PDA

View Full Version : Liberia different than Iraq



eg8r
07-03-2003, 08:24 AM
Since no one else started a thread about this, I guess I will start it out. My slant is a little different this time...What makes going into Liberia different than going into Iraq? The use of force is inevitable yet, we have France requesting us to help out.

Also, don't you find it odd that Howard Dean has found interest in going into a foreign country to take over and overthrow the current administration? The only reason I can find that Dean feels this is different than Iraq, is that we have a little election coming up next year and Dean is looking for a way to appeal to the liberal constituents. If everything goes well, Dean will be able to say he was instrumental in sending those troops over there and he is happy to announce all things went well. All this in hopes of winning an election.

It is funny how the liberal ideas go back and forth depending on the administration. All the liberals thought a war with Iraq was the right thing to do while Clinton was in office, but when GWB decided to actually do something they backtracked. Why? Because it does not help the liberal agenda if the Republican president wins another war. Now we have a chance of cleaning up a mess in Africa, and Dean is one liberal that is not going to let this slip out of his reach. Article about Dean (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/02/national1844EDT0740.DTL)

eg8r

Qtec
07-03-2003, 09:23 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Talk about scraping the barrel! LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

You know , I actually thought that you were going to say something that we could agree on ! I think maybe ,somewhere , in the back of your mind , you were going to make some valid point , then your Rep.brain [ conditioning] kicked in and you come out with this nonsense !

Its strange that suddenly you see some ultierior motive when its a Dem. Despite all the evidence that I have produced , the countless lies from the Admin. and GW personally , you still refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that everybody has been mislead over Iraq .


The difference between Liberia and Iraq is oil and Israel. Both are not in Liberia.

Also , WE DO NOT WANT YOUR GM $HIT> /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif


Q

eg8r
07-03-2003, 09:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Its strange that suddenly you see some ultierior motive when its a Dem. <hr /></blockquote> See, you have opened my eyes. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
you still refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that everybody has been mislead over Iraq .
<hr /></blockquote> You have not given reason for any misleadings over Iraq. All the countries in the UN agreed he had the weapons so did Saddam. Why else would the UN agree to sign the Resolutions, and why would Saddam agree to disarm, if he did not have the weapons? This is a simple question that has never been answered by anybody. The real issue is that the Dems changed their minds. They were all behind Clinton when he was talking about it. however things changed when a Rep was in office.

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between Liberia and Iraq is oil and Israel. Both are not in Liberia. <hr /></blockquote> I might be overlooking something, but is Israel in Iraq? Also Bush is not saying No to Liberia. The difference is that the Dems are behind it now, in hopes to help the election chances.

eg8r

highsea
07-03-2003, 10:28 AM
Yea, everybody is sreaming for US intervention in Liberia. The UN, Liberia, the Dems, the neighboring African countries, etc.

We will go, we always do when someone asks us. Hopefully it won't turn into another Somalia. Funny thing is, we just pulled a rapid response force out of Liberia, now we just have to turn around and go back.

I can't figure out why Taylor has asked us to step in. GW has already stated that he (Taylor) needs to step down.

-CM

Hopster
07-03-2003, 11:10 AM
Eg8r, how many people have died in Liberia so far under this current regime ? Ive been so busy lately i havent really listened to anything about it. Someone said about 250,000 so far but that was just some guy i know talking and this guy aint picked a winner or had good info in the last 25 years. lol

Hopster
07-03-2003, 11:11 AM
We will go, we always do when someone asks us. Hopefully it won't turn into another Somalia. &lt;--Highsea

Personally im sickened about Somalia and Clintons handling of it. Theres a man i just absolutely cant stomach, i mean i see him on tv, him or his trash wife and i just start to steam.

highsea
07-03-2003, 11:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Hopster:</font><hr> Eg8r, how many people have died in Liberia so far under this current regime ? Ive been so busy lately i havent really listened to anything about it. Someone said about 250,000 so far but that was just some guy i know talking and this guy aint picked a winner or had good info in the last 25 years. lol <hr /></blockquote>

I think that is greatly exagerrated.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote CNN:</font><hr> Taylor seized power in an 1989 rebellion, triggering a civil war that killed tens of thousands. He also won a special election in 1997. A U.N. court recently indicted him on war crimes charges related to his role in Sierra Leone's civil war. Taylor has demanded assurance that he would not have to face those charges in return for stepping down.

Since 2000, Taylor's regime has been under siege by rebels who say they want a return to democracy. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in the fighting. <hr /></blockquote>

-CM

highsea
07-03-2003, 11:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> I think that is greatly exagerrated.
<hr /></blockquote>

Then again, maybe not.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/06/10/liberia.taylor/index.html

This guy looks like a regular Idi Amin.

-CM

eg8r
07-03-2003, 11:58 AM
Yeah, I am surprised soooo soon after Iraq, the world is now ok with us going in and helping another country solve their problems.

Many people forget that the UN did not approve originally of us going in and removing Milosevic. Then they don't agree with Iraq (even though Saddam was killing his own people left and right). Now, for some reason it is ok. The reason is because the UN has no spine and cannot do anything on their own. They need the US and are unwilling to admit it.

eg8r

Ross
07-03-2003, 02:53 PM
I think the main reason why people might react differently to interventions in Irag and Liberia is because there are differences in perceived credibility about the US's stated reasons for intervention.

In the case of Iraq, the stated reason (Iraq posed an imminent danger to the US)for going to war (as opposed to continuing sanctions and inspections) was unconvincing to much of the world. With inspectors already there and a UN proposal on the table to greatly increase their number and freedom, coupled with fairly flimsy evidence of significant current weapons programs, and finally Saddam's historical lack of interest in anything beyond attacking his neighbors and internal opposition, it is easy to see why people around the world would get suspicious of our motives. The fact that Iraq had both oil and a militarily strategic location that we may or may not covet only helped fuel this suspicion (the latter especially since our military presence was facing increasing opposition in Saudi Arabia.) There are also the major religious/culture issues involved in Iraq. The US is seen to have an anti-Arab / pro-Israel bias by many around the world, and as possibly anti-Muslim and so many suspect that it why we went in.

In Liberia, our stated reason is to stop the bloodshed, and I don't think much of the world doubts that that is a real issue there. Ulterior motives for our intervention there, except for politicans to look good, are not readily apparent.

I supported intervention in Iraq for humanitarian reasons (not because I felt threatened by Iraq) and I support intervention in Liberia as well. I'm a very old fashioned liberal of the type that believes that if you have the power to stop human suffering, you should. I don't agree with the view that Americans should only care about Americans, just like I don't think whites should only care about whites, or Arabs about Arabs or Jews about Jews. When I hear people argue that the US should only think about the welfare of the US citizens I'm reminded of of a person who know that a neighbor is beating his/her child but says that's their problem, not ours- let's not get involved.

eg8r
07-03-2003, 03:33 PM
I definitely agree, that our intentions to go into Iraq were not always clear since Bush seemed to have another reason everytime he spoke about it. He would never stick to one reason and just push it. First WMD, then terrorism (still including WMD but not stating it), etc.

The reason I brought up France and such, is that France is not asking the UN to go in an stop what is going on, and they are not starting up some sort of coalition on their own. They are however saying, U.S. please take care of this countries fiasco, it is all right, since we agree this time.

As far as politicians, Dean is a great example of a politician changing his beliefs when it definitely could look good for his election campaign. Dean has not stated anything about letting the UN take care of this issue, which was ALL he could say during the Iraq problem. Nope, good ole Dean who only has humanitarian issues at heart, wants the US to send troops and deal with the UN and help later.

Lets just wait and see what happens. If we are successful in removing Liberia's current administration, then we will wait till campaigning time. Let's see if Dean uses this instance as part of his campaign.

eg8r

eg8r
07-04-2003, 03:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In Liberia, our stated reason is to stop the bloodshed, and I don't think much of the world doubts that that is a real issue there. Ulterior motives for our intervention there, except for politicans to look good, are not readily apparent. <hr /></blockquote> I am going to give an example of how the liberals have changed their views depending on the president. In this first site, you can read only the first paragraph and see where Carl Levin stands in an effort against Iraq. First part of Carl Levin switching sides (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html)

