Liberia: What should we do

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i can't help but think that a lot of the people who have posted so far don't really know very much at all about what is happening in liberia (lo elijah and dino).

How would that change my opinion?

[C0ckney]

well you might not consider sending a small US force 'pointless' for a start...

[DinoDoc]

I'd have to understand why the US and not Nigeria isn't being asked to lead this operation first because I don't care about the colonial responsibility reason being batted around by some people in this thread.

[C0ckney]

because an american force would be much better at the things i mentioned, sure have nigerian troops keeping order and supervising dis-armerment in the countryside, but for things like training a new army and protecting foreign nationals US troops would be infinatly preferable.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We like to project power all over the world.

Besides, Nigeria is close by, has a lot of oil and a lot of Islamic nutheads. Forward basing is always nice.

you say that like its a bad thing

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd have to understand why the US and not Nigeria isn't being asked to lead this operation first because I don't care about the colonial responsibility reason being batted around by some people in this thread.

I never said anything about colonial responsibility. I said a) it is good PR, b) bring stability and thus better economic investment possibilities, c) gives a nicer toehold into Africa near some good oil.

Oh and:

Bush May Send 500 to 1000 Troops To Liberia

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush could announce later this week that he is sending 500 to 1,000 peacekeeping troops to Liberia, two senior officials told CNN.

Facing mounting international pressure to have the United States lead a Liberia mission that also would include West African peacekeepers, Bush discussed such a deployment Wednesday, the officials said.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others have talked of a U.S. deployment of 2,000 troops, but U.S. officials told CNN any deployment would be no more than half that. (Full story)

The officials said the timing of the announcement could be slowed by efforts to get Liberian President Charles Taylor, who faces war crimes charges by a U.N. court in neighboring Sierra Leone, to step down and leave the war-torn country.

The White House official line is that Taylor should leave now and face war crimes trial later. But Bush used different language Wednesday regarding Taylor, saying simply that he should leave the country.

Many analysts read the new Bush language as a sign the president was prepared to accept Taylor going into exile in a country that would not extradite him to Sierra Leone.

Bush has been reluctant to commit U.S. troops to Liberia, which was founded in 1822 as a settlement for freed American slaves, and hoped West African peacekeepers would be enough, with the possible exception of Marine reinforcements at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia. (Full story)

But Secretary of State Powell has been arguing in favor of a U.S. commitment, sources said -- citing recent peacekeeping commitments by France in the Ivory Coast and Great Britain in Sierra Leone.

Bush leaves this weekend for his first trip to Africa, and the Liberia issue has become a test of his promise to make a commitment to promoting peace, democracy and economic development in Africa, administration officials said.

One senior official said, "There will be a U.S. role, but the details are still in somewhat of a flux."

Another senior official said "it is not sealed" but a force of 500 to no more than 1,000 Army troops was under serious discussion and that there were "strong indications" a final decision in favor of a deployment "will be sooner rather than later."

Despite suggestions by some administration officials to the contrary, neither Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld nor Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers has expressed reservations about involving U.S. troops in Liberia, key aides to both men told CNN.

An aide to Rumsfeld said the defense secretary believes the mission would fit into the category of "lesser contingencies" the Pentagon is prepared to handle. Sources close to Myers said the general shares that view.

Pentagon officials acknowledged forces are stretched thin overseas -- in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans -- but said the small number of troops required for Liberia would not create problems.

But other administration officials said the Pentagon is wary in part because of the humiliating memories of the last major U.S. deployment in Africa -- to Somalia -- which ended in retreat 10 years ago after 18 Americans were killed.

Several senior officials said reports that Bush had already signed orders authorizing a deployment were inaccurate.

But these officials said planning was intensifying, including detailed conversations with the United Nations and with West African nations that would be part of a peacekeeping mission.

Pentagon sources told CNN a unit of 50 U.S. Marines known as a FAST team -- for Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team -- was on standby in Rota, Spain, for possible deployment to reinforce security at the U.S. Embassy.

Several hundred Americans remain in Liberia, where intense fighting between Taylor's government and rebel forces has continued despite a June 17 cease-fire. (Full story)

Nigeria had been working with Taylor on a possible deal for him to take refuge in that country. One problem, however, is that Taylor has agreed to deals before, then backed out.

Officials said the United States was working closely with members of the Economic Community of West African States on diplomatic efforts, particularly Ghana and Nigeria. (Full story)

Comments Tuesday by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer that Bush was considering sending troops provoked a nearly instantaneous reaction in Monrovia, where thousands of people gathered outside the U.S. Embassy to cheer a possible American presence.

