Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
igloo

Where does everyone stand on Liberia?

Recommended Posts

To be honest, I can't make up my mind. Too many conflicting thoughts.....

Is our military stretched too thin?.......is this really what our military should be doing?...can the U.S. afford not to?....nation building or peacekeeping?....Will it be another Somalia?.....are US interests at stake?....should that matter?....is Bush turning into Clinton?.....what about the Congo, Sudan, etc, etc....will the US be caught in a precedent that it can not globally fulfill?....

How can the U.N. cry out for intervention in Liberia, but not care about the Iraqi's under Saddam Hussein?.....was not mass murder, torture, and genocide carried out in Iraq?

The only thing I am sure about is once again, the UN failed. And once again, the US will have to clean up the mess, something the UN and the "elite" Europeans can not handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

what about the Congo, Sudan, etc, etc....will the US be caught in a precedent that it can not globally fulfill?....

that is what worries me. Zimbabwe worries me about as much as the Congo.

i dont think Liberia will turn into another Somalia. there isnt as much anti-US sentiment as was in Somalia at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a touchy issue. but i think he's doing it for domestic political reasons as well.

trying to buy the black vote. he's also trying to target the hispanic population. what better way than to show them he really cares about what's going on in africa...which we all know is bullshit, because he really doesn't.

The African Bush

By June Thomas

Posted Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 5:41 PM PT

George W. Bush's trip to Africa—with stops in Botswana, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, and Uganda—received a lukewarm welcome from the African press. South Africa's Sunday Times said the whirlwind tour is "part of an elaborate plan to give [bush's] presidency a human face. Being seen to be helping 'poor, starving Africans,' and expressing support for the New Partnership for Africa's Development will work with African-American voters who are key to Bush's re-election campaign." On a less high-minded note, an op-ed in the Nation of Kenya looked forward to hearing Bush "pronounce African tongue-twister names like Olusegun Obasanjo and Abdoulaye Wade."

South Africa's Mail and Guardian likened Bush to a prostitute: "Like the world's oldest profession, the Republican administration of United States President George W Bush has interests, rather than principles." The editorial warned, "It would be a mistake to take Bush's 'compassionate agenda' seriously. His whistle-stop tour of five African countries … must be seen for what it is—hard-eyed self-service posing as a mercy mission." Bush's main concerns, the paper said, are "domestic security, the advancement of corporate America and the securing of strategic assets, mainly oil." The paper concluded, "Africa can exert some beneficial influence in bringing the world's most destructive and irresponsible rogue state back into line."

The Cape Argus said it was in the United States' interest to help Africa: "The 11 conflicts currently tearing the continent apart must … make Bush realise that any one of those theatres of war has the potential to hide and nurture those who wish to harm the US. … It is important that when Bush leaves, he leaves behind hope and economic prospects that will lift Africans out of poverty." The Cape Times, meanwhile, counseled Bush's opponents to exercise "restraint and sobriety" in the interests of realpolitik. "It is foolish to castigate and vilify the US yet, in the same breath, demand that the US increase its aid to Africa."

The Financial Times said Bush goofed by leaving Kenya off his itinerary. The East African nation has suffered significant losses as a result of two al-Qaida bombings—of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi in 1998 and an Israeli-owned hotel in Mombassa last November. "In both cases, the victims were mostly Kenyans. Subsequent warnings against travel to Kenya by the US, Britain and others … have caused disproportionate damage to its economy. If anyone wants to persuade Africans that the world does not treat them unfairly, this is not the way to do it."

An op-ed in Kenya's East African concluded that Bush is not serious about Africa because "he won't eat matooke." Rather than traveling with his own chefs, the president should sample local food, because for "most Africans nothing speaks more eloquently of your affection for them … than having a meal in their homes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sassa

it's a touchy issue. but i think he's doing it for domestic political reasons as well.

trying to buy the black vote. he's also trying to target the hispanic population. what better way than to show them he really cares about what's going on in africa...which we all know is bullshit, because he really doesn't.

Sassa-----seriously --what the fuck is wrong with you....why are such a miserable, cynical fuck........trust me, Chomsky is not gospel, so I suggest you pull his cock out of your ass

Was Clinton trying to just buy the black vote as well?....Clinton must have really had an evil hidden agenda since he did nothing for that country, except go on a Safari?

With respects to Kenya, I suggest they spend a little less time worrying about tongue twisters, and a little more time cleaning up their house---which has been a haven for terrorists for too long

I also suggest that they would be wise with their comments, since a significant chunk of their economy depends on tourism...I have been there, and had a chance to go back again--but wouldn't because the place is filled with AL-Qaeda operatives..