Now here is another site about Carl Levin a little earier in the year (1998). Seems he knew of the weapons programs and was pretty sure of his contacts and information. He was sure enough of this data that he was presenting it to the president of the time (guess who). Earlier views of Carl Levin (http://levin.senate.gov/floor/030498.htm)
Now, we move into the future with a new president in the White House. And what is Levin doing, he is questioning the credibility of the same intelligence he was very proud of a few years ealier. Part 2 of Carl Levin switching sides (http://levin.senate.gov/releases/062703pr1.htm) Remember, he did not make a call on the credibility when it was his buddy out gathering and reporting the data in 1998. Now, Levin says, it does not matter whether WMDs are found or not, what is real important is whether our intelligence is credible (the intelligence he absolutely relied on when Clinton was in office all of a sudden has become tainted in his very partisan eyes.) This is a good example of what Levin's agenda was...He did not care if the weapons were found, his goal was to show the intelligence was bad and our president is some cowboy out blowing stuff up. heres the link (http://levin.senate.gov/releases/061103pr1.htm)

These are examples of just one of the many, liberals in power during the Clinton time, that thought we had excellent intelligence and should go to war right now. When Bush got into office, these same people immeadiately turned a 180 and did not want to believe anything from the Intelligence agencies. Tell me one thing, if all this intelligence was gathered back when Clinton was the president and they believed every bit of it then (and requested we go to war), then why is this all tainted evidence now? Also, if they were so worried about the WMDs in Iraq and felt Iraq was a threat, why would they stand in the way of a administration that is going to do what they asked for in 1998.

I think it is blatantly clear that the liberals have changed their view on war when Bush became the leader. Dean is just the new joke on the block right now. He understands that a successful win in a war, or a successful up-rooting of a bad government is good for his election run. If he can attach his name to the Liberia situation, you can darn well bet he will use it in his speeches come election time.

Oh yeah, there are more liberals who have changed their outlook on the war with Iraq. Levin and Dean are not the only ones to have started backstepping.

eg8r

highsea
07-04-2003, 04:06 PM
Come election time, the Democrats will be beating their breasts about the economy. This will be their main attack when it comes to critisizing Bush.

Second will be the "where are the WMD's?" argument. They will have to tread much more lightly around that subject. The front runners will stay pretty quiet, while the underlings scream to high heaven.

They will attempt to gloss over the primary reason for the poor economy in the US, which is 9/11. They will try to gloss over the fact that Bush inherited this problem (Al Qaeda) from Clinton, who failed to act against Bin Laden when he had the chance.

They will ignore the fact that the economy was faltering even before 9/11. The attacks on WTC and the Pentagon just drove the nail in deeper.

If Liberia turns into a fiasco, they will jump on that to critisize GW's foreign policy. If Liberia is pacified with little effort and expenditure on our part, they won't even mention it.

Sadly, I think they are anxious for us to go in there, hoping it will turn into another Somalia. This would give them something else to critisize Bush for at election time.

Look how much heat Clinton took over Mogadishu. The Dems haven't forgotten that lesson.

What do you want to bet that they will try to reproduce that kind of situation in Liberia? Will our troops have heavy mechanized units at their disposal if the going gets tough, or will the UN be in charge like in Somalia, and all our guys have is a few Humvees with .50's against RPG's?

Will Taylor go quietly, and if he does, what will fill the vaccuum? There is a lot of different ways things can turn to sh*t in Liberia, and every one of them would benefit the Dems politically.

-CM

cheesemouse
07-04-2003, 05:04 PM
highsea,

Thanks for explaining 'real politic' to eg8r, he doesn't seem to get the 'the buck stops here' reality. Once you've been in office for four years the public holds you responsible and you can no longer whin about how screwed up everything was when you got there. You have a record and you will be held accountable...that's how the game is played....both sides are very good at the game....it will be interesting to say the least.....unfortunately we don't have 'none of the above' on the ballet....LOL

eg8r
07-04-2003, 06:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for explaining 'real politic' to eg8r, he doesn't seem to get the 'the buck stops here' reality. Once you've been in office for four years the public holds you responsible and you can no longer whin about how screwed up everything was when you got there.<hr /></blockquote> Cheese, a little foot in mouth syndrome? I believe highsea was able to fit in the poor economy that was handed to Bush and how the Dems will forget about it. There was no explaining anything to me and nothing was said any different than I have said in the past. Only part I disagree with is the fact that the Dems will keep quiet about Liberia if we are successful. I believe the Dems that feel they had a part in it will definitely try to cash in on it. It is the only thing the Dems would have done right since Bush got into power.

[ QUOTE ]
You have a record and you will be held accountable...that's how the game is played <hr /></blockquote> Well, I think Bush has a great record so far. The economy did come out of recession during Bush's presidency (not far, but it is no longer in a recession), he dealt with the horrific 9/11 extremely well, he removed the Taliban from control, he removed Saddam from control, he has quieted the fighting in the West Bank, he has pushed through a tax cut for all taxpayers, and the innocent in Tulia have been freed (I through that one in for Q since he thinks it was GWB's fault in the beginning). That is not too shabby and a lot more than our previous president.

What we have yet to see (if he is replaced in the White House), is whether he will free some of the most hardened criminals, loot Air Force 1, or loot the White House. There are plenty other issues he has been able to sidestep also, one mainly being Impeached. He has also not given away any top secrets to China, and he has avoided being labled as a rapist.

Seems to be the most productive/moral president in the past 10-12 years.

eg8r

eg8r
07-04-2003, 06:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Second will be the "where are the WMD's?" argument. They will have to tread much more lightly around that subject. The front runners will stay pretty quiet, while the underlings scream to high heaven <hr /></blockquote> According to Levin, finding WMDs are not all that important. What is most important is the credibility of the intellgence that Levin and the rest of the democrats bought into in 1998. Now, Levin might have changed his mind again since June of this year, but only time will tell.

eg8r

cheesemouse
07-04-2003, 07:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think Bush has a great record so far. The economy did come out of recession during Bush's presidency (not far, but it is no longer in a recession), <font color="blue"> is that why he took us from a surplus where we were paying off our debts to the largest deficit in history??? </font color> he dealt with the horrific 9/11 extremely well <font color="blue"> so would have Daffy Duck had he been President </font color> , he removed the Taliban from control, <font color="blue"> Yah, that place is in great shape and looking to the future. </font color> he removed Saddam from control, <font color="blue"> where is that Saddam guy anyway??? </font color> he has quieted the fighting in the West Bank, <font color="blue"> you are the real Daffy Duck </font color> he has pushed through a tax cut for all taxpayers, <font color="blue"> Geez, thanks GW now can you float me a loan so I can pay my higher state taxes??? </font color> and the innocent in Tulia have been freed (I through that one in for Q since he thinks it was GWB's fault in the beginning). That is not too shabby and a lot more than our previous president. <font color="blue"> tell that to the 6 million that have lost their jobs since GW graced us with his benevolence </font color>

What we have yet to see (if he is replaced in the White House), is whether he will free some of the most hardened criminals, <font color="blue"> George will only free the white collar criminals if any ever get thrown in the tank </font color> loot Air Force 1, or loot the White House. <font color="blue"> like you've never lifted a couple ashtray or match books from some sleazy motel </font color> There are plenty other issues he has been able to sidestep also, one mainly being Impeached. <font color="blue"> he isn't done yet </font color> He has also not given away any top secrets to China, <font color="blue"> Now how do you know that; it's a secret </font color> and he has avoided being labled as a rapist. <font color="blue"> He shoots Bambie... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Seems to be the most productive/moral president in the past 10-12 years. <font color="blue"> using the word moral and president in the same sentence is an oxymoron and a paradox of the highest order</font color>

eg8r

eg8r
07-04-2003, 09:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
is that why he took us from a surplus where we were paying off our debts to the largest deficit in history??? <hr /></blockquote> A surplus "paying off debts", huh. Do you even understand what the deficit means? What it means in relation to the GDP. Right now, the deficit is lower as a percentage of the GDP than his father or Reagan. You are merely looking at the actual number instead of everything else.

I am surprised you did not throw out the stupid 44 trillion number that has vanished from the news (I guess all those intelligent economists forgot about the taxes paid back to the government when all those baby boomers start cashing in on their retirement packages /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

Of simple mind would even think it only takes a body on the hill to handle the nation after 9/11. I guess you are saying you would have been able to take care of it also.

Whether or not Afghanistan is a calm/peaceful place now or not, it is still better than being under the control of the Taliban. Of course you knew that. Same with Iraq, you are so caught up in the fact that we cannot find Saddam, that you are unable to comprehend that he is no longer in control. Neither Bush Sr. nor Clinton were able to do that, but you knew that also. Sure we cannot find him now, still does not change the fact that he is no longer in control.

[ QUOTE ]
Geez, thanks GW now can you float me a loan so I can pay my higher state taxes??? <hr /></blockquote> This is a real gem. I guess you don't have any problem with your state elected officials and how well they have run your state. Just so you know, it is not a Federal responsibility to cover your state over-runs or deficits. That is up to the state. So, we no longer pay the extra taxes to the Federal government means you pay more to the state. That is how it is supposed to be anyways, but you knew that also.

We will see who Bush frees. I would much rather a white collar criminal running loose in my neighborhood than some of the guys Clinton let go.

[ QUOTE ]
like you've never lifted a couple ashtray or match books from some sleazy motel <hr /></blockquote> I like your choice of examples. You have likened the theft that Clinton did to the White House and Air force one to stealing some matchbooks. Boy that little gem speaks a lot about you. I guess the next time you get robbed blind and all your precious stuff (held most dear to your heart) you will remember that one time you were in a sleazy hotel and stole that matchbook. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You are a sucker.

Another gem of yours, Clinton is a rapist and you equate that to hunting. I guess in a sick twisted demented way you are correct. The only difference is that one is human and one is an animal. If you have a wife or daughter and they are raped, just chalk that up to another hunting expedition. Please do not press charges on the poor guy, he just chooses to hunt women instead of deer.

[ QUOTE ]
using the word moral and president in the same sentence is an oxymoron and a paradox of the highest order
<hr /></blockquote> Given the way you answered the previous paragraph, I can understand why you have trouble with the two words.

eg8r

cheesemouse
07-04-2003, 10:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You are a sucker.
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r,
You know what is so endearing about you, eg8r? It's your predictablily. Hell, the things I said may not even be what I believe or think but I knew they would elicit the 'holier than thou' purer-of-heart righteous crap you somehow have adopted as your credo. In your rigid inflexible little mind your right, hell, you are right about everything. That must be a comfort to you knowing you are just 'right'.....hey, no pun intended....hehehehe......you are just like a tip over runout in 9-ball...I can run'm anyway I like..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

You sir are the SUCKER.....HEHEHEHE

eg8r
07-04-2003, 11:28 PM
Where was the holier than thou part of my post? What are you even talking about?

Oh, I guess you acted like a fool and posted blatantly idiotic ideas, to get me to respond in a certain way. Or maybe, after seeing the foolish things you posted, this is your easy way out. "Oh, I did that to show I already knew how you would react." Well, my man, that is fine. It makes it easier to read your posts, now they will be considered childish humor.

Fine with me.

eg8r

Hopster
07-05-2003, 12:01 AM
They will attempt to gloss over the primary reason for the poor economy in the US, which is 9/11. They will try to gloss over the fact that Bush inherited this problem (Al Qaeda) from Clinton, who failed to act against Bin Laden when he had the chance.

They will ignore the fact that the economy was faltering even before 9/11. The attacks on WTC and the Pentagon just drove the nail in deeper. &lt;--Highsea

You know something ? This is what i yell at these idiots where i work at constantly. All the Bush haters like all dems have extremely selective memorys when it comes to things. They blame the economy on Bush but truth be told the slide started in Apr of 99 when the dot com nonsense started to fall apart. The Nasdaq was wasy way out of line on a bunch of junk. What happens when the market starts eroding ? Its a sign that the economy is starting to weaken as business,s are starting to lose money. Im talking about a 2-3 year slide as we have just witnessed. How is that Bush,s fault ?? they side step this one constantly but i do get a lot of dirty looks which i appreciate as it means the rat Bas##### have nothing to say. lol
9-11 came along and more or less sealed its fate.

Highsea , we think a lot alike. If you knew me, you might say thats a scary thing. lol

highsea
07-05-2003, 01:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Hopster:</font><hr> They blame the economy on Bush but truth be told the slide started in Apr of 99 when the dot com nonsense started to fall apart.

<font color="blue"> The real warning sign was 4 months earlier, when Lucent crashed in January. </font color>

Highsea , we think a lot alike. If you knew me, you might say thats a scary thing. lol <hr /></blockquote>

H, I don't have to know you to know that's scary. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

-CM

Qtec
07-05-2003, 02:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Liberia was for a long time economically and strategically important to the United States.

In the early part of last century, the US relied on one of its natural resources, rubber, to compete with Britain in the rapidly growing automobile industry.

This natural source of latex rubber was also vital to the allies during World War II.

During the Cold War years Liberia was viewed by the US as an ideal post to fight the spread of communism through Africa.

A mutual defence pact was signed and the US established a massive air base and built communications facilities to handle intelligence traffic and relay a Voice of America signal throughout the continent.

But, when the Cold War came to an end, US political interests faded.

<hr /></blockquote>


America created Liberia when it strated dumping its slaves there.

Iraq was an invasion [ who knows why ?], Liberia is a humanitarian act . Most of Tatlor,s 'Army 'is made up from kids. 10 year old,s , armed to the teeth , brainwashed by drugs and magic [ some think that they are bullet proof ]and forced to commit such atrocities that they become de-humanised. Chopping off arms and legs is the order of the day .


Does the words "moral obligation" or "mutual defense pact "make any difference to you ?



you said this ;
You have not given reason for any misleadings over Iraq


I have done nothing but!
Arabs have a problem with America because of the double standards it employs in all matters reguarding Israel. Israel HAS the bomb. Did America do anything about that ?They a number of UN resolutions against it , does the US care?

.

The Saudi,s do not want the US in their country
Saudi Arabia is a Holy land , Mecca , ever heard of it ?
If America must leave SA, who in that region will allow them to open a military base ? NOBODY. Thats who .

For all its might and military power ,America [ and the rest ] will become more and more reliant on OIL from this specific region .I like how GW says this is the " World,s oil ".


. The US has no intention of leaving Iraq. The only way they will go is if they are thrown out or the cost becomes too great


More on this later

Q

highsea
07-05-2003, 03:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> America created Liberia when it strated dumping its slaves there. Q <hr /></blockquote>

Q, I may get into some of these other points later, but I would like you to clarify this statement. I am not an expert on 17th. century American politics, but your statement strikes me as critical of the creation of Liberia by the US.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote CNN:</font><hr>
Liberia was founded in 1822 by the American Colonization Society, whose goal was to resettle freed slaves in Africa. <hr /></blockquote>

Are you saying that these freed slaves did not want to return to Africa? I mean, this was 40 years before the civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Considering the conditions they would've been facing in America, I would think they would've welcomed the opportunity to have their own country.

I don't understand your contention that America was dumping it's slaves there. Help me out here.

-CM

Qtec
07-05-2003, 03:40 AM
OK. Dumping is maybe too strong . Lets say they meant well . I was just making the point that the US has a long historical link with Liberia.
What about the rest of my points ?

Q

highsea
07-05-2003, 03:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Arabs have a problem with America because of the double standards it employs in all matters reguarding Israel. Israel HAS the bomb. Did America do anything about that ?They a number of UN resolutions against it , does the US care?
Q <hr /></blockquote>

America has a problem with the Arab world because they have given the west 40 years of terrorists. Remember Munich?

Well, I have asked you this before, and I must ask again. What would you have us do? Rather than going round and round about how all the world's problems are caused by the US, how about some real life solutions?

Should we disarm Israel? How long would she last without the ability to defend herself against her Arab neighbors who are bent on her destruction? How would you solve this dilemma. Eliminate Israel?

I fully agree with a nuclear free mid-east. As you know from my PM's, I would like to see a nuclear free world. It's damn hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

-CM

highsea
07-05-2003, 04:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The Saudi,s do not want the US in their country
Saudi Arabia is a Holy land , Mecca , ever heard of it ?
If America must leave SA, who in that region will allow them to open a military base ? NOBODY. Thats who. Q <hr /></blockquote>

Surely you know that the US is already pulling out of SA.

We went in there in 91 for reasons already discussed.

The Prince Sultan Airbase was strategically important to the task of the patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq, without which Saddam would have slaughtered the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north.

We have shifted our main base to Qatar, which is welcoming the US with open arms. Obviously we will have bases in Iraq also.

-CM

Qtec
07-05-2003, 04:16 AM
I like the way everybody seems to dismiss the 'dot com affairs' as nothing special .The biggest companies in the US are lying , cheating and defrauding their shareholders and the stock market. How many people have been cheated into investing in these companies ? How many are financialy
ruined ? How can any investor believe a single word any CoB says anymore ?

What kind of people are involved in these scandals. I dont think its the junk standing on the corner. This is big time fraud .
How many have been sentenced and for how long ? I dont know but I would guess probably none.

If you look at who gave the most money to GWs campaign, a lot of these companies crop up . Spooky.

Q

eg8r
07-05-2003, 07:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I like the way everybody seems to dismiss the 'dot com affairs' as nothing special .The biggest companies in the US are lying , cheating and defrauding their shareholders and the stock market. How many people have been cheated into investing in these companies ? How many are financialy
ruined ? How can any investor believe a single word any CoB says anymore ? <hr /></blockquote> Why shouldn't they lie, cheat, and steal. The president of the country (Clinton) was showing them it was ok.

eg8r

Hopster
07-05-2003, 08:51 AM
If you look at who gave the most money to GWs campaign, a lot of these companies crop up . &lt;--Qtec

You think they didnt send money to Gores campaign ? They all play both sides against the middle. And youre right i wouldnt trust any of those guys words as far as i could spit.

Qtec
07-05-2003, 11:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
America has a problem with the Arab world because they have given the west 40 years of terrorists. Remember Munich?

<font color="blue"> Although I am against terrorism , I dont think these thing happen for nothing . Do you remember when Sharon let the Palestinian civilians be slaughtered bythe Falangists in Lebanon. Nobody is inoccent</font color>
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I have asked you this before, and I must ask again. What would you have us do? Rather than going round and round about how all the world's problems are caused by the US, how about some real life solutions?

Should we disarm Israel? How long would she last without the ability to defend herself against her Arab neighbors who are bent on her destruction? How would you solve this dilemma. Eliminate Israel?

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Its too late to disarm Israel . The only solution is compromise .The problem is the fanatics , on both sides , will not let that happen .The only way for the Israelis can ever live in piece is that a just settlement is reached .America has a lot of influence that it does not use . The HUGE Jewish lobby is a big problem to peace.
I personally think that there is a conflict of interest here but C.of.In are the order of the the day in DC. [/blue]


[ QUOTE ]
I fully agree with a nuclear free mid-east. As you know from my PM's, I would like to see a nuclear free world. It's damn hard to put the genie back in the bottle <hr /></blockquote>


Exactly , I am against more countries having bombs. The only way to put there minds at ease by showing them that the UN will act FAIRLY. Taking people from Afgahnistan , removing them to another country and trying them in a military court.

America has become policeman, jailer , judge , jury and executioner .

That really should put everyone,s mind at ease .

Is this what you mean by justice and liberty for all?
And you wonder why the Iraqis dont see you as friends?

Talk about 'How to win friends and influence people'.


America invaded Iraq , not because Saddam did have WMD. They invaded because he didnt !

[Think about it from the point of view that the US wants to be in Iraq .]



Q

cheesemouse
07-05-2003, 10:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Where was the holier than thou part of my post? What are you even talking about?

Oh, I guess you acted like a fool and posted blatantly idiotic ideas, to get me to respond in a certain way. Or maybe, after seeing the foolish things you posted, this is your easy way out. "Oh, I did that to show I already knew how you would react." Well, my man, that is fine. It makes it easier to read your posts, now they will be considered childish humor.

Fine with me.

eg8r

<hr /></blockquote>

Geez....eg8r, you finally figured it out...I'm impressed since I dislike ideologies in all forms: liberal, conservative, libertarian, whatever.

Ideologies are an excuse for people to avoid thinking. Once people adopt a political philosophy that has all of the answers, they stop thinking and start rationalizing. I find it difficult to take anybody's opinions seriously when it is clear that they started with the answers, and then worked backwards to select facts that would support their views, and ignore facts that don't.........don't mind me...just more childish humor.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SecaucusFats
07-06-2003, 01:30 AM
We should stay out of Liberia and for a number of good reasons, not the least being that it is a land of armed thugs with private armies running around killing, looting and raping 24/7/365.

