U.S. Military Seeking Deployment in as many as 35 African Countries in 2013
189 replies, posted
This is probably a way to counter China's growing influence in the region.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;39083822]Cut the defence budget = Faze cries
Put the troops to good use = Faze cries
Obama just can't win with some people.[/QUOTE]
How is this good use?
[QUOTE=faze;39084290]How is this good use?[/QUOTE]
I cant seem to understand your views here, you think intervening (IE: policing) in Rwanda is OK but doing it anywhere else is suddenly policing Africa? While the Rwandan genocide was terrible, intervening may have had it's own consequences.. it may have easily ignited hostilities with the locals and that would have wound up doing more damage in the long-run to African stability as a whole.
You know what the problem with Africa is? Everybody treats the continent like one giant child. Europe, Asia, we've all had our own chances for self governance and we largely have our own history, for better or worse. Africa has not, there's always been colonial and/or imperialist powers meddling with Africa since as early as 500 BC, it's time to step the fuck out and let African nations manage themselves and sort out their own power struggles.
it's all about that [s]protection[/s] oil.
[QUOTE=scout1;39083087]Do you not understand how national sovereignty works?[/QUOTE]
Stealth. Lots of stealth.
[QUOTE=BloodRayne;39085551]it's all about that [s]protection[/s] oil.[/QUOTE]
Excluding the fact that there's more oil in Canada and Russia combined than most of central Africa?
[QUOTE=scout1;39083087]Do you not understand how national sovereignty works?[/QUOTE]
Hah "sovereignty" doesn't mean shit to us. If America really wants to go into a country we're gonna do it
[QUOTE=-nesto-;39085677]Hah "sovereignty" doesn't mean shit to us. If America really wants to go into a country we're gonna do it[/QUOTE]
You do understand that doing that is a justifiable cause to declare war.
are faze and glaber the same person?
[QUOTE=Ponder;39087579]are faze and glaber the same person?[/QUOTE]
No
[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]
try to understand that accidentally blowing up civvies makes you the bad guys
[QUOTE=faze;39082875]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.
[/QUOTE]
yep ur the martyrs, the heroes the world deserves but doesn't need right now.
[QUOTE=Falchion;39091649]try to understand that accidentally blowing up civvies makes you the bad guys
[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me?
So you want them to intervene, then damn then when they do. That's fantastic.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;39075521]What the fuck Africa?
REALLY???
Not like Mexico is on our doorstep or anything...[/QUOTE]
What the fuck use do we have deploying in Mexico..
[QUOTE=scout1;39091981]Are you kidding me?
So you want them to intervene, then damn then when they do. That's fantastic.[/QUOTE]
The last good US interventions were World War 2, and Libya. And even then there were fuckloads of civilian casualties which is something we should always criticize. Governments can avoid civilian casualties.
Intervention without civilian bloodshed and full accountability is what people want.
[QUOTE=Kylel999;39094361]What the fuck use do we have deploying in Mexico..[/QUOTE]
Nothing much. Just a few major drug cartels that have the same operating capability as Al Qaeda and that they're smuggling tons of drugs and immigrants across the border.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39094706]The last good US interventions were World War 2, and Libya. And even then there were fuckloads of civilian casualties which is something we should always criticize. Governments can avoid civilian casualties.
Intervention without civilian bloodshed and full accountability is what people want.[/QUOTE]
Do tell me how you can fight a war without civilian casualties. The US govt would love your magical solution, I mean after they spend billions on smart munitions to reduce it as much as possible, don't we all?
Not like britian ever did this....oh wait, I forgot, they were the ones who fucked up the boundaries in the first place.
[QUOTE=scout1;39094943]Do tell me how you can fight a war without civilian casualties. The US govt would love your magical solution, I mean after they spend billions on smart munitions to reduce it as much as possible, don't we all?[/QUOTE]
Putting soldiers in harms way rather than using drones.
I doubt they would want a magical solution, they don't seem to care at all about civilian casualties... considering the fact that the US has repeatedly broken the Geneva convention.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39074395]Key word here is seeking. How many of those unnamed African countries are going to want US troops on their soil? A lot of African countries are corrupt shitholes and giving the US the ability to perform regime change isn't going to sit well in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Plenty.
If I was a small African country, I'd love a small group of American soldiers. And you'll note that a "small group" is all they want to deploy.
A) A small group is likely just there for intelligence purposes, of which I likely have little to hide from the US government.
