Liberia: What should we do

[Whaleboy]

Neocons are practically the opposite in practice of relativists (especially moral and cultural relativists... dont start Agathon ).

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... elijah, Might Makes Right... so it doesn't matter if it's his opinion or not. If the US believes it's a mess, then it's a mess. QED.

now thats a proof (suck it Trig! )

[johncmcleod]

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

Yeah, that's the way it is. But, remember, I'm not calling the US to go in, I want the UN to go in. The US isn't called a bully for going in to save lives in Iraq, they're called a bully for going in unilaterally and violating international law. I wasn't mad about removing Saddam from power, I was mad by the way it was done. The UN should've gone in. The leaders of the nations of the world should've got together and said, "This guy has an awful human rights record. He must be removed from power." Instead, the US went in, violated international law, hurt our opinion worldwide, and hurt the UN's power. The UN does need some serious reforms though. I just wrote a speech about that.

BTW, Rwanda was convicted of genocide by the UN, and they sent an observer mission down there, but what else was done there? When all that was happening in the mid 90s I wasn't into politics and I didn't really know what was going on.

[johncmcleod]

Is this all you care about, whether or not an action hurts the US?

Yes

I guess you sure aren't into helping other people. Have you ever volunteered before? And according to your belief if you need help no one should help you because it won't help them. If you are unemployed and need money the government shouldn't give you welfare, because it doesn't help the government, it hurts the government because they have to spend money. If someone you're very close to died, a guidance counselor shouldn't help cope with the experience because it doesn't help the guidance counselor, it hurts them because they have to take up their time. And if your mother has cancer, medicaid shouldn't pay for her to survive because it doesn't help medicaid, it only takes away money from the government.

And if people are dying in Liberia who desperately need your help, they shouldn't be helped because it isn't in the best interest of the United States.

If everyone shared this logic, the world would be a much worse place than it already is.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I guess you sure aren't into helping other people.

That's not it at all. I just see a difference between the international and domestic realm.

[C0ckney]

i don't mean to be harsh, but this post is exactly what i'm talking about, people, who haven't got a ****ing clue what's going in liberia on posting about it...

Originally posted by elijah
The question is, would the Liberian government agree to that, and most importantly, would the people agree to that?

the liberian government, such as it is, is hardly in a position to say no. as for the people i'd imagine that anything that brought an end to violence and some measure of stability would be almost universailly welcomed.

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.

who cares? you'd have to be living in cloud cookoo land to think liberia ISN'T a mess. and the US is much better qualified than the UN to do things like protect the capital, train a new army (and police force) and oversee the peaceful transfer of power to a new transitional government.

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.

i hardly think it matters whether or not YOU would accept it or not, and i think the benefits to the people are so obvious they hardly need explaining.

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.

right ok, let me briefly outline the recent history of liberia.

liberia has been led for many years by charles taylor, a man who has been the cause of much bloodshed in west africa since he took power, especially in sierra leone, by supporting rebel groups, including the incredibly brutal RFU, which briefly took power in sierra leone over 2 years ago and commited many attrocities. for their part previous governments in sierra leone have been in the habit of supporting rebels in liberia who are hostile to charles taylor, casuing much bloodshed in liberia. when the RFU were driven out of freetown by UN forces, the british took over the city, since then a peace agreement has been in force and a new government of reconciliation (sp?) has been formed. because of this rebels in liberia are no longer financied by sierra leone, however this failed to weaken the rebels in liberia who in recent months made gains in many parts of the country.

the situation until about a month ago was that the rebels were on the outskirts of the capital ready to overthrow taylor, however because of the massive amount of bloodshed this would entail and mounting international pressure, both decided to negociate. the outcome of these negociation was, basically that taylor would resign, a new government would be formed and the rebels and taylor's supporters would disarm.

now of course this transition to a new government and the subsequent disarmament is going to be frought with difficulty, so an international (preferably american led) force is needed to verify disarmament and to help rebuild the country and keep security, until a new national army and other national institutions can be built to take on these roles.

[TCO]

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.

Sea-basing better.

(makes cry like Animal Farm saying 4 legs good, 2 legs better.)

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


How is that a personal attack?

Damn it, Mike! If you're not going to hit with ad hominems, I'll have to.

[Az]

Originally posted by elijah
Ah of course, Might makes Right. I concede the entire argument and swear my undying allegiance to George W. Bush, will make love to the US flag and have a tattoo of a bald eagle on my left buttock.

In any case, you're in no position to judge them. If they think that this is the right way to Intl. Relations, why is your POV more valid?

[Whaleboy]

C0ckney: All of which sucks, from your perspective and mine, but I dont see why our opinions, or our societies opinion has any logical right to interfere with another.

You cant just start using emotive language, and in johncmcleod's case, the language of moral obligation, to form an argument. It sucks, but thats our opinion, which holds no sway over others. If we want to do something about it, we have to do it via cooperative, passive means, not actively impeding others.

Bloodshed, killings, suffering etc does suck, but thats not an automatic right of entry for us. If the people, collectively, concisely, as a large group, or a faction in a civil war, want our help, then we can in that case offer it.

Dont start accusing us of not helping, not volunteering, or not caring, because we see our own views for what they are; limited subjections that are only king for us not others.

If there is a force, it has to be the UN, and UN led, because one state acting as international policeman has numerous problems with it, namely that it is as an unaccountable, biased force, with its own self-interests primarily to serve, and in this case, little experience with "sticking it out", and the non military measures required to make a re-born state work. For that, we must use the UN. More unilateralist actions will weaken that organisation further.

[Whaleboy]

If they think that this is the right way to Intl. Relations, why is your POV more valid?

Its not, but its my opinion and I'll be chewing icicles in hell before I stop speaking it. For me, mine is more valid, for someone who would adopt it or others, its equally valid, so its up to them to judge.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
Neocons are practically the opposite in practice of relativists

Who are you talking to?

[Whaleboy]

The US is much better qualified than the UN to do things like protect the capital, train a new army (and police force) and oversee the peaceful transfer of power to a new transitional government

Not at all, I havent seen any case where that has worked, excepting a puppet state with puppet institutions designed to serve the US interest, which is of course no basis for the foundation of a nationstate.

who cares? you'd have to be living in cloud cookoo land to think liberia ISN'T a mess

I care because IMO emotive, irrational BS is only good for PR/spin purposes, not to form the basis of a logical, rational, effective and mutually beneficial foreign policy. Taking ones own subjective definitions as truth when applying them to other people is fundamentally flawed, and very bad practise for intl. relations.

[C0ckney]

you don't seem to be able to see the wood for the trees. our government did pretty much what i think the US should do (and may well do, if the article imran posted is anything to go by ), there was precious little opposition from anyone to our role there.

and the role i don't think you're understanding at all. it wouldn't be a force to occupy or take over the country, it would be one to help smooth the way for a transition to a new government and to help the new government get the country back on its feet.

[Kramerman]

C0ckney: All of which sucks, from your perspective and mine, but I dont see why our opinions, or our societies opinion has any logical right to interfere with another.

well then, by this logic you should not give a **** what the **** the US does, now should you?

as who are you to interfere in our society and our doings?