# 3,000 US soldiers to serve in Africa next year



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2012)

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/06/army-3000-soldiers-serve-in-africa-next-year-060812/



> A brigade will deploy to Africa next year in a pilot program that  assigns brigades on a rotational basis to regions around the globe, the  Army announced in May.
> 
> 
> Roughly 3,000 soldiers  and likely more   are expected to serve tours across the continent in 2013, training  foreign militaries and aiding locals.
> ...



Thoughts?


----------



## Carol (Jun 10, 2012)

Follow the oil...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 10, 2012)

We get to fight genocide, even if they aren't European.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2012)

How much is this going to cost the taxpayers?


----------



## billc (Jun 10, 2012)

It will be good experience all the way around.  The African troops and communities will get to see how a military of a western democracy works and we get on the ground experience in an area of the world where the chinese are rapidly branching into.


----------



## granfire (Jun 10, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> How much is this going to cost the taxpayers?



three thousand soldiers?
not a lot.



Initially.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2012)

billcihak said:


> It will be good experience all the way around.  The African troops and communities will get to see how a military of a western democracy works and we get on the ground experience in an area of the world where the chinese are rapidly branching into.



It always seems like these adventures always cost the taxpayer way more then was originally predicted.  Also, just as with any government program, they always seem to expand and expand and expand.  With our current deficit, how do we pay for this?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 10, 2012)

Aye, I was going to say that there is one very good reason why this is happening and that that is the Chinese economic presence in Africa.  

Make no mistake, the basket case Africa that we have grown accustomed to seeing on the news is not the whole of the story and that is why there has been a huge influx of Chinese investment capital into the continent.  As we know, if there is money to be made then all the players in the game want to have a hand dealt - what's the best way of ensuring a seat at the table?  A visible military 'place-holder' with boots on the ground.


----------



## granfire (Jun 10, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, I was going to say that there is one very good reason why this is happening and that that is the Chinese economic presence in Africa.
> 
> Make no mistake, the basket case Africa that we have grown accustomed to seeing on the news is not the whole of the story and that is why there has been a huge influx of Chinese investment capital into the continent.  As we know, if there is money to be made then all the players in the game want to have a hand dealt - what's the best way of ensuring a seat at the table?  A visible military 'place-holder' with boots on the ground.



We might as well get used to the idea that the era of Western dominated politics and economics is grinding to a halt.
If you have had a half an ear open during history class in school, you will recognize the circle of life: Super powers come and go. Lucky for us, we are born towards the end of one....


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2012)

Oh goody, no defined goal.


----------



## granfire (Jun 10, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Oh goody, no defined goal.



That bothers you how?
It's not like it has been any different in.......ever.....


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2012)

granfire said:


> That bothers you how?
> It's not like it has been any different in.......ever.....


Uh...
WWI Defeat the Kaiser
WWII Defeat the Axis
Korea Defeat the North Koreans (You know that war isn't over, don't you?)
Vietnam Defeat the North Vietnamese
Panama Grab Noriega
Grenada Rescue Med Students
Desert Storm Throw Iraq out of Kuwait
Iraq Remove Saddam's regime from power
Afghanistan Kill terrorists


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2012)

Africa - kick out the Chinese.


----------



## granfire (Jun 10, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Uh...


*WWI Defeat the Kaiser* - ah, well,w e know how that plan pack fired. Aside from the fact that it was a conflict between Austria and Serbia. the clear plan (keeping treaties under all circumstance started a wild fire....
*WWII Defeat the Axis* - I do ahve to give you that one (though Churchill is being quoted that the allied forces 'slaughtered the wrong pig', meaning they should have marched right into Russia. Can you argue with that?
*Korea Defeat the North Koreans* (You know that war isn't over, don't you?) - I don't think it has ever been officially been classified as a war. And see the plan they got going there?
*Vietnam Defeat the North Vietnamese *- ROFLMAO  yeah, they had the plan, but nothing more....
*Panama Grab Noriega* - Panama is small enough....I am sure they gave him enough money though before they figured out he was bad....
*Grenada Rescue Med Students* - so is Grenada....
*Desert Storm Throw Iraq out of Kuwait* - aight, one more for you....
Iraq Remove Saddam's regime from power - ah, but the plan was to kill Bin Laden. That was so not in the plan! 
*Afghanistan Kill terrorists *- :lfao: you, liek, really did not go liek totally there, did you?! :lol:


----------



## granfire (Jun 10, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Africa - kick out the Chinese.



why should they?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2012)

US "Advisors" are all over the world. Have been for decades. As long as America is the Worlds Policeman, that will continue.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 10, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> We get to fight genocide, even if they aren't European.


