Uganda?

[stickwork]

In all likelyhood, yes.

The Brits were safe from invasion. Committing national blood and treasure to help them keep their empire intact wasn't a selling point to the country. Neither was bailing out the communist USSR. By the winter of '41, the Nazi's had stalled at the gates of Moscow and Lenningrad. The Brits had Rommel stalemated in N Africa. US factories were making a buttload of money selling supplies to the allies without risking anything. Lend-lease was already in place, so the US had aquired critical naval bases in Greenland and the Azores.


There was far more outcry and outrage at the Japanese treatment of Chinese civilians at the time than there was about the Nazi's treatment of the Jews, Slavs, Romanii & communists in Europe

US would have waited until Brits were safe from invasion? I may have misinterpreted.

 

[1sickbastard]

US would have waited until Brits were safe from invasion? I may have misinterpreted.

No, by Dec '41 they already were safe from invasion.

The US would have waited until the European combatants had exhausted themselves, then committed, much the same way it did during WW1

 

[stickwork]

No, by Dec '41 they already were safe from invasion.

The US would have waited until the European combatants had exhausted themselves, then committed, much the same way it did during WW1

So U-Boats blowing up US ships, Churchill's begging, the Atlantic Charter and a desire for re-election by FDR wouldn't have brought the U.S. to war with Germany until the European combatants had exhausted themselves?

I don't know. WWI was conducted, for the most part, without the ability to move nearly as quickly into distant opponents' territories.

 

[Ishmael]

With my flawed understanding;

Iraq wasn't about Iraq. It was about scaring the shit out of our ertwhile ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The thinking of the Saudi's, at the time, was that America wouldn't invade Iraq unless it had the time and space to build up it's forces to a similar state of the '91 war. That the US was able to go in with a relatively light force (not to disparage the forces that went in, but it was nothing like the force concentration of '91) and overrun Iraq in such a short time threw their (the Saudi's) calculations into disarray. It wasn't lang afterwards that Saudi internal security forces began to root out Al-Queda members, supporters, financers, etc, in ernest.

In addition, Iraq is the stragegic ground of the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, all major players in the region share a border with Iraq. Not only did the invasion put the fear of God (or the USA) into the Saudi gov't, but it had a similar effect on the rest of the region.

Unfortunately, the relatively light forces also gave the Iranians (and to a lesser extent, the Syrians) a perfect opportunity to expand their own influence in the region, as the invasion force was inadequate and unprepared to function as an occupation force able to keep the population under control.

The Iranians made superb use of the opportunity. The Syrians, not so much.

I have to give you kudos for that post.

The reason the Iranians were not impressed is simply because of their religious moral certainty. The Qur'an and the Haddiths plainly state that no matter which way the coin falls, they win. Either by conversion or martyrdom.

How do you break that moral certainty? Annihilation, that's how. Just as Hulagu understood in 1258, they must bow their head or die. I'm sure that you, and more idiots that post here, assume that I'm speaking of a religious bowing of the head. Nothing could be further from the truth. They must bow their head to secular government, and they must also know that annihilation is the alternative.

This is NOT a situation that can be resolved by diplomacy.

Ishmael

 

[1sickbastard]

So U-Boats blowing up US ships, Churchill's begging, the Atlantic Charter and a desire for re-election by FDR wouldn't have brought the U.S. to war with Germany until the European combatants had exhausted themselves?

I don't know. WWI was conducted, for the most part, without the ability to move nearly as quickly into distant opponents' territories.

Not so much, no. Remember the US put up with similar activity during WW1 and was becoming far more aggravated with the British naval blockade of the continent (in which the British Navy was seizing cargos from neutral shipping bound for neutral ports).

Whe the US did throw in, after the Zimmerman Letter and the Lusitainia, it too suffered horrific casualties in the fighting.


Americans remembered all of that. The overriding majority were against involvement in another European War (the Isolationists). In fact, keeping the US neutral was part of FDR's 1940 reelection campaign.

You're correct about the abiltity to manuver. Tanks were the weapon system that broke the 'tryanny of the trenches'. The Germans used tactics developed by the Brits (oh, the irony) for their Blitzkreig.

But by Dec '41, the German supply lines were extended nearly to their limits. If Hitler had been smart enough to listen to his generals, like Gudarian, the Nazi's might have been able to seize Moscow in the late fall of that year. Fortunately, he was an idiot. Also, the Soviets and signed agreements with Japan insuring they would not be fighting a 2 front war, and could bring a mass of troops from the far east to bolster their defences.

Then again, who really knows? All we do know for sure is what did happen, not what might have happened

At any rate, there is still no overriding strategic or national threat by the Lord's Resistance Army that would justify sending US forces to central-east Africa, at least none that I can see with my extremely limited vision.

If you have something, please, share it.

 

[stickwork]

I'd hate for this to turn out the way it did in Somalia.

Just stay away from the walls and watch the skinnies on the roof.

 

[stickwork]

Not so much, no. Remember the US put up with similar activity during WW1 and was becoming far more aggravated with the British naval blockade of the continent (in which the British Navy was seizing cargos from neutral shipping bound for neutral ports).

Whe the US did throw in, after the Zimmerman Letter and the Lusitainia, it too suffered horrific casualties in the fighting.


Americans remembered all of that. The overriding majority were against involvement in another European War (the Isolationists). In fact, keeping the US neutral was part of FDR's 1940 reelection campaign.

You're correct about the abiltity to manuver. Tanks were the weapon system that broke the 'tryanny of the trenches'. The Germans used tactics developed by the Brits (oh, the irony) for their Blitzkreig.

But by Dec '41, the German supply lines were extended nearly to their limits. If Hitler had been smart enough to listen to his generals, like Gudarian, the Nazi's might have been able to seize Moscow in the late fall of that year. Fortunately, he was an idiot. Also, the Soviets and signed agreements with Japan insuring they would not be fighting a 2 front war, and could bring a mass of troops from the far east to bolster their defences.

Then again, who really knows? All we do know for sure is what did happen, not what might have happened

At any rate, there is still no overriding strategic or national threat by the Lord's Resistance Army that would justify sending US forces to central-east Africa, at least none that I can see with my extremely limited vision.

If you have something, please, share it.

Well-said, although I wasn't connecting the WWII scenario and Uganda. As to Uganda, I see no way this administration is going to open up another military front, although I'm sure some simpletons may assume the President's background might influence him to make a stand on the subcontinent.

As to WWII, if I recall, FDR was re-elected over an isolationist candidate in 1940, he sacked Joe Kennedy for similar sentiments and he seemed always to have been an interventionist who was too tight with Churchill to let him twist in the wind.

 

[1sickbastard]

I have to give you kudos for that post.

The reason the Iranians were not impressed is simply because of their religious moral certainty. The Qur'an and the Haddiths plainly state that no matter which way the coin falls, they win. Either by conversion or martyrdom.

How do you break that moral certainty? Annihilation, that's how. Just as Hulagu understood in 1258, they must bow their head or die. I'm sure that you, and more idiots that post here, assume that I'm speaking of a religious bowing of the head. Nothing could be further from the truth. They must bow their head to secular government, and they must also know that annihilation is the alternative.

This is NOT a situation that can be resolved by diplomacy.

Ishmael

I accept your kudos with thanks.

I'll accept your moral certainty assertion at face value, but I also think there were more pragmatic reasons. Mostly, they percieved the US as somewhat over extended in it's ablitlity to project military power. I do think they were impressed & possibly more than a little scared of America's military power. And they should be. I don't think there is a single country inexistance today that can go toe to toe with our military and come out on top. But war is still a political activity.

Their defence structure is exactly what the US military is designed to destroy quickly and efficiently-a tightly controlled command & control, masses of armored, mechanized and infantry forces. Their Air Force, though potent as a regional force, would last about 48 hours against US Air Power.

However, my limited knowledge and understanding of the situation, as it was then, was that there was a quid pro quo with the Iranian gov't, that the US would overthrow the Iraqi regime without Iranian interference, in exchange for them being able to extend some moderate influence in Iraq (which would include the Iranians providing some intel on Sunni resistance and locations of some of the Iraqi leadership in hiding) as well as continuing intel to help root out Taliban and Al-Queda forces in Afganistan. The Iranians had no love of the Taliban and even less for Al-Queda, which were very real threats to the Iranians.

But after Iraq disolved into chaos, they saw their opportunity and played it very well (the bastards!).

And your probably right about there not being a diplomatic solution at this juncture. How the situation unfolds will be very interesting indeed.

 

[1sickbastard]

Well-said, although I wasn't connecting the WWII scenario and Uganda. As to Uganda, I see no way this administration is going to open up another military front, although I'm sure some simpletons may assume the President's background might influence him to make a stand on the subcontinent.

As to WWII, if I recall, FDR was re-elected over an isolationist candidate in 1940, he sacked Joe Kennedy for similar sentiments and he seemed always to have been an interventionist who was too tight with Churchill to let him twist in the wind.

Good points.

True, Wendell Wilke(sp?) ran against FDR's percieved support for going to war, vis a vis the Lend Lease Act and the "Arsenal of Democracy", but those were pragmatic steps by FDR to support increasing overall American Power. Yes, FDR did get a LOT of resistance for those actions, so he knew how hard a sell it would be to bring America into WW2.

But as far as involvement in Uganda, no it won't be another full blown military front, at least at this point in time. But there is always that damn slippery slope, isn't there?
US invlovement in Vietnam began in the 1950's with a few military advisors. Not that I'm equating the situation. Vietnam was a product of the Cold War.
However, I am very leary of sending US personel into situations that do not have an over riding strategic concern. Wars fought only for the sake of 'morality' never turn out well.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This is one of those quandary issues for the warheads. On the one hand they love the wars because it lines the pockets of the defense contractors. On the other hand, it's Obama invading.

What is out national interest?

Seems that once again, egged on by Muslim propaganda, we are off to crush Christians for them.

Meanwhile, in Syria and in Iran...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I have nothing against sending in the limited number of troops he did -- it sounds like they're just there to help out with some training and tech support -- but I'd hate for this to turn out the way it did in Somalia.

