I was reading on line that for the most part, the Liberians really feel a kinship for America (which they do not know we don't return) and don't understand why we don't invade to stop the bloodshed.

I wonder why no one is asking the UN for help? Haven't they imposed sanctions on Liberia? I wonder if they're helping? Do you think the U.S. should go it alone?

When was the last time a UN sanction did anything? The UN has become nothing but an international debating society with strange ground rules - perhaps that is all it's ever been. How involved should anyone get into African affairs? I'm not sure it can be dealt with an a national basis - I think you'd end up having to deal with the entire continent - save a couple of exceptions. The results of European imperialism that failed and the nations they either abondoned or were kicked out of have, for the most part, never really functioned as governments above the tribal level in most instances. If the UN was capable of dealing with a problem of this extent then they are probably the ones that should deal with it - perhaps if even the African nations could agree to form some sort of international organization on their continent it might be helpful.

well, UN is pretty invalidated now

The reason I was asking about UN sanctions was that there ARE sanctions against Liberia. Those sanctions keep the Liberian government from selling diamonds in the world marketplace in exchange for weapons (there's your alterior motive- the US wants all their diamonds). The UN is incapable of helping the Liberians- that's why they don't. The Liberians have a running feud with the UN for imposing sanctions on them, so they wouldn't want them there anyway. That's why the call goes out for the US to help. Who else is there who would? And if they do help them they will draw the attention of the rest of the world, who will call their moves "Imperialistic" and the people of the US will be labeled as militaristic baby-killers. So maybe Charles Lindberg was right after all. The only people who want us there are the munitions dealers. Let's bring back Hitler and tell him we're sorry that the people of the US are so selfish. He never attacked us after all. Maybe if we'd simply sued the Japanese for peace (that's what they were hoping for anyway) we could've stayed out of the war. It would have helped our shaky economy to sell the Japanese oil, they needed it in Manchuria. How absolutely self centered of us to want to rule the world. We should stay home and turn the other cheek on the rest of the world and on the Liberians who will die. After all, Liberia ISN'T going to be the 51st state anyway (and we'll still have to PAY for our diamonds).

Looks like it might happen:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90862,00.html
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is "actively discussing" how to bring peace to Liberia amid international calls for the United States to lead a peacekeeping force there, the White House said Tuesday.

At a National Security Council meeting attended by Bush, officials discussed how to proceed in Liberia, but reached no conclusions, a U.S. official said.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has suggested the United States take a leadership role in peacekeeping. West African leaders on Monday asked for 2,000 U.S. troops, and said they want an answer before President Bush leaves for Africa on Monday.

France, Britain and both sides in Liberia's fighting have also pushed for an American role in a peace force for the country, which was founded by freed American slaves in the 19th century.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer did not close the door on possible U.S. military involvement Tuesday. Nor did he offer any hint that Bush intends to commit troops.

What about NATO? NATO has the military strength that the UN lacks to enforce peacekeeping missions. A multinational force also escapes the inevitable charge of self interest in any military action, as well as terrorist retribution.

I don't believe it is the responsibility of the US to respond militarily to every hot spot that arises across the globe, and the american taxpayer should not be burdened by the ever increasing need for a larger global police force.

Mogadishu is still too fresh...

NATO is designed for European defense, which is how is could be used for Bosnia.

NATO, as an organization, won't ever be in Africa.

I'd just like to point out that the US had a very definite interest when it came to Bosnia. The Serbs have been allied with Russia / The Soviet Union for pretty much a hundred years.
By helping Bosnia out, the US actively expanded it's sphere of influence.

True. But NATO was designed in a world that had Warsaw pact countries and US allies staring each other down in Eastern europe. In today's world, the political map has changed so much that perhaps NATO needs to redefine its purpose and expand its influence. A world police/military force is much needed and the basis for this already exists in NATO.

Wouldn't be the first time the US ignored the UN...

Africa is a very fragmented continent. Even in countries different tribes simply can not agree on how to run a country. On top of that there is a huge aids problem and a massive debt.

Africa is kept poor by the west. If we would discontinue aid and instead would open up our markets for African products and commodities they would be far better of. As of now, we do not allow to sell them their products.

In fact, we oblige them to buy our products with the aid money we send them. Which is received by massively corrupt government officials.

Well so far its looking like UN sanctions kept WMDs out of Iraq.

Check this out:

http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?threadid=14378

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90963,00.html

Wednesday, July 02, 2003


WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has decided to send a "fast team" of U.S. forces to Liberia to serve as peacekeepers, senior defense sources told Fox News Wednesday.

The forces sent to the violence-racked region will likely be Marines, but it's not clear how large that force will be.

Senior officials told Fox News last week that the U.S. ambassador to Liberia had requested deployment of the Marine "fast team" shortly after two rocket-propelled grenade rounds exploded outside the main embassy compound in Monrovia, killing several Liberians who had lined up nearby.

That "fast team" would be made up of some 50-75 Marines. Such a team is currently on standby in Spain.


Guess that ends this discussion, or does it?

so, are they just for guarding the embassy or what?

Sounds like it. 3 shifts of 25 people guarding an embassy at any given time sounds about right depending on how big the thing is.

Why is this argument O.K. here, and not O.K. when used with welfare reform?

Ummm...

<img src="http://www.umu.se/studentcentrum/images/apple.jpg">

and

<img src="http://www.peoplegarden.org/orange.jpg">

Welfare reform's a pretty dead issue anyway, after clinton took it away from the republicans and did such a good job with it.

edit: wow that's a big orange.

You've finally said SOMETHING that I can't argue with.