 True, genocide is a terrible thing. Yet they're doing it to themselves. They've been doing it to themselves for centuries. Same race, whereas in Europe it was more than just genocide. It was a quest for world domination. The genocide was a side thing the nazzis had going. 

I guess the phrase now in Africa would be "Go back to China!!" ?? Nah, it's for the oil, no doubt. Nothing quite so noble as saving a people from themselves. That's what they'll say they're doing. But it's for the black stuff UNDER the ground not for the black people above the ground. 

3,000 troops... hmm, wonder how many of them are children of the ones sending the troops over? 

It's like what George Carlin said: "...we're a warlike people. We like war, we like war because we're good at it." 

(language warning... duh, it's Carlin)
[yt]dDw-zFFhFgc[/yt]


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2012)

Does anyone have any idea how this new military action defends my freedom?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2012)

I prefer Denis Leary's domestic and foreign policies.


> "My domestic policy, F*%& YOU!"





> My foreign policy: FU&&$&$&$&& THEM!


----------



## granfire (Jun 10, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Does anyone have any idea how this new military action defends my freedom?



It puts a road block between China and the US.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2012)

granfire said:


> It puts a road block between China and the US.



What do you mean?  Is China going to invade the US via Africa?


----------



## granfire (Jun 11, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> What do you mean?  Is China going to invade the US via Africa?



yes, they are going to assimilate them...Borg like.

China is already there, there is money to be made. You snooze you loose. The eternal problem about the isolationist movements in the US: Foreign aid always yields bigger returns than it costs.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 11, 2012)

Isn't China simply investing in African infrastructure?  I don't read about them sending in any troops.  Maybe the Chinese have learned that free enterprise is a much stronger force for good then any gun could ever be...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Isn't China simply investing in African infrastructure? I don't read about them sending in any troops. Maybe the Chinese have learned that free enterprise is a much stronger force for *GAIN* then any gun could ever be...



_Fixed that for ya........_ (No smiley here, 'cause it's not funny.)


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2012)

Seen from the military point of view it's good training for troops to be in different terrains, among different people etc. The British army has been training in Kenya for a long time now, we've also go military advisors in quite a few African countries as they belong to the Commonwealth. We have exchanges between several forces and our own as well. 
You might want to look up and see if the countries are paying for these military advisors,they often do, that would save a few tax dollars.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 11, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> True, genocide is a terrible thing. Yet they're doing it to themselves. They've been doing it to themselves for centuries. Same race, whereas in Europe it was more than just genocide. It was a quest for world domination. The genocide was a side thing the nazzis had going.
> 
> I guess the phrase now in Africa would be "Go back to China!!" ?? Nah, it's for the oil, no doubt. Nothing quite so noble as saving a people from themselves. That's what they'll say they're doing. But it's for the black stuff UNDER the ground not for the black people above the ground.
> 
> ...


So... as long as they do it to themselves, it OK?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 11, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> So... as long as they do it to themselves, it OK?