Concerned in the Congo,
Ellie

Yeah, like Johnny said,

There's something happening here...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Meanwhile, in Egypt, our administration is not speaking out against the systemic elimination of the Copts...




I think we all see the pattern of outreach here. Since Kosavo, has it paid off?

 

[tactful]

I guess Libya is winding down.

Might even be his way of creating those new jobs.

 

[eyer]

With my flawed understanding;

Sorry...

...way too early to force myself to read thru all that.

Was there anything in there that reveals this "same reason" you speak of?

 

[MeeMie]

back to the "Uganda" thread topic ...


Obama Sends Combat Troops to Central Africa


U.S. forces are already stretched thin, but that hasn’t stopped President Obama from introducing them into a new theater of combat, sending special forces to central Africa to chase around someone named Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army.

Apparently, local troops in Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Congo can’t apprehend him, and he’s doing lots of terrible things, so U.S. troops are now involved.

The first batch of troops arrived in Uganda Wednesday, unannounced to the United States. A total of about 100 will eventually deploy. While armed, they are supposedly instructed to play defense only.

This is operation what’s known in technical military jargon as “a bad idea.”


What exactly happens if some of our troops are captured or killed? Do we then send more? But can we possibly afford not to defeat these barbarians now that our prestige is involved? Does anyone remember Somalia?


What this is, is the latest manifestation of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine promulgated by White House National Security aide Samantha Power. The theory holds that the international community – that is, U.S. armed forces – have a responsibility to protect people who are victims of “crimes against humanity.”

Nobody likes “crimes against humanity.” But U.S. troops must be used sparingly. We cannot commit them half-heartedly to far-flung locations where we risk situations in which we either escalate or lose. And when we lose, our national security is gravely harmed.

The ignominious retreat from Somalia in 1994 overseen by Bill Clinton is part of what gave Osama Bin Laden the confidence to attack the United States, viewing us as effete cowards who wouldn’t dare to put up a fight.

And none of our men or women should be killed in some God-foresaken place unless there is an urgent national security interest.

Can someone tell me what our national security interest is in Uganda?

The White House low-keyed this announcement as much as possible, putting word out on Friday afternoon when no one is listening and releasing only a letter informing Speaker Boehner of the action. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney didn’t even mention it in the briefing he held on Air Force One.

Obama should have announced this himself and explained it to the American people. Instead, the action seems careless. We are now just casually throwing troops into theaters of battle all over the world.

Obama didn’t say anything because he knows the American people would never support it.

Pity the mother whose son might die under torture at the hands of the Lord’s Resistance Army.

 

[eyer]

Mr. Obama wrote [to Congress] that he had decided to act because it was “in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/wo...ance-army.html

Surely there is at least one Obama supporter on this board who can explain why the President intentionally lied to Congress and, thus, to the American people?
.
.
.
.
.

 

[JohnnySavage]

One time, back in about 1982, I was living in London. I had a buddy... I can't remember what his name was, let's call him Davey. Davey was England's version of a country bumpkin.

Well, Davey and I went into this bar/theater and they had a big cage set up. The deal was that anyone who could stay in the cage with this little monkey for 3 minutes could drink for free all night.

Well... Davey was a big, dull witted guy and he took one look at that little monkey and figured it was an easy bet. So he took off his shirt and climbed in the cage. The crowed gathered round, and the MC asked Davey if he was sure about this. Davey laughed and said, "yup"

The cage was shut and a guy put the monkey in the cage from a little door across the way from Davey.

That monkey looked at Davey, and Davey looked at that monkey, and it was on like donkey kong.

The monkey screamed at Davey and Davey screamed at the monkey. The monkey took off across that cage like its ass was on fire and jumped on Davey's head.

It was tiny fists and elbows like a blur. That damned Davey was screaming like someone was standing on his nuts and the monkey continued to just beat the hell out of him.

After about 30 seconds the guy blew a whistle and that monkey turned loose of Davey's ears and went back to the little door, and got out of the cage.

Davey staggered out his door, sat down at the table with a bloody nose, and cherry red ears, took a drink of his beer, and said, "Damn, that monkey was mean!"

It was quite a hoot.

I guess you had to be there.

 

[1sickbastard]

Sorry...

...way too early to force myself to read thru all that.

Was there anything in there that reveals this "same reason" you speak of?

There is. You'll have to read it.

 

[eyer]

There is. You'll have to read it.

Of course there is...

...no thanks.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Of course there is...

...no thanks.

Pussy.

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

There is. You'll have to read it.

You know he won't. Easier to blurt your way through life.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I don't want to spill any beans, but Uganda is close to Kenya...

*finger on nose*

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I don't want to spill any beans, but Uganda is close to Kenya...

*finger on nose*

Are youuuuuuuu sayin' what I think you're sayin' Johnny?

omg omg omg omg

 

[JohnnySavage]

It's all very clear, you see...

Obama stages troops in Uganda. Then after the elections he moves the troops into Kenya. On January 19, 2013 he declares a military/socialist regime, naming himself as dictator. Then on January 20th he returns to his homeland to rule.