• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US to send six to 10 troops to Liberia, number may go as high as 20

I thought all the military experts would have been in here now questioning the number...clearly, twelve are needed...we are so under-deployed again 🙂 I am sure CNN will have a special on this tonight with the retired liberal Generals crying outrage!
 
Well that certainly is promising! There is much less of a chance of this turning into another vietnam with too few millitary personnel to carry out any type of offensive, maybe someone in this administration is actually learning from history!
 
sending 10 people to help secure a change in govt. in country battered by civil war for 10 years, wow that's stepping up to the plate in the name of humanity!
 
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Well that certainly is promising! There is much less of a chance of this turning into another vietnam with too few millitary personnel to carry out any type of offensive, maybe someone in this administration is actually learning from history!


Perhaps you would be better served not re-living history, given there will never be another Vietnam; you should study the late 60's and early 70's and figure out why we had a Vietnam-type war then and why it won't happen again.

 
Hopefully that group of ten includes Jessica Lynch. From the news depiction of her, she could take out all the rebels armed only with a cheerleader's twirling baton.
 
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Well that certainly is promising! There is much less of a chance of this turning into another vietnam with too few millitary personnel to carry out any type of offensive, maybe someone in this administration is actually learning from history!


Perhaps you would be better served not re-living history, given there will never be another Vietnam; you should study the late 60's and early 70's and figure out why we had a Vietnam-type war then and why it won't happen again.

Go ahead enlighten me as to why exactly another vietnam type war will never again be a possibility, go ahead, remember what I said about dealing with extremes, you will lose every time, so by all means step up.
 
Originally posted by: jjsole
sending 10 people to help secure a change in govt. in country battered by civil war for 10 years, wow that's stepping up to the plate in the name of humanity!

It isn't our fight. And I realize it wasn't france's fight either (the american revolution) but they had something to gain by defeating britain.
 
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: jjsole sending 10 people to help secure a change in govt. in country battered by civil war for 10 years, wow that's stepping up to the plate in the name of humanity!
It isn't our fight. And I realize it wasn't france's fight either (the american revolution) but they had something to gain by defeating britain.

its not a fight, its establishing peace and order amidst what could become chaos without a peacekeeping presense. 10 is stupidest friggin thing I've heard of for a long time, especially for a country that was established by people we took as slaves.
 
In case anyone missed this part of the story:
The Pentagon also sent a three-ship group with 2,000 Marines and 2,500 support sailors to stand by off the coast and be ready for any contingency, officials said. The group, headed by the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima, is positioned less than 100 miles offshore, but it was unclear if those troops would have a role in Liberia.
The US wants the West Africans to handle this and they should. We're providing some assistance and backup to a situation where everyone already knows what needs to be done and what the outcome should be. Our presence there is to motivate getting these things done, not secure the area which is best left to the West Africans. If US soldiers start to die in Liberia that means were going to become embroiled in their ongoing civil war, or face an embarrassing withdrawal, if it all blows up again.
 
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: jjsole sending 10 people to help secure a change in govt. in country battered by civil war for 10 years, wow that's stepping up to the plate in the name of humanity!
It isn't our fight. And I realize it wasn't france's fight either (the american revolution) but they had something to gain by defeating britain.

its not a fight, its establishing peace and order amidst what could become chaos without a peacekeeping presense. 10 is stupidest friggin thing I've heard of for a long time, especially for a country that was established by people we took as slaves.

it is a civil war, more importantly it is THEIR civil war, we have no obligation to them, they don't pay taxes, why should we fund their civil war? I don't like the idea that my hard earned money goes to fight for someone elses ideals. Those 10 are NOT there to fight, they are there as millitary advisors, which is why my initial reaction when the administration announced plans to send millitary advisors to Liberia was that it could very easily turn into another vietnam (millitary advisors first went, then they took over the major fighting role)
 
Originally posted by: jjones
In case anyone missed this part of the story:
The Pentagon also sent a three-ship group with 2,000 Marines and 2,500 support sailors to stand by off the coast and be ready for any contingency, officials said. The group, headed by the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima, is positioned less than 100 miles offshore, but it was unclear if those troops would have a role in Liberia.
The US wants the West Africans to handle this and they should. We're providing some assistance and backup to a situation where everyone already knows what needs to be done and what the outcome should be. Our presence there is to motivate getting these things done, not secure the area which is best left to the West Africans. If US soldiers start to die in Liberia that means were going to become embroiled in their ongoing civil war, or face an embarrassing withdrawal, if it all blows up again.

I did miss that part, that is less encouraging, a lot less encouraging
 
Watched a clip on the news last night about the ongoing civil war there.
Sadly many of the armed participants who shoot and get shot are children soldiers,
ages from 9 to 14 carrying AK-47's, etc.
War-Lord mentality where the biggest gun gets their way.
 
