War Mongering US Begged to Come Help in Liberia
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90666,00.html

MONROVIA, Liberia — With fighting receded for now in Liberia's devastated capital, President Charles Taylor joined his desperate people and called for American help to end the war in his bloodied West African nation.

But Taylor, making a victory tour of his shelled capital after chasing rebels out this latest time, gave no sign he would heed President Bush's calls that he step down.

"We ask the international community, most specifically the United States, to do everything within its power to help Liberia and Liberians out of this mess," Taylor said in a radio address Friday, hours after fighting stilled.

Meanwhile: On the other side of the World!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90486,00.html

President Bush stepped deeper into Africa's political and military strife Thursday, calling for Liberian President Charles Taylor to give up power, for an interim government to be installed in Congo by next week and for democracy to be established in Zimbabwe.

"The cycle of attacks and escalation is reckless, it is destructive and it must be ended," Bush said ahead of his Africa trip next month. "To encourage progress across all of Africa, we must build peace at the heart of Africa."

If you are unaware of where and what Liberia is, it is a nation on the W Coast of Africa that was created prior to the US Civil War as a nation for the return of the slaves in the US to Africa. It was, at least on paper, a nation modeled after the US and used a revised version of the US Constitution. Most of the cities have US but Africanized names, such as thre capital - Monrovia. The official currency is the US dollar. The nation has been totally corrupt almost from its inception.

Taylor is a scumbag. I agree 100% w/ Bush.

Liberia is not an oil-rich country, is it?

Neither is el salvador, but I can remember personally the US helping get rid of the FLMN. Am I wrong?

i really doubt US is going to go in there and help.

recently, france sent its troops out to ivory coast (right?), an ex french colony.

but that's a different story.

More "Regime Change Diplomacy"?

Monrovia was named after US President Monroe.

The country has been mired in tribal warfare since it began. Taylor has done nothing to stop it.

Yup. The US and Cuba and the USSR (among others) all helped prolongue the bloodshed over here. And americans didn't exactly get rid of it... The FMLN still exists... not as an armed movement of course, but rather as a political one (which has gained A LOT of strength during this past decade)...

And back then... the US 'helped' us because of their fear of communism spreading...

What I am trying to say is that the US will not go to war unless there are some underlying benefits for them. Honestly... do you think the US will go to war for the benefit of the citicens of other countries???

Yes.

No.

If Charles Lindberg would've had his way, that might be true.

No.

Look at the recent wars we've been involved in.

'Nam - stop communists
Gulf War 1 - to protect our oil interests
Gulf War 2 - who knows what

DUDE! We don't get our god damn oil from Iraq!!!
If it was about oil every American would have a swimming pool full of the the shit. Wake up.

The second one was to get rid of and disarm Saddam, help the people of Iraq, and show the entire Middle East that we won't stand for them supporting terrorist groups.

in gulf war one, iraq invaded saudi, where our oil interests are located.

Kuwait Dude!!! They invaded Kuwait. We got there before they invaded Saudi Arabia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe they ever invaded SA.

Iraq never invaded the Kingdom.

Anyway, since we are all throwing around countries to make our point:

Bosnia
Grenada
Panama
Somalia

All countries that have no economic interest for us.

All countries we went to help and where Americans died.


Too bad there is so much selective memory going on.

I seem to remember a couple of events in Asia too! Guess those don't count either.

There is a canal in Panama that I'm sure some American's are interested in. Noriega seemed to enjoy it for a while, and he was on the CIA's payroll. I'm sure there's some interest, whether it be to make the US look "humanitarian" or otherwise in the above mentioned countries, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Nonsequiter.

If the US was the evil economically driven country you imply it is, then we would have been better off with Noriega and Hussein by just saying, "We'll leave you alone so long as the canal/oil aren't bothered".

And I don't see the point of a refuting post if you're too lazy to even try to refute the other instances.

"I'm sure there's some interest" frankly isn't persuasive.

Perhaps a dose of "funny" sarcasm will help your arguement.

If Panama is so interesting, how come it's not the 51st state.

Because 50 is a nice round number. We're loathe to exceed it.
Who gives a shit, anyway. Bush will do what he wants. Give it up, fellow lefties. The other side is in control.

