BS: US troops to Uganda

Subject: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: MarkS
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 10:10 PM

According to an announcement today, President Obama has authorized the dispatch of 100 US troops to Uganda, to aid in the fight against something called "The Lord's Resistance Army."
With our international membership, perhaps somebody can shed some light on just what or who this "army" really is.
And lets also hope this is not the start of yet another military adventure.
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 10:24 PM

A scout party? Recon? Perhaps they wanna be on the top of the ball? See if there is anything to help with... mitigate... prevent... gain?

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 10:34 PM

According to the Associated Press, this is a military assistance (i.e., training and advisory) group which will not engage in military operations except to defend themselves.

There's a current Wikipedia article here.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: meself
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 10:34 PM

A nightmarish, horror-movie-ish outfit that has been terrorizing Uganda for a decade or two, specializing in kidnapping children and turning them into ruthless murderers. Or so I've been led to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: meself
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 10:36 PM

Okay, which "army" are you asking about?

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 01:21 AM

I think they would be fighting the people who have ruined the lives of so many..where children have to walk miles at night to a shelter while their parents stay up defending their farms. It is a gruesome situation and I personally would go and shoot every thug there. But of course we know the pattern..first advisers and then troops and then emeshment for a long time. But that is how the world is grinding toward being better..where girls don't get their arms chopped off going to fetch water..not sure if that is where it happens but I can guarantee horrific things happen there. mg

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 01:23 AM

Yes..I think they would like to prevent children getting butchered. Some people have a high tolerance for things like that happening. I personally don't.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 06:16 AM

Some details for those who cannot or will not google

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

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Charmion
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 12:23 PM

This must be one of the operations they had in mind when AFRICOM was set up. It's coming only 10 years late -- but who's counting?

The LRA are a blight. If the U.S really must go around the world using armed forces to "make a difference in people's lives", then the lands scoured by the Lord's Resistance Army are the right places to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: kendall
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 12:27 PM

Isn't this how we got into Viet Nam?

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 01:09 PM

Exactly. The Vietnam War began with a small group of advisors/trainers (800-900) during the Eisenhower administration.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 01:23 PM

But, is this about/for the mining companies? the arms companies? or is it really about helping people?

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 02:08 PM

this is a military assistance (i.e., training and advisory) group which will not engage in military operations except to defend themselves.


Hmmmm....boy, where have I heard that before??? regarding someplace in Southeast Asia was it?

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Charmion
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 03:36 PM

It looks like how you lot got into Viet Nam, but with a very important difference. Then, it was to fight Communism. This time , the enemy is -- well, you have to do some reading about the LRA to get the full flavour.

United Nations and African Union efforts to stabilize Congo, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda and even South Sudan are futile unless a grip can be got on the LRA.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 03:57 PM

Too bad that they cannot also help to advise on elimination of the Ugandan witch doctors and their cult who are sacrificing young boys as part of their rituals. (Try and see the BBC programs on this horror.

Comparison with Vietnam is nonsense, although I agree that that fiasco which cost so many lives was misguided intervention. In that case, a colonial war started by the French was turned into a war against Communists. The Vietnamese embraced any group that would help them to get self- determination, and the Commies supported by China seemed the only hope. After all the deaths and land destruction, Vietnam is slowly becoming a self-governed nation that is gradually incorporating some democratic principles.
If Vietnam had been left alone, the same goals would have been reached sooner, as Chinese 'communism' has turned into state-guided capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 04:24 PM

And where did we get the right to invade another country and war with their government?

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 05:37 PM

Kendall... From the mining companies and drug companies. Phosphorus... diamonds... titanium... oil... heroin... cruise missiles are $400 to $800k each but big business sees it as a deal.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Charmion
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 06:06 PM

From the Afrcan Union, the United Nations and from the besieged governments of the countries where the LRA roams. Wait for the UNSC Resolution ...

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: CET
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 06:53 PM

This is not an invasion. The Ugandan government has been begging for help for years.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 06:55 PM

Charmion... we can only hope it is indeed about the people. The injustices are staggering... sickening.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 06:59 PM

CET - you are of course right. And thereby hangs a major difference from Libya.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 07:01 PM

This is not an invasion. this is not an invasion, this is not an invasion..... repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 08:03 PM

This is an invasion (3x)... "repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the *truth."
Substitute 'accepted' by those who read only the bottom-feeding tabloids which subsist on professional sports and titillating bits of fake news and a lot of nudging (sexy centerfold).

Henry Okello Oryem, Ugandan acting foreign minister said:
"We welcome this gesture- it has been well overdue.... For 20 years the government of Uganda has been pleading with our American and European friends to help in the LRA problem, because hese are international terrorists. We wanted our friends to help in providing technical support- such as intelligence- because they have the best."
The object is to find Joseph Kony and his officers.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 11:11 AM

Africa has been a total disaster ever since the British Empire fell apart. It needs western militerism to bring it back on it's feet.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: bobad
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 11:29 AM

The usual naysayers with their usual whines. What you are saying basically, is that it`s only Africans killing other Africans so who gives a fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 11:50 AM

"It needs western militerism to bring it back on it's feet."

I seldom publicly point out people's misspellings, and I seldom correct people's diction, grammar or punctuation, but in this case I will.

Western requires a capital, the word is 'militarism' and "it's" should be its. Your English is terrible but your attitude, sir, is offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 12:06 PM

Western requires a capital, the word is 'militarism' and "it's" should be its. Your English is terrible but your attitude, sir, is offensive.

