Liberia...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

<blank look> Why does anyone think I'd comment? Last I checked only Congress had the power to declare war, and assuming an average weight of 300 lbs per member (give or take an average of 10 lbs in the Senate), they've got me beat by a factor of approximately 1635.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

As long as it's peacekeeping and not war i'm in favor of it and in sending Canadian troops there as part of a U.N. Taskforce.

*must.... resist....*

[Guest DrTom]

I say let the UN go in there and keep the peace with no American involvement at all. If they're really this relevant international organization, let them prove it without us being their brains, balls, and right arms of justice.

 

On a somewhat amusing note, seeing "LURD" in the articles almost makes me wish the country were named "Tiberia." Imagine the story... "The TURD, supported by Guinea since the group launched its war against Taylor in 2000..."

[Guest JMA]

I say let the UN go in there and keep the peace with no American involvement at all. If they're really this relevant international organization, let them prove it without us being their brains, balls, and right arms of justice.

I agree.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I say let the UN go in there and keep the peace with no American involvement at all.

So what you're saying, indirectly, is that you're for the status quo?

 

Oh, and for those that don't know Liberia's history and what it means for the U.S., here it is (This is an excerpt from the link below)...

 

http://travel.yahoo.com/p/travelguide/501968

 

Early in the 19th century, the American Colonization Society began to purchase slaves in an idealistic program to set them free and return them to Africa. Freed men and women founded the Liberian capital of Monrovia (named for U.S. President Monroe) in 1822 and kept in close contact with the U.S.

[Guest JMA]

I think what Tom's saying is that we shouldn't be the ones to bail the rest of the world out ALL the time. We're not the only big country in the world with a good army. We also just had a war. Why can't someone else take care of it?

[Guest DrTom]

We're not the only big country in the world with a good army.

Actually, we are. But the reason I suggested what I did is because I want to see if the UN, an organization rendered both impotent and unimportant by the whole Iraq situation, can step up and do something to show relevance on the world stage without any involvement from America.

 

My money's on NO, but I'd at least like to see them try.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The problem with that way of thinking is that you're literally playing games with people's lives.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

We're not the only big country in the world with a good army.

Actually, we are. But the reason I suggested what I did is because I want to see if the UN, an organization rendered both impotent and unimportant by the whole Iraq situation, can step up and do something to show relevance on the world stage without any involvement from America.

 

My money's on NO, but I'd at least like to see them try.

The USA trying to act independantly from the UN is one thing, but the USA is an integral member of the UN. Whatever happens in Liberia, the USA are going to have to be involved in it. And why, apart from the missions in Iraq, shouldn't the US be involved in Liberia? Other countries had troops fight and die there, would you grant them special status?

 

And why exactly couldn't the UN carry out action without the US? The point of the United Nations is to provide a group of nations attempting to prevent genocide and the like, is it not?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

When has the UN shown the ability to carry out a specific action, without the U.S. basically being in charge?

[Guest JMA]

Actually, we are.

You think we're the only large country with a big army? What about Britain? Of course, they just got of a war (thesame one as us) as well.

[Guest Powerplay]

Actually, we are.

You think we're the only large country with a big army? What about Britain? Of course, they just got of a war (thesame one as us) as well.

If I remember correctly, I believe a Ten Ship Carrier Group from the U.S. Navy is about the equivilent of all the British military might. I could be wrong, but I remember hearing that comparison somewhere. This is no slight on our British buddies, mind you, but that's just what we can do.

[Guest JMA]

I didn't mean in comparison to us.

[Guest DrTom]

And why, apart from the missions in Iraq, shouldn't the US be involved in Liberia?

Like I've already said, I want to see the UN step up to the plate and send in a "peacekeeping force" without Americans involved. I just want to see if they can do it, or if they're as impotent and irrelevant without us as I think they are. It's a purely selfish motivation, sure, but there it is.

 

The point of the United Nations is to provide a group of nations attempting to prevent genocide and the like, is it not?

Of course. And you need only look at the League of Nations to see how "successful" the UN would be without heavy American involvement. I'm really not just trying to toot a nationalistic horn; it's true by every account I've seen.

[Guest DrTom]

You think we're the only large country with a big army?

Yes, like I said.

 

What about Britain?

Their military is probably the most potent of our allies, but the best of their stuff is at least a decade behind ours, maybe more.

 

I didn't mean in comparison to us.

We're the yardstick for big armies.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Again, though, what you're suggesting is that we put in a vastly insufficient peacekeeping unit. Quite literally, we're playing games with people's lives for the sake of proving our dick is bigger than theirs.

[Guest JMA]

Again, though, what you're suggesting is that we put in a vastly insufficient peacekeeping unit. Quite literally, we're playing games with people's lives for the sake of proving our dick is bigger than theirs.

