Bush ready to send troops to Liberia

From MSNBC

Hmmm, recession, war in Iraq, African peace keeping mission, Terminator sequel, it's like 1991-92 all over again.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

From MSNBC

Hmmm, recession, war in Iraq, African peace keeping mission, Terminator sequel, it''s like 1991-92 all over again.

Which must mean that we''re about to see the implosion of a large Communist country, a technological boom and several years of prosperity ahead of us.

Bring it on, I say!

Hmmm, recession, war in Iraq, African peace keeping mission, Terminator sequel, it''s like 1991-92 all over again.

Recession? Wrong. Economic Growth? Right. Best quarter in the market from the last three years? Yup.

I''m glad he''s doing this. We need to help those people get rid of the warlord and set up a democratic government. Go Bush! Go U.N.!

It''s about time we do something with Africa. Yeah, there''s no oil or money in it, but I believe African countries will be the new nests for Al Qaeda cells.

What I find funny is that the world doesn''t care if we''re being the Super Hero when they want us to do something. When we want to do something much of the world jumps on us. It is ironic.

I think we should take out the twobit warlord and help the people. CNN has a great video of the people cheering that we''re coming.

The people living under tyrants do not care about the U.N. or France and Russia, what they do care about is the Americans. Right or wrong it is true.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Recession? Wrong.

Proof?

Economic Growth? Right.

Proof?

Best quarter in the market from the last three years? Yup.

Anything is better than what we had. What we''re getting might not be enough if it cannont be sustained.

I''m glad he''s doing this. We need to help those people get rid of the warlord and set up a democratic government.

Where''s the strategic value in helping Liberia? Is President Taylor somehow connected to al-Qaeda?

Go Bush! Go U.N.!

You do realize that that''s a contradictory assertion.

<Idealistic Rant>
America has the power to save millions of lives around the world. I''m sorry for the violence and lives lost in the process, but America should be doing *more* Iraq-style regime changes throughout the world. Why are we letting millions starve in North Korea? Why do we invade one country for the ''good of the people'' and to eliminate the ''weapons of mass destruction'' when Iran and Saudi Arabia flagrantly violate the human rights of their citizens and (I''m pretty sure) have WMD? We need to adopt a set of principles (besides ''they have oil'') and start upholding human rights across the globe. Bush *has* increased funding for AIDS fighting in Africa, but we could be doing so much more to help stop curable diseases like Malaria and TB. We could be moving humanity forward with new technologies like fuel cells and genetic engineering - if only we had a dynamic government not dominated by corporate interests. Unfortunately, I do not believe that America has the leadership and the fortitude at this time to create a true ''Pax Americana'' and improve the life of people across the globe - and as long as I''m dreaming, I hope World of Warcraft is out this Christmas, so I can retreat to Azeroth and forget about this worlds problems.
</Idealistic Rant>

Bush *has* increased funding for AIDS fighting in Africa

Paper tiger, most of the money he promised will actually be provided for by European citizens and various medicare companies.

"Koesj" wrote:
Bush *has* increased funding for AIDS fighting in Africa

Paper tiger, most of the money he promised will actually be provided for by European citizens and various medicare companies.

Huh? Where do you get that?

Hey, I''ve got an idea, let''s ask the leading liberal candidate, Howard Dean,

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

(who was staunchly opposed to the war in Iraq), what he thinks we should do about Liberia?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

Ummmm....I need a liberal to help me here.

Ratboy, Howard Dean says that Liberia is a threat to the world when Iraq wasn''t. I''m not being sarcastic, can you or anyone else help me understand this? I keep reaching a cynical answer that there are more african american voters than Iraqi voters, and I know that just couldn''t possibly be the truth. Ok, maybe I''m being a little sarcastic.

There are substantial differences, and I think your happiness to thwart a democratic candidate is clouding how obvious that is. First, intervening in a UN mandated and supported human rights situation in Liberia is nothing like the debacle in Iraq. First, it has legitimacy. Second, it won''t require 4 friggin divisions of ground infantry. Third, we have a history and responsibility to the country. Four, we''re not going to war with Liberia. Fifth, there aren''t a wealth of other possible detriments to intervening in Liberia (like destabilizing a crucial fiscal and military region). Sixth, we''re not making up excuses to intervene in Liberia as if from a hat.

Further, nowhere in the article you site does it quote Dean as saying that Liberia is a threat to the world. The author implies that''s the thrust of his argument through, what I must admit, is some interesting word play.

That said, I''m not supporting Dean here. I''m just saying that it''s very easy for someone opposed to the way Iraq was handled to support a decision to intervene in Liberia. Ignoring the differences is simplistic.

