Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 4, 2003 Report Posted July 4, 2003 Personally, I think going into Liberia is the right thing to do. We (with the UN) should have gone in there a long time ago to break up the mess that has been happening there. Here are some articles for those not well versed in the situation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...ml?nav=hptop_ts A new one, stating their president will step down if we come in, which is encouraging. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/07/04...a.us/index.html The problem arises once he steps down, though. The Liberans United for Reconciliation and Democracy, the top rebel group, are notorious in that they rape, murder, and even cannibalize other people. This is truly a case where there is no good side in this war. From the previous NY Times article: The LURD has been supported by Guinea since the group launched its war against Taylor in 2000 and has also received the tacit support of Britain and the United States. "There is not one person who wields real power within the LURD who has clean hands or comes close," said a European diplomat monitoring events in Liberia. "The upper tiers are filled with the perpetrators of rape, looting and cannibalism. We are all supporting an international force, but what will they do if they face 14-year-olds, high on coke, with an AK-47 trying to kill them. Will they kill a child, even in self-defense? Sometimes I think, 'My God, what are we doing?' " Human rights groups have repeatedly condemned abuses by the LURD. Its fighters have been accused of kidnapping, summary executions, looting, rape and forced recruitment. And the LURD, like most other armed groups in Liberia, has split along ethnic lines, with hostility boiling over among the Krahn, Mandingo and Gio groups. I think this has the potential to be another Somalia, and it could completely ruin the morale of our troops. However, I still believe it's the right thing to do. What does everyone else think?
Guest Vyce Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 We should go in. We owe them a duty to intervene. I wouldn't say that about most African nations, but Liberia I would, given our history with them.
Guest Vitamin X Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Why risk more American lives than necessary? Christ, one day we're going to have so many troops fighting so many wars across the world there won't be anyone defending the actual country. I can picture a Mexican soldier walking into New Mexico with 3 cavalrymen and planting the Mexican flag down. "Well I guess there's noone else here. It's ours, ese!" And Cinco De Mayo > Fourth of July anyways, right?
Guest MrRant Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Why risk more American lives than necessary? Christ, one day we're going to have so many troops fighting so many wars across the world there won't be anyone defending the actual country. I can picture a Mexican soldier walking into New Mexico with 3 cavalrymen and planting the Mexican flag down. "Well I guess there's noone else here. It's ours, ese!" And Cinco De Mayo > Fourth of July anyways, right? If they do it exactly like that they can have New Mexico because I would be laughing to hard to care.
rising up out of the back seat-nuh Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 (edited) We owe them a duty to intervene. I wouldn't say that about most African nations, but Liberia I would, given our history with them. Which African nations? Sorry, I'm ignorant. And if someone's gonna go into Liberia, it needs to be the U.N. as a whole, not the U.S. army. EDIT: Erm, spelt Liberia wrong. Edited July 5, 2003 by chave
Guest MarvinisaLunatic Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 We don't exactly have the greatest track record in helping out countries in Africa. And I will ask, if its so bad in Liberia, why can't some other country do it. Why does it always have to be the good ole U S of A that comes to the rescue? ISOLATIONISM !
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 It's likely going to be an international coalition going in there. The encouraging thing is that this population may actually see our entry as a good thing, so provided the LURD doesn't take sourly to our presence, hopefully we can simply keep peace. However, it probably won't happen that way... but I think we need to do something. It's a human rights nightmare over there, and something needs to be done before it gets any worse.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 From what I've read it would only be like 50 to 60 troops for the U.S. You can't predict what might happen, but it sounds like the U.S. won't have that large a role in any peacekeeping.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 We honestly, from what I've been reading, barely have enough troops to cover Iraq, yet alone a second front... I couldn't imagine we would have a huge role. But, I do think we should participate in a UN-based peacekeeping mission.
Guest Cancer Marney Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 I'm very wary of getting into this shit. Talk about historical ties all you want, that place is as much of a hellhole as any given "country" in Africa - one of the worse hellholes in a continent filthy with them. We'd be perfectly capable of maintaining a "second" front (which in fact would be more like a fifth or sixth front these days) but the question is whether it's likely to do any good. I'm inclined to doubt it. As for doing it as "part" of a "UN-based peacekeeping mission," please don't make me laugh. The UN is asking us to do the job and foot the bill because it knows it can't. Just like always. I don't blame any American who isn't particularly interested in listening.
Guest JMA Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Well, SOMEONE should go in. But not the US. The UN should just send another big country in there to take care of it. There are plenty of them around the world. Why do we always have to do everything?
Guest JMA Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Who are you going to ask? The French? Nice cheap shot.
Guest JMA Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Anyway, what I meant was a big country that is part of the UN. It shouldn't be too hard to take down Liberia and this rebel group with the support of one of the bigger countries. I just don't want the US to split its forces so much. It could lead to attacks at home.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 As far as hellholes go, Iraq isn't much better... and this is a similar case, in which an oppressive regime rapes, murders, and pillages their people. Are we to simply let them fester in their own misery?