And BTW---if the US has an increased interest in Africa for domestic security issues---so be it you fucking simpleton. The end result will be the US and the AFrican people would be better off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

Sassa-----seriously --what the fuck is wrong with you....why are such a miserable, cynical fuck........trust me, Chomsky is not gospel, so I suggest you pull his cock out of your ass no need to call me names...no need at all...and i'm not basing my post on chomsky, so get a fucking grip :rolleyes:

Was Clinton trying to just buy the black vote as well?....Clinton must have really had an evil hidden agenda since he did nothing for that country, except go on a Safari? i don't give a fuck about clinton, we're discussing bush here, not clinton. stick to the topic, :rolleyes:

With respects to Kenya, I suggest they spend a little less time worrying about tongue twisters, and a little more time cleaning up their house---which has been a haven for terrorists for too long kenya is very corrupt, and until this changes, they will continue to do what they're doing...

I also suggest that they would be wise with their comments, since a significant chunk of their economy depends on tourism...I have been there, and had a chance to go back again--but wouldn't because the place is filled with AL-Qaeda operatives.. and you base this on what?

And BTW---if the US has an increased interest in Africa for domestic security issues---so be it you fucking simpleton. The end result will be the US and the AFrican people would be better off. i doubt this very much, but to each their own....

never has the west taken the continents of africa, asia, south america, or australia into consideration, for their own good. it has always been their way to exploit them and take whatever they can for themselves. how do you think de beers got started? where do you think the queen got her crown jewels from? it's a never ending cycle. they would like us to think they're helping these countries out, but in reality, it's all a show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economics...

Africa is a forgoten HUGE continent where U.S companies can introduce products by opening trade is this bad HELL NO... Capitalism is the only thing that seperates us from Africa why not guide them on a task that will allow them to operate in a way that is proven to work, the American way... Now before Sassa yells that we shouldn't push our values on them chill that's not what I am saying... Think about in a economical way...Buisness is what's going to save them beleive me... once the society can operate in a way where basic social activities like hospitals, buisnesses, TAXES for the govt to spend can be performed... all this translates into people working and living better lives...

Now do I think it's a good idea?? IGLOO I don't know either... but the deep american roots that country has and the compassion I have being an American tells me that we can't let it go on for any longer... and maybe we should step in.. hopefully it will go smoothly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sassa

Was Clinton trying to just buy the black vote as well?....Clinton must have really had an evil hidden agenda since he did nothing for that country, except go on a Safari?

i don't give a fuck about clinton, we're discussing bush here, not clinton. stick to the topic, :rolleyes:

Sassa please tell me you are not serious. First off, It's really not that far off topic. Second, diverting the topic (which this wasn't really was) is your pattented style of answering questions, and you have the balls to tell someone else not to do it? You define the word hypocrite. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sassa

Originally posted by igloo

Sassa-----seriously --what the fuck is wrong with you....why are such a miserable, cynical fuck........trust me, Chomsky is not gospel, so I suggest you pull his cock out of your ass no need to call me names...no need at all...and i'm not basing my post on chomsky, so get a fucking grip :rolleyes:

Was Clinton trying to just buy the black vote as well?....Clinton must have really had an evil hidden agenda since he did nothing for that country, except go on a Safari? i don't give a fuck about clinton, we're discussing bush here, not clinton. stick to the topic, :rolleyes:

With respects to Kenya, I suggest they spend a little less time worrying about tongue twisters, and a little more time cleaning up their house---which has been a haven for terrorists for too long kenya is very corrupt, and until this changes, they will continue to do what they're doing...

I also suggest that they would be wise with their comments, since a significant chunk of their economy depends on tourism...I have been there, and had a chance to go back again--but wouldn't because the place is filled with AL-Qaeda operatives.. and you base this on what?

And BTW---if the US has an increased interest in Africa for domestic security issues---so be it you fucking simpleton. The end result will be the US and the AFrican people would be better off. i doubt this very much, but to each their own....

never has the west taken the continents of africa, asia, south america, or australia into consideration, for their own good. it has always been their way to exploit them and take whatever they can for themselves. how do you think de beers got started? where do you think the queen got her crown jewels from? it's a never ending cycle. they would like us to think they're helping these countries out, but in reality, it's all a show.

(1)...your miserable, anti-American, pessimistic, conspiracy theory thought process does not try and emulate Chmosky (weakly I might add)??.....please...you are a misrebale piece of shit....

