Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1 Why U.S. military in Uganda? Soros fingerprints all over it! Obama’s billionaire frie 
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,641
    Posted on October 15, 2011 at 1:50 PM EST


    By Aaron Klein

    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.

    U.S. troops to Uganda

    Obama on Friday notified House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that he plans to send about 100 military personnel, mostly Special Operations Forces, to central Africa. The first troops reportedly arrived in Uganda on Wednesday.

    The U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA. Kony is accused of major human rights atrocities. He is on the U.S. terrorist list and is wanted by the International Criminal Court.

    In a letter on Friday, Obama announced the initial team of U.S. military personnel “with appropriate combat equipment” deployed to Uganda on Wednesday. Other forces deploying include “a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications and logistics personnel.”

    “Our forces will provide information, advice and assistance to select partner nation forces,” he said.

    Both conservatives and liberals have raised questions about whether military involvement in Uganda advances U.S. interests.

    Writing in The Atlantic yesterday, Max Fisher noted the Obama administration last year approved special forces bases and operations across the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia.

    “But those operations, large and small, target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. — something the Lord’s Resistance Army could not possibly do,” he wrote.

    “It’s difficult to find a U.S. interest at stake in the Lord’s Resistance Army’s campaign of violence,” continued Fisher. “It’s possible that there’s some immediate U.S. interest at stake we can’t obviously see.”

    Bill Roggio, the managing editor of The Long War Journal, referred to the Obama administration’s stated rationale for sending troops “puzzling,” claiming the LRA does not present a national security threat to the U.S. — “despite what President Obama said.”

    Tea Party-backed presidential candidate Michele Bachmann also questioned the wisdom of Obama’s move to send U.S. troops to Uganda.

    “When it comes to sending our brave men and women into foreign nations we have to first demonstrate a vital American national interest before we send our troops in,” she said at a campaign stop yesterday in Iowa.

    Soros group: Send military advisors to Uganda

    In April 2010 Soros’ International Crisis Group, or ICG, released a report sent to the White House and key lawmakers advising the U.S. military to run special operations in Uganda to seek Kony’s capture.

    Read the report: “To the U.S. government: Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to run an intelligence platform that centralizes all operational information from the Ugandan and other armies, as well as the UN and civilian networks, and provides analysis to the Ugandans to better target military operations.”

    Since 2008 the U.S. has been providing financial aid in the form of military equipment to Uganda and the other regional countries to fight Kony’s LRA, but Obama’s new deployment escalates the direct U.S. involvement.

    Soros sits in the ICG’s executive board along with Samuel Berger, Bill Clinton’s former national security advisor; George J. Mitchell, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader who served as a Mideast envoy to both Obama and President Bush; and Javier Solana, a socialist activist who is NATO’s former Secretary-General as well as the former Foreign Affairs Minister of Spain.

    Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is the ICG’s senior advisor.

    The ICG’s president-emeritus is Gareth Evans, who, together with activist Ramesh Thakur, is the original founder of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, with the duo even coining the term “responsibility to protect.”

    Both Evans and Thakur serve as advisory board members of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, the main group pushing the doctrine.

    As WND first exposed, Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

    Soros’ Open Society is one of only three non-governmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

    Soros’ hand in Ugandan oil industry

    Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago, with initial strikes being made in 2006.

    Uganda’s Energy Ministry estimates the country has over 2 billion barrels of oil, with some estimates going as high as 6 billion barrels. Production is set to begin in 2015, delayed from 2013 in part because the country has not put in place a regulatory framework for the oil industry.

    A 2008 National Oil and Gas Policy, proposed with aid from a Soros-funded group, was supposed to be a general road map for the handling and use of the oil. However, the polcy’s recommendations have been largely ignored, with critics accusing Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni of corruption and of tightening his grip on the African country’s emerging oil sector.

    Soros himself has been closely tied to oil and other interests in Uganda.

    In 2008, the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute brought together stakeholders from Uganda and other East African countries to discuss critical governance issues, including the formation of what became Uganda’s National Oil and Gas Policy.

    Also in 2008, the Africa Institute for Energy Governance, a grantee of the Soros-funded Revenue Watch, helped established the Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, or PWYP, which was purportedly launched to coordinate and streamline the efforts of the government in promoting transparency and accountability in the oil sector.

    Also, a steering committee was formed for PWYP Uganda to develop an agenda for implementing the oil advocacy initiatives and a constitution to guide PWYP’s oil work.

    PWYP has since 2006 hosted a number of training workshops in Uganda purportedly to promote contract transparency in Uganda’s oil sector.

