ALL TSPNers,, I Want Your Takes on Bush Sending Troups To Liberia.


If we send troops we become a Policing Nation that is supplying our soldiers to the world. Yet, Liberia is considered one of our babies so we should be involved. I feel we should be utilized as UN Peace Keepers first.
 

He did say "bring'em on"! I guess we'll be bringing back more body bags. I know we are the most powerful military in the world, but could we be spreading ourselves too thin? It seems as if we are following the pattern of the last days of the Roman Empire.
 
AD, that is my worry. Not only do we have troops in western Europe, Japan, Afghanistan, Korea and Iraq. They are in Columbia, The Phillipines, Djibouti, Guinea, and at least four former Soviet repubics. I do not have a problem with the concept of peace keeping. (Although as Lebanon showed it can be very dangerous.) But as Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a republican, has wondered, many people are fearing that the military is stretch too thin around the world.
 
they may be one of our babies, but liberia is like being in a large family, and they are the drug abusing sister with some bad children. she has nothing that we need or can use, and she would show up when we are having other family problems. so, we
have no time for her. as usual we neglect the children who really need some attention, yet we tend to the spoiled child who dosen't really us.

he won't send them there. white america won't have it. there are no W.O.M.D.
 
Liberia

Yes, for humanitarian reasons and as a part of the U.N. peace keeping forces. The same as in Kosovar, Bosnia, Afganistan, East Timor etc. As the world's only SUPERPOWER, we are obligated. After all, we did create this African country. The French and the Britishs are keeping the peace in adjacent countries. This deployment is different than Iraq and is warranted.
 
political....trying to get votes from blacks....At the same time, helping that nation would not be a bad thing....
 
Some Differences.

Liberia may be different from some other situation. There are reports that they ACTUALLY WANT the US involved what with the "historical" ties I guess. What about that?
 
No takes?

How in the world can there be no takes, one way or the other, on GW contemplating sending troops to Liberia? :confused: wow.
 
Re: Some Differences.

Originally posted by Bartram
Liberia may be different from some other situation. There are reports that they ACTUALLY WANT the US involved what with the "historical" ties I guess. What about that?
Click to expand...

It might be a good thing....But how long have they wanted assistance and how long has he been in office? Why come in at the 11th hour with a Calvary that is already worn and weary...???
 
Re: Re: Some Differences.

Originally posted by Ms. Jag4Jag
It might be a good thing....But how long have they wanted assistance and how long has he been in office? Why come in at the 11th hour with a Calvary that is already worn and weary...???
Click to expand...

It's tight I would readily admit. They are, after all, basically an American colony and look to be actually asking for the U.S. to intervene,, but it could be another Mogadishu and there are really no strategic interests that I know of. It's tight. It would be real easy for Bush to by-pass this one.
 
Originally posted by Ms. Jag4Jag
political
Click to expand...

I agree. The Iraq war was politics. The 9-11 situation inititally gave Bush a big boost in his approval ratings and in helping divert the country's attention from his shortfalls dating back to the Florida vote scandal. But the Afghanistan thing started to slow down, and we couldn't find Bin Laden. So then, it was about jumping on Iraq - even though we had been keeping Saddam in check since the Gulf War with those brief strikes made over the years - and keeping the "war on terrorism" in the forefront. And now, it's Liberia. Gotta have something to take Americans' attention from how bad the economy is, the absence of any w.m.d. found in Iraq, this forged uranium thing in Africa, and everything else his administration has dropped the ball on. It's all about playing the "war on terrorism" and "patriotism" cards until election time rolls around. And then, watch for his re-election ads that play on 9-11...
 
Well,,,

The Marines have been sent in to protect the embassy. PRAYERS go out to the dad-blame Marines. :mad:
 

Are we going to fight everyone?:mad:

It seems as if our president's list gets longer instead of shorter. Do you guys think that the American people are so dumb to not see that Bush wants to keep fighting to keep the focus off of the economy? What are his latest numbers?
 
Take a WILD GUESS about how I feel about this...

Here's a hint: If WMD in the hands of people who may supply terrorists or directly attack the US are reason to go to war, then why aren't we sending troops to N. Korea or Iran? If we are in a worldwide war against terror, then why aren't we attacking those who supplied and supported McVeigh and that whackjob who did the Olympic bombing? Are there not other regimes which are run by evil despots? Why not go after them.

One point, however. Liberia ASKED us to augment them with our troops. That's a bit different from engaging in colonialism--err--installing a puppet regime--err--"liberating" a country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top