I was always willing to sell my gun for something I saw as a worthy cause. But I can’t see going to Africa. No more. Africa is a monster that eats people. The colonial powers and arabs stuck their noses into something with no understanding and an incurable desire to make money and to either cast everyone there into christians and some sort of pseudo-european, or as slaves.

Sending troops to africa is pissing away lives into the wind. It doesn’t matter how well meaning it is. Doing so only prolongs the misery on both sides.

On another note, I look at this action as a transformative approach in handling a humantarium emergence that requires a partial military solution.  There are less bad actor rogue nation-states around in which a large footprint to deal with a regional criminal warlord is needed.  A 100 SF plus drones plus real time satellite/sensor technology plus the US Military… the Lord’s Army’s work on Earth might be soon finished.   Obama has effectively engaged at a micro-level (pirates, OBL, other AQ targets).  W e could have done this with Saddam if our real intentions were to help the Iraqi’s rid themselves of Hussein.

Personally, this ought to be the rightful jurisdiction of the UN.  Seems they could field a similar force of SF with support from NATO and deal with this kind of conflict as well.   The UN should be able to vote and threaten to take out any despot if a significant vote warrants….give the tyrant 48 hours to vacate.  A few actions like that and maybe future wannabee dictators will think twice about committing crimes against humanity.  Unfortunately, the rest of the world are socialists so we can let anyone be the boss of us.  The money it costs us to go it alone while killing our international reputation boggles the mind.  But that’s Rush’s job, right?  Convincing the rubes to ‘stay the course’.

From Wikipedia: Military Assistance Advisory GroupAAGIn September 1950, US President Harry Truman sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) to Vietnam to assist the French in the First Indochina war. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of US military equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces. By 1953, aid increased dramatically to $350 million to replace old military equipment owned by the French.

Are you going to tell Limbaugh that he never said he supported them?  Because he seems to have thought he did.

Where in the Limbaugh transcript does it say he supports them?

Limbaugh took the time to read aloud what he called the “Lord’s Resistance Army objectives,” which was a list of noble-sounding things like “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people” taken from a speech made on their behalf in 1997. In other words, he presented the group as they see themselves but didn’t bother to check if anyone else had something to add to that description. Like mass murder, rape and mutilation, for example.

It’s not Limbaugh’s opposition to foreign intervention that’s offensive; if he was remotely consistent about that sort of thing it would be a vast improvement. What is offensive is that he presented this group in as positive a light as possible just to make Obama look worse.

But that’s not the same as supporting them. 

It’s the war party’s favorite line of rhetoric, “if you oppose war, you support the enemy.” Aren’t you applying it here?

Regardless of Limbaugh’s reasons for opposing it, is it really “stupid and evil” to oppose another US military operation in a foreign land?

I agree – I don’t think he’s believed most of his own words for years. 
He’s just a paid performer… which is why it’s probably a good idea if we start ignoring him or at least just label him with a clever buzz word “Conservitainer” or something so we can dismiss him and the other smoke-and-mirror ditto heads .

A: One’s a flaming Nazi gasbag and the other’s just an airship.

I think if villages had some sort of self defense militias or local quick response teams they’d pose a major challenge to the LRA which seems to be lightly armed.

There was nothing more to do in Iraq. The cost-benefit equation no longer made sense. Plus, we need the troops for these other wars.

I don’t think he believes everything he says.  He is CARTOONISHLY conservative.  He does it because that appeals to a certain demographic, and because he can do that so well he’s a very wealthy man.  Now I do think he’s at least SOMEWHAT conservative but I think that a lot of what he says and does is an act.

However, once he says something, it doesn’t matter whether he believes it or not.  Someone might.  Helter Skelter and all that. 

Now you might say that’s irresponsible and dangerous of him, and I might be inclined to agree. 

It’s disgusting. It’s the complete opposite of what Christianity should be about. Jesus explicily condemned any sort of pretend-religiosity. Sadly, his message seems completely lost on the Religious Right.

The LRA is the most depraved scum on earth. Even Al Qaeda and the Taliban would be disgusted by their inhuman attricities. And they’ve been doing this for well over a decade. How is it possible for anyone with even the slightest interest in politics to not have heard of them? Certainly a radio talk show host who actually makes an item out of it when somebody finally decides to do something about this scum, even if he miraculously hadn’t heard of them, shouldn’t he at least do a little bit of research? How can he be surprised they’ve done bad stuff? Why is the article still on his website?

So, we should look into this more. It’s worth noting that, in Uganda, the LRA is fighting against an entrenched dictatorship that has been in power for 25 years. A dictatorship that just passed a law mandating death for homosexuality, and prison for not reporting homosexuality. That has allowed tens of thousands to be evicted to make way for ‘carbon credit’ forests to be planted where their villages once stood. etc. 

In short, there are no good guys in this.

So, which is worse: some right wing gasbag making stupid and ignorant remarks? Or an imperial ruler with millions of troops andwarehouses stuffed full of WMDs at his disposal stepping in to support the ruling tyrant?

I’ll let you ponder that question.

1) The Lord’s Army poses a threat to regional stability, in a region populated entirely by precarious governments and impoverished citizens.  If we can settle things down through the investment of only 100 troops, then our companies can vastly expand their exploitation of the region’s mineral resources.

2) The United States’ international reputation continues to flat-line.  If we’re able to impeded or eradicate the LRA, hopefully that will translate to some good will in other parts of the world.

100 special forces troops might be enough to knock the LRA out.  They’re not the Taliban.  All the Devil’s Advocate stuff aside, I think this is a worthwhile use of our forces.

BUT…we’re terrible at choosing sides in these things.  Pick any conflict in the world, and the US will misunderstand it, pick a side, and then just kick the hell out of everyone and everything until one day we give up and go home.  stevelaudig is not wrong to point out the questionable character of the Ugandan govt.  And our involvement with Vietnam started with just a handful of troops on the ground.