• U.S. Military Seeking Deployment in as many as 35 African Countries in 2013
    189 replies, posted
It's pretty obvious and general knowledge that the US has bases/soldiers in Africa. A lot of what they do though is provide security aid and a lot of the Army Corps of Engineers helps create infrastructure.
[QUOTE=digigamer17;39077520]What will the USA achieve in doing this exactly?[/QUOTE] Help to drive Al-Qaeda out of places like northern Mali, and prevent a repeat of the Benghazi attack
[QUOTE=smurfy;39078894]Help to drive Al-Qaeda out of places like northern Mali, and prevent a repeat of the Benghazi attack[/QUOTE] So as in secure the countries? I see.
America doesn't want china to take all of Africa, they want a piece of the pie. It really is the only right move, you can't have china becoming the world leaders yet.
I don't see why everyones getting all pissed, surely it's better than letting thousands die at the hands of militia and shit like that? Same reason I can't for the life of me understand why everyone wants us to pull out of Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39078961]I don't see why everyones getting all pissed, surely it's better than letting thousands die at the hands of militia and shit like that? Same reason I can't for the life of me understand why everyone wants us to pull out of Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] I think the reason everyone wants us to pull out of Afghanistan is because we're tired of dealing with Middle Eastern problems. It seems to have been the major focus of politics for the last decade and we're just fed up with it. The whole reason 9/11 was plotted and committed was because of our involvement in the middle east through Israel.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;39078993]I think the reason everyone wants us to pull out of Afghanistan is because we're tired of dealing with Middle Eastern problems. It seems to have been the major focus of politics for the last decade and we're just fed up with it. The whole reason 9/11 was plotted and committed was because of our involvement in the middle east through Israel.[/QUOTE] Yeah but they're problems we caused back in the cold war, so isn't it kind of our duty to fix said problems? I mean it's not like we're sending conscripts out there either, the troops out there knew exactly what they were getting into when they joined the army. I mean for a 10 to 11 year war, we've only had 2000 casualties, which is pretty fucking good for a war.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;39075521]What the fuck Africa? REALLY??? Not like Mexico is on our doorstep or anything...[/QUOTE] Isn't there already some US troops in Mexico helping train local forces I remember reading something about it a while back, Might just have been suggestions for doing it though
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39079028]Yeah but they're problems we caused back in the cold war, so isn't it kind of our duty to fix said problems? I mean it's not like we're sending conscripts out there either, the troops out there knew exactly what they were getting into when they joined the army. I mean for a 10 to 11 year war, we've only had 2000 casualties, which is pretty fucking good for a war.[/QUOTE] They're problems the US and the rest of the west have been making throughout the last 100 years. Civilian casualties are a lot higher though and sane people should care more about that than the how many soldiers have died.
For FUCK's sake; they're already stretching themselves thinly with the Middle East, and NOW they're planning to "intervene" in Africa? Don't get me wrong, Africa's got SO many troubles that might need fixing, but I don't think America is ready to dive into another thing like this so soon. Just let Russia or China take on the task and have America sort it's own shit out before it sends troops anywhere else.
[QUOTE=ironman17;39081009]For FUCK's sake; they're already stretching themselves thinly with the Middle East, and NOW they're planning to "intervene" in Africa? Don't get me wrong, Africa's got SO many troubles that might need fixing, but I don't think America is ready to dive into another thing like this so soon. Just let Russia or China take on the task and have America sort it's own shit out before it sends troops anywhere else.[/QUOTE] I know. We didn't intervene in Rwanda in '94, so why now?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39075939]Which is interesting for me to hear since most of the military is conservative, and many conservatives deny the existence of global warming.[/QUOTE] The military is politically agnostic. Servicemen/women are forbidden from getting involved politically. Also I couldn't find the study I spoke of earlier, I'll have to ask my poli-sci advisor. However I found this [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0"]news article.[/URL]
[QUOTE=faze;39081153]I know. We didn't intervene in Rwanda in '94, so why now?[/QUOTE] We SHOULD have intervened in Rwanda, the UN got a lot of criticism for not doing so.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39082625]We SHOULD have intervened in Rwanda, the UN got a lot of criticism for not doing so.[/QUOTE] Clinton's reason for not getting involved was that it wasn't of political interest, right?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39082625]We SHOULD have intervened in Rwanda, the UN got a lot of criticism for not doing so.[/QUOTE] Well the UN bureaucrats had control of the operation if I remember correctly, and they wouldn't let the commander send Peacekeepers outside of their bases for some stupid reason. I believe the UN commander had been sending reliable reports obtained from inside sources for quite a while but he was ordered to stay put. The UN doesn't have a great command structure for it's Peacekeepers.
