The US Military is Occupying 53 of 54 African Nations

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nobody said we were gonna go over there and take a capital or something and win. Bush acknowledged it would be a long road, and in the long run it would require engagement on many levels, not just militarily. The whole "winning hearts and minds" thing. You can argue that's impossible, fine, that's your opinion. But we knew it wasn't just a matter of going over there and winning by attrition. One of the key points though was that if our military keeps them busy trying to stay alive, destroying their camps and making it harder for them to train and plan, it lowers the risk of them being able to execute attacks on our civilians.

As for our treaties, nowhere did I say they didn't exist. But they don't force our allies to do anything. For example after 9/11 we invoked article 5 in NATO. NATO voted to do that, we couldn't force them. And even after they voted for them, most of them took no major military action to help us. Some of them supported with funds or just logistics, or just letting us pass through their territory. We didn't drag most of them into the war by any means. And if we suggested invoking article 5 and they told us to go to hell, there would have been no legal consequences. The worse we could have done was try to punish the countries that voted no with sanctions or tried to rally support to expel them, or leave NATO ourselves. We likely would've done none of those. We went to the UN to try to get support from our allies with the Iraq War, and many of them told us to go pound sand. No consequences. Treaties are agreements to cooperate. If you break a treaty, the country you pissed off has to take some action to make make consequences for you. In this case, we did nothing but complain. There's no forcing involved.

a reply to: 727Sky

I doubt that even those who are well informed here at ATS know the extent the USA is in African countries on the pretext of routing ISIS and Al Qaeda .

True. However, the *reasons* the US military industrial complex is occupying 53 out of 54 African nations — on behalf of corporate, government and plutocracy interest — can easily become known when the history of US foriegn policy motives are weighed. In short: Identity Federalism is the US modus operandi.

The concept of Identity Federalism is key to the US’ foreign policy designs in the post-1991 world order, becoming even more important in the era of the New Cold War. The US is currently engaged in waging and planning a variety of Hybrid Wars across the world...

“The grand objective behind every Hybrid War is to disrupt multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects through externally provoked identity conflicts (ethnic, religious, regional, political, etc.) within a targeted transit state.”

Kind of like what the US is doing in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Venezuela, Myanmar, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so on...

PART I: Identity Federalism: From “E Pluribus Unum” To “E Unum Pluribus”: niiglob.ru...

OK I am all for cutting the head off of ISIS and their many spawn yet my question is why is it that the USA and some allies are the only ones to step up to the chopping block ?

The answer can be found by looking at the situation these two ways:

1) By contemplating the meaning of the word "pretext," one will easily come to understand that the US are not there to counter or fight off ISIS. In fact, they are there to promote and provide tactical support to these rebel groups...

pre·text /ˈprēˌtekst/

(noun)

a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason. "the rebels had the perfect pretext for making their move" synonyms: excuse, false excuse, ostensible reason, alleged reason

2) Here is the real reason or CRUX as to why the US has used Identity Federalism in African countries on the pretext of routing ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other rebel factions:



On a side note: my most recent "wtf moment?!" came from realizing that most Americans in 2017 are completely unaware and/or clueless that their military has ALWAYS been heavily involved throughout the continent of Africa for DECADES. I blame the propaganda film "Black Hawk Down" for their ignorance...

Also, Americans will do well by becoming more informed about what the US government's role was involving Burkina Faso and the assassination of the late great Thomas Sankara. It's a great *middle* starting point...

Btw, Libya is in Africa. I believe many Americans will surely remember what happened there not too long ago despite the pretext...

This guy gets it. America is like the empire from Starwars or some #. Only our storm troopers where green in occupied territories and blue on the home front.

how else are all those American corporations going to get their hands on all those natural resources in Africa when this ISIS situation is over?
The American government probably has deals already in place with those countries to provide military assistance in exchange for allowing American companies to be the only ones allowed to mine all that gold and diamonds etc after ISIS is gone.

a reply to: Involutionist

I made my first post before I read yours, you are spot on!

It's refreshing to see there are still some people left around this place that have their eyes wide open to what's really going on out there in the world beyond their own backyards.


Gots to git our hands on all them goods in Africa before them damn chinese snatch it all up.


... and the battle continues to rage on for many more additional decades yet to come.

... while the peoples of Africa continue to get pissed on and told it's raining.

a reply to: Involutionist

China is currently the number one investor in African resources. Second is France third is Greece so how does this fit in to your explinations?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

when you have to list EVERY definition from the dictionary to attempt to " cover it " - you have failed

what the OP and thier wingnut source are attempting to do is equate :

" american miiltary presence in an african country" to " nazi occupied europe [ 1938 > 1945 ] "

by the " loogic " of the OP and thier source :

" US military occupies russia "

i make this statement based on the fact that there are more US personel in russia in 2017 than several of the allededly " occupied african countries "

thats how insane the OP " logic " is


ETA - oh and why the hell do you assume i am american ????????????????

a reply to: Lagomorphe

please list all the african counties that the US has " invaded " since 1945 - and as we are clearly playing the semnanitics game - define " invaded "

and stop assuming i is american - your the second in this thread

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

when you have to list EVERY definition from the dictionary to attempt to " cover it " - you have failed

what the OP and thier wingnut source are attempting to do is equate :

" american miiltary presence in an african country" to " nazi occupied europe [ 1938 > 1945 ] "

by the " loogic " of the OP and thier source :

" US military occupies russia "

i make this statement based on the fact that there are more US personel in russia in 2017 than several of the allededly " occupied african countries "

thats how insane the OP " logic " is


ETA - oh and why the hell do you assume i am american ????????????????

Ron Paul you may have heard of him ? ronpaulinstitute.org... and the great neocon Senator Lindsey Graham.. They are the source of the article and thread. Maybe you would like to share your knowledge of the situation with either of them quoted in the original article.

Senator Lindsey Graham told NBC News over the weekend that he had "no idea" that there were 1,000 US troops in Niger. But it didn't bother him at all. He promised that the US military -- which already has troops in 53 of the 54 countries in Africa -- will soon be far more involved in fighting on the continent. We don't want the next 9/11 to come from Niger, he warned. Should Congress at least show an interest in this new, expanded war?

Since you already know everything I doubt you will watch the video but others may be more open to what is going on with the build up. youtu.be...

a reply to: 727Sky

if you are going to reply to me - have the decency to address what i wrote

a reply to: 727Sky

What a complete BS headline. Why cant we give negative stars yet?

The sad part is this type of crappery (my word) is all to common. You are Fake News... Sky... You are indeed part of the problem.

What is Sensationlism you ask?

I had no idea. I have no doubts now. We live and die for corporate America.