Huh? Where do you get that?

The secret manifesto in my backpocket, anyway, I found out it was some leftist rant on a two-bit activist site so I retract my statement. I''ll delve into the topic some more to see what I can come up with on the US anti-AIDS policy.

"Koesj" wrote:
Huh? Where do you get that?

The secret manifesto in my backpocket, anyway, I found out it was some leftist rant on a two-bit activist site so I retract my statement. I''ll delve into the topic some more to see what I can come up with on the US anti-AIDS policy.

I read that the EU was mad that they couldn''t match our donation.

I heard Africa was mad that it still didn''t make all the AIDS drugs out there affordable enough for them.

Ok Elysium, I think I understand now, because,

1. The UN gives us permission, and

2. It would be an easy military effort,

This is different than Iraq. Clinton would certainly agree with you. Ummm...except for the first part. He didn''t get permission from the UN for the Serbian war. Oh, whatever. The rest of your argument I''m too clouded by bias to understand.

3. I don''t understand your third averment, we have a history with Iraq, too, since we assisted Saddam in his rise to power, we had an obligation to take him out,

4. I don''t understand this reason either, if we are sending in men with guns instead of Colin Powell, its safe to assume we expect armed conflict,

5. I don''t understand this reason either, if we take away a dictator, we have to expect some destabilization, its called a power vacuum,

6. What excuses are you talking about? The excuses of invading Iraq for WMD, when even Democrat Senators are saying that we mignt be on to something regarding WMD?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

Can you say with a straight face that there were no civil rights violations in Iraq? A man who gassed his own people?

I think the argument to invade in Liberia is legitimate, and should have been the primary basis to invade Iraq. And when I say invade, I mean enter a county with a military force, overthrow the leadership, and put someone else in power. Which is exactly what the UN wants us to do in Liberia.

I''m not trying to undermine Dean. I agree with him on this issue. I disagree with him on Iraq. He is looking more and more like your candidate for the Democrat party. If he''s got the sand to use force to resolve a problem, maybe he ain''t all bad.

I heard that the last time an American administration promised money in this order of magnitude to fight AIDS the billions were never spent. Hearsay though, sometimes you just get so desillusioned by reading daily african news that indifference is just around the corner.

Avoiding all the extra party-line stuff you threw in that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. (who mentioned Clinton?)

I think the argument to invade in Liberia is legitimate, and should have been the primary basis to invade Iraq.

And if it had been, then that would have been a whole different discussion, one I''d have been much more likely to support (which is not to say that I actually would have). But, and this is important to me, it wasn''t. If you''re an ends justifies the means'' kinda guy, then more power to you, but I''m not going to be swayed by that.

As for destabilization, on a global political scale the destabilization of an area including Israel, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran (among many others) is more globally significant than the area surrounding Liberia. Thus should be a greater factor in deciding on intervention.

It really doesn''t do any good telling me Democrats are divided on the issue of WMDs. I don''t really consider myself a Democrat right now, and I don''t make my decisions based on how said Democrats are influenced. As a liberal I''m not somehow bound by the politics of some Democrats as if it were my own ideology. I''m not responsible for what they say. It''s not part of my argument.

If he''s got the sand to use force to resolve a problem, maybe he ain''t all bad.

Which could be an example of why we''re never going to agree on this sort of thing. Unlike Bush and his cronies (ah condescending rhetoric, where would I be without thee) when I say force should be a last resort, I actually think it should.

It was justifiable to bring up Clinton because he started the concept of ""nation building"" that George Bush has perpetuated and Howard Dean obviously supports as well. It just may be a Bush-Dean election, and unless you plan not to vote next year, you may have to choose between the two, both of whom feel strongly for an issue that you are strongly against.

Ok, we''ve concluded the war in Iraq. Now please explain how the middle east area is destabilized? I''m not talking about rogue cells that are taking potshots at our military forces. I''m talking about a threat that is likely to spill over to all the countries that you mentioned and turn the middle east into world war 3? Your argument was predicted, and it it didn''t happen. Or are you saying that the chance that it might have happened didn''t justify the action?

Which could be an example of why we''re never going to agree on this sort of thing. Unlike Bush and his cronies (ah condescending rhetoric, where would I be without thee) when I say force should be a last resort, I actually think it should.

Howard Dean obviously disagrees with you, because he wants troops in there now, and we haven''t tried anything else yet. We gave Saddam Hussein 11 years to comply, and 5 years after he kicked out the UN.

Dean considers himself to be a liberal, and, per my previous post, he is the choice of liberals for Democrat candidate. So maybe you need to ask yourself if you really are a liberal. Maybe they are too hawkish for you.