Morally NO it's NOT okay ... but is it ok for us to arbitrarily decide (when) we need to stop them? I've said they've been doing to themselves for centuries. They've gone to war with each other, captured prisoners sold them as slaves, slaughtered entire villages/tribes for _centuries,_ even way before da whyte man showed up on their continent. 
And *now* we decide to *do* something about it? C'mon.  We've known about the war-lords stealing shipments of food that our "feed the world" charities have been sending them for *decades* and did we try to police that? Seems that it would've made bigger headlines than now, wouldn't it? 
"Eat your dinner, there are starving people in Africa". That's been a cliche for rich-well-fed white children in America to clean their plates for decades. It was even a fricken punchline. Done famously by Sam Kinison ("you think one of the film crew would give the kid a sandwich but the director is screaming "Don't feed 'em yet! It won't work unless he looks hungry!"). Yet it was a serious problem.  He even provided an idea on solving the problem and it was, when you think about it a legitimate one. Move them out of the famine zones. Huh? Oh right the towns, cities, and agricultural areas were war-torn centers of conflict for the war-lords stealing the food to buy weapons. 
I remember as a kid (I'm 50 now so do the math okay), seeing pictures on t.v. , of starving little kids, naked in the hot sun, flies all over their faces, in the arms of their starving mothers and the vultures hanging around waiting for the next course to die off. I remember this as a kid okay? I was seeing this genocide go on even then. 
Tell me something, why is it that NOW we're sending troops to help. I mean it's been what? 40+ years since I saw it, and I'm sure that there are at least a dozen others here who remember seeing those pitiful images even before I was born. 
Why are we doing the humanitarian thing now? Why not way back when? I'll tell ya why. Because the "owners" of this country did not see doing that as being in their best intere$t. There was going to be no money made in doing the "right thing". There was nothing to compete for in order to make a tidy profit. 
Oh but now China is interested and to me it's like the 3 year old that sees some other little kid playing with a toy that they just tossed away 45 seconds ago and now that 3 year old wants it back! Mine! Mine! Mine! 

Genocide is a terrible, horrible thing (oh did we protest too loudly at Stalin, and the boys in communist Russia at the time for slaughtering millions of jews after WW2... did we send troops over there?)... and it should be stopped... stopped by the people who are being killed. America's colonies have shown the way back in the 1700's what to do when being oppressed by a superior military force. Fight back, kick their asses out of there and set up their own government. Something I think that the Egyptians and Lybians are doing today. If a people are being oppressed long enough, they'll get sick and tired and either die off or fight back. 
We got our own trouble right here in River City. We're about to go into bankruptcy court as an entire nation. I think we need to take care of what's going on right here at home before we go off helping others that we cannot $$$AFFORD$$$ to help. All we're doing is borrowing the money to help others. 
Oh, those folks will pay us back... yeah just like France, and all those other countries we helped out (during and after WWII) have paid us back in full for rebuilding their war-torn countries. 

So as long as they do it to themselves, it's awfully damned okay.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 11, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> Morally NO it's NOT okay ... but is it ok for us to arbitrarily decide (when) we need to stop them? I've said they've been doing to themselves for centuries. They've gone to war with each other, captured prisoners sold them as slaves, slaughtered entire villages/tribes for _centuries,_ even way before da whyte man showed up on their continent.
> And *now* we decide to *do* something about it? C'mon.  We've known about the war-lords stealing shipments of food that our "feed the world" charities have been sending them for *decades* and did we try to police that? Seems that it would've made bigger headlines than now, wouldn't it?
> "Eat your dinner, there are starving people in Africa". That's been a cliche for rich-well-fed white children in America to clean their plates for decades. It was even a fricken punchline. Done famously by Sam Kinison ("you think one of the film crew would give the kid a sandwich but the director is screaming "Don't feed 'em yet! It won't work unless he looks hungry!"). Yet it was a serious problem.  He even provided an idea on solving the problem and it was, when you think about it a legitimate one. Move them out of the famine zones. Huh? Oh right the towns, cities, and agricultural areas were war-torn centers of conflict for the war-lords stealing the food to buy weapons.
> I remember as a kid (I'm 50 now so do the math okay), seeing pictures on t.v. , of starving little kids, naked in the hot sun, flies all over their faces, in the arms of their starving mothers and the vultures hanging around waiting for the next course to die off. I remember this as a kid okay? I was seeing this genocide go on even then.
> ...


First of all, you weren't witnessing genocide when you saw the kids with the flies on their face. Those starving people, in Ethiopia, are actually Nomads, and are not claimed by any country. Feeding the problem is seen as growing the problem by all those wicked governments, and it probably would. The problem here in the US, is that we have declared ourselves to fight genocide, and we can't simply sit back and say, its a "Black thing" and get away with it, anymore. 
Sean


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2012)

Millions of Jews killed _after_ the Second World War?

America *lent* money to the UK and other countries during the war, not *gave*. It received payment back complete with interest from us. Our last payment was on 31st December 2006, it was for $83m. America also loaned money to Mussolini and to China during the war, whether you got that back I don't know but the Allies paid their loans back.

Some of the loans from the First World War weren't paid back because of the Wall Street collapse which started a worldwide recession however America was the only country that made it out due to selling arms and equipment to all sides at the beginning of the Second World War, then later when it had comein on the Allies side it made loans to the Allies, as far as I'm aware no loans are outstanding from this and that includes the money lent to France.

MA Caver rather than being bitter I'd have a look at the facts.

This isn't an anti American attack btw, I believe that Americans do understand that we were and are Allies and above the bitterness shown here.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 11, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> First of all, you weren't witnessing genocide when you saw the kids with the flies on their face. Those starving people, in Ethiopia, are actually Nomads, and are not claimed by any country. Feeding the problem is seen as growing the problem by all those wicked governments, and it probably would. The problem here in the US, is that we have declared ourselves to fight genocide, and we can't simply sit back and say, its a "Black thing" and get away with it, anymore.
> Sean



It WAS genocide... those people were nomadic by being forced out of their lands by the same group of warlords that are waging terror today. Why don't those people keep nomading about to areas where there is food? They can't because there are large groups of heavily armed men who are keeping them out of those areas. Saddam did the same thing with the Kurds. Oh did we help them? Probably ... as a byproduct of trying to seize control of his country and implanting our idea of a civilized society by invading his country. 
It's not a "black thing" I never said that. The Chinese did it to their own as well. Killing millions of their own people. Did we go and send in troops to help them out? That's been going on for centuries too... geez. It's not a racial thing it's a societal thing. Individual societies have a right to determine what to do with the people that are a part of that society. We holler and scream "that's wrong! what they're doing is wrong!" ... by whose standards? Theirs? Or ours? 
Do we have the right to impose our standards of right and wrong on a people that would just as soon leave us alone and get on with their own lives? 

Our motives are ulterior not altruistic, they always have been... especially the people with the money and the power to actually make an immediate difference... like having the ability to send 3000 armed and equipped troops.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 11, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> Our motives are ulterior not altruistic, they always have been... especially the people with the money and the power to actually make an immediate difference... like having the ability to send 3000 armed and equipped troops.



:nods: That's the Great Game, or a facet of it at least.  There's nothing moral about it but it is *a*moral rather than *im*moral.  The 'Houses' don't care who lives or dies or whether something virtuous is expunged and something vile flourishes, just as long as it services their current agenda.

There's not a lot we as ordinary people can do about it because, at it's root, it is not political in the sense that it is something a democratic vote can affect.  It is the ebb and flow of real power, rather than the shadow game the the Left, the Centre and the Right play out.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 11, 2012)

Oh and China's involvement in Africa is not a selfless one either.  Some of the African nations are already regretting some of the deals they cut to get the ball rolling towards industrial wealth as opposed to exploited mineral wealth.

That said, commercial interests will get more done, more quickly, than any aid agency ever will (I am profoundly against aid as it is commonly seen by the way, for it promulgates dependence rather than independence).  I posted up a link a couple of weeks ago of a talk by an entrepreneur who is involved in this sort of capitalisation of the developing countries.  He gave the example of a road being built that took something like twenty years to happen ... and the Chinese businessmen got one built in two (the numbers are likely wrong but the principle is clear).


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 11, 2012)

granfire said:


> Iraq Remove Saddam's regime from power - ah, but the plan was to kill Bin Laden. That was so not in the plan!



well because...Saddam destroyed the World Trade Center...


----------



## granfire (Jun 11, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> well because...Saddam destroyed the World Trade Center...




LOL, nah, Bin Laden did.

Like that old joke about the drunk crawling around under a street light looking for his car keys. a passerby asks him if he lost them thre, willing to help looking.
'Nah' says the drunk, I lost them back there in the Alley, but it's too dark to see anything.
Saddam was just a bunch of keys under the street light. Didn't even match the car.


----------



## granfire (Jun 11, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Oh and China's involvement in Africa is not a selfless one either.  Some of the African nations are already regretting some of the deals they cut to get the ball rolling towards industrial wealth as opposed to exploited mineral wealth.
> 
> That said, commercial interests will get more done, more quickly, than any aid agency ever will (I am profoundly against aid as it is commonly seen by the way, for it promulgates dependence rather than independence).  I posted up a link a couple of weeks ago of a talk by an entrepreneur who is involved in this sort of capitalisation of the developing countries.  He gave the example of a road being built that took something like twenty years to happen ... and the Chinese businessmen got one built in two (the numbers are likely wrong but the principle is clear).