Bad light stopped spelling!

As to being "offensive" - good.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 12:08 PM

That's it Q keep repeating till you...oh wait you already do!!


"What you are saying basically, is that it`s only Africans killing other Africans so who gives a fuck."

No bobad it's what you are saying, and that makes you, truly offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 12:48 PM

Western requires a capital, the word is 'militarism' and "it's" should be its. Your English is terrible but your attitude, sir, is offensive.

Wait a minute - western does NOT require an upper case w, and it's being possessive DOES require an apostrophe. My English is excellent thankyou very much.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 02:40 PM

He ain't called Bonzo - or is that Bozo?- fer nuthin', Bruce.

Perhaps its past 'Bedtime'.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 02:48 PM

Bozo - back to school. "It's" is an elision of "it is". "Its" is an anomalous possessive that does not take an apostrophe.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Charmion
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 05:00 PM

Getting back to our real issue -- Thanks for the reference quote, Q.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 07:40 PM

Indeed Charmion. I still ask, "Is it about the people or an incursion recon?"

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 07:56 PM

I rather like incursion recon, it's closer to the truth....

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 08:03 PM

Oh, sure, Uganda would be a plum in the U.S. pudding. Tuvalu next.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Songwronger
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 08:12 PM

oil discovered Uganda

That's Obama's casus belli. Uganda was working with Libya to develop its newfound oil reserves, but then Obama cruise missiled Libya. To the victor go the spoils.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 08:52 PM

There you have it Q oil....and you were saying what about Uganda not being a plum...for whom...?

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 09:51 PM

Still no plum. The Italian oil giant INI has the inside track on the oil, which is waxy, needs a heated pipeline, and thus very expensive to produce. This is one for the EU, not the U.S. majors.
The Rift Valley prospects are more in the Congo sphere although Uganda has some possibilities in the region.
Now if the U.S. had sent in the Marines and blockaded Italy, I might be willing to think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 12:31 AM

"For 20 years the government of Uganda has been pleading with our American and European friends to help in the LRA problem"

And for 20 years we as Uganda's friends we have successfully ignored your pleas. BUT, since we don't want you to be over-whelmed by the burden of excessive fossil fuels, we will be right there. Johnny-on-the-spot, that's US.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Arnie
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 05:51 AM

As Uganda is a Commonwealth member, I wonder whatever happened to Commonwealth troops when Uganda were asking for help? We could surely get together enough CW members to do the intel and advising bit that the US is now planning to provide. So much for being a member of the Commonwealth eh? Still, I suppose there's the occasional junket for the top few - attended of course by Her Majesty and Phil - to make up for the inactivity on the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 09:17 AM

Bozo - back to school. "It's" is an elision of "it is". "Its" is an anomalous possessive that does not take an apostrophe.

You may well be right, but I have to take my wife to have cataract surgery this afternoon at our local BMI Healthcare Hospital so your pedantics fall by the wayside.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 10:18 AM

The answer is "will not Google" because they've already made up their minds and don't want to be confused by facts and arguements ...and why no Commonwealth troops? Well the aforementioned troops have no experience in looking stupid in front of the rest of the world, where as the U.S.....

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 02:40 PM

The Commonwealth has slowly been losing effect and cohesion. A meeting is planned to discuss commonalities, with UK and India possibly the organizers.
Canada has more in common with its fellow NATO members, and Australia and New Zealand (and Pakistan) are more involved in SEATO. South Africa re-entered the commonwealth in the 1990s, more in relation to sport than economic or aid issues. In other words, these members with strong economies tend to offer only token or verbal support to Commonwealth problems.

As noted above, Ugandan oil is more the province of major oil companies of Italy and other EU countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 03:42 PM

Hang on... the Pope, 2IC only to Her Majesty, has the inside track on the oil in Uganda? Hmmmm... what a minor problem it seems. I mean, if yer gonna hire a gunslinger, ya gotta go with the big gun, no? Don't forget, BP is trying to keep as low a profile as they can after all this mayhem in Libya and elsewhere. They are "cruisin silent"... a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 05:34 PM

You joke, the pope of course has nothing to do with ENI, the Italian Oil giant, big in the Horn of Africa. Berlusconi (sp?) and his cronies will get the gravy, not the Pope.
ENI, as I noted elsewhere, is the biggie in Libya, along with Total (French).
BP was effectively kicked out of Russia and the deal handed to ExxonMobil, but if they don't agree to a voiceless position, they may get the boot from the Russian 'mafia' as well.

BP is pushing in the Arctic offshore, their next big play. Don't forget, that Gulf blowout was from a tremendous reserve, and they will continue to develop it, hopefully with more care.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 05:53 PM

me thinks Q takes things waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too seriously...and thinks he's right all the time LOL

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 08:20 PM

Thinks he's right? You underestimate me.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: BTNG
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 08:41 PM

I don't think so, I've watched you with your dog and pony show...ohhh and the smoke and mirrors...there's nothing there once the air is cleared and the crowds have gone home

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: gnu
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 04:20 PM

BTNG... dog and pony show? Q knows as much as the rest of us put together and then some.

Subject: RE: BS: US troops to Uganda
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 05:31 PM

I have a dog and I could borrow a pony from my daughter. Then I could go to the Uganda Dancers Ball.