Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gabrielle Reilly
OK, fair enough - then why are we now being asked by the UN to consider participation in the Congo, too? To be a peacekeeping force, you have to have the one operative word: force. Who has that? The guys in the blue helmets don't seem to have made a dent in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda -or anywhere else I can think of where they've been deployed. The world can't have it both ways. The UN has to quit calling us the bullying superpower imperialists and then run to us when everyone else seems to be impotent and there are no other options. We can't spread ourselves around the world forever, and it's obvious that other countries give great lip service, but no cash, and no effective enforcement.
13 posted on 06/27/2003 8:58:42 PM PDT by ysoitanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: ysoitanly
If we keep working at it, we can furnish all the peacekeeping in the world. Rummy is ambitious and sees himself as world police chief. The cat was out of the bag when he said it had been discussed. Bush just got done telling African leaders that we should go over there and straigten out Liberia, Zimbabwe, and the Congo so we can give then more aid so they can establish a free trade zone. I just love these psuedo-Americans and their plans for world leadership.
14 posted on 06/27/2003 9:11:40 PM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: ysoitanly
>>>>>>OK, fair enough - then why are we now being asked by the UN to consider participation in the Congo, too? To be a peacekeeping force, you have to have the one operative word: force.>>>>>>>>

Once again it is only a play on words to get more countries on our side so we get more support. We had to take drastic measures against terrorism and lost a lot of friends around the world.

They are talking about "force". PM Blair has Sierra Leone in order so trade has recommenced and they are becoming self sufficent. Liberia borders Sierra Leone and much would be lost. When they say "peacekeeping" they send in the army, in Britans case the Royal Gherka's, and use force. Blair use a "over the horizon" quick action military strike that has proved very effective.

Why do we need to try and establish these countries? Certainly not because we want anything to do with them. Globalization has forced us to BEWARE of broken states such as Afghanistan that trained terrorists to run into our buildings, killing our people and having a huge effect on our economy.

Take for example the big picture on Liberia... if Liberia goes, Sierra Leone goes. Prior to Blair going in to Sierra Leone in 2000 the Al Qaida terrorist network were reaping the diamonds from Sierra Leone (which happen to be the best quality diamonds in the world). They used this commodity to pay to train people TO KILL US. The Al Qaida trade opium, drugs, illegal weapons, pursue wmd's in all these lawless country's. If we can regain some control the threat to us will not be nearly so tremendous.

I would say they are once again being wise because they have all the information laid out on the table.
17 posted on 06/28/2003 5:14:47 AM PDT by Gabrielle Reilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson