Warlike US sending troops to another country. PROTEST FOR PEACE! KEEP TROOPS HOME!

busybody..

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 28, 2002
Posts
149,503
U.S. Considers Sending Warships, Marines to Haiti
25 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is considering sending three warships with about 2,000 U.S. Marines, headed by the helicopter carrier USS Saipan, to rebellion-torn Haiti as the Pentagon (news - web sites) weighs options to address the crisis, defense officials said on Friday.

The officials said no deployment orders had been issued to send the Amphibious Ready Group led by the Saipan to Haiti from Norfolk, Virginia, but called that one of the options being considered.


"They are at a state of readiness that allows them to be able to deploy, if called upon, within a matter of days," said Navy Lt. Jim Hoeft, a spokesman for the Fleet Forces Command, referring to the Saipan group.


If ordered to sail, it would take about two days for those ships to reach the impoverished Caribbean nation where President Jean-Bertrand Aristide faces an armed revolt, one official said.


The Saipan is an amphibious assault ship that carries helicopters and AV-8B Harrier attack jets. The other two ships are the dock-landing ship USS Oak Hill and the amphibious transport dock USS Trenton, the officials said.


"If the president (George W. Bush) decides to take action, the Navy needs to be ready," said another Navy official, speaking on condition of anonymity.


This official said the U.S. military could do nothing, or other options included sending the three ships without large numbers of Marines merely for maritime interdiction or to support U.S. Coast Guard (news - web sites) ships trying to prevent a mass exodus of Haitians to the United States, or sending the ships and about 2,000 Marines.


The Miami-based U.S. Southern Command last week sent a four-member security assessment team to examine the safety of the U.S. Embassy in Haiti.


On Monday, Southern Command sent about 50 Marines to Haiti to protect the embassy in the capital Port-au-Prince.


The rebels edged closer to the Haitian capital on Friday while supporters of Aristide mounted defenses.


During the Clinton administration, the United States sent 20,000 troops to Haiti in 1994 to restore Aristide to power after a coup.


Defense Department officials have not been enthusiastic about a military mission in Haiti. The U.S. military is stretched thin by operations in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites) and elsewhere, although officials said that would not prevent them from being able to mount a robust Haiti operation if necessary.


CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE


The Bush administration came under pressure from some congressional Democrats to take military action.


Democratic Sens. Bob Graham of Florida, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Tom Harkin of Iowa urged the administration to dispatch a security force to Haiti this weekend.


"U.S. leadership means deploying a security force -- preferably multilaterally -- before it is too late. That means within the next 24 to 48 hours," Dodd said.


A Florida Republican, Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record), urged the United Nations (news - web sites) to "take immediate action to stop the bloodshed in Haiti" by sending an international force to halt the violence.





"If the U.N. does not act now, a mass exodus from Haiti will result in serious repercussions on Florida's shores," Foley said.

The Pentagon last summer sent a similar three-ship group with about 2,000 Marines to the coast of Liberia (news - web sites) amid political turmoil there. But pariah leader Charles Taylor flew into exile in Nigeria in August and most of the U.S. troops never set foot on land.
 
I'm considering sending a contribution to Bush's re-election campaign.

Doesn't mean the check's in the mail.
 
I see nothing wrong with this....................But wait we are not the world police. yet are we?
 
plasmaball said:
I see nothing wrong with this....................But wait we are not the world police. yet are we?

Well, we don't want to be, but the world keeps forcing us to by doing dumbass shit like this.

busybody, if I didn't strongly suspect that the title of this thread were facetious, I'd think you were schizophrenic.
 
plasmaball said:
I see nothing wrong with this....................But wait we are not the world police. yet are we?

What threat does Haiti pose to the US? Is it imminent? Did we get permission fro the UN?
 
Well, we don't wane to be, but the world keeps forcing us to by doing dumbass shit like this.

disagree............nobody forces us to do anything.......
 
What threat does Haiti pose to the US? Is it imminent? Did we get permission fro the UN?

niether was saddam..........Sorry if you want to keep on using the Iraq people as a reason for going in, then Bush has to keep up that image.
 
We are sending troops to Haiti? Do we have some chronic rum shortage I didn't know about?
 
Bitchslapper said:
Well, we don't wane to be, but the world keeps forcing us to by doing dumbass shit like this.

busybody, if I didn't strongly suspect that the title of this thread were facetious, I'd think you were schizophrenic.

It is a sarcastic headline.

I just wonder if the persons that were so against the war in Iraq and pressed to keep the troops home.......will protest this as well..... :confused: :confused:
 
plasmaball said:
disagree............nobody forces us to do anything.......