And as far as Bush and his cronies, he wants Taylor out voluntarily before he''ll send troops in. Sounds like diplomacy to me. Maybe you both agree on more than you think?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

Ok, we''ve concluded the war in Iraq. Now please explain how the middle east area is destabilized?

To show that I''m a reasonable man, and because I''m willing to admit when I''m wrong, things aren''t as bad on the destabilization front as I might have feared. That''s not a concession that I don''t think the concern was justified.

Dean considers himself to be a liberal

He may consider himself to be _a_ liberal, but he''s not _the_ liberal. As in any group of people, there''s room for differences of opinion without excluding one from a group. There are some postions I take that might be considered conservative, for example I support allowing people more control over their retirement instead of relying on a clearly flawed Social Security. Just because I might approach the situation differently doesn''t mean he or I don''t have a liberal slant.

Anyway, I''m not actually trying to win some kind of argument here. Unless there''s a prize, of course. I''m just sharing how I feel. That''s what us liberals do. We share our feelings.

Wow! How quickly we forget. Was it not just days ago that 6 British MP''s were killed in a riot/uprising?

Did everyone forget about how Turkey, during the war,wanted to send ground forces into northern Iraq?

All the accusations against Syria facilitating the exodus of senior Iraqi officials and storing Iraqi WMDs?

All the rampant looting of hospitals and museums in the first few weeks.

The suffering of the newly freed Iraqi citiczens that went weeks without either food, water, power or all of the above?

The head of the Iraq rebuilding project being replaced...

Terrorist attacks in Saudio Arabia that may have been preventable if they had listened to our inteligence.

Sounds like a lot of instability in that region to me.

"fangblackbone" wrote:

Sounds like a lot of instability in that region to me.

Aren''t you forgetting? Freedom is untidy.

I dare somebody to say that to your local chapter of Mothers of Servicemen who are still waiting the return of their son or daughter from duty in Iraq.

(rant on)

Since when did the UNited States become the world peacekeepers? Don''t we have enough problems at home to deal with, what with the unemployment and recession? A liberal leaning friend here at work mentioned that we are sending troops into all these countries to justify the expense we spend on the military since the Republicans came into power, and at this point, I am almost inclined to agree.

Liberia, though? Hell, what about the other 3rd world countries? North Korea, no way, they are too big and we all know what happened there not long ago. Let''s pick on the guys who can''t fight back.

Take a step back, away from the view of a ""flag waving, patriotic stars and stripes American"" and look at this from third person. Is there any wonder that other countries consider us ""arrogant Americans""? When our own President is taunting terrorists to ""bring it on""? After a stupid, blind statement like that I wouldn''t doubt that we may yet see another catastrophe on the likes of 9/11.

Craig

Elysium, the price is my coveted possession of a Beta to Half-Life 2. (Just kidding! I don''t have it). I do like this site, it''s one of my favorites. I hope no one ever takes anything I say personally. I love games as much as everyone else. I''ve been playing Aliens vs. Predator 2 lately to get my skills ready for half-life 2 and Doom 3.

Anyway, I can give you three reasons, Sigfry, why we can''t just focus on ""our own problems"": World War I, World War II and 9/11. We are directly affected by foreign circumstances. It''s not always apparent, but when we wait and see sometimes the consequences are drastic.

And as far as republicans trying to justify military expenses, Clinton wasn''t exactly shy about using the military in Bosnia, Ethiopia and Africa and he cut military spending.

Why don''t we attack North Korea? We are not afraid of North Korea. Have you ever heard the expression, ""A barking dog never bites?"" North Korea is starving, and their threats are a cry for help. Now Clinton answered the threats by making lots of deals and getting North Korea to enter into lots of empty promises that they later admitted breaking. I wish I could source this quote, but it''s one of the coolest things Clinton ever said, I''m paraphrasing:

""North Korea will never attack us. They know if they did they would cease to exist in their present form.""

If anyone can source that please place a link.

Anyway North Korea wants help and everyone wants to help them, but not until they ""ask the right way"".

It''s funny how liberals complain America is a bully when we attack countries, and when we don''t attack countries we are afraid. If we fought Korea it would be using our drones and missiles and we would decisively win. Of course it would be portrayed as the Americans beating a ""starving Nation"".

I think the only real challenge would be China. But again, they wouldn''t be able to wage war effectively on our shores.

I''ll give you some insight on why countries resent us. We are the only superpower. As I said before, we are the only country that has the ability to wage and win wars in countries that are not adjacent to our own. No other country could have won the war in Iraq. A war that required a force to travel on land 300 miles in a week. If you think that war was easy, you are ill informed. It took a lot of planning. Ask General Wesley Clark, who wants to run as Vice President on the Democrat ticket how easy that war was.

