Is this the US invasion of Africa?

1. 60

   sannyasinmanposted 11 years ago

   A full-scale invasion of Africa is under way. The United States is deploying troops in 35 African countries, beginning with Libya, Sudan, Algeria and Niger. Reported by Associated Press on Christmas Day, this was missing from most Anglo-American media.
   
   http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/middle- … o-oblivion

   replyreport
2. 88

   SimeyCposted 11 years ago

   3500 troops in 35 countries - a full-out invasion? Hmmmm 100 troops in each country!
   
   And it was on Fox News...
   
   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12 … eat-grows/

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Really, seems like a reduction to me from what I remember from the past.
      
      
      "part of an intensifying Pentagon effort to train countries to battle extremists and give the U.S. a ready and trained force to dispatch to Africa if crises requiring the U.S. military emerge.
      
      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12 … w79C"
      
      Wow, when Fox News has the sanest account you have to wonder...

      replyreport
3. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

   You post so many of these dire threads that usually turn out not to be as bad as you have read that I'm beginning to see you as the person "who cried wolf" or Chicken Little.

   replyreport
4. 60

   knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

   "By 2013, one quarter of the oil and raw materials consumed by the United States should come from Africa. On the basis of that consideration, a U.S.-Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (IASPS), recommended the creation of a U.S. military command for Africa: AfriCom. It was inaugurated at the end of the Bush Administration and placed under the command of Afro-American General William E. Ward, former coordinator for security between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The announcement of its creation gave rise to a wave of resistance in Africa. No African state was willing to host it and AfriCom ultimately set up base in Germany and Italy." So they put it in well, what a coincidence - Libya.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      However by the close of the decade the US will be self sufficient and won't need overseas oil - thanks to fracking....
      
      
      http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plu … fficiency/

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         There is also Gold in Mali, just as there was in Libya. And one mustn't discount the benefits of military occupation for Western governments in and of itself.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Don't get me wrong - I'm sure there are benefits for the US - I was just trying to point out that the 'US Invasion' was slightly over estimated!

            replyreport
      2. 74

         Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I recently did a freelance project on the U.S. fracking industry.  Self sufficiency is more than possible, exports are very likely.  Some U.S. states are competing with other fuel generating nations for the total output.

         replyreport
   2. 64

      maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If only oil was the only natural resources that the West is salivating on!

      replyreport
5. 60

   knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

   And you may well be drinking frack water.
   
   http://www.propublica.org/article/feds- … first-time

   replyreport
6. 67

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   What on EARTH happened to the anti-war left? They'll go to such lengths as believing in Fox News to reaffirm their conscious or subconscious view that anything the West does is for peace, prosperity and loveliness.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Surprising just how much consensus there is between the "left" and the "right", isn't it? Outside of some social issues maybe.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         And they only disagree on the social issues that are not important.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hmm. I woudn't say that, necessarily. Can you elaborate?

            replyreport
            1. 67

               innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I don't consider gay marriage and abortion, for instance, to be the defining issues of our time. I can't think of anything else of real significance that the right and left disagree on to a huge degree.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Hmm, I suppose that's easy to say if you're a heterosexual male. But yeah, I can't think of anything else that left and right significantly disagree on either.

                  replyreport
   2. 88

      SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure if this was aimed at moi? I'm not anti-war = sadly there will always be a need for war. I actually beleive that war if often misused and while peace is part of it there's always some underlying goal. I also believe that not going to war for 'political' reasons can also be for a goal - France and Russia were against the invasion of Iraq - wow were they really that nice? Nope  they were trying to protect their lucrative oil contracts with Iraq.
      
      The whole would is full of governments (not just the US) that are out to get all they can - whether it's Iran, US, France, Russia, China - it all comes down to the same thing - profit, resources, control. The only 'fault' I see with the US is that they are currently the best at this global game.
      
      What I want is truth - not one fox news report, cnn report, bbc report, anti-establishment report etc. contains 100% truth - they all shape the truth the way they want. Every one, including the anti-government people have an agenda that will ultimately give them more power.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Sad to say, you appear to be descending into the same skepticism about both our leaders and their opponents that I have. 
         
