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
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/
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...
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.
"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.
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/
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.
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.
If only oil was the only natural resources that the West is salivating on!
And you may well be drinking frack water.
http://www.propublica.org/article/feds- … first-time
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.
Surprising just how much consensus there is between the "left" and the "right", isn't it? Outside of some social issues maybe.
And they only disagree on the social issues that are not important.
Hmm. I woudn't say that, necessarily. Can you elaborate?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I believe in gun control, I am not anti-gun. Although I will never own one.
The violence is already there...
You believe in gun control, but for the invasion of foreign nations. Does this at all strike you as hypocritical?
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry, I don't find not being anti-war pragmatic at all. Since when has pragmatism been a higher goal than peace?
If only life were just black and white, but it's not...
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.
by Credence2 2 months ago
A little backgroundI am a bit disturbed that our Secy of State sees fit to have American troops play a role as an occupying army not acceding to the request of the host nation, this nation notin a state of war with the US.How do we justify it?Hopefully this article and the position taken by the US...
by pisean282311 8 years ago
Do you think obama would send troops to libya?
by SparklingJewel 11 years ago
Check this out. I just received this in my e-mail.http://www.globalresearch.ca/
by AdsenseStrategies 10 years ago
Even though there is a perception that the United States gives large amounts of aid to Africa, the fact is that the Chinese and the Arabs are licking their lips at all of that mineral resource wealth that Africa holds, and are in the process of filling the gap left by the West's lack of interest in...
by Make Money 10 years ago
Quote from http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/c … 90417.html
by Sychophantastic 5 years ago
Caught these little factoids about Fox News, courtesy of the Nielsen ratings:The median age of a Fox News viewer is 68.Only 1.1 percent of Fox News prime-time viewers are black.How do you think this affects how they cover the news and what they report?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|