Never tried to imply the US was an "evil economically driven country, I just knew off the top of my head that Panama did have some American interest, unlike the wonderfully nice humanitarian effort you described.
My point was proven, there were indeed interests in Panama, and I can be as lazy as I want, I'm American.

And just because that "say something funny line" pissed me off, I looked stuff up:

A bloody coup in Grenada, along with a perceived threat to American students on the island provided the U.S. with an excellent excuse to eliminate a Marxist regime allied to Fidel Castro's Cuba. We hate Cuba, due to losing economic interests with Castro’s coup, so we took out someone who would befriend the Cubans.

And apparently, I was surprised as hell by this, there is oil in Somalia:
http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivejuly/000922601.htm

As far as Bosnia though, I can’t find anything concrete enough. We might have actually done that one out of niceness. The only "alternate" reasons I’ve seen so far was we either did it to keep chaos in the Balkans (evidently it’s easier to be a world power when things aren’t organized there) or because we said we would intervene and didn’t want to lose face.

And for my sarcastic remark, 50 stars look better on the flag.

US didnt go alone in bosnia, it was a NATO-led force

Yeah, that's what I read too. There were all this "conspiracy-esque" reasons that various pages cited, hence my "no concrete reason" thing.

If we had any interest in Panama we would not have pulled out of it. The original purpose of the canal was to allow the US to have a two ocean navy but only one fleet - this because of it taking so long to move ships during the Spanish-American War. The canal ceased to be useful so far as the navy transitting the canal a long time ago - it isn't big enough for most of the capitol ships - the only ones using now it are auxiliary ships and from frigates down. And in the above quote you are correct about one thing. The US did have interests in Panama - "did" seems to be the operative word however.

You are conjecturing about taking out a regime who would "befriend the Cubans".

And as I recall, we get no, zero, none, zilch oil from Somalia.

Yep, gotta find a reason to bash the US inspite of the lack of any evidence. Of course, I'll point out that Bosnia happened under Clinton.

And it wasn't even funny. (Better hope that the Puerto Ricans never approve a statehood measure.)

Seriously, you know what my biggest beef is? You don't seem to realize that the government is basically run by pragmatists. Almost every post I see from you and a few others is "boo Bush, boo the imperialist Americans, boo the CIA" yada yada yada. I mean, Christ, I saw you had to drag up WATERGATE in another post to bolster your anti-repub views.

THIRTY FRIGGIN' YEARS AGO, DUDE!

Things aren't black and white and the government is not nearly the monolithic institution you seem to think it is. I'll agree, there are some institutions that are slow to change, but change they do.

Even in my own lifetime, we went from a Democratic president who escalated the Vietnam war, to a Republican president who took us out of Vietnam (but then proved himself a crook) to a Peanut Farmer to a Cowboy to Bush to a Sax Playing philanderer to the Son of Bush. And they have left their marks on institutions like the CIA, FBI, ATF, etc.

We've had things to be proud of, such as the moon landing, fall of the European communism, and the ouster of several dictators as well as things to be ashamed of, such Watergate, Contragate and Clinton's willie.

So open your eyes and realize that every administration has it's good points and bad points and that one sided bashing is simply blind foolishness.

I started life under a Democrat who had become a dictator - he finally died before he was able to impose total socialism on this country - he was replaced by his VP - an unknown from Missouri who became one of, if not our greatest presidents. There have been several since then - all had good points and all had bad. You do not discredit the good because of the bad or a president because of the political party he represents. Both major parties have changed through our history - neither stand for anything even close to what they started as. There have been ups and downs for both - at this time one is in the process of self-destructing and hearing the logic of some who support this party might make one wish for an early death.

Apparently me saying "I'm not Democratic" a hundred times isn't getting the point across. I'm not siding with liberal views because I'm a Democrat, I side with them because usually they're not as delusional as conservatives. Clinton is a bad as the rest of them, he bombed the hell out of Kosovo and made many "USA is the police of the world" decisons while in office. But forgetting the past definately isn't the best way to move forward. I mentioned Watergate, not even in this thread by the way, because it happened. The Democrats running from Texas thing didn't happen today, does that make it no longer valid too? I'm being cited personally on shit everyone in this forum does.

I'm not simply bashing the US out of one-sided blind foolishness, the only reason I even looked that shit up is because you bashed me and my common use of sarcasm to prove points. I find it kind of ironic that the guy who wrote the rule on "being civil" in threads has made it an apparent point to bash me personally on numerous occassions.

