"I don't beleive in nation building."  - George Bush, on the campaign trail.

George Bush today: "One thing is clear (Liberian President) Taylor has to go."

Bush now is telling Liberians who they can and can't have as their President. Taylor, while likely a POS himself, WAS elected in a Democratic election (which admittedly was controversial itself.)

I'm REALLY getting tired of Republican globalism.

What EXACTLY would Gore have done differently than Bush here???

Can you say Mogadishu??

Can you say Viet Nam????

Yes, I'm mad as hell.

And tired of RINOS|'s. (Republicans in name only)

This is going to take some very light treading to ensure that the least confusion is created.

G-Man, I'm not clear of the situation in Liberia, simply because I've not read all the articles. Granted, the first thing that popped into my mind on hearing the news was, "Liberia? WTF are we going to Liberia for?"

I am willing to agree with you that the United States should generally not get involved in scenarios where a national interest (of OUR nation) isn't involved, but by the same token, as the most free and powerful nation on earth, don't you think we have SOME responsibility to remove those who are brutalizing their people, if only on principle?

Granted, we cannot be the world's police force, and I'll admit to not knowing where exactly the line should be drawn, but I don't think kneee-jerk opposition is a realistic solution either.

Your thoughts?

Edited to add: Gore would have sent our forces in without weapons. Don't want to appear to aggressive to the locals, don't you know... [puke]

If we should help people who are being brutalized, where were we in several years ago when the Tutsis and Hutus were having a little disagreement?

We get involved in these things, and the outcome is never good.  There is no damn point.

Fuck the tutoos and hutooz.  They've been killing eachother for centuries, why the fuck should we get involved?  Africa is a black hole we should stay away from.

The same can be said for the israelis and palestinians.

To clarify my earlier point: I'm not supporting this little trip into Liberia based on the information I currently have. If the mission is just, I just hope we go in and out quickly.

If this is a cover op to hit against terrorism or any other threat to our freedoms, then I hope they go in and KICK ASS.

At the very least, we should never get into situations where the outcome is not clear-cut (i.e. - "We're her to remove so-and-so." "Well, he's dead now." "OK, bye!").

Wrong. We have a vested interest in the stability of the Middle East, of which Israel is a part. What our major interest in Africa is, aside from hunting Al-Qaeda, is not yet clear to me.

G-Man...stop, take a deep breath and think for just a sec...would you prefer Algore and the Dems back in power...REALLY?

Even a deaf, dumb and blind Democrap knows Taylor's election was rigged.  While I would agree with you that at this point, I wouldn't send our guys into that shithole...I'm not getting daily briefings either...nor do I have the long-term vision that Bush and his staff do.  I suspect that somewhere deeply hidden in all this is ample justification to do whatever our leaders have planned...with the furtherance of our national security in mind.  Hell...who knows, maybe some Al Qaeda are hiding out there!  I just haven't paid any attention to Liberia...but I do trust Dubya far more than I would have Gore or any of the nine dwarfs currently running against him.

One other point:  From strictly a political perspective, were Bush to clean that mess up, it steal another big issue from the morons on the Left who are always crowing that we never get involved in black Africa.  Well...at least Clintoon didn't.  Maybe Bush is going to.

Oh...and BTW, we DID get ourselves involved in the Congo in the early '60s.  A SeaBee bud of mine was over in that shithole in '61 (I think...) and got his ass shot at by those Simba bastards.

Why do you think that Bush's statement means WE will be removing Taylor? OR even if we did, it would involve more than a snipers bullet in his head or a Hellfire on his car?

And right now getting the Embassy staff and any other remaining westerners out of there would still require the introduction of at least a MEU for a day or two.

Your analogy is lacking in all regards.  We are not fighting the israelis or the palestinians, we are a 3rd party observer/financial participant.  Our US troops have not gotten killed from our involvement in the israel issue like what would happen in Africa.

The thing about Africa is that they are too fuckin stupid to know we're helping them.  Think Somalia.  There's no reason that one US life should perish to stop the tribal wars.

Actually, I think it is quite clever.

By going into Liberia and firing some rockets from Cobra helicopters while Marines sit offshore in a carrier, Bush can totally support that the whole Iraq war was about freeing the poor opressed Iraqis that we care so much about.

How many democrats and US-bashers around the world have been saying "if Bush cared so much about suffering people, why doesn't the US send troops to Africa?"   By making a token effort in Liberia, Bush can shut all of those people up once and for all.

Genius.  Pure unadulturated, diabolical genius.  

One thing's for sure: GWB has been surprising A LOT of people with his political moves. I don't care if it's him or Mr. Rove or the Tooth Fairy; he's been running circles around his enemies for the better part of three years.

It's GREAT to watch! [:D]

I agree with you.  I'm just pointing out that when we say "we're concerned for the people...blah, blah, blah...", we are totally full of it.

Otherwise, we would have been in Rwanda.

I didn't realize there was oil in Liberia.

Overall, I like what Bush has done.

However, social spending is growing at a higher rate than when Clinton was in the whitehouse, we have just seen what may be the largest increase in the size of our government ever, and he says he'll sign the AWB.

I'm not really sure who Bush is.

Maybe he is, exactly who your lying eyes are telling you he is.....A Democrat!!!  [}:D]

neither is he.

Can anyone explain how sending 50-75 Marines to boost security at the US embassy there is nation building?

Can anyone explain how the US president complaining about another nation's president is nation building?

He is going to try and wag the dog again ????  Want my vote work on the economy Pres. Bush.

LOL!

Bush wants control of all those cruise ships flying the Liberian flag.

I didn't know Haliburton ran cruise lines.

You on crack? Or are you really a subversive from DU?

Goverments cannot have a positive effect on economics. They can only emplace or remove drains or obsticles. They cannot create what isn't there.

Only Liberals (or libertarians?)  beleve that goverment can create economic growth through "redistibution" of wealth. Even that is a fiction.

Anybody what a rational mind knew we would be in Iraq for a few years to come.  After all, how long did we spend in Germany?  Japan?

And he made the "Nation Building" statement prior to 9-11, which changed things.

Now get your facts straight prior to wasting your vote again this Presidential elect.

SGtar15

Facts is this....We are the only true superpower in the world.  Now is a great time to expand our borders and colonize.

SGtar15

It is something to watch anyway..[rolleyes]

I love the way Bush ran circles around Ted Kennedy, on the EXPANSION of the dept of education, (How old were you in '94"" 15-16?).And then there's the "political move", of signaling to Fienstien and Schumer, that he'll re-authorize the UN-CONSTITUTIONAL AWB.

And then there's the expansion of the bankrupt medicare program, to cover drugs for seniors, so they'll vote for him. Not to mention his SUPPORT for the supreme court "Diversity" decision.

I'm sure glad we don't have a socialist demo in office...[}:D]

You make a real good "conservative" zaphod...

You should strike libertarians from that statement.  They are absolutely against redistribution of wealth, or any other government involvement in the economy.

sigh....

Why is it always all-or-nothing with you people?

I mention my glee at the fact the President has the Lefties on the ropes (an undeniable fact, made all the more unbelievable in light of the fact that so much of THEIR stuff is being enacted), and you automatically assume that I SUPPORT GWB in ALL these things he's doing.

I don't. I am, IMO, far more Conservative than GWB. That doesn't mean I can't have some fun watching the REAL enemy squirm as they are out-flanked at every turn by someone they STILL think is a complete idiot.

No matter how you slice it, it's fun to watch.

Now, if you want to continue to live with an attitude of complete doom and gloom because 110% of YOUR agenda is not being passed, go right ahead. I'm going to try and enjoy the good things in life while ALSO trying to change the things I don't like.

That's the point, champ. There's [i]supposed[/i]  to be a difference between liberals and conservatives, between Democrats and Republicans.



If you were a liberal, how could you be disappointed by the performance of this administration?



...and all I'm going to do is repost, for educational purposes, what you said earlier about the Bush Administration's agenda. After you read your words again, tell us exactly [b]whose[/b] agenda is being expanded by 110%.



So, exactly [i]who[/i]  is on the ropes, again?

You misunderstood my point. You guys are perfectly willing to drop a person because they do not toe YOUR line 100% of the time. There are no exceptions, no mitigating circumstances, no compromises. I'm sorry, but that is simply unrealistic. If we were all to think that way, we would quickly find ourselves completely isolated politically, and then LOOK OUT, Bill of Rights and everything else we hold dear.

It's not your opposition to the President's positions on certain items that offends me. That is a healthy part of the political discourse within a party! Hell, I AGREE with you on most of it!

What frustrates me is the all-or-nothing, if-he-doesn't-see-it-our-way-he's-a-communist-dictator attitude. I find it destructive to our ultimate goals.

Now do you understand?

Boy, it's a good thing that no other European nation got involved during the American Revolution...

Taylor-out
Mugabe-out
Castro-out
Hussein-out
Bin Laden-out
Chavez-out
Columbian Commies-out
Kim-out
China-out, under it's own weight

Walk tall & carry a big stick.
Looks like we got a bigger stick.

[IMG]http://www.africaguide.com/images/afrmap.gif[/IMG]

This is real simple folks.  Sierra Leone has diamond mines which are under control of their Muslim rebel pseudo government and due to the fact their sales fund terrorist with connections with al-queda, they are not legal for them to sell to the rest of the world.  Liberia, Sierra Leone's neighbor, has been laundering and selling the diamonds on the world market.  We have passed bills in congress and have been pushing treaties to address this problem.  There are other Liberian connections with terrorism that are not as solid or obvious.  So, Bush says we are going in due to humanitarian reasons and are going to support a change in government.  It solves problems with terrorism in Liberia, and if no major connections with terrorism are found, Bush can't be blamed for doing this under false pretense.

Campaign finance reform

Patriot Act

Medicare prescription drugs (biggest new entitlement in 40 years)

Now Liberia


[size=6] ARE YOU SURE AL GORE ISN'T IN POWER??? HOW COULD ONE TELL THE DIFFERENCE???[/SIZE=6]

Believe me, I enjoy life. Especially since I  pretty much got out of politics except for a few issues....

110% of MY agenda?? Bush has done NOTHING on MY agenda!!
MY agenda, is restoring constitutional govt in our country. GWB has done NOTHING in that area, in FACT, the opposite is true.

Zaphod, name a few things bush has done YOU approve of, not "war on terror" related...[rolleyes]

It's obvious YOU don't understand!!
Bush and the repubs have enacted 0% of the Patriot agenda. Name anything they've done to RESTORE the Constitution by reducing Federal encroachment in the States....

You continually talk this 100% Bullshit, when Bush and the repubs aren't even enacting 5%!!! [rolleyes]

"Where's the beef"??
(Not the bullshit)

Amen Brothaaaah!

Is that like "here's a tax refund, now invest it in the economy by spending it."  ??

Not  that I'm for or against the tax refunds, but that and your quote above sound much alike.

Scott

I like the sentiment, but let's dig a little deeper here:



What's better? Other than the war on terror, which of the administration's policies are better or different than the Democrat's agenda?

1.Which ones?



2. Why?

3. Do you think GWB knows that the libs are pissed at him?

4. If you answer "yes" to the previous question, then GWB can't possibly be enacting all this socialist/liberal crap to court their vote, right?

5. [b]So why is he pushing all the liberal causes, friend?[/b]



I understand things pretty clearly, champ. We have a Republican president who has championed many traditional socialist and liberal causes, and those individual agendas which he has not had the opportunity to push yet, he has promised to do so soon.

6.So, what's destructive to our ultimate goals again?

7. [i]What are your goals, exactly?[/i]

Here's how:
If Gore were prez, the agenda items would be gridlocked.

Since the Prez is the same party as the controlling party in Congress, we, the citizens, are getting [b]Boned[/b] with socialist crap.

Scott

We should not be the World Police.

If he has to go, the people in Africa should take care of it.

Breaking off diplomatic relations should have happened a loooooooong time ago.

The fact that Taylor is a POS been widely known for a long time.  And the UN is just now thinking somebody has to do something?

The whole thing stinks.

The more we support UN intervention in other countries, the weaker we become against them here at home.

Far as I can tell, Trent Lott's ingenoious "power sharing" arrangement right after the most recent election, wnet all the way to the top.





That's ONE item, all spread out to make it look more inpressive than it is.

ASIDE FROM the war on terror / defending teh nation, WHAT IS DIFFERENT UNDER BUSH THAN UNDER CLINTON???

Simple reality is the Republican CANNOT stand prosperity, and cannot LEAD.

I'm NOT certain where tha leaves me, OTHER THAN not being willing to vote FOR the slower descent into socialism, courtesy of the Repubs.

THIS is why I screamed so loud and long about NOT using Res 1441 as basis for going into Iraq.

Cuz NOW we're stuck with EVERYTHING that the UN wants.

Y'all validated the UN by supporting Res 1441.

Now yer STUCK with the UN. Good job, dolts.

A point the repub apologists will ignore. These guys are like a bunch of little girls greeting the Beatles on Ed Sullivan....

Not one of 'em will respond to arguements about Bush's SOCIALIST domestic, and internationalist agenda....

Here's Ronald Reagens answer to Bush;



Real good Constitutionalist, is George Bush...[rolleyes]

This was posted a few weeks ago, and posted again for those who don't believe that the U.S. has intentions of direct involvement in a centuries old civil war.

[url=www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61545-2003Jun15]U.S. Troops May Have to Go After Hamas, Lawmaker[/url]

Reuters
Sunday, June 15, 2003; 10:35 AM

By Lori Santos

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading Republican lawmaker said on Sunday
U.S. forces may have to help "root out terrorism" in the Middle East conflict
between Israel and the Palestinians, including taking aim at Hamas.

In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Richard Lugar, the chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said American forces might be part
of an international force to help stop attacks by Hamas, the main group
behind a campaign of suicide bombings against Israelis, and other groups.

Hamas has said it would reject any peace deal between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority.

Lugar said such a force could be used to quell Israeli and Palestinian disputes,
"and, maybe even more important, to root out the terrorism that is at the heart
of the problem."

Asked if that meant such troops would go after Hamas or other groups, he
said, "That may be the conclusion."

"...It may not be just Hamas but clearly Hamas is right in the gunsights," he
added.

"DON'T UNDERESTIMATE PRESIDENT BUSH"

"...The terrorist aspect really has to be dealt with and that's why I say don't
underestimate President Bush," Lugar said.

Lugar is headed to the region next week and said he, as well as top U.S.
officials, would be there seeking to halt the cycle of violence that is
jeopardizing the U.S.-backed peace "road map."

The United States has appealed for restraint from both sides after a week of
bloodshed in which more than 50 people were killed.

Last week's violence included the killing of four soldiers in the Gaza Strip, a
Palestinian suicide bombing on a Jerusalem bus and seven Israeli helicopter
strikes on militants, including an attempt to assassinate a Hamas leader.

Bush has sent the veteran diplomat John Wolf to the region to prevent the
failure of the peace plan affirmed at a June 4 summit in Aqaba, Jordan, with
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud
Abbas.

Lugar said Secretary of State Colin Powell also would be free after meetings
in Jordan next Sunday.

UNILATERAL ACTION?

Whether to insert forces into the volatile situation is being considered,
including "whether they are to be all by themselves" or in conjunction with a
United Nations or NATO force, he said.

"That is always a possibility but having said that, I would just say this is
down the trail. We have to be very, very careful about the use of American
forces," he said.

"But clearly, if force is required ultimately to root out terrorism, it is possible
there would be American participation."

Good thing we declared "war on terrorism."  That's our "in" to the party.

[rolleyes]
Scott