Guest Cancer Marney Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Similar, yes. Identical, no. No group in Liberia (as yet) directly funds terrorist groups inimical to our national interest. We have enough on our plate with China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, et al without getting distracted by sidelights. I agree it could become an area of concern in the future. Given the examples of Afghanistan and Sudan it would be absurd to deny the possibility. I just don't think it's a pressing concern right now, and the fact that we could handle it doesn't mean that we should. There are other problems to take care of first.
Guest JMA Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 There are other problems to take care of first. Agreed.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 We should have taken care of it a long time ago. How long are we to put it off? They're not a threat, most obviously, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an absolute clusterfuck. I understand that you have much better knowledge about the intel and possibilities, yet alone the sheer possibilities of victory over there. However, something needs to be done, ditto the Congo genocide. The problem with taking the Iraq war as a war to rid a country of a terrible dictator (which I'm 100% behind) is that there are cases like this one that are begging for intervention.
Guest Cancer Marney Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 They're not a threat, most obviously, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an absolute clusterfuck. Well, that could also be said of Chechnya, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria, just to name a few places off the top of my head. I understand that you have much better knowledge about the intel and possibilities, yet alone the sheer possibilities of victory over there. Not really, to be honest. My area is the Soviet Union; I don't know anything special about Africa in general or Liberia in particular. The problem with taking the Iraq war as a war to rid a country of a terrible dictator (which I'm 100% behind) is that there are cases like this one that are begging for intervention. Sure, which is why we went into it primarily because of Hussein's WMDs and his direct material support of Islamic terrorism. The humanitarian aspect was a bonus. A very satisfying bonus, but just a bonus nevertheless.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Well, that could also be said of Chechnya, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria, just to name a few places off the top of my head. Obviously. We're not going to get to all of them, but the fact remains that Taylor has offered to step down if we bring peacekeepers in there. That provides a certain window of opportunity to fix things, even if it may turn into a Somalia-type quagmire. Sure, which is why we went into it primarily because of Hussein's WMDs and his direct material support of Islamic terrorism. Good choice of words on the terrorism issue. Worded like that, yeah, there is some definite validity. However, if you set that as the precedent, you've got to take action in pretty much any country who supports anti-Israeli terrorism... which, I suspect, is more than just Syria and Iran. As far as the WMDs go, well... I think Islamic terrorism is your best bet for argument at this point.
Guest Cancer Marney Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Good choice of words on the terrorism issue. Worded like that, yeah, there is some definite validity. Thanks. I get paid to do this. However, if you set that as the precedent, you've got to take action in pretty much any country who supports anti-Israeli terrorism... which, I suspect, is more than just Syria and Iran. Certainly. Did you expect me to object? As far as the WMDs go, well... I think Islamic terrorism is your best bet for argument at this point. Not at all. Hussein had WMDs when he kicked out the UN inspectors. That isn't contested by anyone. Even France, Russia, and Germany unequivocally admitted as much. Hussein did not provide conclusive proof of the complete destruction of his WMDs. That isn't contested by anyone, either. That put him in clear and absolute violation of UN resolutions and gave us all the reasons we needed to go to war. (If you want to get technical, even one missile attack on an Allied warplane would have been all the reasons we needed, and there were thousands of those.) That we've found "only" one nuke and three mobile bioweapons labs so far changes nothing. Even if you think we haven't found anything, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. As the Secretary of Defense said, we haven't found Saddam Hussein either, but no one's saying he never existed.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Fair enough, but Iraq isn't the only country to violate a UN Security Council resolution, either. There is NO way we're going to be able to go through and enforce all of these broken resolutions, is there?
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 That we've found "only" one nuke Err. Where? and three mobile bioweapons labs so far There is significant dispute as to whether or not they're actually biological weapons labs, though. I'm not as irrational as to claim that Iraq never had these weapons, but I don't think this country was as big a threat as we pronounced them to be at the start of this war. North Korea is far greater a threat, in my opinion, and we're not going to be invading them anytime soon. I don't think, at least.
Guest Cancer Marney Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Fair enough, but Iraq isn't the only country to violate a UN Security Council resolution, either. There is NO way we're going to be able to go through and enforce all of these broken resolutions, is there? Nope, nor should we try. But if we're going to be pilloried on technicalities, we have the right to defend ourselves with technicalities. And the technicalities, as well as the morality, are on our side. That we've found "only" one nuke Err. Where? CNN story Not a fully functional nuclear missile, no, but ample evidence that Iraq was in fact violating UN sanctions. There is significant dispute as to whether or not they're actually biological weapons labs, though. Nothing honest or meaningful. When they were found they had recently been scrubbed clean from top to bottom with antibacterial solutions. No one's going to go to that kind of trouble for mobile cookie kitchens. North Korea is far greater a threat... I agree. ...and we're not going to be invading them anytime soon. I don't think, at least. <doesn't comment. Hums a little tune to herself and tosses pencils at the ceiling>
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 As long as it's peacekeeping and not war i'm in favor of it and in sending Canadian troops there as part of a U.N. Taskforce.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 <doesn't comment. Hums a little tune to herself and tosses pencils at the ceiling> Bah.
Guest JMA Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 I wonder if the US and China will ever go to war.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Probably not. (waits for Marney to dispute)
rising up out of the back seat-nuh Posted July 5, 2003 Report Posted July 5, 2003 Probably not. (waits for Marney to dispute) Why would they. Apart from all the tea...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now