I understand entirely we as the United States have achieved many great things, but you can't just forget bad stuff we've done and only focus on the positive. This whole bandwagon patriotism thing needs to fade eventually before anyone can move forward. As long as everyone is giving the Bush administration a blowjob just because he happens to be in the same "club" as you, no one will realize the many injusticises America has committed in the last few decades. We're a great nation, but are moving towards something bad if we ignore our faults.

You need to open your eyes and realize we're having a fucking internet debate about this shit, it's not like we're UN delagates. Politics is a serious subject and all, but there's no need in making personal citations on people because your views are threatened. I'm sorry if I seem to be down on conservatives only, there just happens to be a lot of fuck ups we can attribute to conservative administrations.

We apparently posted at the same time so I'm going to add by two cents worth to Lebells post again:

I started life under a Democrat who had become a dictator - he finally died before he was able to impose total socialism on this country - he was replaced by his VP - an unknown from Missouri who became one of, if not our greatest presidents. There have been several since then - all had good points and all had bad. You do not discredit the good because of the bad or a president because of the political party he represents. Both major parties have changed through our history - neither stand for anything even close to what they started as. There have been ups and downs for both - at this time one is in the process of self-destructing and hearing the logic of some who support this party might make one wish for an early death.

I agree 100% that this is an internet debate, and believe me, I don't lose sleep over it. Still, I'll repeat, it seems you are only open to bashing conservatives when I can point to as many fuck ups in liberal administrations. A balanced view is all I'm looking for.

And no, I am NOT a Republican or even necessarily a conservative. I am a centrist leaning towards libertarian who was for many years a registered Democrat. I voted for Reagan, I voted for Clinton (shit, I even met the man) and yes, I voted for Gore (to my chagrin).

Yes, all the past happened and shouldn't be ignored, but to use it as a gauge of American foriegn policy today is still foolish IMO. I mean, I don't quote Roosevelt (either one) nor do I talk about the Repulicans being great because the freed the slaves, or the imperialistic tendencies of America as demonstated in the Spanish-American war.

And looking back, I can't see that I broke my own rules, or at least not very much. But you seem to think that you can jump on my shit and I won't call you on it. If you recall, you started on me with the whole "sarcastic comment" business, and even though I bit my tongue the last time we went round, you had to jump on me in this thread. Well, I'm sorry, but if you are saying one thing, but doing another, expect to be called on it.

omg! this is the 2nd person on tfp that once was a dem, now switched over (to being a non-dem). no offense, but i really hope i dont end up like youl.

I didn't aim that sarcastic thing at you only. You technically didn't "bite your tongue" either, hence this whole debacle to begin with. We're always trying to one up each other. I'm not saying one thing and doing the other, the sarcasm remark was at many people, you took it the wrong way and attacked me, and then I followed suit. A simple misunderstanding, so I'm gonna play the pussy role and try to make up. I don't hate you, and I respect you as a member of TFP, as well as a moderator. There's no need us making mortal enemies out of each other over this. I'll stop calling you on petty shit if you do the same.

Will you marry me?:p

Actually, I bit my tongue twice, even if you aren't aware of it. And as you quoted me directly, so I think it natural to believe the original comment was directed at me.

But your words are well said, as life is too short.

As to marrying you, only if we can honeymoon in the Caimans.

But I have to find out when I am going to be Kadath's best man, so we don't have a conflict.

:D

Coolness. Like I said before, I'm lazy, hence me not looking for quotes by other people. Glad we resolved our differences, I need to go find a wedding gown.

Until then, I'm off to pick up my "ThreadJacker" of the year award.

Wowsers!

So, then I think the question was how involved diplomatically and militarilly the US should get in a situation with no obvious financial or strategic benefit. Are historical ties and support of the indigent population a strong enough reason to commit our diplomatic and perhaps even military resources?

i pointed this earlier, historic ties were important for france, as they involved themselves in ivory coast.

i dont know if the US should involve itself in liberia, since we never ruled the country directly

And here I thought you'd forgotten about me. You never send me flowers any more, you know. :)

Hmm, has anybody bothered to find out what the Liberian people want?

Just a thought because everyone on here seems more concerned with bashing our own government than talking about what course of action we should take in liberia.

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.