I see you DID NOT read the link, because you would have noticed this.....Taken from above where I copied and pasted...

==========================================================

Arab traders moved inland from the Indian Ocean coast of East Africa in the 1830s. They were followed in the 1860s by British explorers searching for the source of the Nile. Protestant missionaries entered the country in 1877, followed by Catholic missionaries in 1879.[8] The United Kingdom placed the area under the charter of the British East Africa Company in 1888, and ruled it as a protectorate from 1894.
As several other territories and chiefdoms were integrated, the final protectorate called Uganda took shape in 1914. From 1900 to 1920, a sleeping sickness epidemic killed more than 250,000 people,[9] about two-thirds of the population in the affected lake-shore areas


========================================================

NOW kindly explain HOW this is a European mess, when the country gained independence and ruled itself....

Link below to explain WHAT is meant by a PROTECTORATE...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectorate

 

You go ahead and keep whitewashing.

Just try to act like you have nothing to do with anything the second you're not officially in a country.

You do that pretty well. Guess we learned from the best.

 

They have untapped oil and natural gas resources, can you see the pattern forming.

 

Anything to distract from the problems he's got here.

 

As I had missed the edit time with this comment...

Why don't you EVER read the references section at the bottom of any Wikipedia link??

This will tell you from which source the information was taken from, so HOW can I be whitewashing when the sources of the information are listed for you to see.....

You really do show yourself up sometimes to be not very intelligent as regards world events...

 

Pre-pubescent boy, WHICH part of PROTECTORATE do you NOT understand....

=========================================================

In history, the term protectorate has two different meanings. In its earliest inception, which has been adopted by modern international law, it is an autonomous territory that is protected diplomatically or militarily against third parties by a stronger state or entity. In exchange for this, the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations, which may vary greatly, depending on the real nature of their relationship. However, it retains sufficient measure of sovereignty and remains a state under international law. A territory subject to this type of arrangement is also known as a protected state..

===============================================

A second meaning came about as a result of European colonial expansion in the nineteenth century. Many colonized territories (mentioned on this page) came to be referred to as "colonial protectorates", but were not regarded as separate states under international law.[1] Entities referred to as "international protectorates" can become so subordinated to the protecting power that in effect they lose their independent statehood, though there are exceptions.[2]

========================================================================

A protectorate, in the British Empire, is a territory which is not formally annexed but in which, by treaty, grant or other lawful means, the Crown has power and jurisdiction.[3]
A protectorate differs from a "protected state". A protected state is a territory under a ruler which enjoys Her Britannic Majesty's protection, over whose foreign affairs she exercises control, but in respect of whose internal affairs she does not exercise jurisdiction

============================================================================

Uganda Protectorate (1894–1962)
=======================================================

 

This sounds more like Somalia than Libya. And how did Somalia end for Clinton? Mutilated U.S. personnel being dragged through the streets.

This isn't for real, is it?

 

Actually maybe the Catholics are the one responsible for this one. You know; just saying.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/who-are-the-lords-resistance-army.php?ref=fpb

 

Why must the USA police the World?

Why can't Britain help them?

Or Russia
Or China
Or India
Or France
Or Spain
Or Italy
Or Turkey
Or Germany
Or Japan
Or Brazil
Or Sweden
Or Mexico
Or Canada
Or Finland
Or Poland

 

I mentioned Somalia. Black Hawk Down. That's exactly what I said will happen as well if you read my post.

But when I mentioned Libya, I meant the fact that we went in there because of the crimes against humanity being committed.

No.

Europeans used religion as an excuse.

Good question.

 

Just 10 months ago I left Iraq, I noticed that all our bases there were guarded by Ugandans. Go to the DFAC (dining facility) and you have to show your I.D. to A Ugandan, ditto with the MWR, PX, gym, entry control point etc. I was told, (by someone who maybe didn't know) that it was because the Ugandans had grown up in a more brutal society than we had, and wouldn't hesitate to shoot if the situation became necessary. I talked to some of them and they told me they liked Iraq! In fact they didn't want to go home (they were contractors btw) And I guess I could see their point. In Iraq they had pretty good food (I liked it ok) most of them were stationed inside the bases so they were mostly pretty safe, and they had access to all the same facilities as coalition forces. Still that surprised me, that they would rather be in a war zone than home, Uganda must be really messed up for that to be so.

 

Be fair to us. We don't have the capability any more to solve the messes we made.

 

This is just wrong!!! I'm totally against getting involved in another mess...

 

Most, if not all, of those countries would be quite happy to see an armed United Nations, with contributions of cash and/or personnel coming from all member states, and with the authority to deal with any human rights abuses anywhere in the world.

But it can't happen, because the USA is dead set against it.

 

So you don't mind helping the North African Arabs but any crimes against humanity below the Sahara are are not the problem of the self proclaimed policeman of the world?

 

If these people can't control the rebels now, it will go back to shit once they kill off our 100 troops or they pull out.I hate to see crimes like this but you dont starve you own kids to feed someone else in a whole other country

 

True, I'll give you that.

To an extent.

Unfortunately, we happen to have too many idiots in power who would vote against that.

Funny considering I said the exact opposite of what you're trying to pretend I said.

You started the fucking mess by what you did to them and their country. It's not our problem, yet we're the ones doing something.

So don't say a word about whose problem it is or isn't.

 

I think we should bring all our troops home, close up bases overseas and stay out of other country's business.

 

Can't do that, unfortunately.

If we leave Afghanistan and stop infiltrating and trying to destroy the various al-Qaida groups, they'll attack us again.

Like it or not, we're in this fight until there's no more threat to us.

 

When I heard of this today, 2 things came to mind immediately,,did congress OK this, and how much more can Obama spend.