make things better, hell those sick fucks would probably use the girls they "rescued" themselves. :mad: :vomit:

fettpett
10-17-2011, 09:51 AM
This is a war of survival! In Africa. This is how it's fought. To expect the Christians to merely lay and down and die is the same as obama telling the Christians in Egypt to show restraint as they are slaughtered by muslims. How DARE they fight back. Doesn't this make them hypocrites?

from the looks of it, Josph Kony covers himself in Christianity and Acholi Nationalism just for his own power and uses the superstitions of the people in that regard. The guy is not Christian by any stretch of the imagination.

djones520
10-17-2011, 09:54 AM
This is a war of survival! In Africa. This is how it's fought. To expect the Christians to merely lay and down and die is the same as obama telling the Christians in Egypt to show restraint as they are slaughtered by muslims. How DARE they fight back. Doesn't this make them hypocrites?

These "Christians" are being backed by Muslim terrorist groups, and are killing other Christians.

What are they fighting back against? Their trying to overthrow a democratic government to install a regime of terror and murder.

And you support that?

I doubt it, I think you just have no clue what your talking about. Do some reading first next time.

txradioguy
10-17-2011, 10:38 AM
These "Christians" are being backed by Muslim terrorist groups, and are killing other Christians.

What are they fighting back against? Their trying to overthrow a democratic government to install a regime of terror and murder.



I'd still like to know what national interest it serves to send out guys there in the first place.

Tipsycatlover
10-17-2011, 10:58 AM
These "Christians" are being backed by Muslim terrorist groups, and are killing other Christians.

What are they fighting back against? Their trying to overthrow a democratic government to install a regime of terror and murder.

And you support that?

I doubt it, I think you just have no clue what your talking about. Do some reading first next time.

OHHHH a democratic government, like the one in Zimbabwe.

Or, maybe Ethiopia or Nigeria.

The path to world peace is killing the Christians. Just ask the Egyptians.

Wei Wu Wei
10-17-2011, 02:29 PM
WARMONGER!!!!!!!:D

Man...Obama is a bloodthirsty bastard!!!!:eek:

yes, without the sarcasm.

At this point, it's not surprising one bit.

Arroyo_Doble
10-17-2011, 02:37 PM
At best, Rush was just talking shit out of his ass without knowing what he was talking about.

Here's the transcript.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians

Notice at the bottom after this long tirade, it turns out he finds out he realizes he had no clue what he was talking about the entire time? Love it... :rolleyes:

Damn funny.

txradioguy
10-17-2011, 04:08 PM
Damn funny.

Yeah you tell 'em Fan Boy!

:rolleyes:

KhrushchevsShoe
10-17-2011, 05:06 PM
I'd still like to know what national interest it serves to send out guys there in the first place.

The LRA has been a terrorist organization per the State Department since the Bush Admin. I thought we were fighting a global war on terror? Did Uganda somehow wind up on Mars?

fettpett
10-17-2011, 05:54 PM
The LRA has been a terrorist organization per the State Department since the Bush Admin. I thought we were fighting a global war on terror? Did Uganda somehow wind up on Mars?

prove it's in our National interests to be there an there wont be a problem with it. Obama has failed to do so, thus it's against the law.

Tipsycatlover
10-17-2011, 06:53 PM
The government of Uganda is composed of terrorists intent on murdering what Christians remain in the country. That's what we support now? A government that shoots two year olds in the head? This is another Libya situation. If the Christians are the terrorists, they are fighting muslims who are terrorists. The decision obama made was to support muslim terrorists. Just as he made a decision to support the muslim brotherhood and al quaeda in Libya rather than the legitimate government of the last 40 years. Just as he decided to support muslim terrorists against Hosni Mubarak. There's a pattern here and it isn't a good one.

Odysseus
10-17-2011, 08:23 PM
yes, without the sarcasm.

At this point, it's not surprising one bit.
Yeah, we know, we know, Obama is really a Tea Party conservative... :rolleyes:

The LRA has been a terrorist organization per the State Department since the Bush Admin. I thought we were fighting a global war on terror? Did Uganda somehow wind up on Mars?
No, but it might as well be. The GWOT targeted al Qaeda and those who harbor them. It does not permit indiscriminate deployments against every terror group, only those that have taken up arms against the United States.

And what threat exactly does the LRA pose to our national interests? Which Americans have they killed or captured?
None, yet. But there are one-hundred American targets en route.

At best, Rush was just talking shit out of his ass without knowing what he was talking about.

Here's the transcript.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians

Notice at the bottom after this long tirade, it turns out he finds out he realizes he had no clue what he was talking about the entire time? Love it... :rolleyes:

Rush was wrong. It happens. OTOH, he admitted that he didn't know the facts and will do the research. Let's see his follow up when it comes.

Tipsycatlover
10-17-2011, 08:41 PM
This is Africa, genocide is a national past time there. The more vicious the cruel the death the better. There is no doubt that any opposition to a murderous government has to be equally as willing to kill.

Rockntractor
10-17-2011, 08:43 PM
This is Africa, genocide is a national past time there. The more vicious the cruel the death the better. There is no doubt that any opposition to a murderous government has to be equally as willing to kill.

Most of these countries were much better off as colonies, everyone knows it but no one will admit it because of political correctness.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-17-2011, 08:56 PM
No, but it might as well be. The GWOT targeted al Qaeda and those who harbor them. It does not permit indiscriminate deployments against every terror group, only those that have taken up arms against the United States.
So if the Global War on Terror targeted al Qaeda why did we invade Iraq?


Rush was wrong. It happens. OTOH, he admitted that he didn't know the facts and will do the research. Let's see his follow up when it comes.

So he should just get up in front of his national audience and be less informed than some who ever bothered to Wikipedia the LRA? There is getting it wrong because of bad information, and then there is clearly just not even caring enough to get any information at all.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-17-2011, 08:58 PM
Most of these countries were much better off as colonies, everyone knows it but no one will admit it because of political correctness.

Would you rather treat yourself like shit or have a foreigner come in and do it?

Rockntractor
10-17-2011, 09:02 PM
Would you rather treat yourself like shit or have a foreigner come in and do it?

That is what liberals call law and order, being treated like shit. It is more fun beheading and eating people and stealing their woman, awe the good old days.

Rockntractor
10-17-2011, 09:03 PM
Penny loafers has the brains of a shoe!:rolleyes:

noworries
10-17-2011, 09:46 PM
The Norwegian Nobel Committee just called...they want Obama's Peace Prize back.

Fat chance of this working and the prize money as well:rolleyes:

Odysseus
10-17-2011, 09:59 PM
So if the Global War on Terror targeted al Qaeda why did we invade Iraq?

http://husseinandterror.com/jpeg%20pics/08sized.jpg

http://husseinandterror.com/


So he should just get up in front of his national audience and be less informed than some who ever bothered to Wikipedia the LRA? There is getting it wrong because of bad information, and then there is clearly just not even caring enough to get any information at all.
As opposed to MSM talking heads who routinely do the same thing? Does Diane Sawyer really believe that the OWS protests have spread to "over a thousand countries"? Has Dan Rather ever admitted that he presented forged documents in order to bolster a false news report? Limbaugh at least acknowledged that he might have been wrong. Let me know if Bill Maher ever does the same.


Would you rather treat yourself like shit or have a foreigner come in and do it?

Most of the colonial powers were nowhere near as bad as the local thugs that they stamped out, in the case of the British, they literally did so, as the Thuggee cult in India, which indulged in ritual murder, and from which the word "thug" comes, was suppressed through force of British arms. The British were an especially benign colonial power (I believe that the loss of the American colonies forced them to reevaluate their business practices). The British brought an end to Muslim domination of India (which had been a genocidal regime) and imposed western standards of law in Africa, resulting in the end of the slave trade and a host of other barbarities. The independence of the former European colonies of Africa was marked by a return to the tribal conflicts and horrifically violent cycle of atrocity and reprisal that had been suppressed by European governance. You romanticize the pre-colonial era, but it was marked by the same ills that we are seeing now.

txradioguy
10-18-2011, 01:56 AM
The LRA has been a terrorist organization per the State Department since the Bush Admin. I thought we were fighting a global war on terror? Did Uganda somehow wind up on Mars?

There are all kinds of groups in the terrorist watch list and we don't send armed forces to go after them.

Again I ask what threat to our national interests is the LRA? How are they a direct threat to the U.S.?

Oh wait...this is Obama and apologists for this inept fool like you suddenly think war is a GOOD thing.

My bad.:rolleyes:

txradioguy
10-18-2011, 01:57 AM
Would you rather treat yourself like shit or have a foreigner come in and do it?

Your hero would rather foreigners come and do it. And you'd welcome it.

Tipsycatlover
10-18-2011, 09:52 AM
Most of these countries were much better off as colonies, everyone knows it but no one will admit it because of political correctness.

Sadly, in reality this is so. We did Africa no favors by "helping". At the very least, basic, Africa were tribes of hunter gatherers forced to get along with one another for bare survival. We have three or four generations of humanity that know nothing of how to sustain themselves but standing in line at a UN feeding station. Relieved of the responsibility of putting food in their mouths, the tribes are free to war on one another to the total genocide of one of them.

txradioguy
10-18-2011, 10:56 AM
Goals of the LRA:

1.To fight for the immediate restoration of competitive multi-party democracy in Uganda.
2.To see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans.
3.To ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda.
4.To ensure unity, sovereignty and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans
5.To bring to an end to the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

They only have 500-1000 soldiers/members.

