search this site: search the web:
Welcome to our New Server! Stronger, faster, and now with Lutein!

THE U.S. REFUSAL TO OFFER TROOPS FOR THE PEACEKEEPING FORCE IN LEBANON

user ballots

political :

THE U.S. REFUSAL TO OFFER TROOPS FOR THE PEACEKEEPING FORCE IN LEBANON


[+] serious ballot by cranky
ACTIVE Thu Aug 24, 06 - Tue May 19, 09

Is that an admission of continuing failure in Iraq? Surely, if things were going as well as the neocon cheerleaders claim, the U.S. could free up a few hundred troops for such an important mission.

Or is it because the U.S. is now perceived, totally, as an agent of Israel, and its presence as part of a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon would be as ridiculous as Iran sending troops?

It's a tacit admission of failure in Iraq
It's an admission that the U.S. is totally biased toward Israel
It's both
It's neither. The USA would be able to bring too much force to bare on the situation.
Register to submit choices


Ballot #100923 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:
Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:










similiar ballots:
101848. UN lands impressive new force in lebanon
101689. Peacekeepers in lebanon refuse to use force to intercept arms shipments
95434. Is worldwide peacekeeping americas responsibility?
97680. 7 Canadians killed in Lebanon
98582. Israel versus Lebanon...
100619. The UN multinational forces in going to Lebanon will likely be most...
100833. Should the U.S. do to Pakistan what Israel has done to Lebanon?
97397. Is Israel's invasion of Lebanon justified?
97642. The U.S. has come out strongly AGAINST a cease fire in Lebanon. Why?
97665. Isreal is kicking the crap out of Lebanon.


COMMENTS:
IC_zzz The US rarely contributes peacekeeping troops anywhere because they become the target instead of being able to do peacekeeping.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Thu Aug 24, 06 2:15pm [+]

^why do you think that is? hmm?
by lil_ape on Thu Aug 24, 06 2:59pm [+]

"The US rarely contributes peacekeeping troops anywhere because they become the target instead of being able to do peacekeeping. "

You mean like how we didn't send troops to the former Yugoslav republics?

And, of course, no one is using our troops as targets in Iraq.

And, of course, nobody else's troops are at risk of becoming targets on peacekeeping missions.

And, of course, nobody should expect the U.S. to put it's money where its mouth is when encouraging the use of peacekeepers. Only the little people send troops on peacekeeping missions. How very neocon.
by cranky on Fri Aug 25, 06 9:37am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy |
© 2002-2009 BEST AND WORST dot com All Rights Reserved