Liberia? Go or not?


PDA






Khornet
July 11, 2003, 12:44 PM
Whaddya think, and why?

If you enjoyed reading about "Liberia? Go or not?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AZTOY
July 11, 2003, 01:04 PM
Liberia? Go or not?

Do we have a choice?

cuchulainn
July 11, 2003, 01:18 PM
Not a comment on right or wrong: I'm getting concerned about us being spread thin.

spacemanspiff
July 11, 2003, 01:20 PM
as much as most of us despise the UN, i think their "peacekeeping" forces should be sent instead of US Soldiers.

HankB
July 11, 2003, 01:20 PM
We should send troops when two things happen:

1. The specific threat to US national security is clearly identified
2. The European nations urging us to go join us with military forces proportionate to their populations.

Sean Smith
July 11, 2003, 01:29 PM
I've done a little open-soruce research for a friend in the Army who might get sent there...

The place is hell on Earth. Higher infant mortality rate and 10x the AIDS infection rate of Somalia. A low estimate of the major mutually antagonistic armed factions is five, but is really higher. You've got Christians vs. Muslims vs. tribal religions, you've got the Amer-Liberians vs. the tribes (who all fight among themselves), and the guy we are trying to oust bankrolls one of the largest armed factions of the bunch. He sent it into Sierra Leone to turn a buck and killed God knows how many people in the process. The death tolls are lower there compared to the ones that got in the news for other African "countries" only because the population is small.

Random tidbit: they like waffles and syrup there. That, however, is the closest thing to a "compelling national interest" we have over there.

seeker_two
July 11, 2003, 01:43 PM
Let the UN handle this one---WITHOUT US!...:neener:

Sean Smith
July 11, 2003, 02:09 PM
Some other thoughts...

The one group of people there that would, in theory, support a US presence would be the Amero-Liberians, the mostly Christian descendants of the ex-slaves we dropped off there. They speak English and, as noted, like waffles. They are also only 5% of the population. However, the monstrous kleptocrat that we are trying to oust is also an Amero-Liberian, and presumably has alot of support from that group. So, to use a rough estimate, we can expect support in the long run from about 2.5% of the population. The 20% that are Muslims will hate us by default, as will most of the various tribal factions, since we supported the Amero-Liberians that took their land away from them from way back when.

To give you a flavor for the tribal factions' behavior, the BBC recently reported that they were making potions out of human organs to help them to win elections by way of magic.

In a way, Libera is worse than Somalia, because feeding people in the middle of a famine will buy off some of the population by default. Our problems came about when the famine was averted and we tried to do too much with too little resources and moronic tactics.

Peacekeeping only works when there is peace to keep, the majority supports the peacekeeping, and you only need to suppress a small minority of crazy troublemakers. It is a simple lesson that never seems to sink in with anybody. :rolleyes:

Azrael256
July 11, 2003, 02:15 PM
I don't think it's a wise idea at all. If the UN wants to go in, that's fine, but we're staying home. The only way I would support a UN force comprised of Americans (as they always seem to be) is if we make our position very clear. Our men are trained to fight, so we're going to land the Marines on the beach, and fight our way through the country from there. That's what our men are here to do, and that's how we keep the American casualties to a minimum. When we're done conquering the place, we'll worry about "peacekeeping."

BigG
July 11, 2003, 03:15 PM
I wonder after all the lessons learned we haven't come up with something to replace the chopper or at least support that flying coffin with some serious fire. Too many widows from those things.

Solinvictus70
July 11, 2003, 09:59 PM
Nope, we're already in a mess in Iraq and trying to keep peace in Bosnia & Afghanistan. We have no national interest in Liberia and the people have no interest in maintaining a civil society.

Crimper-D
July 11, 2003, 10:22 PM
The US, and for that matter, any of the industrialized countries in the UN have absolutely NOTHING to gain by bringing "Peace" to Liberia.
The 3rd World whiners in the big debating society on the Hudson River may make an unholy lot of noise about the situation there, but won't do a thing to remedy the situation except to send in troops - OURS and the EU's, but certainly not their local troops from member countries bordering that tropical cesspool.
Peace and Stability:confused: You'd think the US would have learned it's lessons on how to deal 'successfully' with kleptocratic warlords in HATI!:banghead:

HankB
July 11, 2003, 10:23 PM
A low estimate of the major mutually antagonistic armed factions is five, but is really higher. You've got Christians vs. Muslims vs. tribal religions, you've got the Amer-Liberians vs. the tribes (who all fight among themselves), So going in there would be like going into parts of Chicago (or LA or Detroit or . . . ) and picking a "winner" from the Crips, the Bloods, the P Stone Nation, the Gangsta Disciples, the Hanafi Muslims, etc.