Liberia has nothing to offer us but needless deaths among our military personnel. The nation of Liberia is a basket case just like Somalia, I wouldn't trade one American life for a hundred Liberians.

Fats &lt; Semper Fidelis

Hopster
07-06-2003, 01:52 AM
We should stay out of Liberia and for a number of good reasons, not the least being that it is a land of armed thugs with private armies running around killing, looting and raping 24/7/365.

Liberia has nothing to offer us but needless deaths among our military personnel. The nation of Liberia is a basket case just like Somalia, I wouldn't trade one American life for a hundred Liberians. &lt;--Fats

I hear you loud and clear and im a firm beleiver that people should stand up for themselves. I also agree that one American life aint worth 200 Liberians. Agreed in full !!
But, these people are being slaughtered in record numbers. They are making Hilter look like an amateur, someone had got to do something to stop this. These are people here, not cattle. Who the hell is going to step in and do something ? Someone has to. I hate the fact that we are like the cops of the world, but dont it bother you just a little bit to stop and think of whats going on ? Just a little. Children, women, old people, these people care about nothing and respect nothing.
Ahhhhhh, what the hell do i know anyway.

SecaucusFats
07-06-2003, 10:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Hopster:</font><hr>

I hear you loud and clear and im a firm beleiver that people should stand up for themselves. I also agree that one American life aint worth 200 Liberians. Agreed in full !!
But, these people are being slaughtered in record numbers. They are making Hilter look like an amateur, someone had got to do something to stop this. These are people here, not cattle. Who the hell is going to step in and do something ? Someone has to. I hate the fact that we are like the cops of the world, but dont it bother you just a little bit to stop and think of whats going on ? Just a little. Children, women, old people, these people care about nothing and respect nothing.
Ahhhhhh, what the hell do i know anyway.
<hr /></blockquote>

Of course it bothers me when people are slaughtering each other, but we cannot, and ought not, step into every such situation.

Liberia is in the EU's backyard, not ours. If the Europeans feel so strongly about this, let them send their troops, let them bear the financial costs, and most importantly, let them pay the blood price. I'm tired of the whole world depending on the US to take care of things, and then simultaneously attacking us as blood thirsty interventionist. Let someone else do the dying. Let someone else catch the heat, let someone else, in some other country, feel the pain of losing their son or daughter in some third world sewer pit.

Africa is a lost cause, 20, 50, 100 years from now they will still be living in disease ridden abject squalor, they will still be killing each other left and right, and they will still have the some of the lowest literacy rates on the planet.

Fats

Hopster
07-06-2003, 12:02 PM
Liberia is in the EU's backyard, not ours. If the Europeans feel so strongly about this, let them send their troops, let them bear the financial costs, and most importantly, let them pay the blood price. &lt;--Fats

Now that i would like to see with france leading the way, but you know as well as i do that thats not ever going to happen.
Situation sucks all the way around.

Qtec
07-06-2003, 02:02 PM
Do you think you could post a scale ?

Something like,
If 1 American is worth 100 Liberians , how much would 50 Liberians, 100 Iraqi and 10 journalists be equal to ?

Q



[ Q thinks ....... how much I am I worth ? Better get me a new passport if I want security ]

Qtec
07-06-2003, 02:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But, these people are being slaughtered in record numbers. They are making Hilter look like an amateur, someone had got to do something to stop this. These are people here, not cattle. Who the hell is going to step in and do something ? Someone has to. I hate the fact that we are like the cops of the world, but dont it bother you just a little bit to stop and think of whats going on ? Just a little. Children, women, old people, these people care about nothing and respect nothing. <hr /></blockquote>

Tap Tap Tap.


Well said .

Q

eg8r
07-06-2003, 02:16 PM
I think this is a trick question. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif The journalist are really part of the amount, just the buffer.

eg8r

Qtec
07-06-2003, 02:26 PM
No it isnt a trick question . /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
It is a tricky one though. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

eg8r
07-06-2003, 02:39 PM
Yup it is a trick question. None of us really care at all about the reporters, yet you through them in. That is tricky, tricky. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r

Qtec
07-06-2003, 02:47 PM
OK. OK. FORGET THE REPORTERS ! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Q