- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Washington is getting in deeper: About 150 US troops are heading toward South Sudan today to help secure the US embassy and evacuate more Americans from the war-torn country, military officials said. The troops will likely first travel to Djibouti via Spain, CNN reports. The move follows a letter from President Obama to Congress yesterday saying he would take "further action" to protect US interests in Sudan. The State Department flew out 15 Americans yesterday from the flashpoint town of Bor.
South Sudan officials say that Bentiu, the capital of an important oil-producing state, has been seized by rebels. "Bentiu is not currently in our hands," the government tweeted. "It is in the hands of a commander who has declared support" for former Vice President Riek Machar. An official said that People's Liberation Army troops were headed for Bentiu, as well as Bor, to take control. President Salva Kiir blames the crisis on a power grab by troops committed to Machar, his longtime rival.
Source @: US Sending Troops to South Sudan - Americans there need more protection, says President Obama
Troops being sent to South Sudan to add more protection to the US embassy. Seems like a logical action to take when the this is becoming more and more out of the competing sides hands. [/FONT][/COLOR]
If all they are doing is loading the people on planes and getting out of there I agree. I have a sense that is not the full story though.
As long as 150 soldiers sent to protect the embassy and help evacuate civilians doesn't become 150,000 sent to set the nation right and start a decade plus long nation building project, then I'm all for it.
Hint: the last batch we sent was 45 troops and they had at least 4 casualties.
Probably a combination tribal conflicts that go back centuries and proper access to necessary resources. And if anyone wants to argue that Africa was best off under British rule, the only people who flourished in Africa during colonialism were the landowners.Anyone want to offer up a Objective opinion on why so many African Countries are so corrupt and mismanaged ?
Anyone want to offer up a Objective opinion on why so many African Countries are so corrupt and mismanaged ?
Anyone want to offer up a Objective opinion on why so many African Countries are so corrupt and mismanaged ?
its a simple answer, having african run africa is like having a bunch of 10 year olds running the grade school they attend, if anybody wants to argue just show me one african country that isnt a complete and utter chaotic and violent mess.and if you want you want,can throw haiti on to that pile also.
its a simple answer, having african run africa is like having a bunch of 10 year olds running the grade school they attend, if anybody wants to argue just show me one african country that isnt a complete and utter chaotic and violent mess.and if you want you want,can throw haiti on to that pile also.
its a simple answer, having african run africa is like having a bunch of 10 year olds running the grade school they attend, if anybody wants to argue just show me one african country that isnt a complete and utter chaotic and violent mess.and if you want you want,can throw haiti on to that pile also.
South Africa was doing alright until 1990.
It's easier to do 'alright' when you only have to concern yourself with maintaining a proper standard of living for 12-15% of the population while exploiting the labor and resources of the rest of the country.
December 23, 2013 (KHARTOUM) - Sudan’s foreign minister, Ali Ahmed Karti, has acknowledged that oil fields in South Sudan could be affected by the ongoing crisis and didn’t rule out that oil facilities in Unity state capital of Bentiu could be targeted by the conflicting parties.
The real reason why the U.S. is suddenly so interested:
South Sudan oil fields could be targeted, says Sudan
We don't do anything unless it serves us.
which does beg the question though,, what are "our interests" as the OP states.Oh the old boy who cried wolf, thinking just cause a country has oil, that's why we're involved. Well, hate to break it to you but that oil isn't ours anyways. The primary importers of Sudanese oil are Japan, China, South Korea, Indonesia, and India. In fact in 2006, the China National Petroleum Corporation upgraded the Khartoum refinery, doubling its capacity to 100,000 barrels per day (16,000 m3/d).
Nice try though.
which does beg the question though,, what are "our interests" as the OP states.
Timber and minerals too there, maybe we are trying to play catch up with the Chinese? just my guess though...
good guess.Ultimately, I think Obama doesn't want another Benghazi fiasco is why he's sending in backup.
good guess.
why not just withdrawl then?,,,oh yeah. we never do..:roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?