Controversial U.S. Africa command launches
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Israel blames Iran for series of blasts
( 17 )
-
Obama: Strong U.S.-China ties help rest of the world
( 3 )
-
Santorum surging in Republican presidential race
( 10 )
-
Private funeral Saturday for Whitney Houston
( 2 )
-
Egyptian minister's remarks stoke tensions with U.S.
( 3 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
30 Comments
Login to comment
0
OgieDoggie
Who else would you want to be dictating foreign policy...certainly not civilians...they just want to cause wars.
0
Everton2
9 billion spending on what??
0
rjd_jr
As per usual, "strategic interests" mean OIL.
0
SezWho2
OgieDoggie,
I don't think it's true that civilians want to cause wars any more than military strategists. I think there is even a reasonable argument that the reverse is true. Militaries are encultured with the concept of "enemy" and powerful people will always want to prove that they have received the full benefits of that culture. Thus they will look for pretexts for war.
In any event, if the concern is true that "U.S. foreign policy is being dictated almost entirely by the Department of Defense" and if military conduct of foreign policy is the desired state of things, we have only to look at the last 7 years to judge how satisfying our foreign policy has been.
0
neverknow2
There must be oil there somewhere if the US is sticking its nose in.
0
rjd_jr
Moeller added that “a secure and stable Africa is very, very much in U.S strategic interests.”
Indeed, West Africa’s Gulf of Guinea already supplies more crude oil to the U.S. than the Persian Gulf.
Indeed. All those suffering souls and inhumane atrocities in places like Dafur and the U.S. government couldn't care less. Yet the minute oil supplies are remotely threatened or the prospect of oil fields is mentioned, all of a sudden you have 'Africa Command.'
Un-freaking-believable.
0
Sarge
"There must be oil there somewhere if the US is sticking its nose in"
Or, there must be poor, starving people there if the US is giving millions of dollars in aid.
0
TheNewFed
I agree with Sarge.
America has done and will contine to do great unselfish deeds for the continent.
0
SuperLib
There's nothing we could possibly do to Africa that Europe hasn't already done a hundred times over.
0
bushlover
Isn't this what Bono wanted though? Stop the whining about it. It's all Bono's fault if anything goes wrong. He wished for it.
0
reddragonguy
This is a struggle between China and US. Chinese has setting up many bridge head in African countries like Sudan,Congo, Angola,Zimbawe to trade with africans for natural resources. The americans came to africa has nothong to do with helping Africans or glbal security but greeding the natural resources over there! The Africomm is just aa purpose to steal Chinese investment over there and took it by their own! Thieves!
0
reddragonguy
America has done and will contine to do great unselfish deeds for the continent
Really? Or it was just another attempt to get oil by force like thefting in Iraq?
0
Everton2
Sarge: Can you seriously name one country in Africa, where the US has seriously got involved in terms of providing financial assistance, and it has sensibly improved the material life of the citizens or even the local economy? The answer is zero. The US foreign policy as stated in the article is driven by the fear of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. When you operate from a position of fear is is unlikely that your assessment of the situation is going to based on any rationality.
0
reddragonguy
The US foreign policy as stated in the article is driven by the fear of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.
It was a myth...the real objective was acquiring the resources from poor countries in an extra low prices no differences like looting and benefiting on their own!
0
reddragonguy
Washington’s Cold War legacy of supporting brutal dictators
Oh...what a shame! this is how the greatest western democracy works!
0
Sarge
Everton2 - "Can you seriously name one country in Africa where the US has seriously got involved in terms of providing financial assistance"
Lessee... we've given billions to Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia... speaking of Somalia, we've spilled the blood of our soldiers trying to help those people there...
0
chibaman
We've. How much of that was your money and your blood Sarge?
0
chibaman
At least they haven't invaded yet.
0
Sarge
chibaman - When talking about your fellow countrymen, people often use "we." Didn't you know that?
0
chibaman
So your answer is zero? How about going over instead of waxing lyrical on these pages and taking credit (if there is any to be taken) for something other people are doing? Or now that you've been in Japan for a while do you just lump hundreds of millions of people into one basket?
Moderator: Back on topic please.
0
Sarge
chibaman - How's this: My fellow Americans have given billions to Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia... speaking of Somalia, American soldiers have spilled their blood trying to help those people over there...
0
chibaman
Fine.
0
memyselfI
Africa is the richest country in the world. Diamonds,Slaves,Oil,Gold and other shiny objects of desire. Africa has been pillaged since the beginning of time. Even Hitler tried to take over Africa why ? For it's resources !!!! These people need our help, not a cruise missle. Look at Somalia. Military action is not the answer. Let's look at other means of liberating these people.
0
memyselfI
Africa is a mess, it will take decades to restore the continent.
