So who is up for some humanitarian work in West Africa?

 

There are 3 views you can take (no this was not supposed to be a poll)

Side A: Sure, why not

Side B: I hate violence of all kinds

Side C: I hate this because bush is president

Side D: don't want to fight, but we are obligated

 

SideshowApu will probably fall in either B or C, maybe even D...afterall his socialist friends in England think we are obligated. CW I expect to choose side B. I on the other hand take Side D, as the worlds powerhouse we have to look out for the best interests of the little guy. Right now the little guy is being slaughtered in Liberia...time for the U.S. to take over.

 

France and England aren't on our ass either because they are currently trying to stop violent factions in other African Nations.

 

Any Opinions?

sorry, 4 possible views

I vote B [you could have made this a poll too, haha]

 

If I remember correctly, Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition is good friends with the dictator of Liberia because Pat owns lots of gold mines there. It's also been shown that he used Operation Blessing money to ship mining supplies to his own gold mines. So Patty Pat will probably be against this involvement of US forces.

 

And let Johnny Storm, inaugurate the flame war that is going to proceed.

 

And really we shouldn't invade MORE countries and depose their governments until we get the "Countries rebuit to governments overthrown" ratio a bit closer to 1.

What is going on with nation rebuilding in Afghanistan???

What is going on with nation rebuilding in Afghanistan???

$0 in the latest budget for that.

 

Donald Rumsfeld when asked about that said "We lowballed it."

D, we're basically obligated to go into Liberia. We practically made the country.

$0 in the latest budget for that.

 

Donald Rumsfeld when asked about that said "We lowballed it."

Afghanistan isn't as sexy as Iraq.

E - I love violence of all kinds.

$0 in the latest budget for that.

 

Donald Rumsfeld when asked about that said "We lowballed it."

What does lowballed mean?

there is a moral use of the presence of force - peacemaking/peacekeeping

 

it is odd that the smirk finally discovers Africa just when he is about to make a trip there and even more odd that the worst violence isn't in Liberia and the French have been a gutsy peacekeeping force in Africa for a while now -

 

also odd that we have failed in Afghanistan, are failing in Iraq, and the attention span of the smirk is less than most ADHD children

 

of course maybe he'll use some more of his tough guy macho talk and invite further violence against our troops and our nation while he he is a personal chickens***

 

if there is something that can be done to stop the killing it will be good and it undoubtedly will not require force, just presence

 

however, the American military is going to be stretched very, very thin

 

so the whole thing is a curiosity

$0 in the latest budget for that.

 

Donald Rumsfeld when asked about that said "We lowballed it."

What does lowballed mean?

underbid

 

 

As in, Iyou say you'll cut the lawn for $20 and I lowball you by offering a buck

 

although in case it means one more administration lie as our budget deficit explodes beyond all history and sanity

Some clarity:

 

Force considered in Liberia would not be that of governmental overthrow but basically to enforce the truce and keep humanitarian aid flowing into Liberia. This i Support. However, its a smokescreen. By the time we'd make a decision, the presidency in Liberia would be over and gone.

 

Id support entry into Liberia but make no mistake, this is a political ruse. Sending troops here would be a signal that we care about the repression of others, even when we have no interest in them financially.

 

Of course we would send between 500-2000 troops to Liberia. Cause we only care a little.

This is just an evil plot to keep the Whote Sox from the nations headlines

Those bastards! :finger