Announcement

**Whaleboy** · July 3, 2003, 15:20

Who are you talking to?

I was stoned when I wrote that

. I mean that neoconservative doctines rely on taking ones own cultural values to hold over other cultures, whereas this is obviously not the case. For it to work, it needs the fallacy of ones own opinions, views and morals to be true and absolute when dealing with other cultures, whereas that is only so in ones own. In other words, Spiffor.

**C0ckney** · July 3, 2003, 15:21

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.

i don't mean to be rude, but it is very clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

**DinoDoc** · July 3, 2003, 15:22

Originally posted by elijah
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.

It's a crap hole right now. The people were out in the streets celebrating the mere rumour that US troops might be coming. The question of whether or not we should find that at all relevent is another matter altogether. I'm starting to lean that way though thanks to Imran.

**Whaleboy** · July 3, 2003, 15:25

there was precious little opposition from anyone to our role there

Iraq or Liberia? If the former, all I can do is laugh, if Liberia, whether or not there is opposition does not matter much, unless the Liberians (the new government as you wrote it), want intl. help. If that is the case, then I support going in, but only if it is the UN, my reasons why the US shouldnt have been previously mentioned.

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.

I understand that, but the two separate military forces are irrelevant. If the people dont want intl. help, then the result is the same either way... the imposition of ones will over another.

you don't seem to be able to see the wood for the trees

On the contrary, however, I see the wood to be relevant for one case, the tree for another. Contexts!!

**TCO** · July 3, 2003, 15:26

The reason people want the US involved is that they hope we will back things up if they get sticky. So it's not about 1000 peacekeepers. it's about the insurance policy that TRANSCOM and the Sixth Fleet provide.

**Whaleboy** · July 3, 2003, 15:27

i don't mean to be rude, but it is very clear that you do not know what you are talking about

I would rephrase that, and say that it is clear that you dont understand what I am talking about.

The people were out in the streets celebrating the mere rumour that US troops might be coming

Iraq or Liberia?

If Iraq, the people on the streets were a tiny minority of those that would have if there was general support. The killing now would seem to indicate that.

**Whaleboy** · July 3, 2003, 15:29

it's about the insurance policy that TRANSCOM and the Sixth Fleet provide

If the Liberians specifically want the US, then by all means, let the US go in. However, from what I understood, they didnt specify US (correct me if I am wrong, however, my more generic points stand).

**DinoDoc** · July 3, 2003, 15:29

Originally posted by elijah
Iraq or Liberia?

Which country is this thread about? That might be a clue to your question. Just maybe.

**Whaleboy** · July 3, 2003, 15:30

OK, there was an ambiguity there, you were referring in the past tense, implying Iraq.

**TCO** · July 3, 2003, 15:32

Originally posted by elijah

If the Liberians specifically want the US, then by all means, let the US go in. However, from what I understood, they didnt specify US (correct me if I am wrong, however, my more generic points stand).

1. They were partying for the US coming in. Not the UN. You moron.

2. The Liberians are not one block. You moron.

3. You stand corrected. I love you.

**Kramerman** · July 3, 2003, 15:38

Looks like we're going in... will find out in a sec when Condoleeza Rice comes on

**C0ckney** · July 3, 2003, 15:39

I would rephrase that, and say that it is clear that you dont understand what I am talking about.

sadly, i do, you are talking bollocks.

Iraq or Liberia? If the former, all I can do is laugh, if Liberia, whether or not there is opposition does not matter much, unless the Liberians (the new government as you wrote it), want intl. help. If that is the case, then I support going in, but only if it is the UN, my reasons why the US shouldnt have been previously mentioned.

i mean sierra leone (have you not read my posts!), which, as i have said before is what i'm basing my prefered solution to this on. it worked very well there, and should work very well in liberia, because of the similarities between the two situations. and i do it amusing that you describe the very model that worked so well in sierra leone as irrelevant, when you know nothing of its backround or success :/

**Whaleboy** · July 3, 2003, 15:41

You moron
I love you

I love you too man!!!!

**Whaleboy** · July 3, 2003, 15:49

You moron
I love you

I love you too man!!!!

**Whaleboy** · July 3, 2003, 15:54

Ah!!! bloody slow servers!

Announcement

Liberia: What should we do

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment