The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris_ on October 14, 2011, 02:52:37 PM
-
President Obama is sending about 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to help local forces battle the Lord's Resistance Army, a rebel group that the administration says has waged a campaign of murder, rape and kidnapping for more than two decades.
Obama said Friday the troops will act as advisers in efforts to hunt down rebel leader Joseph Kony but will not engage in combat except in self-defense, according to a letter to Congress that was obtained by Fox News.
The White House says the first troops arrived in Uganda on Wednesday. Ultimately, they will also deploy in South Sudan, the Central African Republic and Congo.
A senior administration official downplayed the notion that the armed troops could be drawn into a hostile, combat situation, saying the move was sparked by Congress passing a law year urging the administration to do something to crack down on the Lord's Resistance Army.
Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/14/obama-sends-us-troops-to-central-africa-to-aid-campaign-against-rebel-group/#ixzz1amtdJLYV)
-
Obama is siding with the Muslims against a Christian rebel group, but in other countries sided with extremist Muslim rebels against fairly non-sectarian Muslim leaders, right?
Obama always sides with the Muslim Extremists? He also sided with the Iranian government against the moderate protesters there.
-
Obama is siding with the Muslims against a Christian rebel group, but in other countries sided with extremist Muslim rebels against fairly non-sectarian Muslim leaders, right?
Obama always sides with the Muslim Extremists? He also sided with the Iranian government against the moderate protesters there.
Well, he said he would....it's one of the few things he didn't lie about.
-
Someone tell me again about "advisers" in Viet Nam? Dummies must be wailing about opening a new front. :sarcasm:
-
Glen Reynolds shoots and scores...
"THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, we’d have more troops fighting in more countries than I could keep track of. And they were right!"
-
first one that gets killed pulls us in deeper.
and what can 100 troops do that a couple drones cant?
-
My question is: What is the vital national interest in a counterinsurgency campaign in Uganda? Congress should demand that answer immediately.
-
My question is: What is the vital national interest in a counterinsurgency campaign in Uganda? Congress should demand that answer immediately.
Bingo. And keep hammering the point home. Never did get a response to Congress' demand on the Libyan mess, IIRC. So Barry thinks he can waltz into any country anywhere, park a few troops, and do so without any sort of consultation with Congress besides sending a letter announcing his intentions.
This asshole MUST GO.
-
The left would be screeching for Bush's head if he had done this, yet still no calls for impeachment, frogmarching, and so forth.
-
I don't agree or disagree with the deployment, but lets not pretend that Obama is the only elected official responsible for engaging in foreign affairs that the US seemingly has no business in. A simple Google history of US military involvements should quickly dispel any notion that his actions are unique amongst presidents.
And if the LRA is Christian, then Charles Manson must be a saint. This group is nothing but savages who under the guise of Christianity claim their actions are justified. Sound familiar?
-
Obama is siding with the Muslims against a Christian rebel group, but in other countries sided with extremist Muslim rebels against fairly non-sectarian Muslim leaders, right?
Obama always sides with the Muslim Extremists? He also sided with the Iranian government against the moderate protesters there.
Obama is siding with the Uganda government. So, in this case, which Muslim extremists are you referring to? Also, according to the US government in 2001, the LRA is a terrorist organization, not a "Christian rebel group".
Perhaps I'm ignorant to this matter, but I was not aware and have no found any resource that coincides with your claim that he "sided with the Iranian government". As far as I can tell, he didn't take a strong position.
-
Err......
http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/6182330.html
This is Obama's response to a bill that was passed into law with bipartisan support over a year ago......he's just a bit slow on the uptake.........not that I agree with it's passage or implementation........the US has absolutely NO national interests at stake here. Perhaps the denizens of DC need to be reminded of Clinton's little adventure at "feeding the poor" in Somalia......
IMO any US military investment in Africa, short of returning the entire continent to the indigenous wildlife is a waste of resources.
doc
-
Err......
http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/6182330.html
This is Obama's response to a bill that was passed into law with bipartisan support over a year ago......he's just a bit slow on the uptake.........not that I agree with it's passage or implementation........the US has absolutely NO national interests at stake here. Perhaps the denizens of DC need to be reminded of Clinton's little adventure at "feeding the poor" in Somalia......
IMO any US military investment in Africa, short of returning the entire continent to the indigenous wildlife is a waste of resources.
doc
The OP link makes reference to the bill passed, as you've indicated (so it wasn't missed), but I find it incredible that Barry wouldn't confer with congressional leadership anyway before he took action. It seems to me that's the prudent thing to do to ensure congressional support. But that's not how he rolls -- he just pulls the trigger when he feels like it and he sends a letter to Congress telling them what he's going to do.
Barry isn't obligated to do so, but I'd think a prudent, careful president would do just that to ensure that support is there. But then again, we're talking about Barry, who's about as reckless as they come.
And while we're at it, why the interest in yet another out-of-control group in Africa (besides the fact that Obama stems from that hellhole)? Why wouldn't Barry have called on the UN to deal with it?
Fully agree that any investment in Africa is a monumental waste of resources. You can send a few charitable organizations in (on their own dime) and maybe a few missionaries, but until those people learn how to deal with their own problems, fuggetaboudit.
-
My question is: What is the vital national interest in a counterinsurgency campaign in Uganda? Congress should demand that answer immediately.
Damn straight. And never any word on the "kinetic" "no boots on the ground" Libya debacle.
He should have already been impeached. Hell, president downgrade and "my people" holder
should be in jail on charges of treason.
-
Bingo. And keep hammering the point home. Never did get a response to Congress' demand on the Libyan mess, IIRC. So Barry thinks he can waltz into any country anywhere, park a few troops, and do so without any sort of consultation with Congress besides sending a letter announcing his intentions.
This asshole MUST GO.
"I am personally convinced that we cannot continue to begin each military involvement abroad with a prolonged tedious and divisive negotiation between the executive and the legislative branches of Government. The world and its many challenges to our interests simply do not allow us that luxury." - Ronald Reagan
It's interesting to see people neglect that one of their most favorite presidents too waived the War Powers Resolution in both Granada and Libya.
-
"I am personally convinced that we cannot continue to begin each military involvement abroad with a prolonged tedious and divisive negotiation between the executive and the legislative branches of Government. The world and its many challenges to our interests simply do not allow us that luxury." - Ronald Reagan
It's interesting to see people neglect that one of their most favorite presidents too waived the War Powers Resolution in both Granada and Libya.
The fact is, EVERY president has disapproved of the War Powers Act of 1973. Its purpose was to tie the hands of the president, largely in response to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 and LBJ's (a Democrat, as you must certainly know) actions that led to the Vietnam War. As there are constitutional issues at stake, no president has fully supported the WPA, but instead has found ways to work through it or around it.
President Ford, for example, dealt with the Mayaguez incident and took action against Cambodia -- and did so QUICKLY and SUCCESSFULLY. He therefore didn't have a problem with Congress.
As somebody who was in West Berlin in 1985 when the LaBelle Disco was blown up by terrorists associated with Libya, and therefore ramped up in readiness when Reagan took QUICK, DECISIVE, AND SUCCESSFUL action against Libya, Reagan didn't have a problem with the WPA. Ditto with the 1983 invasion of Grenada.
The operative words here are QUICK and SUCCESSFUL. Congress takes a dim view of long, protracted, and visionless military actions. The *intent* of the WPA was to ensure that Congress was consulted and at least had an opportunity to gauge the political will of the people to sustain military action with a potential or real foe, in the absence of a formal declaration of war.
As the purpose of the Grenada operation was to remove communists from the island and depose a Marxist rebellion that had murdered the Grenadan prime minister, thereby posing a threat to the stability of the region, Reagan decided to act with quick and decisive power. The operation was successful and the Marxist rebellion was put down and the rightful government restored.
Same thing with Libya. A limited air campaign, with warships out in the Med just to convince Gaddafi that it wasn't all fun and games, convinced him to STFU and crawl back into his desert nomad tent where he came from. Not too much was heard from him until Barry's administration went limpdick on Gaddafi. And when that kind of thing happens, bullies like Gaddafi generally come out of the woodwork.
Now, let's take a look at Barack Hussein Obama. This is a man who avoided making a decision regarding Afghanistan until the situation became almost untenable. His campaign rhetoric (aimed at his base) assured his supporters that the Iraq campaign and Afghanistan campaign would come to an end. Instead, he increases the troop strength, but only superficially and in direct contraditiction to what his commanders on the ground were requesting.
So Barry is a pacifist. He doesn't like to fight to protect America's interests.
Now, let's take a look at Libya. Barry makes public statements that Ghaddafi "has to go". Awfully reckless coming from a physical coward, don't you think, especially when he waits for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to nod their Islamic fascist heads in agreement? And then he ducks, runs, and hides behind NATO, professing to work under that umbrella. Barry ignores the WPA, and refuses to even acknowledge Boehner's insistence for a plan and a structure as to why U.S. forces are even superficially involved in that conflict. And, AFAIK, that's where we are 6 months later.
So the natural question is, given Barry's history, is where the hell are we going with this Ugandan thing? So far, all we have is that it's a temporary thing, that the ROE are such that those sent - most likely SOC troops - will be combat-equipped, but won't be able to engage the enemy unless fired upon. They're "advisors" and otherwise observers in yet another open-ended conflict that has very few, if any, real objectives and certainly no strategic importance for the U.S.
