• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Sending Troops to South Sudan

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
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.
 
The history of Sudan and South Sudan is probably one of the worst tragedies of this and the past century.
 
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.

I agree with that, getting involved there would be a nightmare we would never get out of.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Hint: the last batch we sent was 45 troops and they had at least 4 casualties.

That's pretty high, almost 10%. If we sent 150, would there be 15 casualties, or would they be intimidating enough to discourage attacks?
 
gee another failed african country,what a shock!!
 
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 ?
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 ?

Usually when a CON asked for an 'objective' opinion he usually means one agreeing with his opinion.

Many factors line up for why Africa was the nursery of mankind but utterly unable to produce a competitive advanced civilization to keep the Europeans from carving the continent up like a Christmas goose. Those powers divided the continent up not according to tribe or affiliation but by vague maps using rivers as boundaries instead of focal points. Throw in the great powers keeping the continent divided in their world wide power struggle, the people divided both with-in tribes and social classes, it was messy. Then a cold war where neither super power cared about the character of the general they backed, just if he was a Marxist tyrant or capitalist one.

These days countries without resources we wish to exploit sit in benign neglect, those with resources we demand follow the same old pattern of we supporting the guy who grants our corporations sweet trade deals. I'd say while all humans can trace a line back to Africa, a lack of a strong linage in more modern times hinders it's development.
 
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.

In other words, any nation that is populated by N****s.

Is that really what you wanted to say?
 
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.

Gladly. South Africa.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

All of the extremely high crime and corruption in South Africa today can be directly linked to the corrupt and incompetent ANC (African National Congress) who have been in power since 1994. That's the same ANC that was listed as a terrorist organization and was allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
 
Why the hell do we continue to have personnel in hell-holes such as that? All of this can be avoided by leaving the rest of the world to their own devices.

I'll tell you one thing, our financial woes would disappear if we stopped playing uncle war-bucks for all the forsaken places on this planet.
 
Their African intellectuals should be given a say in how to keep it together rather than fight with one another. Decision makers should not only rely on stupid, brave, corrupt generals.
 
The real reason why the U.S. is suddenly so interested:

South Sudan oil fields could be targeted, says Sudan

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.

We don't do anything unless it serves us.
 
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.

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.
 
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...
 
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...

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:

If things devolve much, 73 additional troops aren't going to cut it. There probably six months out from Evacuating everyone anyways.
 
Back
Top Bottom