         You need to work on that, Simey - it's far more fun to froth at the mouth, screaming hate at the government or any other group that disagrees with you personally while collecting more exaggerations and innuendos to spread as absolute truth.  At least I guess it is - I've never been very good at it.

         replyreport
      2. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So, basically what you are saying is that some good can come of military involvement, even if the reasons for it are not humanitarian? I've heard this argument before, and I find it extremely lacking. It seems to me to be excusing great evils for some good that might come of it. Recent western militarism, so far, has caused nothing but political instability, blowback and destruction. There simply is no evidence that the West is suitable for the task.
         
         Just as we fire a business for not performing a task correctly, we need to fire NATO.

         replyreport
   3. 80

      Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So, they should not train people to fight extremists? Let them take over?
      
      I am for the most part anti-war but sadly there is still a need for it in the world as it is today. I will start to complain if they train those people and stick around and try to control what the government does which is something the US has had a name for doing for centuries.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hollande and David Cameron are talking about 'decades' of involvement. If that isn't 'sticking around' I don't know what is.
         
         I think, first, the Malian people need to get rid of their government, the west needs to stop sanctioning and regulating their economy out of existence - start building some prosperity, an environment that encourages peace. We are talking about one of the poorest and impoverished nations on Earth, no wonder it is so easy for extremists to gain control.
         
         The West's involvement is subtly re-affirming the status-quo, as all it's doing is adding violence into the equation.
         
         . . . and aren't you one of these anti-gun people?

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I believe in gun control, I am not anti-gun. Although I will never own one.
            
            The violence is already there...

            replyreport
            1. 67

               innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               You believe in gun control, but for the invasion of foreign nations. Does this at all strike you as hypocritical?

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  This is not an invasion... they were asked.
                  
                  We can't all be as perfect as you in our ideology...

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, we can try

                     replyreport
7. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   Did you see the people of Timbuktu celebrating?  I don't think they feel the military response was oppressing them.  I think the feel the extremists occupying their city, executing people and razing ancient monuments were oppressing them and now they have a chance to be free. People were being killed just for dancing or playing music FFS.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Irrelevant and not something to be discussed.  One must always assume evil in the deeds of developed nations or people might begin to believe that they are not as bad as the naysayers claim.
      
      Please keep that in mind during future posts - you must never mention any good in the actions. society or peoples of developed nations.  You must never mention that they actually help developing nations or the people living there, and I'm afraid that your recent forum activity is increasingly violating that unspoken forum rule.  Logic and reason is disallowed; only hate and empty, exaggerated rhetoric is permitted.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I find it as relevant as the millions cheering for Obama's re-election. It is surprisingly easy for a politician to convince the masses that their sheer presence is a gift to them, when in fact they are stealing from, maiming and killing them. I am not surprised that there are a number of Malians happy that another country has arrived on the scene, probably in false hope of something different, just as it was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam . . .
         
         The truth is that the situation in Mali is the direct consequence, i.e. blowback, of the illegal invasion of Libya in 2011. The 'freedom fighters' (actually a coalition of African, Islamist and western interests), after Gaddafi's death, packed up and left to Mali to start a 'revolution' there to predicate another invasion. It's a fantastic manipulation, and it's incredible how so many are sucked into it time and time again. After Iraq, we should have applied scepticism to all western military involvement. On what basis is there for the belief that western militarism has caused good? Because I am yet to see it.

         replyreport
8. 67

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   I'm sorry, I don't find not being anti-war pragmatic at all. Since when has pragmatism been a higher goal than peace?

   replyreport
9. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

   If only life were just black and white, but it's not...

   replyreport
10. 74

    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    The fighting in Africa is mostly regional, enemies must be created to bring it under the global war on terror.  Factional fighting is too chaotic, there must be a motivating factor to get them to unite.  Like they have managed to do in Pakistan.  Warlords that have been fighting each other for centuries now have a common enemy and have united, eventually Pakistan will fail as a democracy.

    replyreport