Or, Kid, do you know something that the rest of us don't know?
-
I bet he has family involved in the conflict.
-
So Barry is a pacifist. He doesn't like to fight to protect America's interests.
Now, let's take a look at Libya. Barry makes public statements that Ghaddafi "has to go". Awfully reckless coming from a physical coward, don't you think, especially when he waits for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to nod their Islamic fascist heads in agreement? And then he ducks, runs, and hides behind NATO, professing to work under that umbrella. Barry ignores the WPA, and refuses to even acknowledge Boehner's insistence for a plan and a structure as to why U.S. forces are even superficially involved in that conflict. And, AFAIK, that's where we are 6 months later.
He's a ..........
http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/obama*****_thumb.jpg?w=454&h=464
-
He's a ..........
http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/obama*****_thumb.jpg?w=454&h=464
:lmao:
MUCH more succinct than my verbose rant! :rotf:
h5
-
Its all a bit of a yawn really..... here we see America setting off on yet another military adventure which will most likely end in tears at bed time.
-
The fact is, EVERY president has disapproved of the War Powers Act of 1973. Its purpose was to tie the hands of the president, largely in response to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 and LBJ's (a Democrat, as you must certainly know) actions that led to the Vietnam War. As there are constitutional issues at stake, no president has fully supported the WPA, but instead has found ways to work through it or around it.
Or, Kid, do you know something that the rest of us don't know?
I think you have mistaken me for an Obama supporter and or Democratic, of which both I deny. I am merely pointing out an inconsistency in how members on this board are evaluating Obama and that accepting a double standard doesn't serve your party as a whole for the better . If you give him negative marks for not consoling with Congress first, then you must do so for those who came before him, regardless of their reason.
Regarding this Uganda mess...I am in agreement (barring the congress thing) with the criticism that Obama is receiving. It's awful what is happening there, but the US playing world police has probably done more harm than good.
-
I think you have mistaken me for an Obama supporter and or Democratic, of which both I deny. I am merely pointing out an inconsistency in how members on this board are evaluating Obama and that accepting a double standard doesn't serve your party as a whole for the better . If you give him negative marks for not consoling with Congress first, then you must do so for those who came before him, regardless of their reason.
Regarding this Uganda mess...I am in agreement (barring the congress thing) with the criticism that Obama is receiving. It's awful what is happening there, but the US playing world police has probably done more harm than good.
What exactly do you mean by "your party?" Do you somehow think that everybody, or even most people on this board, are of one political party? If so, I do believe you're sadly mistaken.
Based on the statute, as I read it, Obama isn't obligated to go to Congress, especially after a law was passed that "permitted" him to take action against the LRA. But it seems to me in poor form not to do so, but then again, Obama hasn't endeared himself to a lot of people in Congress other than his butt buddy Dingy Reid and Ms. Botox, Nancy "Frozen Grin" Pelousy. I mean, it's so bad that he can't marshal up support for his so-called "Jobs" bill.
Regarding your "world police" comment, how would things have been had we not camped out in Europe for a few decades? You think Europe would've been 80, 90, or even 100% Soviet red?
How would things have been in Japan? You think their economic miracle would've been nearly as effective as it was?
And how much in love (so to speak) are you with Ron Paul?
Just curious.....
-
"I am personally convinced that we cannot continue to begin each military involvement abroad with a prolonged tedious and divisive negotiation between the executive and the legislative branches of Government. The world and its many challenges to our interests simply do not allow us that luxury." - Ronald Reagan
It's interesting to see people neglect that one of their most favorite presidents too waived the War Powers Resolution in both Granada and Libya.
Reagan never waived the WPA. As was pointed out during the recent "kinetic" action in Libya, POTUS has 90 days to either complete the military activity or justify to Congress what vital American interest requires further involvement. That is also the requirement that 0bama ignored, there was never an answer provided for what American interest required American air power in Libya.
-
Reagan never waived the WPA. As was pointed out during the recent "kinetic" action in Libya, POTUS has 90 days to either complete the military activity or justify to Congress what vital American interest requires further involvement. That is also the requirement that 0bama ignored, there was never an answer provided for what American interest required American air power in Libya.
Nor did Bush 41, Clinton, or Bush 43.
-
I wonder if getting the US involved on as many military fronts as possible is an Obama tactic.
He can't ruin the economy with a willing democrat congress to spend us into oblivion, so he'll use the military and inflate the economy via executive order.
-
first one that gets killed pulls us in deeper.
and what can 100 troops do that a couple drones cant?
They can avoid killing large amounts of civilians comparatively.