Obama's new African adventure: Hunting LRA

[WildCat]

Most empires in Africa were based on trade. Slavery was a form of trade, but one that required increased militarization of the population. Empires in Africa were not like their traditional western or Asian counterparts. War was not the primary unifying force. For the most part, trade, vital resources, or cultural exchange was the unifying force in Africa. That began to change with the arrival of Islam into Sub-Saharan Africa, and of course as previously mentioned western arrival and need for slaves.

I'm still calling BS. Warrior cultures in West Africa pre-date the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The Mali Empire, for example.

"Returning with the combined armies of Mema, Wagadou and all the rebellious Mandinka city-states, Maghan Sundiata led a revolt against the Kaniaga Kingdom around 1234. The combined forces of northern and southern Manden defeated the Sosso army at the Battle of Kirina (then known as Krina) in approximately 1235. This victory resulted in the fall of the Kaniaga kingdom and the rise of the Mali Empire. After the victory, King Soumaoro disappeared, and the Mandinka stormed the last of the Sosso cities. Maghan Sundiata was declared “faama of faamas” and received the title “mansa”, which translates roughly to emperor. At the age of 18, he gained authority over all the twelve kingdoms in an alliance known as the Manden Kurufa. He was crowned under the throne name Mari Djata becoming the first Mandinka emperor."

Sounds like West African empires were militarized and fighting each other for centuries before the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

 

[Toontown]

Just because there's oil there doesn't mean Obama is plotting to steal it.

Particularly when he shows no interest in the oceans of oil sitting right under his ass. Much of it under government land.

Perhaps he prefers it in small, imported sips. Or perhaps we're simply being assaulted by another wave of Jihad Jane propaganda.

Hide the women and children.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I'm still calling BS. Warrior cultures in West Africa pre-date the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The Mali Empire, for example.

"Returning with the combined armies of Mema, Wagadou and all the rebellious Mandinka city-states, Maghan Sundiata led a revolt against the Kaniaga Kingdom around 1234. The combined forces of northern and southern Manden defeated the Sosso army at the Battle of Kirina (then known as Krina) in approximately 1235. This victory resulted in the fall of the Kaniaga kingdom and the rise of the Mali Empire. After the victory, King Soumaoro disappeared, and the Mandinka stormed the last of the Sosso cities. Maghan Sundiata was declared “faama of faamas” and received the title “mansa”, which translates roughly to emperor. At the age of 18, he gained authority over all the twelve kingdoms in an alliance known as the Manden Kurufa. He was crowned under the throne name Mari Djata becoming the first Mandinka emperor."

Sounds like West African empires were militarized and fighting each other for centuries before the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

This proves nothing other than they had a revolt. The Ghana Empire united by trade. In fact the process of the Ghana Empire uniting were little more than kings agreeing with one another over control of vital roads.

And most people who "actually" know the history of the region know that the Sudanic Empires had little more than police for soldiers. The soldiers were not geared towards conquest. They had no other purpose than to guard the trade routes. When real armies came, they fell. Your lack of knowledge on the region shouldn't be surprising though. I bet you haven't spent more than a few minutes studying the region. Lucky for me I took several classes on it, researched it, and know that what you are saying is quite false. The italicized is true, but it is interrupted quite wrong and skewed towards bias.

Now every revolt in history must be looked at as if it were an attempt of militarization .

For the record this is not “blaming” Western Europe for anything. It is only acknowledging a fact. You are looking quite defensive right now as if you have to defend “the white man” or something. Most West Africans look at the European arrival in the 15th and 16th centuries as vital a time in our history. Most of the “romanticized” empires were established between the 13th-16th centuries. We tend not to hold a grudge until about the 19th century. Basically because we got our asses handed to us, but at least we survived and we are headed back on the right path.