Countries did everything they could to stop us from fighting in Iraq. We said we would anyway, did, and won. Try to wrap your brain around that. We can do just about anything we want and there is nothing any country can do to stop us that wouldn''t result in their total destruction. That makes us a frightening force to everyone. They don''t want to rely on our ""good intentions"", they want us weaker. If I was from France I would want America knocked off its high horse too.

Do you think things would be better if we were a weaker country?

No, Lawyeron, I think we all can agree at least on this that things would not be better if we were weaker. The lady at Supercuts who cuts my hair was talking about how every little bump we encounter here becomes a serious illness in Mexico. Of course, its heresay and only holds up to her frame of reference (she has family there) but I dont think I''m breaking new theory when I wager this happens in pockets all over the world.

However, on that note, I will requote something I feel is really important and timeless. Its from my ""Lasting Movie Quotes"" thread.

""Be wary of trusting someone who kills so easily.""
""A good sword needs to stay sheathed.""

and who can forget this Roosevelt saying:
""Speak softly and carry a big stick.""

I think its obvious the U.S. has failed to do all three. Some of you may not agree, but you cannot deny there is wisdom in these words.

"Lawyeron" wrote:

It''s about time we do something with Africa. Yeah, there''s no oil or money in it, but I believe African countries will be the new nests for Al Qaeda cells.

I heard on NPR (some ex-Clinton person) that we do get oil from here, and that was one of her reasons for justifying going in.

I''m not paying for the transcript, but here''s a link to the NPR search that I heard it on.

There''s your answer. There''s no such thing as a completely magnanamous humanitarian mission by this Administration; they always want something a little more tangible and profitable out of their overseas endeavours.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

There''s your answer. There''s no such thing as a completely magnanamous humanitarian mission by this Administration; they always want something a little more tangible and profitable out of their overseas endeavours.

you''re being sarcastic, right?

Nope. A similar situation was occuring in the Congo and the Administration did nothing about it. Liberia is an old ally and now it seems has a vital resource, so, send in the troops, the Administration says.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Nope. A similar situation was occuring in the Congo and the Administration did nothing about it. Liberia is an old ally and now it seems has a vital resource, so, send in the troops, the Administration says.

Actually, it''s send in the troops, the UN says. I don''t think we''d be going if the UN didn''t make such a fuss. I think this is Bush''s token ""UN is okay"" deal. Helps a country in the process, but not one of the top priorities (unless you''re Mr. Dean).

We may be directly affected by foreign circumstances, that is true. But when we take ""the initiative"" and go forth on our own without the world''s backing that just further induces the evil people around the world to hate us even more. 9/11 would not have even happened had we not co-habitated within Saudi Arabia and pissed off Bin laden in the first place. And that was brought upon us when we first fought Iraq back, and decided we were going to keep our base there. If you want to correllate 9/11 with foreign circumstances, then you can directly point towards our sticking our nose in the Middle East in that instance. Hence, with our occupation continuing in Saudi Arabia, comes Bin Laden''s words stating that he would stop if we were to leave Saudi Arabia. At this point, I don''t suppose that would be an option, as that would be ""appeasement"" to the terrorists. Draw a line in the sand, I suppose we shouldn''t back down.

Unfortunately, world peace is not possible so there will always be conflicts, fighting, and other nastiness in some place at any time. Does this mean that we should have expanded our military to the point it is now, or expand it more, so that we can send troops to every country? At what point does this stop? When I mentioned our problems at home, I''m talking about the regular person, not the person who makes 6 figures and has the suburban house with the picket fence and a pension. I''m talking about the people that are hurting due to the cuts and deficits. Sure, I''m glad South Africa is getting 10 billion dollars from us in aid, but wouldn''t that 10 billion be better spent at home?

North Korea has the largest standing army in the world. We may have better technology, but we had better technology 20 years ago and we still licked our wounds. Might does not necessarily translate into right. All it would take is a couple of nuclear missiles headed our way and we''re all screwed.

I still believe we should focus more on the problems at home than getting into everything overseas.

One last thing-- Lawyeron, you do make some good points, but you also show the ''American arrogance"" I mentioned in my first post in your last 2 paragraphs. It''s that exact mentality that makes terrorists want to target us, that makes people who ARENT Americans dislike us, and that sickens me when I see all the pseudo-commercial patriotism I see when people are jumping on the bandwagon. There is something to be said for a nation that may be the ''only superpower'' flaunting it like a bully. People know our strength, there is really no need to constantly push it. You get more respect when you are a humble giant.

Well, it''s a moot point. That butcher Taylor is out so maybe things will improve.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...