Jump to content

Liberia


1549

Recommended Posts

So who is up for some humanitarian work in West Africa?

 

There are 3 views you can take (no this was not supposed to be a poll)

Side A: Sure, why not

Side B: I hate violence of all kinds

Side C: I hate this because bush is president

Side D: don't want to fight, but we are obligated

 

SideshowApu will probably fall in either B or C, maybe even D...afterall his socialist friends in England think we are obligated. CW I expect to choose side B. I on the other hand take Side D, as the worlds powerhouse we have to look out for the best interests of the little guy. Right now the little guy is being slaughtered in Liberia...time for the U.S. to take over.

 

France and England aren't on our ass either because they are currently trying to stop violent factions in other African Nations.

 

Any Opinions? :usa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote B [you could have made this a poll too, haha]

 

If I remember correctly, Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition is good friends with the dictator of Liberia because Pat owns lots of gold mines there. It's also been shown that he used Operation Blessing money to ship mining supplies to his own gold mines. So Patty Pat will probably be against this involvement of US forces.

 

johnny.jpg

And let Johnny Storm, inaugurate the flame war that is going to proceed.

 

And really we shouldn't invade MORE countries and depose their governments until we get the "Countries rebuit to governments overthrown" ratio a bit closer to 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a moral use of the presence of force - peacemaking/peacekeeping

 

it is odd that the smirk finally discovers Africa just when he is about to make a trip there and even more odd that the worst violence isn't in Liberia and the French have been a gutsy peacekeeping force in Africa for a while now -

 

also odd that we have failed in Afghanistan, are failing in Iraq, and the attention span of the smirk is less than most ADHD children

 

of course maybe he'll use some more of his tough guy macho talk and invite further violence against our troops and our nation while he he is a personal chickens***

 

if there is something that can be done to stop the killing it will be good and it undoubtedly will not require force, just presence

 

however, the American military is going to be stretched very, very thin

 

so the whole thing is a curiosity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$0 in the latest budget for that.

 

Donald Rumsfeld when asked about that said "We lowballed it."

What does lowballed mean? :huh:

underbid

 

 

As in, Iyou say you'll cut the lawn for $20 and I lowball you by offering a buck

 

although in case it means one more administration lie as our budget deficit explodes beyond all history and sanity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some clarity:

 

Force considered in Liberia would not be that of governmental overthrow but basically to enforce the truce and keep humanitarian aid flowing into Liberia. This i Support. However, its a smokescreen. By the time we'd make a decision, the presidency in Liberia would be over and gone.

 

Id support entry into Liberia but make no mistake, this is a political ruse. Sending troops here would be a signal that we care about the repression of others, even when we have no interest in them financially.

 

Of course we would send between 500-2000 troops to Liberia. Cause we only care a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...