Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breaking News: US Sending Troops to Liberia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AndresDuque
    replied
    I think that the US of A needs to mind their own freaking problems. Most of the times they do the "right" thing but now is going too far man.

    I think the USA has enough territories around the world as of now, plus tax payeers could be using some of this money to balance the stupid f******* budget.

    No mean to make anyone mad.

    Leave a comment:


  • CheckSix
    replied
    It is interesting that Howard Dean, a Democratic Presidential candidate and also anti-war called on President Bush for intervention because what was happening in Liberia were human rights violations. Hmm... I guess Iraqis aren't humans... their from Jupiter! Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, that's it.

    Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a prominent opponent of the war in Iraq, called Wednesday for dispatching U.S. troops to Liberia to head off a human rights crisis.

    "I would urge the president to tie our commitment to assist in this multilateral effort to an appeal to the world to join us in the work that remains to be done in Iraq," Dean said.

    Dean called for a short-term deployment of roughly 2,000 U.S. troops as part of an international effort to stabilize the African nation.

    "We could stabilize the situation and remain in Liberia for no more than several months, at which time a U.N. peacekeeping mission could be deployed to oversee a period of transition," he said.

    Dean argued his position on the use of force is not out of line with his opposition to the war in Iraq.

    "The situation in Liberia is significantly different from the situation in Iraq," he said.

    Dean is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and made his comments while campaigning for Iowa's leadoff precinct caucuses.

    He started the race with little name recognition, but won heavy attention with his outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq. His fund raising topped the field of Democratic candidates in reports filed this week.

    Dean argued there's no inconsistency in opposing the war in Iraq while backing intervention in Africa. He said Bush never made the case that Iraq posed a threat to the world.

    "The situation in Liberia is exactly the opposite," Dean said. "There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe and the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership."
    From SFgate.com

    Respectfully

    Leave a comment:


  • MikeD
    replied
    Just hope we apply the lessons learned from Somalia.

    Leave a comment:


  • zak
    replied
    Originally posted by iceman
    Originally posted by zak
    Originally posted by herpa2003
    Actually, we are going in to keep the peace, hence the term "peacekeepers. I would hardly say that Liberia was in "perfect order" when this decision was made.
    do i need to remind you that the place now called liberia wasnt a hellhole until certain american politicians decided to "invent and export" democracy to africa and founded liberia with former slaves.
    actually liberia is was about the first case where the us of a got out of their isolation and started their endless list of foreign politics failures.
    the initial fauxpas is jsut not recent and therefore it might seem to be a good move, however american peacekeepers are overdue there for hundrets of years.
    And need you be reminded that that much of Africa?s malaise today is a due to centuries of European foreign policy faux-pas? Does colonialism ring a bell?

    Africa was a hellhole, is a hellhole and most likely will always be one. Foreign intervention (from wherever) caused some of it, but much is their own doing. No need to shift the blame here.
    this isnt about imperialism its about agressive foreign politics. but to get back to your issue of imperialism: we quit imperialism about 80 years ago if you havent noticed. and your country is just starting its "neo imperialism", which will most likely cause even more terror and bloodshed then the european, so whats your point? that u.s. foreign policy, from almost every angle, sucks? yep we agree on that one

    Leave a comment:


  • iceman
    replied
    Originally posted by zak
    Originally posted by herpa2003
    Actually, we are going in to keep the peace, hence the term "peacekeepers. I would hardly say that Liberia was in "perfect order" when this decision was made.
    do i need to remind you that the place now called liberia wasnt a hellhole until certain american politicians decided to "invent and export" democracy to africa and founded liberia with former slaves.
    actually liberia is was about the first case where the us of a got out of their isolation and started their endless list of foreign politics failures.
    the initial fauxpas is jsut not recent and therefore it might seem to be a good move, however american peacekeepers are overdue there for hundrets of years.
    And need you be reminded that that much of Africa’s malaise today is a due to centuries of European foreign policy faux-pas? Does colonialism ring a bell?

    Africa was a hellhole, is a hellhole and most likely will always be one. Foreign intervention (from wherever) caused some of it, but much is their own doing. No need to shift the blame here.

    Leave a comment:


  • zak
    replied
    Originally posted by herpa2003
    Actually, we are going in to keep the peace, hence the term "peacekeepers. I would hardly say that Liberia was in "perfect order" when this decision was made.
    do i need to remind you that the place now called liberia wasnt a hellhole until certain american politicians decided to "invent and export" democracy to africa and founded liberia with former slaves.
    actually liberia is was about the first case where the us of a got out of their isolation and started their endless list of foreign politics failures.
    the initial fauxpas is jsut not recent and therefore it might seem to be a good move, however american peacekeepers are overdue there for hundrets of years.

    Leave a comment:


  • herpa2003
    replied
    Actually, we are going in to keep the peace, hence the term "peacekeepers. I would hardly say that Liberia was in "perfect order" when this decision was made.

    Leave a comment:


  • zak
    replied
    another u.s. american foreign policy fauxpas that leads to a) bloodshed in the country and b) need of foreign military intervention to get a country that was in perfect order before american "foreign politics" back in its feet again or a combination of both.
    ample of examples for that, like chile, panama, haiti, iraq and so on....

    Leave a comment:


  • herpa2003
    started a topic Breaking News: US Sending Troops to Liberia

    Breaking News: US Sending Troops to Liberia

    U.S. Sending Troops to Liberia


    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90963,00.html
    WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has decided to send a "fast team" of U.S. forces to Liberia (search) to serve as peacekeepers, senior defense sources told Fox News Wednesday.

    The forces sent to the violence-racked region will likely be Marines, but it's not clear how large that force will be.

    Senior officials told Fox News last week that the U.S. ambassador to Liberia had requested deployment of the Marine "fast team" shortly after two rocket-propelled grenade rounds exploded outside the main embassy compound in Monrovia (search), killing several Liberians who had lined up nearby.

    That "fast team" would be made up of some 50-75 Marines. Such a team is currently on standby in Spain.

    European Command (search) (EUCOM) would most likely take the lead in deploying any larger forces to Liberia.

    EUCOM told Fox News last week that there were several units it could deploy to Liberia if the order came from Washington. But it said none were nearby and it would take some time to get the troops in place.

    Just two weeks ago, there were several U.S. assets in the area, with about 450 U.S. troops "on the ground" in Monrovia, elsewhere in Liberia and in surrounding countries to monitor the rapidly changing combat situation, and to assist French efforts to evacuate Western civilians.

    But with the apparent declaration of a cease-fire among several warring parties, the forces were pulled out, as was the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (search), which had been sitting off the Liberian coast with a Marine expeditionary force aboard. The Kearsarge returned to Norfolk, Va., this week.

    President Bush on Wednesday lamented the human suffering and unrest in Liberia, but stopped short of saying whether his administration should send peacekeepers to the African nation -- an idea opposed by a U.S. military already committed to other world trouble spots.

    "The people are suffering there," Bush said. "The political instability is such that people are panicking ... but the good news is there's a cease-fire in place now."

    Bush said Secretary of State Colin Powell would work closely with the United Nations to determine the best way to keep the cease-fire in place. He called again for Liberian President Charles Taylor (search) to leave the country.

    "We're exploring all options as to how to keep the situation peaceful and stable," he said. "One thing has to happen: Mr. Taylor needs to leave the country. ... In order for there to be peace and stability in Liberia, Charles Taylor needs to leave now."

    Powell told a reporter Wednesday morning that Bush's top foreign policy advisers were expected to make their recommendations on Liberia to the president very soon.

    But the State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said as far as he knew, no recommendations had been given to the president yet.

    U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan wants U.S. troops committed to peacekeeping in Liberia to give more "heft" to the operation, Boucher said.

    Powell talked by telephone to Annan twice on Tuesday, while the U.N. chief was traveling in Europe, and expects to talk to Annan again late Wednesday, Boucher said.

    At this stage, the U.S. official said, "it's not a question of go, or not go."

    Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld attended a White House meeting Wednesday morning on the issue after the National Security Council Tuesday failed to agree on a course of action in the West African nation, officials said.

    Rumsfeld is opposed to international proposals that the United States send 2,000 troops to head 3,000 peacekeepers from various other African countries, a senior defense official said.

    Still, Rumsfeld took with him to Wednesday's meeting a contingency plan for such a deployment, should the president order it. The Pentagon routinely works up and keeps on hand such plans for numerous problems around the world.

    Another senior defense official stressed that no decision had been made and said a range of options was being considered -- from sending no troops, to supporting financial support, to sending U.S. forces.

    More than 10,000 American troops are still working in and around Afghanistan since the beginning of the global war on terror in September 2001 and nearly 150,000 troops are stationed in a violent and troubled postwar Iraq.

    Defense officials say they are trying to avoid committing troops to Liberia as well.

    Rumsfeld also doubts there is a compelling U.S. interest in Liberia's affairs, aides say.

    Senior officials said Tuesday that no decision was imminent. But thousands of Liberians celebrated outside the U.S. Embassy in the Liberian capital of Monrovia late Tuesday as rumors spread about possible U.S. intervention.

    One senior administration official said Bush was reluctant to send troops purely as peacekeepers. But if the troops were given a clear mission as part of a defined coalition, Bush might be more inclined, this official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    Another administration official said the White House did not want to take the military option off the table for fear of making headlines just before Bush starts a trip to Africa next Monday.

    Annan has suggested the United States take a leadership role in peacekeeping. West African leaders asked on Monday for 2,000 American troops to head a predominantly African force to stop the turmoil and keep the peace. The Africans said they want an answer before Bush leaves for the continent, but administration officials were noncommittal about whether they will have a response by then.

    France, Britain and both sides in Liberia's fighting also have pushed for an American role in a peace force for the country founded by freed American slaves in 1847.

    The current round of fighting in Liberia began three years ago as rebels began trying to oust Taylor, who won contested elections and took the presidency in 1997 after a 1989-96 civil war.

    Fighting killed hundreds of trapped civilians in Monrovia just last month, and the war has displaced more than 1 million Liberians.

    Because of the violence -- but apart from the question of U.S. peacekeepers -- several dozen U.S. Marines have for days been on standby at a Spanish military base in case they are needed as extra security at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia or to evacuate Americans.
Working...
X