If my post comes across a little sarcastic it’s cause I just mixed up a bunch of Bourbon with some bitters…oops.[/quote]
I support this.
Addressing the issue of supporting direct military action. Can you really go in and have peace discussions with somebody that only wants to hang on to there power. If he just gives up his power, he’s dead. (tribunal)
He’s evil. Kill him? Replace him with another evil?
Yeah probably unless we go in and install a leader and government. We can help but we can’t do all the work. Think Iraq, we ousted that despot and now we’re assisting in the rebuilding process. At some point the people have to take accountability and seize the opportunity to build a nation that can contribute to the world. Africa in general is a pretty screwed up continent…a lot of work to be done there.[/quote]
And we can argue about whether or not we shoulda gone into Iraq in the first place. I’m not a non-interventionist, but we need to look at risk vs return. Every time we talk about going in an ousting someone and then helping with rebuilding, it worries me. It doesn’t always work out, at least not in our favor. Iraq is a good example of this. If we ever completely leave, we don’t know what’s going to happen there in the long run. It could be another Iran. Say we take out Kony, someone worse could easily take his place. I’m not saying that that is a reason to not act, but it’s a reason to get as much information as possible before making that decision, obviously.
White man’s burden? WTF!? Get off that bullshit.
Yeah, this part made me go, “Huh?”
So we should just let him keep letting him bro out with his homey’s cause statistically it’s not quite as bad as when we go in? IMO think long run.[/quote]
Possibly, if the possible replacement could create a worse situation. Plus, on the possibly having to hurt children in the act argument, I think the article’s main point with that, and one I want most the people I know who are posting the video to take away from it, is that it wont be a simple little mission. If we could even get him, some, if not a lot of children will be killed. While I understand that this may have to be the case if we determine killing him would be the best possible situation, I really don’t think, based on the postings I’ve seen on Facebook, that a lot of people understand that. And let’s just say we could get him without killing anyone else, there will almost definitely be retaliation. How bad will it be? It could create a much worse situation.
AFRICOM hasn’t done as much as the article would like you to believe. Infact rules of engagement are extremely strict…to the point of not allowing American soldiers to carry weapons…yeah real cool.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s bullshit right there.
Any who there is a lot of work to be done and Uganda certainly isn’t the only country on that continent in need of help.[/quote]
That raises another major question. Where does it end? We have tons of things going on in the Middle East. Keeping an eye on North Korea. Are we really going to go into Africa? How do we pick what countries to help? We can’t help them all. We can’t afford to. Even if we just played the role of going in there and doing some training, that could majorly backfire too (Osama Bin Ladden).
The main reason I like this article is that while I think this needs attention drawn to it, and it’s good that there’s more dialogue taking place than there has been in years past, I don’t think a lot of people who are posting the video and crying about how badly something needs to get done recognize the complexity of the issue.