Friday, October 14, 2011

Oh Good! Another ObozoWar!

100 US troops are sent to kill off bad guys in Uganda


[They're going to kill very bad guys who masquerade as "Christian."]

When is Obozo going to masquerade as the President and 'splain how "national security" is affected by goings-on in Uganda?


steveegg said...

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.

Anonymous said...

Hey, steveegg, just stick to your supposed expertise on economic matters.

Yes, I get the inference...the United States ought not to become involved in matters which are unrelated to their national security.

But there is another inference from Dad29 that is dead wrong. The majority of the Ugandan population is 77% Christian, with 11% being Muslim. So the United States is NOT assisting the "muzzies".
Obama is executing the will of the Congress, who wholeheartedly embraced this mission.

And, SERIOUSLY, Dad29, a bunch of murdering, mutilating, sexually enslaving thugs are "Christians"?

Care to have them join your congregation?

Why you even posted this story and tried to make it appear that Obama is somehow involved in the persecution of Christians, I have no clue.


Jim said...

If those guys were Americans, you all would be saying, "Well, they are not Christians because Christians would never commit those acts."

But since the president is intervening, these monsters are righteous Christians.

Dad29 said...

OK, I read a couple of the other links.

They're bad guys.

neomom said...

Still wondering what our national interest is here. Does this admin even have an actual foreign policy?

Dad29 said...

The policy is 'whatever I feel good about doing.'

Anonymous said...

Not everything has to be about the United States protecting "national security". In this specific instance, America is engaging in a humanitarian protect the majority Christian population in Uganda.

Pope Benedict XVI would approve!


Anonymous said...

And to think, he got the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe, just maybe, they should have waited until his term was over before they awarded the tarnished medal to Obama.


Dad29 said...

Actually, ignoranony, everything DOES have to be 'about national security.'

Wilson was wrong, too.

B-16 would not approve. But George V would.

neomom said...

I see the intellectual honesty from the left...

"Humanitarian aid" with an R in the White House = Bad

"Humanitarian aid" with a D in the White House = Good

TerryN said...

Yup, It's a longstanding pattern.

Anonymous said...

Dad29--Actually, ignoranony, everything DOES have to be about national security.

Debatable! And if it wasn't for me keeping you intellectually honest, your original story would been left unchallenged.

Furthermore, what fantasy world do you live in? Pope Benedict would disapprove of one nation assisting, either economically or militarily, another nation when its citizens--some of whom just happen to be Catholic--are being innocently slaughtered?

Get real!

Humanitarianism and protecting human life are fundamental tenets of Christianity, and religious leaders would certainly support a country's efforts to justifiably eradicate a known terrorist group masquerading as "Christians", lest they be paying lip service.

Pope John II, 2004--"For over eighteen years, the North of Uganda has been scourged by an inhuman conflict, which affects millions of people, especially children"...."The war [in Sudan], which has intensified in recent months, brings with it ever more poverty, despair, and death...How can we remain indifferent?"

Pope Benedict in March 2009--"Genuine religion... stands at the base of any authentically human culture. It rejects all forms of violence and totalitarianism: not only on principles of faith but also of right reason."

Pope Benedict in August 2010 urged world leaders to "spare no effort in Somalia help".

Pope Benedict in January 2011 advised the Nigerian government to take decisive action to stop human carnage and violence in one of its states.

neomom--One would think after getting her hat handed to her you would temper making false claims. A reminder...

No where did I state specifically, or give the impression, (D) actions are "good" and (R) actions are "bad" when it comes to humanitarian efforts.

You certainly have a penchant for employing Alinsky tactics!


neomom said...

Sure Zorro.

I'm suuuuree that you were in fully behind liberating the Iraqis from Sadam right?


And if you think that linking to the 5 imams worldwide that have said anything about the Copts continuous slaughter at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian army while our Dear Leader tells them to have "restraint" (or actually believing that muslims all over the world condemned 9/11) means I had my "hat handed to me".. you are delusional. Damn those videos of muslims celebrating 9/11 are inconvenient aren't they.

Dad29 said...