ETA: Western arrival wasn't the "only" influence but it was a large influence. Slave trading was vital to their economies. There was also the rise of hardcore Islam in West Africa which my ancestors successfully fended off from reaching deeper into South Western Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

[JihadJane]

'The Son of Africa Claims a Continent’s Crown Jewels'

by John Pilger

"""The de facto conquest of Libya by the US and its imperial partners heralds a modern version of the “scramble for Africa” at the end of the 19th century."""

 

[IDB87]

'The Son of Africa Claims a Continent’s Crown Jewels'

by John Pilger

"""The de facto conquest of Libya by the US and its imperial partners heralds a modern version of the “scramble for Africa” at the end of the 19th century."""

With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent is under way.

These troops going to combat the LRA were given permission to enter by the host countries.

Your argument is invalid.

 

[Virus]

Pilger supports terrorists and communists. He's a loon.

 

[Polaris]

On yesterday's The World program, they mentioned that many human-rights advocates and leaders from around the world applauded the decision, and that they have been pressuring the US for some time to take some action against the LRA.

That being said, I admit I was mildly shocked by this action. One can look at it as entirely a political move... Rather cynically. ("The Republicans won't be able to say we're soft on defense!")
But I really can't see that; Obama has pretty much proved his "defense" creds by now.

Currying favor with African nations? Well... OK....But why? We haven't done a whole lot of that up to this point.
There are lots of bad guys in the world....

Just as an aside, but I see this argument every time the US sends troops anywhere. I can't quite narrow down the fallacy, but it seems to me that the logical conclusion of this school of thought is that the US should either take out all the world's trash, or never do it, ever, even when invited to.

 

[JihadJane]

Just as an aside, but I see this argument every time the US sends troops anywhere. I can't quite narrow down the fallacy, but it seems to me that the logical conclusion of this school of thought is that the US should either take out all the world's trash, or never do it, ever, even when invited to.

The fallacy is that the US is interested in taking out the world's trash.

 

[IDB87]

The fallacy is that the US is interested in taking out the world's trash.

Do you agree that the United States was given permission to enter the countries in Africa to combat the LRA?

You can moan all you want about your opposition to that foreign policy, but you cannot ignore the facts.

 

[WildCat]

This proves nothing other than they had a revolt.

Yes, a military revolt. Fought by armies.

The Ghana Empire united by trade. In fact the process of the Ghana Empire uniting were little more than kings agreeing with one another over control of vital roads.

Right, and the agreements were enforced by military power.

And most people who "actually" know the history of the region know that the Sudanic Empires had little more than police for soldiers. The soldiers were not geared towards conquest.

And yet they managed to conquer, isn't that odd?

They had no other purpose than to guard the trade routes.

Which is the same purpose of the British navy in their colonial era. The British colonies were united by trade!

When real armies came, they fell.

You're just defining "real army" as the victors.

Your lack of knowledge on the region shouldn't be surprising though. I bet you haven't spent more than a few minutes studying the region. Lucky for me I took several classes on it, researched it, and know that what you are saying is quite false. The italicized is true, but it is interrupted quite wrong and skewed towards bias.

You may well have, but nothing you've said refutes any of my claims.

For the record this is not “blaming” Western Europe for anything. It is only acknowledging a fact. You are looking quite defensive right now as if you have to defend “the white man” or something. Most West Africans look at the European arrival in the 15th and 16th centuries as vital a time in our history. Most of the “romanticized” empires were established between the 13th-16th centuries. We tend not to hold a grudge until about the 19th century. Basically because we got our asses handed to us, but at least we survived and we are headed back on the right path.

I don't even see how this is relevant. Your entire claim seems to be that because you lost the wars with European powers that's proof that West Africa had no military powers or empires. I guess that means Japan in the first part of the 20th century wasn't militarized? After all, they lost the war!

ETA: Western arrival wasn't the "only" influence but it was a large influence. Slave trading was vital to their economies. There was also the rise of hardcore Islam in West Africa which my ancestors successfully fended off from reaching deeper into South Western Sub-Saharan Africa.

IMHO slavery actually hurt their economies, and I think the US Civil War proved that point. Slaves were a crutch that prevented mechanization and industrialization and weakened the economies of slave states, and when push came to shove the free states overwhelmed the slave states threough sheer industrial might.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Look wild cat, to keep things simple and preserve time, none of the armies in most of West Africa were not geared towards conquest or expansion until the arrival of Western Europe. Slavery forced nations to have to build up large armies and conquer to maintain the supply of slaves. There may have been revolts, schisms, and other things, but there were hardly any "conquest". Most West African empires and kingdoms pre-1400 were not geared towards this sort of thing.

Instead, the "Sudanic" Empires were mostly a conglomeration of trade alliances and kingships sprung across the length of the vital trans-Saharan route. There of course were the violent transitions in power which are characteristic of any civilization, but there were hardly "conquest".

You are attempting to make it seem that "civil revolts" had an underlying warrior culture to them, but this is nothing more than a shift in power. Most of the empires had collapsed under their own weight and expanded too far. When armies geared towards "conquest" actually came, the Sudanic Empires fell like flies because their armies served as little more than policemen.

Your assumption is that there were violent "conquest" in West Africa, and though there were some, most of the empires and kingdoms were not geared towards this until the arrival of Western Europe. That is what is being discussed here, not your broad attempt to generalize violence. Violence does not = warrior culture. Warrior culture in this case being linked to military conquest. Warrior culture in this case being linked to large militaries geared towards conquest.

 

[geni]

The late British Empire was a liberal empire that did a lot of good.

You actually believe that? Our propaganda is so good that we've managed to transform the stone cold psychos that actually ran things and the drug addled racists who made up the general colonialists into a "liberal empire that did a lot of good"?

Damit we are good.

Before the age of liberal empires, they did horrible things.

Not as much as you might expect. You've got to remember that most of the early british imperial stuff was costal. And since the costal tribes tended to be fairly small and weak the amount of force that needed to be applied was limited. Kumasi wasn't burned until 1874 and Benin City until 1897. Concentration camps don't surface untill 1899.

Obivously it varried from area to area and hunter gatherers tended to take the most damage first. For example the tasmanians were largely wiped out in the first half of the 19th century.

In Africa the local diseases and the larger size of the local civilisations meant that large scale descruction tended to be left quite late (in part because it took that long to invent the machine gun).

 

[geni]

Look wild cat, to keep things simple and preserve time, none of the armies in most of West Africa were not geared towards conquest or expansion until the arrival of Western Europe. Slavery forced nations to have to build up large armies and conquer to maintain the supply of slaves. There may have been revolts, schisms, and other things, but there were hardly any "conquest". Most West African empires and kingdoms pre-1400 were not geared towards this sort of thing.

Our records are too poor to be sure of anything like that. However language patturns strongly suggest that bantu speaking groups did something to the Khoisan.

 

[Virus]

The fallacy is that the US is interested in taking out the world's trash.

Do you admit that the special forces are there with the government's permission? Do you admit that's not an invasion? Do you admit that calling it an invasion is asinine? Do you admit that people who write articles calling it an invasion are asinine?

 

[Virus]

Look wild cat, to keep things simple and preserve time, none of the armies in most of West Africa were not geared towards conquest or expansion until the arrival of Western Europe. Slavery forced nations to have to build up large armies and conquer to maintain the supply of slaves.

Africa practised slavery long before the colonial powers showed up. It was the basis of their economy. Does that mean they were militarized for conquest before contact with Europeans, which would refute your own point?

 

[IDB87]

Look wild cat, to keep things simple and preserve time, none of the armies in most of West Africa were not geared towards conquest or expansion until the arrival of Western Europe.

A more likely candidate is the Almohad Caliphate through the Almoravid dynasty. The Almoravid's conquered Ghana, ending it's power as a commercial and military power (the latter is important). The empire then broke into many tribal groups that later would battle one another.

The battle of Kirina happened after the dissolution of the Ghana empire and happened because the Kaniaga Rulers were conquering former lands of the Ghana and subjugating its' neighbors and forcing them to pay tribute. They also liked to raid and pillage.

Spin away.

*ETA

The Kaniaga Rulers

In approximately 1140 the Sosso kingdom of Kaniaga, a former vassal of Wagadou, began conquering the lands of its old masters. By 1180 it had even subjugated Wagadou forcing the Soninké to pay tribute. In 1203, the Sosso king Soumaoro of the Kanté clan came to power and reportedly terrorized much of Manden stealing women and goods from both Dodougou and Kri.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Africa practised slavery long before the colonial powers showed up. It was the basis of their economy. Does that mean they were militarized for conquest before contact with Europeans, which would refute your own point?

Evidence?

*I'll give you a hint, no. The basis of their economy was the trade of gold and salt. It is clear that the "volume" of slaves greatly differed from before the time of European arrival to after the time of European arrival. It is undeniable that Western Europe had "some" effect on West Africa. That, combined with the late 15th and 16th century conquest by Islamic empires to the north helped to militarize the Benin or "Gold" Coast. The same can be said for the Congo as well.

 

[L.Y.S.]

A more likely candidate is the Almohad Caliphate through the Almoravid dynasty. The Almoravid's conquered Ghana, ending it's power as a commercial and military power (the latter is important). The empire then broke into many tribal groups that later would battle one another.

The battle of Kirina happened after the dissolution of the Ghana empire and happened because the Kaniaga Rulers were conquering former lands of the Ghana and subjugating its' neighbors and forcing them to pay tribute. They also liked to raid and pillage.

Spin away.

*ETA

Wars of reunification = conquest? For the record, the successor states to Ghana also operated their militaries fairly similarly. They were not operated with conquest in mind. The primary job was to keep down revolts or reunify. That does not = conquest.

 

[HoverBoarder]

And for some not hippie talk. The indigenous really don't want the help of industrialized nations and don't need it. We don't want to live the same life style. We understand that hurt, pain, and sacrifice will come with progress. It isn't the job of any developed nation to "lead" anyone. You guys can barely lead your damn selves. And if it leads to being fat with McBurgers in our hands then we'll gladly pass. I think helping developing nations is actually worse than not helping them. Since a lot of the convoys that bring food get stolen by the wealthy elite and the militaries of poor nations. And intervention should really become a thing of the past. Only if it involves the extinction of humanity should anyone get involve. If some crazy Ethopian dictator gets a nuke, then feel free to stop him by all means.

I must've forgot the part in European history where people came on boats to help Europeans with their wars and famines.

Well it certainly is fortuitous for you that you grew up in a well off enough situation that you are able to sit at your computer and make such a high and mighty statement, all while the people that you are so definitively refusing help for have to spend that same time just trying to survive.

The truth is that there is a lot of good that has been done and will continue to be done to help poorer nations, and that is a very good thing for everyone who is directly and indirectly affected by that. I have known people who have donated time to help engineering inspections and workshops in Haiti, and people who have helped to self sustaining small scale community farms in Zimbabwe. In both cases the people that were receiving the help for very happy to have it. There are hundreds and thousands of good aid programs that the vast majority of everyone around the world are very grateful to have. It is only the pretentious few elite who themselves do not require assistance that do not want it to happen mostly because they do not want to acknowledge the positive aspects of the societies who are providing that help.

As for help with European wars and famines that you "forgot the part in history," that is probably because there is a lot of history that you still do not know. Have you ever heard of the Irish Potato Famine or World War II? If not, you can look it up.

In this case, the LRA is estimated to be around 200-300 members. Having 100 highly trained US special forces can help dramatically in eliminating that group all together.

 

[WildCat]

Look wild cat, to keep things simple and preserve time, none of the armies in most of West Africa were not geared towards conquest or expansion until the arrival of Western Europe.

And yet they expanded... using their armies to conquer.

And I'd bet that they were doing this for thousands of years prior to the historical record. Because they're human beings, and that's what human beings do, no matter what continent they live on.