WTF are we even doing sending ONE soldier here much less 100? And why the hell is Obama...yet again...bypassing Congress and the War Powers Act? Something as a Senator he INSISTED President Bush adhere to? And at the same time claiming there was no national interest to protect by going into Iraq.

Again I will ask where is the strategic or national interests in this boondoggle?

That resolution passed by Congress..despite what he claims does not give him authorization to send in troops and he is not furthering what Congress has agreed on.

txradioguy
10-18-2011, 11:00 AM
Originally Posted by KhrushchevsShoe
So he should just get up in front of his national audience and be less informed than some who ever bothered to Wikipedia the LRA? There is getting it wrong because of bad information, and then there is clearly just not even caring enough to get any information at all.

You just described the MO of the entire MSNBC lineup.

I guess you were asleep or away from the TV when a network news anchor knowingly aired flagrantly false accusations against a sitting President?

Never heard of the professor that made up out of whole cloth the story of Bush 41 secretly flying to London on an SR-71 to make a secret deal with Iran to not release the Embassy hostages until after Ronald Reagan was sworn in?

I'll play this game with you all day long Keds...and you'll lose.

djones520
10-18-2011, 11:03 AM
Tx... go back and read this thread. I already posted the exact Act passed by Congress authorizing the use of military force in this venture.

It had unanimous support across both aisles.

So can we stop with this abuse of war powers stuff? This is 100% perfectly legal.

txradioguy
10-18-2011, 11:15 AM
Tx... go back and read this thread. I already posted the exact Act passed by Congress authorizing the use of military force in this venture.

It had unanimous support across both aisles.

So can we stop with this abuse of war powers stuff? This is 100% perfectly legal.

I read the act too. You're wrong. At the most this is a humanitarian thing...and if he believes so strongly about it then why not take it to the American people and to Congress?

No we won't get off the war powers stuff...he's supposed to go to Congress he didn't...and that's twice now he's thumbed his nose at what he's supposed to do and acted unilaterally. He's cloaking this in a fake National Seurity interst when it clearly isn't. He's claiming that Congressional policy give him the right to send military aid to Uganda when it doesn't.

IF this had been the previous administration having done this all kinds of hell would have been raised from the halls of Congress to every MSM news room in the land.

txradioguy
10-18-2011, 11:21 AM
S.1067 - Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009

A bill to support stabilization and lasting peace in northern Uganda and areas affected by the Lord's Resistance Army through development of a regional strategy to support multilateral efforts to successfully protect civilians and eliminate the threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army and to authorize funds for humanitarian relief and reconstruction, reconciliation, and transitional justice, and for other purposes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1067/show

That's what the bill's stated purpose is. Where is the authorization for use of military force in there?

djones520
10-18-2011, 03:19 PM
S.1067 - Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009

A bill to support stabilization and lasting peace in northern Uganda and areas affected by the Lord's Resistance Army through development of a regional strategy to support multilateral efforts to successfully protect civilians and eliminate the threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army and to authorize funds for humanitarian relief and reconstruction, reconciliation, and transitional justice, and for other purposes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1067/show

That's what the bill's stated purpose is. Where is the authorization for use of military force in there?

You have got to keep reading my friend. #1 under Statement of Policy


(1) providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining Lord’s Resistance Army fighters;


Congress specifically authorized the use of our military to combat the LRA. It's in plain text right there.

txradioguy
10-19-2011, 01:38 AM
You have got to keep reading my friend. #1 under Statement of Policy



Congress specifically authorized the use of our military to combat the LRA. It's in plain text right there.

I read that and knew when I read it that's all you'd focus on and beat into the ground.


You do realize don't you that "military support" could easily be accomplished by having the military liaison at the Embassy conduct a class with the local military commanders don't you?

Or bring the military leaders from those countries to Camp Ederle or Stuttgart where AFRICOM is at and lead them through training there on how to apprehend this alleged brute.

There are a myriad of things that can be done that fall under the category of military support that don't involve putting troops on the ground. Especially in a situation that clearly has no national security or strategic implications to the U.S.

Every President since the implementation of the War Powers Act...has gone to congress to inform and get permission for any use of military force.

Except this President that is.

Had this been President Bush the headlines would have screamed about abuse of power. Especially after the second time the War Powers Act was ignored within the last 8 months.

Yet somehow you seem to want to give Obama a pass? Why is that?

Why is it ok with you that he dropped off a letter to Congress late Friday afternoon...after the orders had been issued...announcing what he'd done?

Odysseus
10-19-2011, 11:58 PM
http://www.nypost.com/opinion/cartoons/ramirez/2011/10/10182011.jpg

Tipsycatlover
10-20-2011, 08:53 AM
In Uganda it is a muslim government killing Christians who rebel against being killed. All parties being African, they engage in the same level of barbarity.

obama is the one who admonished the Egyptian Copts to show restraint as they are being murdered. Uganda might be a warning to Christians that they have no friend in the US who will send Americans to secure additional dead bodies for the glory of allah.