Obama Sends 100 US Troops to Uganda to Help Combat Lord’s Resistance Army

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Catatafish, Oct 14, 2011.

  1. Wtf?

    You think because someone gets shot or stabbed they always die?

    Are you fucking serious?

    Why are we even responding to this guy? Seriously.
     

  2. You're generalizing. You started out making a statement and then turned it into an opinion. Think of it like this, people who want guns are just sad and pathetic. They may think that you, who smokes, is sad and pathetic. What's the difference? Ignorance. Why should I not be allowed to protect myself? Why should you not be able to smoke a natural plant? Do you understand?
     

  3. You could take all the the weapons away in the world, people are still going to kill each other. If you really want to bring the murder rate down you have to change the way people think, from violence, to non-violence. Criminals who want a gun are always going to get a gun, so why not have one legally so you can actually protect yourself instead of putting you life in the hands of the person who has a major advantage over you and knows it.

    But like I said, the ways of thinking have to change before there is truly an improvement in society.
     
  4. Personally I think you're the weird one. How can you be pro-violence and peace?. Its a huge contradiction, and knowing our history it would be much better for these people is we NEVER get involved. Every damn time we get involved, "Liberating", the only people who lose are the innocents.

    Wars never decide who is right only who is left
    No, the role of government is defined by the Constitution.
     
  5. So what?

    And?

    Yes, that's what I said. As in what I think personally, regardless of what the laws are, etc.

    First, not only do I not care, but I realize that's the opinion of most people. To answer your question, there is no difference in the sense that both are personal opinions. But, the purpose of guns are to kill, and not merely slightly less known are the benefits of cannabis. There is only ignorance in the understanding on one of the two, just ask any small child for example.

    Like I said before, I'm not for the government taking away the right for people to own a gun (but maybe just an allowed single handgun would be better than a $15,000 mp5 that can fire 100 rounds per second). Would I rather guns be illegal and marijuana be legalized, rather than vice versa like it is in reality? Yeah, I guess. And before I answer your questions, I'm going to assume that you subscribe to political/ideological beliefs (RP 2012) that think it's wrong to deny anyone the personal freedom of owning a gun or a tank for that matter. But, even if you're allowed to do something under the law, and the last I checked it's not difficult to get a gun.. That doesn't mean you shouldn't think for yourself and be opposed to those that make those 'sad and pathetic' decisions. Now I ask you, the same question, "Do you understand?" In the same way if heroin is legalized, let's not defend heroin like you're doing with guns.

    If you love guns personally, I apologize for my assumptions about your beliefs, and really do feel more sorry for you. But to answer your questions about not being allowed to protect yourself or smoke a natural plant. I don't think most gun owners need a gun to protect themselves. And I really wish everyone that owned a gun wanted only to use it in severe acts of self defense. About smoking a natural plant, I think you should be able to.. and I think if the benefits of smoking cannabis (to a considerable minority of people) were widely known, it would be legal.
     
  6. Ha, ok.

    I'm not pro-violence, and I am pro-peace. Let me be clear, I do not support the past wars in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Under a tyrannical fascist government, like nazi Germany or in Iraq, the people will not stop fighting until the very end. Those in Iraq still had hope for the return of their state until the very moment they saw Hussein hanged. What I am saying is, if there is a person out there in the world, a human being just like you me and everyone else... And he murders hundreds of thousands of people, slaughters children, and so on... I don't give a fuck about politics at that point. If the US military or anyone else can lead an expidition that will put an end to the brutality by killing just one or a few that are guilty of crimes against humanity, then good. Occupying another country, and getting involved with small militia gun battles, bombing weapon facilities, etc I am not in favor of.


    I don't know.. I'm not much of a historian but I think there were plenty of people thankful we intervened by going to war with Germany. It's hard for me to go back that far and speculate, but I assume millions more people would have been put to death if we didn't.
     

  7. Man you sure are being condescending for someone who is all about love and compassion.

    Your heart is in the right place. Yeah, it'd be great if women weren't raped and children weren't killed and people weren't murdered. However, you just have to realize what you want isn't even remotely feasible. Here's a sad fact: the world we live sucks. There will always be murders. Do you think the only reason someone has ever shot someone was because they had a gun? No, its because they wanted to inflict harm on that person. Regardless if that person had a handgun or a fucking pointy stick, he was going to hurt that other person.

    I know you may be thinking "Well a gun is designed for killing, and is way more efficient at doing so." You'd obviously be correct. But when you restrict gun ownership you really only keep it out of the hands of people who may actually need them for protection. Someone pointed out the alcohol prohibition putting the control of alcohol in the hands of criminals. The same thing would happen with guns. The people who could actually use them for protection are fucked out of that protection, and the criminal now feels more emboldened by his weapon because he now knows he can hold up any sorry law-abiding saps house and not have to worry jack shit about being shot at.

    The term mutually assured destruction I think applies here as well. Think of all the countries who have nuclear weapons. Countries disagree and fight all the time. And they both know they could blow each other off the map with their nuclear arms. But they don't, because they know the country they're in a fight with can do the same thing right back at them. Now just apply that to guns. People would be much more wary about brandishing a weapon on someone if they know that person is also packing heat.

    Gun control only makes sense until you stop thinking with your heart and starting using your head. I know, its shitty that the best thing a country can do to protect its citizens is give everyone access to guns (obviously not EVERYONE, but you know what I mean), but thats the world we live in.
     

  8. thats racist :eek:

    well ik you're probably not serious, lol. but still a little bit
     
  9. is a troop 1 guy?

    cuz 100 guys aint so bad.
     

  10. There is a bigger agenda at work here.

    Atrocities will be committed. History repeats itself.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V86WDZTZDcg]The UN Deception Part 2 of 5 - YouTube[/ame]
     
  11. This will only result in US interest prevailing over the Ugandan peoples interests.

    I think we need a resurrection of the international brigade too stop these things.
     
  12. #52 leanpocket, Oct 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2011
    I have an acquaintance around Campus who is a foreign exchange student from Uganda, and I finally ran into him today and the things he told me are things that will not be found in the news.

    The President of Uganda is a dictator of 25 years, yet we help him. He rigs elections and abolished the time frame for President, WHY ARE WE HELPING HIM? The fighting in Uganda is very minimal but the LRA does exsist but killing and injustices do not happen everyday. The LRA has been around for years but why is the corrupt leader now taking action? OIL was recently discovered in Western Uganda. Ugandan ministers paid senators and the like of the USA for oil deals. Those Ugandan ministers are on trial in Uganda, but they all know they are the dictators 'friends' and will not be charged with anything. Possibly a lot more but this is all I can really remember for the time being.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/10/14/uganda-interior-minister-to-resign-amid-oil-probe/

    Yes I linked Fox news. But a google search of "Uganda top 10 in corruption" brought this up in the first few queries.
     
  13. :(

    I think the opposite. I agree with your point that if someone wants to hurt the other, it doesn't matter if they have a gun or a pointy stick, to some degree. Like I said about murder, it's been a part of life since the beginning of western history (far before guns). It's the non-emotional and rational part of me that reasons if guns weren't readily available, part of our culture, and so on, the murder rate, statistically, would be much lower. I would also add that all things are dangerous depending on how you look at them, a knife as a weapon or for chopping vegetables and a gun for revenge or to protect yourself.

    Anyways, like I said before I'm not for the government taking away guns, but let's consider it anyways, because there are plenty of people who do. I don't think it can be compared to prohibition, because during the time of prohibition it was common for people to distill alcohol in their own home or to know a neighbor (literally) that did. On the other hand, the amount of people that can craft a gun from a block of steel is pretty low. To say, 'if you really wanted a gun you'd find a way to get one', is somewhere between saying someone who wanted alcohol during prohibition would get it and someone who today wants their own personal nuclear bomb can get one. Like I said, you can just look at the UK to compare how hard it would be to get one, and while you're at it compare gun violence statistics.
     

  14. Again showing that you are both Pro-Violence and Pro-Peace.

    People die man, life is shitty as fuck and there's nothing we can do besides add to the death total. I'd rather these troops be allocated to border towns to protect Americans first, then sent off to yet another backwards country in the middle of nowhere at the cost of taxpayers because some Corporation has an interest out there needing protection.

    And how long ago was WWII? 70 years ago? Wasn't it also an actual war with clearly defined sides and enemies? We have set up quite a track record since then sir, and I suggest you read up on it.
     

  15. Homie, you make ZERO sense and I'm not even baked. I'd give it another read-through but it'd be a waste of time. And no, I'm to a subscriber to anything.
     
  16. I'm against America nation building but fully support any effort by our military to prevent genocide.

    Sometimes you have to use your power to do the right thing.
     

  17. Oh there ya go...talking old school patriotic American virtue and humanitarian common sense and all...that's just sooooo anti-USSA of you...our DC overlords are not pleased...:p
     
  18. Ya, at least our country isn't broke and we can afford adventures like this.
     
  19. If you allow genocide when you can prevent it makes you partially responsible.

    What makes a country great is doing what's right not just personal freedoms and wealth.

    God bless America? When we stand and watch genocide? I don't think so.
     

  20. Obama didn't fix it either.

    Obama = J.R Hoover Jr.
     

Share This Page