Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

CuteOldGuy · 10-17-2011, 12:43 AM

We should be out of the UN, but that is another thread.

I don't think we are selling equipment to Uganda, we are sending it there. On our tab.

TexTushHog · 10-17-2011, 03:10 AM

Strictly speaking it's a sale. The U.S. government loans the money to the Ugandan government (and may or may not get repaid) and the Ugandan government buys it from the defense contractor. At least that's the way it usually works.

gnadfly · 10-17-2011, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trynagetlaid

... if these troops get in trouble, how far away is help? Is there a country close by where a UN peacekeeping force is present?

From what I can tell a UN peacekeeping force is not very effective. They drive around in their armored personnel carriers watching the natives kill each other while hoping not to be shot by an RPG.

LexusLover · 10-17-2011, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnadfly

...hoping not to be shot by an RPG.

What have you said about "hope"?

Lately the U.N. has been an excuse (sorry one at that) to seek the "international" approval of what needs to be done, and can be done, irrespective of what the other wimp countries on this Earth "feel."

In the short haul, and the long haul, the U.S. foots the bill anyway.

CuteOldGuy · 10-17-2011, 10:44 AM

So what are the chances that Uganda will pay us back? What strategic interest does the US have in Uganda which warrants increasing our debt, and more importantly, justifies telling parents that their child was killed in the defense of his country?

I B Hankering · 10-17-2011, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So what are the chances that Uganda will pay us back? What strategic interest does the US have in Uganda which warrants increasing our debt, and more importantly, justifies telling parents that their child was killed in the defense of his country?

It was probably a rhetorical question, but if not: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1012663.html

LexusLover · 10-17-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

... justifies telling parents that their child was killed in the defense of his country?

I certainly hope the U.S. is not sending a "child" to defend this country.

May be a son or daughter, but no children. Men and women only.

TheDaliLama · 10-17-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

......Men and women only.

You left out WTF.

LexusLover · 10-17-2011, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

You left out WTF.

He's fronting the men and women. Otherwise, how could we afford it?

CuteOldGuy · 10-17-2011, 02:52 PM

I have three grown children. Each one is still my child.

LexusLover · 10-17-2011, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I have three grown children. Each one is still my child.

That wasn't my point, and I do not believe it was yours.

I have consistent DNA with mine, and my grandchildren, but if mine had entered the military I would no longer have considered mine "a child," and if and when my grandchildren enter the military they will be grandsons and granddaughters ... and I will be proud of them for their service to this country whether they all return, some do, or none do.

It is not for me to decide whether they should go to this war or that one, it is for them to follow their lawful orders, remain focused on doing the best they can with the hand they are dealt, and to make every effort to accomplish the lawful tasks they are assigned in furtherance of their lawful duty. I will accept the consequenes, even if that only means a flag.

CuteOldGuy · 10-17-2011, 05:23 PM

The key word is "lawful". We haven't been involved in a "lawful" war since WWII. And we certainly have no interest in Uganda. I deeply respect and admire our servicewomen and men, and it breaks my heart to see them coming home permanently injured or dead, pursuing the interest of political power and corporate profit. They need a Commander in Chief who loves America more than power and profit.

anaximander · 10-17-2011, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnadfly

From what I can tell a UN peacekeeping force is not very effective. They drive around in their armored personnel carriers watching the natives kill each other while hoping not to be shot by an RPG.

Yeah or raping children in the nations
they are obstensively protecting.

The target of sheik hussein's action is a group
called the Combat Lord's Resistance Army.
This group has been the only significant
combatant of the muslim militias in
Somalia and Sudan. Removing the CLRA
would be a great benefit to the muslim
militias. Sheik Hussein is showing
his true color and loyalties.
American soldiers will kill christians to
serve a greater muslim good.

The elimination of Soros' competition
for access to Ugandan oil is a 2fer
the minion serves his master well.

TexTushHog · 10-17-2011, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So what are the chances that Uganda will pay us back? What strategic interest does the US have in Uganda which warrants increasing our debt, and more importantly, justifies telling parents that their child was killed in the defense of his country?

Slim and none, on pay back. And no significant strategic interest, in my mind. But as I pointed out earlier, I'm not that concerned with $45M in arms. That's not even a rounding error in the budget. Troops on the other hand are very worrisome.

CuteOldGuy · 10-17-2011, 11:58 PM

Maybe if we quit turning our head at these "insignificant" outlays, we might have a better chance of bringing the budget under control. Considering this money has to be borrowed from China and others, it is not insignificant.

If you take care of your pennies, your dollars will take care of themselves - Ben Franklin (I think).