B) US military cooperation brings opportunities to send officers to US military schools as well as bring US military specialists to the country to train the local military.
Huge payoff that ultimately costs you basically nothing. Top tier training is hard to produce autonomously.
[editline]5th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Earthen;39102850]Putting soldiers in harms way rather than using drones.
I doubt they would want a magical solution, they don't seem to care at all about civilian casualties... considering the fact that the US has repeatedly broken the Geneva convention.[/QUOTE]
Like when?
[QUOTE=GunFox;39102984]Plenty.
If I was a small African country, I'd love a small group of American soldiers. And you'll note that a "small group" is all they want to deploy.
A) A small group is likely just there for intelligence purposes, of which I likely have little to hide from the US government.
B) US military cooperation brings opportunities to send officers to US military schools as well as bring US military specialists to the country to train the local military.
Huge payoff that ultimately costs you basically nothing. Top tier training is hard to produce autonomously.
[editline]5th January 2013[/editline]
Like when?[/QUOTE]
[quote]Art 48. Basic rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.[/quote]
[quote]Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.[/quote]
[URL]http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument[/URL]
[quote]TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study.[/quote]
[URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html[/URL]
That is definitely too many civilian casualties to be able to say that the US is really trying to distinguish civilians from militants. The soldiers are supposed to be there taking the bullets, not the civilians.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39103641][URL]http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument[/URL]
[URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html[/URL]
That is definitely too many civilian casualties to be able to say that the US is really trying to distinguish civilians from militants. The soldiers are supposed to be there taking the bullets, not the civilians.[/QUOTE]
Do you not understand how explosives and mistakes work??
I should clarify and say that when the Army says "small group" they usually mean a Brigade Combat Team.
As a person who's been there and seen it first hand, I think we should raise it to the ground. I would not feel bad if we decided to torch the thing. The things that happen on that Continent are horrible. Give a 5 year old a weapon, tell him fight or die. There is no regard for human life on that hell hole. WITH THAT SAID, there are a few rays of hope. but as a whole, fuck 'em all. Let them rot. I have seen people bathe, wash cloths and shit in the same pool of filthy water. No matter how bad it gets here in America I have seen worse. This image is not an extreme that I found to make a point, no, this is an example of what I saw when I did a morning commute. [IMG]http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000W2qj.HOR4qk/s/850/Africa-Djibouti-10-61.jpg[/IMG]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Genocidal Crazy" - Megafan))[/highlight]
I wonder what happens when one of them says 'no'.
America going in to secure natural resources again
[QUOTE=scout1;39074510]Remember when we pulled out of Somalia because people like you cried about war involving actual sacrifice
You remember what happened after we pulled out? You remember what happened before we got there? Yeah...[/QUOTE]
We pulled out because we got the shit kicked out of us... Somalia's probably number one for the most American military casualties in one day.
I don't know if this has been said or not, but I don't think this is such a good idea considering the financial state America is in at the moment.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39106370]We pulled out because we got the shit kicked out of us... Somalia's probably number one for the most American military casualties in one day.[/QUOTE]
[quote]U.S.
18 killed[1]
73 wounded[1][2]
1 captured[/quote]
Yeah clearly we-
[quote]SNA Militia and civilians
SNA claims a range of 315 to 500 Somali casualties. [B]US sources estimate a range of 1,500[3] to 3,000 casualties, including civilians.[/B][4][5] Up to 700+ killed. Est. 1,500+ wounded. 21 captured.
Militia source states 315 killed, 812 wounded[/quote]
[QUOTE=Mighty Cow;39106516]I don't know if this has been said or not, but I don't think this is such a good idea considering the financial state America is in at the moment.[/QUOTE]
I would have to agree. With the 2 wars winding down, I don't think the public wants any more foreign wars regardless if innocents are getting murdered in some far off country. And of course, the economy. It's alot easier to be apathetic, and just forget that people are getting massacred, then to intervene and throw billions of dollars and lives into it.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39103641][URL]http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument[/URL]
[URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html[/URL]
That is definitely too many civilian casualties to be able to say that the US is really trying to distinguish civilians from militants. The soldiers are supposed to be there taking the bullets, not the civilians.[/QUOTE]
Call me crazy but it kinda hard to distinguish the difference between military and civilian target when them is when one dude has an AK and another doesn't they all where same clothes as civilians and they all wait to attack at most possibly vulnerable.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.