0
taniwha
Help them like how? Liberating them from their puppet leaders? Weren't a significant number installed into power with the aid of serious money and military aid from countries like the USA, France, and China, and then had their policies virtually written for them with the 'aid' of Capitalist institutions like the IMF, and the World Bank? Oh, wait up didn't that word 'military' pop up again. Yes, but that's military aid.
So anyway there's all those despot leaders trained by the foreign interests to serve the economic interests of rich and powerful foreign states. Because as you say, Africa is stonking rich in natural resources, and most particularly in the form of mineral wealth. But those despots, the Mugabe's etc, they are proving a bit embarrassing these days. We could either shore them up, militarily or else just replace them.
Because unless you are talking about China there isn't a lot of finance we are able to help them out with. Military aid, yeah, now there's something we can help out with. And here are our terms...
0
taniwha
But isn't the War on Terror a treat? Eh? It is the all round ticket to be anywhere imperialism needs to be, to knock out any obstacles to being anywhere imperialism needs to be. That War on Terror legitimates just about any assault on the rights of entire countries and the individuals within them. Its a perfect reason to be in Africa. And maybe even, soon to be in a venue near you.
Then again there is the positive side to the War on Terror, paid work and in exotic locations. Join the cue to the draft office, soon to open at a venue near you. You too can be in Africa by next year, or Afghanistan.
0
Alphaape
Africa is not a country. It is a continent composed of 53 different countries.
US policy has been negligent of Africa in past years, and a lot of the problems that are there are not directly caused by America. Yes America was taking part in the slave trade in the 18th century, but to take a look at the mess that is ripe in African countries would probably have to do with the vestiges of colonialism from when England, Belgium, France, Germany and other European nations were exploiting the people and the resouces.
Whenever you have this many people with so corrupt governments, you will find it an easier building ground for terror groups to get inroads in trying to gain soldiers to carry on their fight. In a way, I would rather a nation like the US go there, and at least try to train people to better themselves, rather than have a group of people go there and fill them with hatred. By the way, China is starting to play a greater role in the area.
0
taniwha
Alphaape
Colonialism is not OWNED by England and Europe.
Today colonialism is associated with the US, and that is simply because in terms of scale alone it is the US imperialist adventures abroad that stands out. To find a colonialist enterprises that compares with that of the US undertaking in Iraq and Afghanistan (the two standouts at this time) and in Indo-China in the 1960's and early 1970's and in South America particularly during the 1960's, 70's and 80's you'd have to look at England at the height of its empire, or perhaps go back as far as to the Roman Empire.
So the US is the very last foreign power that African states need interfering in their affairs, almost at any level.
You have learnt nothing from the US invasion of Iraq. The numbers of insurgents in the Middle East have grown far far larger than before the US attacked Iraq. And lets be clear about another point, terrorism is not confined to the actions of individual rag tag self appointed militants. Terrorism is also a tactic of the state. And the greatest source of terror in this world at this time is unquestionably not hijackers on a plane, it is Washington! The policies to have emerged out of the Whitehouse in the decades since WW2 have killed more millions, and cowed entire populations of countries.
You really need to think a little bit deeper before you post on these topics.
0
Alphaape
taniwha, I actually do read a lot and could go a bit deeper on the subject. But I view this forum as a point to put out comments. Maybe mine are right, maybe they are wrong, but they are just my opinion.
So tell me this, are you saying that the number of insurgents before the US re-invaded Iraq (remember, they had violated 17 sanctions that the UN had imposed,and according to the treaty that was signed in the UN, the US had a right to use force. Was the force used in the proper way, I would say that it wasn't, but like it or not they were justified in going in), was adequate. They were small enough and could cause just enough damage that it was a concern but not too big of a concern?
To say that Wahington is the greatest sorce of terror in the world to day causes me to question the objectivity of your post. Has the political situation in Washington caused bad results, yes it has. But we are not acting alone. Tell me please how many of the two-bit dictators that at one time were aligned with the US, and then moved over to the Soviet side to play both the US and the USSR during the Cold War for money and guns and other sources of wealth that were not given to the people but the ruling class. Also, take a closer look at what is going on off the Somali coast now. The ship that is hijacked is carrying a load of Russian T-72 tanks, equipment and ammo to Kenya. Last I checked, I thought Kenya was in the US camp, but I guess the Russians would want to just make a quick buck. Also if you would read a bit further, you would see that in most instances when the US sells arms to other nations, they like to put little clauses in them that make sure that these weapons would not be used in acts of aggression against their neghbors unless attacked. If so, then they would not be able to get spare parts and technical assistance from the US companies that made the weapons. An example, when the Iranians invaded Iraq in the 80's they did not get any spare parts for their F-14's (US made) that they had from the US. So if Kenya is buying Russian T-72's, then I guess the peace and stability of Africa is probably not as great as one might think.
Back to top