Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 83

Thread: Armed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

  1. #71
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,356

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    They musta changed it since I was in. In the 80's, it was illegal for French nationals to enlist in the Legion. About the only way for French nationals to enlist was to enter with Canadian, Belgian, or Luxembourg papers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #72
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: Armed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    BBC News - Armed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Africa doesn't really get a lot of play around here so I thought I'd throw this in, I hope I haven't missed a breaking rules guideline, I know the thread title is a question but it is talking about what's happening.

    So, onto my 2 cents.

    As an African it is refreshing to see Africa trying to do the right thing, but it's a little tough when some of the very leaders villyfing this guy, aren't exactly squeaky clean themselves, and certainly even if it is for the greater good, a military intervention could be costly in terms of not only human lives, but a great waste of money and recourses that these countries simply can't spare to have war. But it could cost them more in the long run if there's a refugee crisis.

    Have a read through and check out some of the pictures, these guys mean business, and if Africa can begin to police itself, and sort out it's own problems, even if it sometimes needs foreign military aid and money to do it now, we could see some promising results.
    If the "President" refuses to step down and acknowledge the will of the people.
    W Africa (with help from rest of Africa) and UN including Western nations should overthrow it. The consequences of not doing so may be worse, civil war or god forbid another genocide.

    This is what UK should be using its military for. I support my Government who has expressed willingness to provide soldiers if it comes down to force.


  3. #73
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,610

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by dontworrybehappy View Post
    Dude, that was the reasoning behind GW2 and Afganistan and that's going on 7-8 years now, not 2 months.
    The diffrences is here that you can directly can install a legatimate goverment that have the support of the mayority of voters. In GW2 and Afganisthan, USA had do try to somehow create a legitamate goverment. First by appointed guys they trusted (that was not very trusting at all many shady people in Iraq and warlords in Afganisthan. Then trying somehow held election in a contries with no tradition of that.

    Also here you have the neighboring countries are willing go in and take responsibility for security sene the illegitamale goverment is kicked out. Yes they may also be responsilibilty to kick the goverment out them self. But USA with their military power could probably do it more effecient and less risk of civilian casualties.

    Also it is intersting to see that liberation and democracy was one of the big reason for the Iraq war. But are Fox News and other right wing opionmaker calling for an invasion? A invasion that would be much easier and less costly then the Iraq war.

  4. #74
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The United States should send troops into Cote D'Ivoire if necessary. It would cost us virtually nothing, the troops wouldn't have to be there more than a couple months, and they would have a clear mission: to help establish the legitimately elected government. This is exactly the kind of situation where we should be more willing to deploy our military.
    Completely disagree, far better that if the US wishes to be involved it pays towards the cost of any African force that goes in.

    Idi Amin was thrown out by a coalition force of Tanzanian and Kenyan forces - the war pretty much bankrupted Tanzania (even though it had little money to begin with) and there was no comeback for the US. We were all rid of a savage dictator - I think the same could be said for Cote D'Ivoire.

  5. #75
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    ...far better that if the US wishes to be involved it pays towards the cost of any African force that goes in.
    Not one red cent. No American involvement in any way. Period.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    Not one red cent. No American involvement in any way. Period.
    The relevant word in my post was "if."

    Personally I think America would be wrong to go into Cote D'Ivoire - I read elsewhere that the US has a high approval rating in Sub-Saharan Africa - that would go pretty quickly if it chose to send forces again into Africa.

  7. #77
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,356

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    Completely disagree, far better that if the US wishes to be involved it pays towards the cost of any African force that goes in.

    Idi Amin was thrown out by a coalition force of Tanzanian and Kenyan forces - the war pretty much bankrupted Tanzania (even though it had little money to begin with) and there was no comeback for the US. We were all rid of a savage dictator - I think the same could be said for Cote D'Ivoire.
    That's where I get off the bus. If we spend a nickel on such a venture, we should do it ourselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #78
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    Completely disagree, far better that if the US wishes to be involved it pays towards the cost of any African force that goes in.

    Idi Amin was thrown out by a coalition force of Tanzanian and Kenyan forces - the war pretty much bankrupted Tanzania (even though it had little money to begin with) and there was no comeback for the US. We were all rid of a savage dictator - I think the same could be said for Cote D'Ivoire.
    But that's the point. It took a bloody and violent war to get rid of him. The US could remove Gbagbo from Abidjan with little or no bloodshed. Merely bankrolling other African states to do it is counterproductive. No amount of money will change the fact that their troops are simply not as good as ours and will endure heavier casualties. Furthermore, the idea of intervening is to create an environment where the usurping of democracy is less common, and therefore states can concentrate more on their human development instead of their militaries. If we start writing checks to African militaries, that will make the problem worse.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #79
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    The relevant word in my post was "if."

    Personally I think America would be wrong to go into Cote D'Ivoire - I read elsewhere that the US has a high approval rating in Sub-Saharan Africa
    We do. The US approval in Cote D'Ivoire is over 90% and is the highest of any country in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos
    that would go pretty quickly if it chose to send forces again into Africa.
    Why is it assumed that American involvement is always unwelcome?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #80
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That's where I get off the bus. If we spend a nickel on such a venture, we should do it ourselves.
    I am basically against US involvement here, not for any anti-US feeling but simply because I believe it would do politics in the area far more harm for US troops to hit the ground in any hostile action to remove Gbagbo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    But that's the point. It took a bloody and violent war to get rid of him. The US could remove Gbagbo from Abidjan with little or no bloodshed --
    There are no wars with little bloodshed anymore. The war to rid Uganda of Idi Amin was a purely African affair and even though there are problems (particularly anti-gay christians), Uganda is a far better place for the intervention. America does have a history of indirect intervention - including Zaire during the cold war which is still resonant in many political minds there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    We do. The US approval in Cote D'Ivoire is over 90% and is the highest of any country in the world.
    That could and will drop very quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    -- Why is it assumed that American involvement is always unwelcome?
    As I mentioned above, there is a history of indirect action. America is a fantasy to many Africans, a fantasy of a richer, better and more comfortable life. US GIs on the ground will paint a very different picture.

    There are far easier and better ways to manage and put pressure on those on the ground without putting troops in. As APDST also pointed out earlier - your own rules of engagement will not allow your troops to do the job properly and you'll probably end up with an unpleasant situation that shouldn't even happen in the first place.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •