The U.S. Intervening in Liberia: Right or Wrong?

[RWCTV]

Many critics of the Bush administration have ranted and raved about going to Liberia to intervene in their Civil War, but do you think that it's right or wrong for the U.S. to intervene in this war?

I believe that we should not intervene in the Liberian war, unless it is a threat to OUR national security.

Some critics have mentioned hypocrisy in going to war with Iraq, and not rushing to go to war in Liberia.

The Double Standard Strikes again:
These Liberals who have claimed to be "Anti-War" (like Jesse Jackson) are now voicing their opinions aggressively over not intervening in Liberia.

The Iraqi situation was ignited on grounds of Saddam Heussein threatening, let's say it one more time.. OUR national security.

Liberia, unless a haven for terrorists, does not threaten our national security and if enacted, would really be a Vietnam style war. In the war on Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson sent American troops to control their mess. Although hawks like John Wayne and Bob Hope thought that killing communism there would prohibit it from spreading here, the war in Vietnam did not actually have anything to do with us.

Is Liberian Issue a political game to try and corner Bush?:

Also, on a Political note. Remember that the Democrats pressured George H. Bush to raise taxes in the early 90's. They said that it would reduce the deficits running at that particular time. Bush Sr. raised taxes, conservatives revolted, and Bill Clinton succeeded him.

Where am I going with this you may wonder. Well, I think that the Democrats (the same who ranted and raved abotu Iraq) are trying to get Bush to go to Liberia, not because they care...Oh, no... but because they want to throw it back into his face for leading us into an "immoral Vietnam style war".

The Democrats are that sneaky and will do ANYTHING in their POWER, what's left of it right now to try to, in their eyes "unthrone" whom they deem "King Bush the second".

[M82A1]

I think it's right.

You know what I think is wrong? When people ask for our help, and we don't give it to them. That's what I think is wrong.

[M82A1]

Originally posted by RWCTV
I believe that we should not intervene in the Liberian war, unless it is a threat to OUR national security.

I think we have a duty, as the most powerful country on the planet, to give help where it is needed.

Liberia, unless a haven for terrorists, does not threaten our national security and if enacted...

Didn't you hear about the 1 million dollar bribe Charles Taylor accepted from Al-Qaeda?

the war in Vietnam did not actually have anything to do with us.

So you are saying, when North Vietnam sunk some of OUR navy vessels, we should just sit back and watch them turn southeast asia into Communists?

[Kitt]

I don't know if we should inervene or not, RW. I haven't given it enough study. Your drek about national security didn't apply to Iraq, anymore than it applies to Liberia. Possbly less so for all I know. So don't use that old sham scam to sell your paranoid rhetoric.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by RWCTV

Is Liberian Issue a political game to try and corner Bush?:

There is no special effort needed to "corner Bush" Bush cornered himself by telling a pack of lies. If some journalists, politicians, and the general population of the world want to knip at his heels while he is in his corner, so be it. Why on earth shoudn't we? Is there some reason why a man who has led his country astray, and has now painted himself into a corner, should not suffer the consequences of his actions?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by RWCTV
Where am I going with this you may wonder. Well, I think that the Democrats (the same who ranted and raved abotu Iraq) are trying to get Bush to go to Liberia, not because they care...Oh, no... but because they want to throw it back into his face for leading us into an "immoral Vietnam style war".

Again, RW, Why in the hell would we need to do that? We're already in a Bushmobile Vietnam style war. Isn't one enough for you?

Your ideals and take on things never, ever cease to amaze me. Maybe I should read some of the nutjob sites that you read so I'll be more prepared for your nonsense. You floor me, man. It's all I can do not to call in the whitecoats when I read your posts.

[ABlairican Pie]

BUSHMAN!!!!

Bush is like Batman in these ways:

He's fabulously wealthy, like Bruce Wayne.
His stated purpose is to strike fear and terror into the hearts of criminals everywhere.
The villains look and talk funny.
He has a trusty sidekick who lives for kicking ass.
And each time he vanquishes the bad guys at the end of every episode, THEY COME BACK IN FUTURE EPISODES!!!!