(2) Bringing up Clinton is not off topic retard...because you are so anti-Bush, that you would be willing to find anything negative, not matter how irrelevant it is, to be critical of Bush...fucking fool..

(3) Yes, Kenya is corrupt....you admit this, yet you put weight into what they are saying?

(4) How do I know Kenya is filled with Al-Qaeda....for starters, I have read countless books and other materials on Al-Qaeda and terrorism....I suggest you do the same since you know absolutely nothing.....and since your head is up your ass, I guess you missed the Al-Qaeda attacks that have already occurred there....I guess that you have missed the numerous terror alerts for that country....I guess you didn't know that Al-Qaeda uses Mombassa as a main port....I guess you didn't know Al-Qaeda used Kenya as an entry point into the U.S., ...I guess you didn't know that Al-Qaeda used Kenya as a launching point for their Somalia operation....should I go on?....I guess, as usual, YOU DO NOT SHIT!!

(5) Your doubt that America can help the AFrican people is typical of your miserable, rotted being....the problem with you fucking leftist hypocrites is THAT YOU ARE NEVER HAPPY---unless you are bitching and complaining........even when the U.S. seems to finally be addressing Africa, you still complain.......i.e...$15 billion is not enough, we are just there for our national interests, he is just trying to buy the black vote, we are just giving money because of terrorism....YOU ARE NEVER FUCKING SATISFIED....you seek the negative in everything...just shut the fuck up already--you make me sick..

The bottom line, even if our entire Africa initiative is based solely on our domestic security issues, is that both Africa and the U.S. will be better off......or I guess weeding out terrorism and pouring money into AFrica is a bad thing?

You are a fucking simpleton fool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the US military is stretched to thin basically because the seriously miscalculated the efforts, man power, and funds needed to stabilize iraq.

*********************

Senators Grill Rumsfeld About U.S. Future in Iraq

Gen. Franks, Secretary Disagree on Troop Levels

By Thomas E. Ricks and Helen Dewar

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, July 10, 2003; Page A01

Democratic senators sharply questioned the Bush administration's handling of the Iraqi occupation yesterday, repeatedly pressing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on the cost and duration of the U.S. military presence there and voicing concern about the long-term impact on the armed forces.

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee offered Rumsfeld perhaps his roughest handling from Congress since he became defense secretary two years ago as they expressed unease about the continuing problems facing occupation forces in Iraq.

"I'm now concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers serving as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said.

"We are dangerously stretched thin in the Army," added Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a veteran of the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division.

In response, Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who was the U.S. commander in the recent war in Iraq and testified alongside Rumsfeld, said he expected that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq -- about 150,000 -- would have to be maintained for the "foreseeable future." That statement is a sharp contrast to prewar Pentagon estimates that the occupation force could be quickly cut to about 50,000 troops, and is more specific than Bush administration officials have been in recent remarks.

Rumsfeld's testimony yesterday was the first opportunity lawmakers have had to question him after several weeks of grim news. The postwar recovery in Iraq has been slower than expected even as the U.S. military's casualty rate has spiked, with a death rate of almost one a day last month. Iraqi attacks on U.S. forces have grown in sophistication, with a series of mortar attacks on fixed posts and pistol killings of individual soldiers in Baghdad.

The sharp tone yesterday represented something of a change for congressional Democrats, who have been largely supportive of President Bush's handling of postwar Iraq. But despite the grilling of Rumsfeld, Democrats in general remain reluctant to challenge Bush on Iraq, and they have issued no calls for a major change in U.S. policy in Iraq.

Republicans remain enthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy even as some profess unease about recent events. Yesterday, Armed Services Committee Republicans congratulated Rumsfeld on his role in removing Saddam Hussein from power and stressed that some of the postwar problems can be attributed to the brutality of Hussein's reign. "What you folks have done is end this monstrous, bloody regime," Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said.

Rumsfeld, who usually appears confident in his testimony, repeatedly said he did not know the answers to major questions from committee members, such as whether France and Germany specifically had been asked to contribute troops to postwar operations in Iraq, or the total monthly costs of U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When first asked whether the administration had asked France and Germany, whose leaders vigorously opposed the invasion of Iraq, to contribute to postwar peacekeeping, Rumsfeld said, "I'll have to ask." After checking during a break in the hearing, he said that they had been asked at least once, last December, which was before the French and German opposition to the war became a major disruption in transatlantic relations. And when asked if a request had been made since then, he said, "I have no idea. I'd be happy to run around and try to find out the answer to that."