I don't think 'aid' was ever meant to further independence. 

Also in the past 'aid' has done as much to destroy the social structures as colonialism.
Like a group comes into a village, teaches the men how to use tractors in the fields, takes the best fields for the purpose. Of course the tractors will have to be bought at great expense....
Bad thing is though, traditionally the women were doing the field work. They are not taught how to use the machinery and they have been strippedof their best fields.....


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 11, 2012)

granfire said:


> LOL, nah, Bin Laden did.
> 
> Like that old joke about the drunk crawling around under a street light looking for his car keys. a passerby asks him if he lost them thre, willing to help looking.
> 'Nah' says the drunk, I lost them back there in the Alley, but it's too dark to see anything.
> Saddam was just a bunch of keys under the street light. Didn't even match the car.




I like that, that's good, and so appropriate in this case.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> It WAS genocide... those people were nomadic by being forced out of their lands by the same group of warlords that are waging terror today. Why don't those people keep nomading about to areas where there is food? They can't because there are large groups of heavily armed men who are keeping them out of those areas. Saddam did the same thing with the Kurds. Oh did we help them? Probably ... as a byproduct of trying to seize control of his country and implanting our idea of a civilized society by invading his country.
> It's not a "black thing" I never said that. The Chinese did it to their own as well. Killing millions of their own people. Did we go and send in troops to help them out? That's been going on for centuries too... geez. It's not a racial thing it's a societal thing. Individual societies have a right to determine what to do with the people that are a part of that society. We holler and scream "that's wrong! what they're doing is wrong!" ... by whose standards? Theirs? Or ours?
> Do we have the right to impose our standards of right and wrong on a people that would just as soon leave us alone and get on with their own lives?
> 
> Our motives are ulterior not altruistic, they always have been... especially the people with the money and the power to actually make an immediate difference... like having the ability to send 3000 armed and equipped troops.



You might like to look at what the Turks are doing to the Kurds. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/05/turkey.iantraynor
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/pub...al-quarterly/turkey/kurdish-repression-turkey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incirlik_Air_Base

When you say China killed millions of their own, they weren't always their 'own' there's a lot of different people in China, they aren't all the same people. There's 56 ethnic groups in China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 12, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You might like to look at what the Turks are doing to the Kurds. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/05/turkey.iantraynor
> http://www.culturalsurvival.org/pub...al-quarterly/turkey/kurdish-repression-turkey
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incirlik_Air_Base
> ...


I hardly consider the Africans one big race either. I love the "own people" vibe; that makes it all sound like "their problem".


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 12, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> When you say China killed millions of their own, they weren't always their 'own' there's a lot of different people in China, they aren't all the same people. There's 56 ethnic groups in China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China


Yeah I realize that. Still it's mass murder by any other name, only complaints have been through non-diplomatic channels. 

Either way I've of mind that we here, in America anyway need to focus more upon our own. We've got starving people here, unemployment, businesses going bankrupt and lots of other problems that could be focused on and billions of dollars that could be better spent on improving upon the half-handed solutions to our problems... money better spent than feeding the war machine and bleeding the lives out of our young men and women.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> I hardly consider the Africans one big race either. I love the "own people" vibe; that makes it all sound like "their problem".




It does and it also makes it sound as if the rest of the world has nothing to do with what has been going on. The airily waved hand and the languid drawl of 'the poor are always with us' and the instant dismissal of that thought as we move onto the next big fashion.

Blaming 'the Africans' and 'the Chinese' absolves others from any complicity in what went on there, to say that the only complaints have been through no diplomatic sources is simplistic, it doesn't suit some countries,the bigger more powerful ones, to listen to those countries who do complain. Of course it depends when these deaths that MA-Caver speaks of occurred, to speak so generally of murders in Russia, China and Africa is to show no awareness of their histroy and problems. In Africa was it the Belgian's massacre of locals in Congo or the German's massacre for example......


----------

