Obama to Send US Troops to South Sudan
Troops Sent Over 'Recent Outbreaks of Violence'
Citing recent ethnic violence and with the apparent certainty that every nation on the planet needs at least a few US boots on the ground, President Obama has announced his intention to send troops to the Republic of South Sudan to help the new government with “strategic planning.”
The deployment, which will only include five troops so far, comes after a report of a massacre was refuted by the United Nations, and also as South Sudan continues to accuse the Sudanese government of preventing it from shipping oil more efficiently.
It also comes just days after President Obama announced his intention to sell weapons to the South Sudanese government‘s “People’s Liberation Army” saying that the sales would be a key to “world peace.”
South Sudan’s independence from the north was finalized in July, and the indications from this week suggest they are well on their way to being a modern US client state, complete with massive internal unrest and US deployments of “advisors.”
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- US Slams Russia's Missile Sales to Syria - May 17th, 2013
- Nine Killed, 70 Wounded in Bombings Near Kandahar - May 17th, 2013
- Envoy: Russia May Deploy Troops to Tajik-Afghan Border - May 17th, 2013
- Pentagon in Afghan Budget Crisis, Seeks to Shift $10 Billion in Funds - May 17th, 2013
- Nigeria Launching Massive Offensive Against Boko Haram - May 17th, 2013
ghouri
January 11th, 2012 at 3:53 am
New war front for america and derail Sudan as it is going on since 30 years.
America will never learn.
conumishu
January 11th, 2012 at 8:14 am
This South Sudan must be setting a new record, a failed state before even becoming one. Still, those oil fields must be protected from the natives lack of understanding. They don't need them anyway, caught with their cattle stealing raiding parties bickering. Can't really notice the difference between (old) Sudan's supremacy in the not so distant past and US' no doubt benevolent care, but I admit I'm not enlightened enough. Nevertheless, Obamacrats warned beforehand about their interests in Sudan and once again prove to be men of their word.
andy
January 11th, 2012 at 8:54 am
There's ethnic violence every day in every big American city. By this logic should Sudan station troops in America?
Williamenia
January 11th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Well, Texas, California and some other places maybe. You know, the areas where you drive along and see those strange little pumping arms moving up and down in the fields. But, Newark, naw, no black gold there, so no 'peacekeeping' will ever occur there.
fenistol
January 11th, 2012 at 10:58 am
So, when is the South going to rename its capital to Saigon?
andy
January 11th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
In 1929 seven people were shot in the St. Valentine's Day massacre and that was a national story. On Thursday fourteen people were shot in Chicago and other then the local press it hardly even was mentioned. Maybe "peacekeeping" should start at home?
ToivoS
January 11th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
The fragmentation of nations to bring them under Western control has been going on for many decades. British colonialism perfected this especially when the succeeded in making every known oil field on the Saudi peninsula a different nation. Yugoslavia was broken up with a big push by Germany and the US. Iraq may still end up as three different nations. And the west (especially Israeli interests) have be gnawing on Sudan for a few decades at Darfur and now successfully in S. Sudan.
Reunifying these countries is simply not possible. After all two governments need two presidents, 2 pms, 2 of everything — ever see a politician negotiate away their jobs. Unity usually occurs through military conquest. The UN has closed that option.
CruiseAustin
January 11th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
How many countries does that make that the U.S. is now in? 131? Ron Paul rules! Let's take care of business. Bring all our troops home and close all bases overseas.
Jan Burton
January 11th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
End this nonsense and bring our troops home. ALL of them.
David Daniels
January 11th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Have I been banned from commenting on this site? I have tried to comment on another thread and have had my comment automatically deleted. Please confirm editorial policy. Thank you.
andy
January 11th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Mind explaining to me why any sane person would want to re-unify Yugoslavia, which was itself created out of the trainwreck of Austria-Hungary? And if Iraq ends up as three different nations, so what? It was never a real nation or country in the first place. As for Sudan, it has known nothing but ethnic conflict from the very beginning. There is a lot to be said for smaller and more unified, less diverse states.
ruizsainz
January 11th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Excuse me for asking but why doesn't this bastard himself (in person) go to the Sudan and fight like a man?
robertsgt40
January 12th, 2012 at 7:29 am
What a coincidence that every nation we decide to "help" is sitting on a natural resource we want