"We feel America can bring peace because they are the original founders of this nation, and secondly, they are the superpower of the world," one man said.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by johncmcleod




Is this all you care about, whether or not an action hurts the US? There are children being MURDERED in Liberia. Open up your eyes! Don't you care about helping other people? While we sit here on our computers with our fancy cars other people are living in a hellhole and all you think of is yourself? We are the ones with the power to help the oppressed, we must do something.

I'm not talking about the US deciding to play policeman and tell the world what is right and what is wrong. The UN must go in. The nations of the world must get together and decide to solve this terrible problem. If we do it that way all of the resources of the world will be put together and it will be possible to keep the peace there.

uh huh... im sry, but the US gets this **** everytime.

Whenever we go in to help (and for secondary gain, of course, we do stuff in our own interest as much as possible) we are accused of being "bullies" or doing it JUST for our own self interest, like that completely negates the fact we take out some ****ing bastrads or somethning. When we dont help, we are called heartless pigs

so when can the US intervene and when cant it??? huh. whenever it is in your interest, right?
the world isnt hypocritical at all.. only the us is. its the only selfish country. right

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kramerman: I totally agree. Kinda funny that going into Iraq was met with SUCH opposition, but then we get yelled at for not going into Liberia.

[Kramerman]

yup. we heard an earful when we went into grenada and panama too...

if it werent a UN action, we never could have gone into Somalia because "we would have been bullies" or some oppertunistic cheap shot like that

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I never said anything about colonial responsibility.

Then I wasn't talking about you.

I said a) it is good PR, b) bring stability and thus better economic investment possibilities, c) gives a nicer toehold into Africa near some good oil.

And I've been saying that the current deployment schedule leaves our forces to stretched to take on peacekeeping roles in yet another country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not if they are part of a 'peacekeeping' coalition, probably backed by the UN. It's worth it to spare 1000 troops for all the benefits.

[DanS]

How do you have a right of interference then? Enlighten me as to how that is possible in any consistent philosophical or moral way that is consistent with a logical way of running a nationstate.

The country's a mess. We don't have to look too far a good basis.

[Whaleboy]

well you might not consider sending a small US force 'pointless' for a start

The question is, would the Liberian government agree to that, and most importantly, would the people agree to that? If yes in both cases, I'd have no objections, though the actual wisdom of doing so would still be dependent on other factors that I'm not aware of, I have been concentrating on Iraq, Iran and Israel as of late, not to mention the "Coalition of the Coerced".

The country may be a mess, but who are you to (a) define it as a mess and (b) clean it up? In both cases, the UN is better qualified than the US but whether even that will be enough to justify the action, or define the nature of the action, is an entirely different matter.

If something is done in Liberia, it has to be through the UN. I will never accept unilateralist military action by one nation, or a coalition under the leadership of one nation, in another nation that is anything other than small scale, and where the government hasnt asked for it, not to mention the benefits to the people and future of that nation aren't clear cut.

Nonetheless, assuming it be considered a mess, not just by us but the people who are actually concerned with it, how would that in any way justify going in with the military? You have thus far failed to show me that link, only said that nation is a mess, thus we need to go in. How does that work? Theres a missing link that I'm not seeing here, perhaps you can fill me in.

[DanS]

In both cases, the UN is better qualified than the US

That's just your opinion. That the country is a mess speaks for itself. The fact is evident.

I will never accept unilateralist military action by one nation, or a coalition under the leadership of one nation, in another nation that is anything other than small scale, and where the government hasnt asked for it, not to mention the benefits to the people and future of that nation aren't clear cut.

Well, that's just one man's opinion. The US has never approached it that way.

You have thus far failed to show me that link, only said that nation is a mess, thus we need to go in.

Need? Who ever said "need"? You were focusing on rights, not needs nor imperatives.

[Whaleboy]

That's just your opinion

Aren't they all?

That the country is a mess speaks for itself. The fact is evident

Not unless judged by your standards, which render themselves subjective and irrelevant in making such a judgement.

The US has never approached it that way

Where were you in March this year?. The benefits to the Iraqi people were never clear cut, and now, my position all along is being borne out, as we are seeing the prospect of an improvement in Iraqi's lives, both now and in the long term, to be something of a fantasy of the US govt PR departments.

The Iraqi govt certainly never asked for military action, in one way that is certain, and becoming even more so in the cliche'd way.

You were focusing on rights, not needs nor imperatives

Sorry, its late, I'm stoned, I chose the wrong word. To rephrase:

"You have thus far failed to show me that link, only said that nation is a mess, thus we have the right to go in"