    PWYP is directly funded by Soros’ Open Society as well as the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute. PWYP international is actually hosted by the Open Society Foundation in London.

    The billionaire’s Open Society Institute, meanwhile, runs numerous offices in Uganda. It maintains a country manager in Uganda, as well as the Open Society Initiative for East Africa, which supports work in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda.

    The Open Society Institute runs a Ugandan Youth Action Fund, which states its mission is to “identify, inspire, and support small groups of dedicated young people who can mobilize and influence large numbers of their peers to promote open society ideals.”

    Samantha Power, Arafat deputy

    Meanwhile, a closer look at the Soros-funded Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect is telling. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.
    Read More>http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2011/10/15/212-4/
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Not surprised. O Blah Blah is too stupid and unprincipled to have any convictions or integrity to make a sound decision on his own. He needed Daddy Soros to guide him, again, and again.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,578
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    Not surprised. O Blah Blah is too stupid and unprincipled to have any convictions or integrity to make a sound decision on his own. He needed Daddy Soros to guide him, again, and again.
    Soros is not doing this single-handedly. There must be others as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    If you are concerned about people like Soros using their money to influence politics, you should support measures to decrease the amount of influence money can buy you in washington.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If you are concerned about people like Soros using their money to influence politics, you should support measures to decrease the amount of influence money can buy you in washington.
    I do. I also can't stand that anti-American POS Soros who is actively committed to destroying the US.:mad:
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If you are concerned about people like Soros using their money to influence politics, you should support measures to decrease the amount of influence money can buy you in washington.
    I dont care how much money there is in politics as long as EVERY dollar is on record on who gives and recives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If you are concerned about people like Soros using their money to influence politics, you should support measures to decrease the amount of influence money can buy you in washington.
    Once again, you have it backwards. Apply supply and demand to political power. People spend more on what they want, and in politics they want to control the power that Washington has accrued to itself. That means that they have to buy influence through lobbying or campaign contributions. As the demand for government intervention grows, the price increases. If you want to reduce the amount of money that George Soros spends on politics, reduce the power of the government to pick winners and losers and reward its pals, so that Soros has no incentive to try to buy elections. When government can no longer manipulate the economy on behalf of its cronies, its cronies will stop paying through the nose for it.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Once again, you have it backwards. Apply supply and demand to political power. People spend more on what they want, and in politics they want to control the power that Washington has accrued to itself. That means that they have to buy influence through lobbying or campaign contributions. As the demand for government intervention grows, the price increases. If you want to reduce the amount of money that George Soros spends on politics, reduce the power of the government to pick winners and losers and reward its pals, so that Soros has no incentive to try to buy elections. When government can no longer manipulate the economy on behalf of its cronies, its cronies will stop paying through the nose for it.
    The government is already incredibly interwoven with the economy. You are using a style of 19th century idealism about a total lack of government in the economy. That hasn't been the case for well over a hundred years.

    You quite simply cannot remove the power of the government in the economy unless you want to go back to 1880 style rules. If that is your only solution to the problem, then nothing is going to get done.

    The idea behind restricting campaign contributions and lobbying is to make sure that our representatives are only accountable to voters, not to big money donors.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The government is already incredibly interwoven with the economy. You are using a style of 19th century idealism about a total lack of government in the economy. That hasn't been the case for well over a hundred years.
    From a guy who keeps wishing that it was 1848, that's rich.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    You quite simply cannot remove the power of the government in the economy unless you want to go back to 1880 style rules. If that is your only solution to the problem, then nothing is going to get done.
    This starts with a false premise, that you can only remove the power of government by going backwards. In fact, we can only reduce the power of government by reevaluating what the proper functions of government are at each level. for example, national defense is a federal function. Welfare/charity, education, municipal services, law enforcement and the like are local functions that become paralyzed by the introduction of federal largess and oversight. By making these federal matters, we have put the focus of the various interests in those areas on lobbying Washington instead of actually providing services. In addition, the introduction of federal funding actually reduces the amount of money going to the end recipient of services, as the increased layers of bureaucracy consume an ever increasing share of the pie. Those bureaucracies, through their unions, have become the most destructive "big money interests" in America, because they fight to maintain wasteful programs that fail to perform their stated objectives. This is the basic form of corruption that we see at the federal level, although the Solydria-type scandals make more headlines.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The idea behind restricting campaign contributions and lobbying is to make sure that our representatives are only accountable to voters, not to big money donors.
    Damn, I thought that it was to ensure that only incumbents got enough money and name recognition to remain in office. Silly me.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,997
    Kony is a terrorist. He's been accused of committing atrocities.


    He's evil like Saddam Hussein was evil. Doesn't that mean he should be stopped?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •