Liberia: What should we do

[JCG]

Poor liberated African-Americans of Liberia, their freedom has turned into a nightmare...and their original homeland doesn't want to "save" them now that they've screwed up.

History is indeed pleasantly full of ironies (must be why I like it so much).

But frankly...I admit that I don't really know what the US can do, considering the practical circumstances (what the US should do is another matter, but politically irrelevant at the moment).

[Drake Tungsten]

OK, fine, but "peacekeeping" missions are not good missions for people trained to be soldiers.

That's why we need military folks trained as peacekeepers, not soldiers.

I'd rather not have the Army take the place of the police here in Austin.

The Army needs to take the place of the police in Baghdad and Monrovia, not Austin.

[David Floyd]

That's why we need military folks trained as peacekeepers, not soldiers.

So, then, do you want peacekeepers as a branch of the military? If you do, I'm not sure you'll find a lot of people who want to volunteer for the military and go into peacekeeping, because as far as I'm aware, many to most soldiers are opposed to peacekeeping duty.

If you want peacekeeping as something different, outside of the military, that would be an administrative nightmare in terms of training, equipment, funding, etc.

The Army needs to take the place of the police in Baghdad and Monrovia, not Austin.

In Baghdad, this is obviously because the Army is the entity that destroyed the police/government of Iraq. I'm not sure why the Army would need to go into law enforcement in Liberia.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Fez 2.0

[Drake Tungsten]

So, then, do you want peacekeepers as a branch of the military? If you do, I'm not sure you'll find a lot of people who want to volunteer for the military and go into peacekeeping, because as far as I'm aware, many to most soldiers are opposed to peacekeeping duty.

Why would you give soldiers a choice? I'm sure most soldiers don't want to work in logistics either, but someone has to do it. It's a job and you do what the government tells you to do.

[DinoDoc]

Don't the French already have troops in the area (Ivory Coast). Let them deal with the problem.

[David Floyd]

Fez 2.0

So much for the rule against personal attacks.

IN ANY CASE, I don't know enough to make more than guesses about this. In reality, I don't support doing anything because it's none of our business, and see no reason I should be forced to pay for it.

Why would you give soldiers a choice? I'm sure most soldiers don't want to work in logistics either, but someone has to do it. It's a job and you do what the government tells you to do.

Then, hypothetically speaking of course, wouldn't this serve to drive down enlistments? That is, if indeed many to most soldiers don't want to get stuck on peacekeeping duty (and I think that's a valid assertion, although I can't be certain), and if they knew prior to enlisting that it could be a good possibility, then why enlist?

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't the French already have troops in the area (Ivory Coast). Let them deal with the problem.

Now you're just being cruel. We might as well kill the Liberians ourselves for all the good the French would do in stopping the bloodshed. You want another Rwanda?

[Drake Tungsten]

Then, hypothetically speaking of course, wouldn't this serve to drive down enlistments?

Not anymore than the recent rash of wars will. Soldiers don't like to risk death anymore than they like peacekeeping.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd




So much for the rule against personal attacks.

How is that a personal attack?

Especially in the context of:

Originally posted by David Floyd
And I don't even know the situation, but I don't have to know.

And then proceeding to debate the subject solely on ideology?

[David Floyd]

I'd be interested to see numbers on that, from a curiosity standpoint You may very well be right, but common sense would say that after the war in Iraq, and resulting occupation and such, enlistments will be at least somewhat down. This might, however, be mitigated by government WoT propaganda, so I can see it both ways. *shrug*

[David Floyd]

And then proceeding to debate the subject solely on ideology?

Because according to what I believe, I don't need to know the facts of a situation of this kind in order to have an opinion. This doesn't make my beliefs stupid, or inconsistent - this simply means that it is extremely hard for me to envision a scenario where I would support military force of any kind.

Now unless you are going to tell me the Liberian government is specifically targeting American citizens, then I won't favor intervention, and even then, I'll only favor military intervention, not "peacekeeping".

[MichaeltheGreat]

The number of slots authorized by Congress each year is way less than the number of applicants - that's why things like HS graduation requirements and minimum age with parental consent have been tightened up.

And you've got weak employment in the civilian sector.


Where you likely hurt is in retention of reservists in a lot of jobs where they see these long-term activactions, and the eventual loss of their civilian jobs as a result.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Because according to what I believe, I don't need to know the facts of a situation of this kind in order to have an opinion. This doesn't make my beliefs stupid, or inconsistent -

I didn't say anything about the quality or accuracy of your beliefs.

They are a tad predictable though.

[David Floyd]

They are a tad predictable though.

Good