[QUOTE=faze;39082633]Clinton's reason for not getting involved was that it wasn't of political interest, right?[/QUOTE] It's a landlocked and tiny country. There's literally no reason for them to bother with it.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39082842]It's a landlocked and tiny country. There's literally no reason for them to bother with it.[/QUOTE] Minus the fact that close to 1 million people were slaughtered with machetes.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/LocationRwanda.svg[/t] Seriously, how would we even get in there.
[QUOTE=faze;39082854]Minus the fact that close to 1 million people were slaughtered with machetes.[/QUOTE] If we intervene we're bad guys if we leave them alone we're bad guys Make up your goddamn mind
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39082858][t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/LocationRwanda.svg[/t] Seriously, how would we even get in there.[/QUOTE] There's a newfangled thing called the airplane.
[QUOTE=faze;39082854]Minus the fact that close to 1 million people were slaughtered with machetes.[/QUOTE] And it's not our place to interfere with every petty african war.
[QUOTE=scout1;39082864]If we intervene we're bad guys if we leave them alone we're bad guys Make up your goddamn mind[/QUOTE] That comes from being too powerful and always wanting to help. We're now in the "damned if you do damned if you don't" position. [editline]3rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39082873]And it's not our place to interfere with every petty african war.[/QUOTE] You think a genocide is petty?
Race is a petty reason to wage a war.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39082885]Race is a petty reason to wage a war.[/QUOTE] 800,000 people murdered isn't petty. They had no way of protecting themselves. The UN just stood there with their thumb up their ass the whole time. You think not doing anything was good? The aggressor in this genocide was not really that well armed. Mostly AK's and machetes and little to no combat experience or training. Pretty sure we had a fighting chance over there while saving lives. We intervened in WW2 didn't we?
The USA isn't the UN and shouldn't be expected to protect the world from warlords. There's nothing to gain from relations with Rwanda and it's not like we would be getting a trade partner. I'm stating it how it is, and if we're going to be realistic here, the Belgians should have sent troops down since it was their country for over half a century.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39082926]The USA isn't the UN and shouldn't be expected to protect the world from warlords. There's nothing to gain from relations with Rwanda and it's not like we would be getting a trade partner. I'm stating it how it is, and if we're going to be realistic here, the Belgians should have sent troops down since it was their country for over half a century.[/QUOTE] Why would we need to benefit or gain anything from intervening in a massacre?
[QUOTE=faze;39082915]800,000 people murdered isn't petty. They had no way of protecting themselves. The UN just stood there with their thumb up their ass the whole time. You think not doing anything was good? The aggressor in this genocide was not really that well armed. Mostly AK's and machetes and little to no combat experience or training. Pretty sure we had a fighting chance over there while saving lives. We intervened in WW2 didn't we?[/QUOTE] Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. Using race as a reason for war is petty and has no credibility. You might be a bit defending towards the country because of a fucking movie, but get this. Africa is a warzone in most of the countries and we have no place to enter any of them. Remember Angola by any chance? Somalia, etcetc. We wouldn't have entered the war on the European front if Hitler and Mussolini hadn't declared war on us. Our beef was with japan in ww2 and it would have been a solely pacific war had they not stood up for Japan. [editline]3rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=faze;39082936]Why would we need to benefit or gain anything from intervening in a massacre?[/QUOTE] Because war costs money.
[QUOTE=faze;39082865]There's a newfangled thing called the airplane.[/QUOTE] Do you not understand how national sovereignty works?
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39082858][t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/LocationRwanda.svg[/t] Seriously, how would we even get in there.[/QUOTE] The power of money and the greed of warlords.
Cut the defence budget = Faze cries Put the troops to good use = Faze cries Obama just can't win with some people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.