Rumsfeld also was initially vague about the monthly cost of military operations in Iraq, telling the committee, "I'll have to get you that for the record." Later in the hearing, he said he had checked and been told that U.S. military operations currently cost about $3.9 billion a month in Iraq -- far higher than previous Pentagon estimates -- and about $900 million a month in Afghanistan.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), sought to explain the unusually edgy tone of the session to Rumsfeld. "Here's what you're hearing today from the committee," he said in a gently admonishing tone. "The problem here is that Americans are unsure about the future of our involvement in Iraq," feeling what he called "not disaffection, not anger, but unease" about the situation.

"So, what you need to do, in my view, is give . . . a concrete plan as much as you can," McCain told Rumsfeld. "In other words, how much is it going to cost, roughly, and how long we expect to be there, even if it's a pessimistic scenario, and how many troops are probably going to be required."

Near the end of the hearing, Rumsfeld responded with a short lecture of his own. "I think we have to get some perspective on this and put this in context and think back in history," he said. "This is tough stuff. This is hard work. This takes time. . . . We need to have some patience."

Rumsfeld also argued that the situation is not as dire as some perceive. Contrary to some impressions, he said, the fighting is relatively limited in geographical scope to Baghdad and the "Sunni triangle" northwest of it. "Large portions of Iraq are stable," he said. "Most of the recent attacks have been concentrated in Baghdad and three corridors reaching west, north and east out of the Iraqi capital."

Franks, who stepped down on Monday as the chief of the U.S. Central Command but is still on active duty, also defended the planning for postwar Iraq. "We did anticipate a level of violence," he said. But, he added, "I can't tell you whether we anticipated that it would be . . . at the level that we see right now."

Rumsfeld declined to endorse Franks's view that the current level of almost 150,000 U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for the foreseeable future. "Nobody knows the answer to that question, how long it will take," Rumsfeld said. He quibbled somewhat with Franks's assertion, saying that foreign troops would take up some of the burden, though he later added that U.S. troops would have to be replaced mainly by other American troops.

Rumsfeld and Franks expressed concern about Iranian activity in Iraq. "Iran has mounted an increasingly sophisticated and multifaceted influence campaign" aimed at stirring anti-U.S. feeling, Franks said in his written testimony. Rumsfeld also said that along one stretch of their common border, the Iranians have moved border posts onto Iraqi territory. "That is behavior that's not acceptable, and they should be staying on their own side of the border," he said.

While unusual, yesterday's Armed Services Committee hearing is unlikely to represent a turning point in congressional consideration of Iraq, several members of Congress said. "The reason you don't see people rushing to the floor to make speeches is that there aren't any easy answers out there," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "I don't think anyone has any great ideas for dealing with the situation."

While there is "nervousness and anxiety" about the situation in Iraq, Dorgan said, there has been "no huge national outcry," and this is reflected in congressional attitudes.

"The mood is one of concern, and to some extent frustration, that the reconstruction effort is not going as well as we might have hoped," said Senate intelligence committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). "But I don't think there's anyone I've talked to who doesn't have the resolve to see it through."

A poll released this week by the Pew Research Center found that 23 percent of Americans believe the military effort in Iraq is going very well. That's sharply down from 61 percent in April. But there is still strong support -- 66 percent -- for a major U.S. commitment to rebuild Iraq and establish a stable government.

Nevertheless, even some prominent Republicans have expressed growing impatience recently about what they see as a lack of a long-term strategy for rebuilding Iraq and returning the government to its citizens.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and McCain, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, are pressing hard for more information about long-term plans for Iraq, as are some Democrats.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), senior Democrat on the intelligence panel, called for "straight talk to the American people . . . that we're going to be there for a while, that we may need more forces and that more lives may be lost."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35460-2003Jul9.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

(1)...your miserable, anti-American, pessimistic, conspiracy theory thought process does not try and emulate Chmosky (weakly I might add)??.....please...you are a misrebale piece of shit....

(2) Bringing up Clinton is not off topic retard...because you are so anti-Bush, that you would be willing to find anything negative, not matter how irrelevant it is, to be critical of Bush...fucking fool..

(3) Yes, Kenya is corrupt....you admit this, yet you put weight into what they are saying?

(4) How do I know Kenya is filled with Al-Qaeda....for starters, I have read countless books and other materials on Al-Qaeda and terrorism....I suggest you do the same since you know absolutely nothing.....and since your head is up your ass, I guess you missed the Al-Qaeda attacks that have already occurred there....I guess that you have missed the numerous terror alerts for that country....I guess you didn't know that Al-Qaeda uses Mombassa as a main port....I guess you didn't know Al-Qaeda used Kenya as an entry point into the U.S., ...I guess you didn't know that Al-Qaeda used Kenya as a launching point for their Somalia operation....should I go on?....I guess, as usual, YOU DO NOT SHIT!!

(5) Your doubt that America can help the AFrican people is typical of your miserable, rotted being....the problem with you fucking leftist hypocrites is THAT YOU ARE NEVER HAPPY---unless you are bitching and complaining........even when the U.S. seems to finally be addressing Africa, you still complain.......i.e...$15 billion is not enough, we are just there for our national interests, he is just trying to buy the black vote, we are just giving money because of terrorism....YOU ARE NEVER FUCKING SATISFIED....you seek the negative in everything...just shut the fuck up already--you make me sick..

The bottom line, even if our entire Africa initiative is based solely on our domestic security issues, is that both Africa and the U.S. will be better off......or I guess weeding out terrorism and pouring money into AFrica is a bad thing?

You are a fucking simpleton fool

I agree with you. According to her the US can do no good, regardless of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sassa

another thread shot down because of bullshit....:rolleyes:

]

you started with the bullshit with your Bush slam and avoidance of any real discussion on your part....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have much time now to go in detail, but I'm also sort of torn. Iraq and North/Central Africa are separated by a thin line I think, and for me Africa is on the other side of the line. Whats going on there is sickening...ritual ethnic cleansing. BUt I think attention is also needed in the Congo since the killing there probably rates as one of the worst in world history. What separates Iraq and Africa - not much, except in Iraq I don't think there was ritual mass murder for just the purpose of murder.

I dunno - I've been torn in many ways over Iraq as well...torn between the need to remove Hussein and the way Bush went about it.

But with regards to Africa, I'm leaning toward yes, even though I think Vic is right - the army is getting stretched a bit think now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by raver_mania

I don't really have much time now to go in detail, but I'm also sort of torn. Iraq and North/Central Africa are separated by a thin line I think, and for me Africa is on the other side of the line. Whats going on there is sickening...ritual ethnic cleansing. BUt I think attention is also needed in the Congo since the killing there probably rates as one of the worst in world history. What separates Iraq and Africa - not much, except in Iraq I don't think there was ritual mass murder for just the purpose of murder.

I dunno - I've been torn in many ways over Iraq as well...torn between the need to remove Hussein and the way Bush went about it.

But with regards to Africa, I'm leaning toward yes, even though I think Vic is right - the army is getting stretched a bit think now.

I don't think the military is getting stretched--- it is....I am leaning towards no, because how can the U.S. intervene in Liberia, and not other places......but of course, I am also sensitive to the plight of these people, and once again, it looks like only the U.S. can alleviate this...

What I do not understand is why can't the UN, or France and Germany handle this?----from a peacekeeping force perspective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

I don't think the military is getting stretched--- it is....I am leaning towards no, because how can the U.S. intervene in Liberia, and not other places......but of course, I am also sensitive to the plight of these people, and once again, it looks like only the U.S. can alleviate this...

What I do not understand is why can't the UN, or France and Germany handle this?----from a peacekeeping force perspective

I haven't been following the situation too closely - whats the deal, they don't want to intervene?

I thought the French were already intervening in Ivory Coast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by raver_mania

I haven't been following the situation too closely - whats the deal, they don't want to intervene?

I thought the French were already intervening in Ivory Coast?

To be honest, I don't know--that is why I am confused....I know the French are in the Ivory Coast, but the footprint is relatively small...

I just do not understand why the urgent UN request for US troops (and Liberia)...why can't other countries provide the force...

The U.S. right now needs all its focus on Iraq, and does not need to open up another theater that could turn ugly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by raver_mania

I haven't been following the situation too closely - whats the deal, they don't want to intervene?

I thought the French were already intervening in Ivory Coast?

the Franch are intervening in the Congo as well.

Germany's economy is in the shitter. That nation cant afford any military operation at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by bigpoppanils

the Franch are intervening in the Congo as well.

Germany's economy is in the shitter. That nation cant afford any military operation at this point.

Doesn't that speak volumes about the UN and its deficiencies and hypocrisy towards the U.S.?

And someone is going to have to explain to me why France, Germany, and the U.N. are so concerned with the people of the Congo and Liberia, yet let Saddam Hussein commit mass murder while sticking it up the U.N.'s ass for 12 years...

rhetorical of course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×