Bush sent a token force to an African nation. Wow! Now he can say he really cares about Africa (maybe even with a straight face). Now maybe Pat Robertson will tell his flock of idiots that Bush deserves their support. Even his African AIDS commitment is meerly a bone for the "abstinince only" vote.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush sent a token force to an African nation. Wow! Now he can say he really cares about Africa (maybe even with a straight face). Now maybe Pat Robertson will tell his flock of idiots that Bush deserves their support. Even his African AIDS commitment is meerly a bone for the "abstinince only" vote.

bush's ENTIRE africa policy = abstinence 😀
 
For those who think Liberia has no national intrests to USA that's just plain wrong. Liberia was the #1 rubber importer for years until this mess broke out. Lots of other reasons too that have to do with closeness and socially.

But should we go? Nope. We globe trot too much and make to many enemies and costs american lives when they should learn to work together. IMO not one drop of american blood is worth being lost unless being attacked directly. Then the cost. I think american leaders are dedicated to having wars to ignore the real problems at home.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
I think american leaders are dedicated to having wars to ignore the real problems at home.
Also to juice the quarter GDP growth by 1% so that the Bush economic team can heap praise on the economic recovery.
 
I dont like the isolationist mentality this entire forum has.

You people would have the entire world collapse under itself under a flag of anarchy before you would lift a finger to do something about it.

While sitting at your computers surfing the internet and watching CNN, u may think you know what's going on in the world and u have it all figured out, but you haven't seen anything. Until you have been to Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq or Liberia, you just can't understand why it is imperitive that the US do everything in it's power to maintain order in the world. Poverty, disease, the stench of death whereever you go, things that are not found where we live. This is why American soldiers are asked to travel ten thousand miles to a places they can't even find on maps. They go because they know in their hearts that they are the only chance that the people in countries like Iraq and Liberia have to survive. Without them, famine, disease, death and war rule the land and will continue to do so until times end.

An American soldier's life is a small price to pay so that his family and even families of people who can't understand why he gave his life can live and prosper in a world that is stable and for the most part peaceful. A true soldier understands this and takes pride in knowing he is making a difference.

*Proud member of a Marine Corp family*
Oceanside, CA
Proud home of the 1st Marine Division
 
^^^

That's sweet and sh*t, but if you think we're going to save Africa from itself, you're sadly mistaken.
 
matt I appreciate your response and service but repectfully disagree. The main reasons we go to these counties is economic since we do not apply the same standards to places like Rawanda as we do Bosnia where only a fraction died and live much better in the first place. Bosnia had US businesses there, we traded with them etc so it was financially beneficial to go in much like Iraq is now for several companies and will be more so in the future. There are countless other stories of terrible suffering which we do nothing to prevent but then intervene when busniess is at stake. Cambodia, all of africa we don't seem to care about while Panama was a strategic intrest so we went in.

War is just a Racket
 
We're not going to save Africa from itself. Our goal is to restore order, not magically make them love eachother. Once order is restored, it's up to them to turn their country around. It is not up to them however, to kill innocent civilians and commit crimes approaching genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Sward666: Should we just let them continue to kill eachother? Should we let the conflict spread like wildfire across Africa? At what point should we intervene? When the world realizes we wont lift a finger to stop anyone and rebel govenments in Central and South America directly threaten our interests?

If that is the case then if China were to say attacks Japan, or Russia comes into Europe again, why should we help them? It's not our fight, American blood is not worth it, right?
 
I'm sure there are plenty here who would'nt mind if Germany had won even though they won't admit it.... You should read the AA threads🙂

Completly different NAZI germany posed an immediate threat to world domination and eventually the US would have become NAZI too... we had no choice and it was self defense...Until we were actually threatend and attacked we did stay out of it as we should have. Wars cost money and kill people.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
matt I appreciate your response and service but repectfully disagree. The main reasons we go to these counties is economic since we do not apply the same standards to places like Rawanda as we do Bosnia where only a fraction died and live much better in the first place. Bosnia had US businesses there, we traded with them etc so it was financially beneficial to go in much like Iraq is now for several companies and will be more so in the future. There are countless other stories of terrible suffering which we do nothing to prevent but then intervene when busniess is at stake. Cambodia, all of africa we don't seem to care about while Panama was a strategic intrest so we went in.

War is just a Racket

See, this is the problem. While I understand your point, we do intervene in countries with strategic interests, we do however intervene not just to secure our own interests, but to help as well.

We can't intervene everywhere, some places we're just not wanted, like Southeast Asia and Africa for the most part. If we were to intervene their, it better be with nothing less than two 3 division Corps.

I know that I'm not going to change your conservative outlook on foreign policy, but trust me, every soldier knows the feeling of handing his Rations to homeless children so that they can have a full meal for once in his/her entire life.
 
Back
Top