Pope Benedict in January 2011 advised the Nigerian government to take decisive action to stop human carnage and violence in one of its states

Did I see "NIGERIAN"--not US--mentioned here?

So it would follow that the UGANDAN gummint should 'take decisive....', or that the US gummint?

Your confusion over how to spell "United States" is serious. Meds-deficient?

Dad29 said...

Finally, anonywarmonger, you were correct when you said "debatable."

Nothing prevents you from taking up arms and following your Christian heart to Uganda. I'm sure that the Gummint there will be happy for your assistance.

That's very different from putting OTHER people at risk, of course--which you liberally advocate.

How very .......Christian>......of you!

Anonymous said...

Dad29--Of course, when backed into an intellectual corner, your default is the ol' "meds-deficient" accusation. How very...Christian...of you!

The majority of Congress--(D)'s and (R)'s--agreed that the United States ought to intervene for humanitarian reasons in Uganda. And I would imagine a number of the House and Senate members who voted yes are Christian. I would think they would be insulted by being called a "warmonger" when they seek to prevent babies being torn from a mother's womb and children from being gutted.

Furthermore, the military personnel sent to Uganda are well-aware of the dangers involved, and are more than willing to die--they took an oath and made a choice--for our country in the name of justice and liberty. So our troops are NOT being put in harm's way needlessly, contrary to your "argument". They are carrying out a NOBLE CAUSE.

And, read for context, Dad29! Pope Benedict desires decisive action taken by ANY country; in this specific circumstance, he was prodding Nigeria who should take the lead. But in the other two statements I provided, he is CLEAR that ALL nations who embrace the Christian faith ought to prevent atrocities.

Indeed, how can anyone remain indifferent when Christians are being slaughtered! So much for preserving the sanctity of life!

neomom--"Damn those videos of muslims celebrating 9/11 are inconvenient aren't they."

ALL religious groups have their radicals, some perhaps more than others. But the fact remains that MILLIONS of the followers of Islam openly and repeatedly denounce their brethren for bastardizing their faith. Speaking of which, where is YOUR outrage against the Christian butcherers in Uganda? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Still waiting from you (or Dad29) the evidence that Muslim-Americans are committing daily acts of violence against Christians in our country, and therefore posing a significant threat to our national security.

Dad29--"That's very different from putting OTHER people at risk, of course--which you liberally advocate."

I think you need to review the four conditions for Jus Ad Bellum. Ultimately, the decision is left to the civil authorities--"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good". Congress passed legislation, and the president made it happen.

What, Ugandan women and children should just die
without the United States lifting a finger to intervene?

Anonymous said...


(Great show, along with Sargent Preston of the Mountie Police, the old Superman, and The Cisco Kid).

Dad29 said...

Awaiting your exegesis of the Just War Theory to support your allegedly-Christian position, anony.

neomom said...

Other than the multiple times per week foiled plots of terrorism on US soil, or the sometimes successful ones - ala Ft. Hood?

Anonymous said...

Dad29--"I think you need to review the four conditions for Jus Ad Bellum."

You've got the Good Book in your house somewhere and/or access to the Internet, use it! It's on YOU to disprove me!

neomom--"Other than the multiple times per week foiled plots of terrorism on US soil..."

Sources? Proof? Evidence? Didn't think so.

Besides, that is NOT the statement I asked you to prove. Just stop embarrassing yourself with hyperbole!

Certainly, the United States is under heightened scrutiny. We are in danger as a country. There have been 40 (!!!) terrorist attacks foiled, according to the Heritage Foundation since 9-11.

neomom said...

That Heritage list isn't complete. An example of what was missed?

Not to mention the recent Iranian one and the Somalis in Minnesota.

Dad29 said...

Sorry, anony.

YOU asserted that the Popes would "approve" of US adventure in Africa.

So YOU have to back that up.

Try the 'net-search method. Works for me.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dad29 said...

No, anonybreath. My blog.

Buy your own.

Anonymous said...

I guess you just took your ball and went home, Dad29!

Again, YOU have to disprove my assertion, I laid out my arguments clearly.