posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:29 PM
I am of the mindset that goals have converged here: 1) Africa, and Uganda specifically, has vast resources in the mineral department, which is good
for US tech companies (or whomever wins the spoils) including the military industrial complex, 2) having a "moral justification" by going after a
super-villian is good for garnering international support, or at least you will not be set-upon by the International Community - we get to be
perceived as the "good guy", 3) we are in competition for the resources of Africa with other nations, especially China, who are doing a lot (I believe
you have done awesome research in this department, Wrabbit) of courtship and providing economic support for African countries in their efforts to gain
access to mineral rights.
Is it all tied together? Yes. Absolutely, in my opinion. Ask why we are at war in Uganda? National Interests are at stake, not just "getting the
bad guy." Is it worth it to do this? Well, that depends. I don't like the idea of American soldiers being killed in Uganda (or wherever they are)
because the strategies for obtaining powerful resources dictate that American boots on the ground and dollars in rebuilding / "stabilizing" =
Americans winning in a larger economic struggle for technological supremacy (many minerals are used in technology - some of them "rare earth" minerals
that are found in Africa). Also what happens if we need to build our weapons and we don't have access to the mineral rights to allow the technology to
be developed? I dunno - just thinking out loud here... I'm interested in your thoughts on this, though, Wrabbit!
edit on 25-3-2014 by AboveBoard because: grammer