No Troops To Liberia (Vanity)

[faithincowboys]

We're all ready over-extended, it is vital we do what's needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Adding Liberia to our list of responsibilities is insane. On the heels on the huge expanision of entitlements, this President is not doing what he should. He gets no credit for letting Ted Kennedy write the Education bill, $15 billion to African anti-Aids effots gets him nothing but dissed by Mandela. Sending our boys to Liberia will result in a Somailia or Beirut incident-- the American people and the military families don't want this. Also Bush will not win any points from the liberal media. It seems like he is determined to relive his father's experience. Isn't a humanitarian force to Liberia very similar to the Somailia op in his father's term? What's next a plan to puke on Japanese dignitaries? Karl Rove needs to get a clue.

Bush needs to restrain spending, stop placating the liberals, understand that the liberals in the media are committed to his destruction and that no amount of Alan ALda/Jimmy Carter humanitarian bs in Africa is gonna make the media like him, also he needs to stop screwing with the farmers in Klamath Falls, Oregon-- the media is gonna portray him as an anti-environment nut anyway.

Bush and Co. need to do what's right, stick to priniciple, understand their enemy, and stop the bs. Get serious.

[kesg]

Subsequently I saw that Howard Dean supported the idea of sending troops to Liberia, which sharply reduced my confidence even further that this move promotes a vital interest of the United States.

[kesg]

Liberia was a US founded slave repatriation 'center' and also it has natural resources. The only time the US ever intervenes is when its own interests (money or life) is at stake. Also, the christian populace is being overrun by (whoelse?) muslims.

This dog still isn't hunting for me.

[squidly]

Whether we should go or not, I don't know, but we're not so maxed out that we can't do it. Militarily, we've got the force available. We aren't even going to have to send a whole division, maybe not even a whole brigade.

[cyborg]

Okay but to ignore Africa and the way the radical islamofascists are taking over is dangerous...

[evad]

..which sharply reduced my confidence even further that this move promotes a vital interest of the United States.

When that confidence level drops to ZERO, then you'll be at my level.

Even the slixter in Bosnia/Serbia went under the pretense of vital national interest. Bush in Kuwait under the vital interest of oil stability.

Whether these interests are real or perceived we can debate, but.... LIBERIA. What national interest do we have there?

Now if we want to sent humanitarian aid, that's something else althought I personally would take the position that some type of interest or gain to us must be a part of the package.

[Ax]

I'm an old Africa sweat; I've spent a lot of time on that continent. I'm also a neo-imperialist that believes in Pax Americana. The only thing that will save Africa is a massive dose of Recolonization.

[tiamat]

I'm glad to hear you say that. Africa as a whole is a pit and always has been, except for those times and places where it has been under someone else's boot. and even then i would not classify it as "good".

However, I am wondering if the AIDS problem is now so bad that the place will be empty with 20 years.

Tia

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Sending our boys to Liberia will result in a Somailia or Beirut incident-- the American people and the military families don't want this.

BS. Didn't happen when the Marines were sent to Liberia in 1990 during Operation Sharp Edge. I'll bet those Americans on the FEBA in Monrovia would gladly welcome the presence of a MEU.

[Sparta]

BTTT

[faithincowboys]

Pray tell, what did that deployment solve. I would also argue that the world has changed a lot since 1990.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

That deployment saved the lives of a number of American citizens living and working in Liberia. Lives you would probably have written off. Your arguments don't hold water.

[Tailgunner Joe]

If Howard Dean, Kofi Annan, and Jaques ChIRAQ all think the U.S ahould intervene in Liberia, then why would we think it's a good idea?

Why should the U.S.A. come to the aid of The Axis of Weasels?

[faithincowboys]

Yeah, I noticed--it's not them providing men and materiel to the wage jihad in Iraq. Wake up, BD. They are trying to give us what they gave us in Lebanon. This is just the beginning.

[faithincowboys]

It's Chirac in France, and Chretien in Canada.

[faithincowboys]

Hey if you go to war zones to earn a buck, that's on you! I'm sorry-- if you want to work in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iran or Hell, you took your life into your hands, and I don't think 22 years olds from Alabama and Oklahoma should have to save you!

[blackdog]

I knew it was Chirac, just a brain fart I suppose. In reality though there is not much difference. I guess we'll never see the Mulrooney days again.

The jury is out on our posture on war in this new century. I agree with you on many aspects but I cannot see repeating the same mushy/delay/bend over backwards mistakes of the last fourty years.

It's a new century and America needs to communicate a very uncomplicated consistant policy abroad. We no longer need to prepare for continental conflicts. We need to rapidly respond to our diplomatic word. Those words will be mainly with small, third world, volitile countries governed by dictators and Islamic clerics with a maniacal lust for livin large with Swiss bank accounts.

Essentially we need to be able to rain hell on earth within one week of a diplomatic impass, or the impass will become an "American crying wolf" routine.

[blackdog]

I would love to be a fly on the wall around Maggie Thatcher's place these days. She seemed to be what America needs for this moment in time. No leaders can be 100% and all things to all people, but she seemed to be the right mindset for today's issues.

[faithincowboys]

Well, what we must do is complete the jobs we have already started. I just saw Barry Mcaffery and Col. Hackworth on Hardball and they are for intervention in Liberia-- now I know they are on somebody's payroll. I think the media is playing possum, they are not going to be very critical now, and they will let Dubya deploy and then when and if things go to Hell, they are going to jump all over Bush. I am sad to say I still go online via AOl, and the question that appears on AOl's welcome page is-- Are we picking another fight?

Isn't it funny that the liberals say we should have acted in concert with our allies in Iraq, now France and Kofi want us to do this and they act like Bush is a warmonger if he does. Bush can't win with these people and Karl Rove better stop counseling Bush towards appeasement!

[inquest]

The Liberians WANT the Americans in

That'll change quickly enough.

[inquest]

You're basically saying that if it's worth saying something about, it's worth doing something about. I don't disagree so far, but what I'm wondering is if the Liberia situation is even worth saying something about. We don't really have tons of troops to spare right at the moment, and we never know when we could need them for an actual threat for us to deal with. Tying more up in Liberia doesn't seem to make a whole lot of strategic sense. And making other countries' problems our problems is just going to create further demands for intervention elsewhere in the world.