Tyler does have a point.

[Guest DrTom]

But Tyler, the UN is strong! How can a peacekeeping force without Americans be insufficient? We're just one country out of many that contributes to the UN, right?

 

Right?

 

Yeah, I don't believe it, either.

 

And to answer your implied question, I must admit I don't give a shit.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

I would like to stick up for the British troops, but I fear that we are indeed a distant second to the Americans. The S.A.S are, however, the equal of any American troops, and have played a vital part in the war in Iraq.

A question for Tom, do you believe that the U.S army is greater than the combined armies of the U.N?

[Guest JMA]

I feel Britain, like the United States, needs to recover from the war in Iraq before going anywhere else. There are plenty of other countries that could handle Liberia.

[Guest DrTom]

The S.A.S are, however, the equal of any American troops...

Even the French have good Special Forces.

 

A question for Tom, do you believe that the U.S army is greater than the combined armies of the U.N?

In terms of technology? Yes, without a doubt. In terms of quality vehicles and weapons/equipment? Yes. There's no way we could match their quantity, though, should it ever come to that. A hundred crappy tanks and 10,000 stupid men is still 100 tanks and 10,000 men to deal with. There are some advantages that sheer numbers gives you.

[Guest DrTom]

There are plenty of other countries that could handle Liberia.

Which is why they should be encouraged to do so. We can sit this one out.

[Guest JMA]

Which is why they should be encouraged to do so. We can sit this one out.

That's what I've been saying this whole thread. Let someone else take care of it.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Except nobody will if we don't, and millions more will die.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The S.A.S are, however, the equal of any American troops...

Even the French have good Special Forces.

Not anywhere near the equivalent of our special forces. I believe those fall under the heading of "any American troops."

 

A question for Tom, do you believe that the U.S army is greater than the combined armies of the U.N?

In terms of technology? Yes, without a doubt. In terms of quality vehicles and weapons/equipment? Yes. There's no way we could match their quantity, though, should it ever come to that. A hundred crappy tanks and 10,000 stupid men is still 100 tanks and 10,000 men to deal with. There are some advantages that sheer numbers gives you.

There are no advantages that sheer numbers give you. In modern warfare numbers give you logistics problems and nothing else. The only exception is when you're trying to take and hold a country, and since America is more than self-sufficient we'd never need to do that. We could utterly destroy the rest of the world in a matter of weeks if we chose to, and there's no force under heaven that could stop us.

 

The rest of the world should get down on its knees and thank God we're not like them.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

By the way, I have a small dissent in your prior post, Marney.

 

Last I checked only Congress had the power to declare war,

 

Not true. The president, since WWII, has bypassed the congress nearly every time. While he has given them a token vote in some cases, the president has the ability to have troops in a country for 60 days without even having to notify congress (if I'm not mistaken with the # of days).

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

A question for Tom, do you believe that the U.S army is greater than the combined armies of the U.N?

In terms of technology? Yes, without a doubt. In terms of quality vehicles and weapons/equipment? Yes. There's no way we could match their quantity, though, should it ever come to that. A hundred crappy tanks and 10,000 stupid men is still 100 tanks and 10,000 men to deal with. There are some advantages that sheer numbers gives you.

There are no advantages that sheer numbers give you. In modern warfare numbers give you logistics problems and nothing else. The only exception is when you're trying to take and hold a country, and since America is more than self-sufficient we'd never need to do that. We could utterly destroy the rest of the world in a matter of weeks if we chose to, and there's no force under heaven that could stop us.

 

The rest of the world should get down on its knees and thank God we're not like them.

How the fuck do you work that one out? Are you honestly saying that you believe that the U.S.A could take over the world if it wished?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

In terms of our armament of WMDs and even standard munitions, I wouldn't doubt it. Our outrageous military budget actually is larger than numbers 2-11 combined, if I'm not mistaken.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

By the way, I have a small dissent in your prior post, Marney.

 

Last I checked only Congress had the power to declare war,

 

Not true. The president, since WWII, has bypassed the congress nearly every time. While he has given them a token vote in some cases, the president has the ability to have troops in a country for 60 days without even having to notify congress (if I'm not mistaken with the # of days).

Nope, what you're thinking about is the President's Constitutional authority to repel sudden attacks without consulting Congress if time is of the essence. Formal declarations of war are still the power and responsibility of Congress and Congress alone, and the conduct and execution of war are still the responsibility of the President.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Yes, but in the Vietnam and Korean "wars", not to mention the Gulf War and even the latest Iraq war, there was no formal declaration of war. Thus, the President has usurped (in a way) the ability to "declare" war.