So why are the Democrats sneaky and underhanded, as RWC asserts??

[ABlairican Pie]

I have a hard time believing that every Democrat elected to public office is some kind of charlatan or con artist. Of course I believe the wimpy wampy Demos that don't speak out against Bush's policies are guilty as charged. Is there ever a possibility that REPUBLICANS may be sneaky and underhanded, hmmmmm???

The party of Lincoln has now turned into a for Bush.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica
BUSHMAN!!!!

Bush is like Batman in these ways:

He's fabulously wealthy, like Bruce Wayne.
His stated purpose is to strike fear and terror into the hearts of criminals everywhere.
The villains look and talk funny.
He has a trusty sidekick who lives for kicking ass.
And each time he vanquishes the bad guys at the end of every episode, THEY COME BACK IN FUTURE EPISODES!!!!

He also wears a mask!


But I think it's kinda an insult to place Batman at Bushy's level. Bush never lost his parents ...though, this whole Iraq war can be considered revenge based on what happend in his father's time.

They do have some striking similarities! I'm so sorry Bruce... If it makes you feel any better you have much better reasons for fighting crime and you take on the baddies face-to-face! I'm also willing to bet you have a greater degree of success than Bushy!

[ABlairican Pie]

Another one is the colorful sound effects his wars always bring:

BIFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THWAAAKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and

SPLADOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RWCTV]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica
I have a hard time believing that every Democrat elected to public office is some kind of charlatan or con artist.

Did I say that EVERY Democrat is a con artist?
Some Democrats are old-fashioned Democrats (JFK Democrats) who are not aware of how radical the party has gotten.

On the other hand, remember your precious Joe Liberman was for the war in Iraq. Tom Daschle was for the Iraq war when Clinton was in office, then Bush, and then sided on the Useful idiots side, only to go back to being a hawk when the war was successful. Then, Dick Gephardt was for the war as well. These men have some strange ideals, but they did go the right way when it came to national security.

[RWCTV]

Originally posted by Kitt
Again, RW, Why in the hell would we need to do that? We're already in a Bushmobile Vietnam style war. Isn't one enough for you?

Vietnam was totally different. Terrorists arrested by Israel questioned during interrogation and admit that they have trained in Saddam's terror camps.

To want to have a psychopath with what he did to other people RULE A COUNTRY asks many unnerving questions.

Your side of the argument, like the Soviets, did not want America to be a strong nation or have a powerful military. Is this perhaps a hidden scheme to try and run this country into the ground?

It's funny how you would rather have a mass murderer in charge of having a sovereign nation than having him removed, and for the people who are terrorized, have them feel a little bit better that he is out of there. It reminds me of elitists. They have no touch with the American public, yet they come up with ideas that are far fetched. Like Iraq, we have heard countless stories of people who were fortunate enough to lived to get their testimonies on the air, and to revolt against Saddam. These were the regular people that the elitists did not care about. It seems to never fail.

[RWCTV]

Originally posted by Kitt
There is no special effort needed to "corner Bush" Bush cornered himself by telling a pack of lies.

Lies?
Clinton came out the other day and defended Bush's handling of Iraq, and said on Larry King Live that there were tons of WMD's not accounted for when he left office in early 2001.

The 16 word thing about uranium for Africa is not even worth mentioning. Sure, I guess you can say that he "lied" by apoligizing. He didn't write it, yet he took the blame. Taking the blame is the main thing you can say is a "lie".

When Clinton was president, you probably didn't care about Iraq. This is just another Bush-hater's rhetoric.

[RWCTV]

Originally posted by M82A1
I think it's right.
You know what I think is wrong? When people ask for our help, and we don't give it to them. That's what I think is wrong.

Were you for the recent Iraq war?

[M82A1]

Originally posted by RWCTV
Were you for the recent Iraq war?

Yes, I am Pro-Freedom. But I was referring to Liberia, They have asked for our help, So we should give it to them.