Well, if you want to get technical, no one forces anyone to do anything, but someone can produce conditions in which one feels that there's no comfortable choice, so they choose the least uncomfortable option and/or the path of least resistance.

I think it's much better to address a problem as soon as possible, rather than ignoring it until it becomes much more difficult to deal with or before it reaches our doorstep.
 
So the question remains:

Will the UN "authorize" the sending of troops?

Why send US troops? Where is the UN blue helmets?

What is the danger to the US for us to commit troops?
 
catfish11 said:
We are sending troops to Haiti? Do we have some chronic rum shortage I didn't know about?

Of course. Just like the War in Iraq is all about oil. Or is it sand? I forget. Iraq has sand, more than we do, and we just overthrew Iraq's government, so we must be after thier sand reserves, right? Sounds logical to me.
 
Well, if you want to get technical, no one forces anyone to do anything, but someone can produce conditions in which one feels that there's no comfortable choice, so they choose the least uncomfortable option and/or the path of least resistance.

I think it's much better to address a problem as soon as possible, rather than ignoring it until it becomes much more difficult to deal with or before it reaches our doorstep.


Oh i agree with you,but my logic is based off my past statement.....Thats how i would have taken the issue


So the question remains:

Will the UN "authorize" the sending of troops?

Why send US troops? Where is the UN blue helmets?

What is the danger to the US for us to commit troops?:

You just answered this in your other thread........Ugh
 
Originally posted by Bitchslapper
Of course. Just like the War in Iraq is all about oil. Or is it sand? I forget. Iraq has sand, more than we do, and we just overthrew Iraq's government, so we must be after thier sand reserves, right? Sounds logical to me.

Actually, they have pretty nice sand in Haiti, went there once. Unfortunately, the US needs to get involved in Haiti to stop a potential orgy of violence if and when Aristide falls. Haiti's past is tragic, and we need to figure out a way to provide stability there.
 
catfish11 said:
Actually, they have pretty nice sand in Haiti, went there once. Unfortunately, the US needs to get involved in Haiti to stop a potential orgy of violence if and when Aristide falls. Haiti's past is tragic, and we need to figure out a way to provide stability there.

Why should we care about their stability?

Where is the UN?
 
catfish11 said:
Actually, they have pretty nice sand in Haiti, went there once. Unfortunately, the US needs to get involved in Haiti to stop a potential orgy of violence if and when Aristide falls. Haiti's past is tragic, and we need to figure out a way to provide stability there.
Why us?
 
I say we do nothing. We have no reason to. I don't care if they shoot people down in the streets over there, its none of our business.
 
Originally posted by busybody
Why should we care about their stability?

Where is the UN?

Because it is in our interest to keep unrest to a minimum in our own backyard. It is also the right thing to do to protect people who cannot protect themselves. The United States, with hopefully the help of the UN, should step in and at least keep order until some sort of stability can be achieved. There is also the problem of refugees flooding into Florida again like early 90's.
No easy answer on how to solve the problems there, not sure we can, but we can at least try to stop the bloodshed.
 
Last edited:
WARMACHINE said:
I say we do nothing. We have no reason to. I don't care if they shoot people down in the streets over there, its none of our business.
Afternoon, redneck.

How's that move outta Texas going?
 
LovingTongue said:
Afternoon, redneck.

How's that move outta Texas going?

Afternoon Nigger, I won't be moving until you show up...that means I'll probably be starting at about ten minutes after NEVER....
 
Bitchslapper said:
Of course. Just like the War in Iraq is all about oil. Or is it sand? I forget. Iraq has sand, more than we do, and we just overthrew Iraq's government, so we must be after thier sand reserves, right? Sounds logical to me.


Keep up.

The US attacked Iraq because it's terrible arsenals of WMDs posed a clear and present danger to the USA.

Oh yeah. And because you 'love freedom'.

The fact that Bush's political ambitions are funded by the oil industry had nothing to do with it. Bombing and occupying random Arab countries is all about making America a safer place.

Ain't that right, Busybody ?
 
catfish11 said:
Because it is in our interest to keep unrest to a minimum in our own backyard. It is also the right thing to do to protect people who cannot protect themselves. The United States, with hopefully the help of the UN, should step in and at least keep order until some sort of stability can be achieved. There is also the problem of refugees flooding into Florida again like early 90's.
No easy answer on how to solve the problems there, not sure we can, but we can at least try to stop the bloodshed.

Couldn't we just put mines in the water off the coast of Florida?
 
Back
Top