Lovely . . . just lovely.

Which one of them would YOU prefer? :barf:

Boats
July 11, 2003, 10:29 PM
Africa provides the perfect testing ground for that vigorous new EU common foreign policy Schroeder and Chirac have been itching to try out.:evil:

France already meddles nearly everywhere on the Dark Continent. They unilaterally put in troops, they prop up Francophony Africa. They help starve people through EU farm and consumer policy by getting African nations to boycott any food aid from North America that might have, or actually be, genetically modified crops for "fear" of contaminated African farm imports.

Vont les Français courageux! Reprennent votre gloire nationale perdue dans la terre en friche qui est l'Afrique! (Go forth courageous Frenchmen! Recapture your lost national glory in the wasteland that is Africa!)

Mon Dieu! Boats knows French! It makes me especially derisive since I can read their news sites online.:evil:

George Hill
July 11, 2003, 10:39 PM
I think we should go. Liberia is our responsability. Was from the start.

goon
July 11, 2003, 11:39 PM
I think we need to station troops.
On our own soil.
This is going to sound cold, but this is not my fight.
There are about half a zillion armed quarrels going on around the world right now, and damn near all of them are none of my business.
On the surface it seems like a humanitarian mission, but we will end up getting screwed again.
American Soldiers join the US Army. They don't join the Liberian Army.
We need to put our own house in order before we can start worrying about other nations' problems.
If the government wants to spend money, they can give it to the 4 million Americans who are out of work.

Sean Smith
July 12, 2003, 09:52 AM
I think we should go. Liberia is our responsability. Was from the start.

Nearly a century and a half later, they are responsible for themselves. :rolleyes:

We don't owe the subliterate disease vectors of the world our "help," especially when you grasp that they generally don't want it, or want it on terms antiethical to everything America is supposed to represent in the first place.

Here is the BBC article about the cannibalistic magic potion part of Liberian culture...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/africa/1472452.stm

clem
July 12, 2003, 11:16 AM
Not just NO, but HELL NO!

I say build a fence around Africa and when the shooting, yelling and other BS stops, then send troops. But if we do go, make sure to bring our check book.

Also, where are all of these friggin UN wonder troops? Where are the troops of the African National Congress? Oh, that's right THEY ALL might be part of the problem.:fire:

Art Eatman
July 12, 2003, 11:21 PM
I see no national interest in Liberia. So, no go.

We're in lots of other places where I don't think we have any true national interest. We're in lots of places as some form of GloboRoboCop, and I don't really think it's in our overall best interest to play that role. The Balkans come readily to mind.

Art

HBK
July 12, 2003, 11:46 PM
Hell no. Don't go to Liberia, not even on vacation.

Oleg Volk
July 12, 2003, 11:59 PM
No certain goal, no local support, no profit in case of even a successful mission, very likely casualties from enemy action and disease...no! Volunteers shouldn't be deterred from going over as mercs or tourists.

And lest anyone take issue with my tag-line (human life is worth defending), we are talking about the equivalent of sending a cop to investigate a domestic dispute in which every family member is hosing down the place with a belt-fed.

sm
July 13, 2003, 12:06 AM
No go.
Oleg-good analogy!

sctman800
July 13, 2003, 08:30 AM
Our founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they knew even half of the foreign meddeling we are already into. American servicemen, and women are for the defence of the United States, PERIOD. Soldiers are not supposed to be policemen. As far as those who believe Americans should be involved in Liberia, I say they are free to go there and fight for whatever faction they feel is deserving. Jim.

Seeker
July 21, 2003, 06:49 PM
Well things are heating up in Liberia...

The U.S. should stay out of it.
I don't see how it is our fight.

I argee w/ Oleg. If some want to volunreer , then they should get themselves a blue helmet and and go keep peace.

The U.S. is not the cop of the world.

And if we did decide to involve ourselves, what side would we prop up?

from cia fact book:

Ethnic groups:
indigenous African tribes 95% (including Kpelle, Bassa, Gio, Kru, Grebo, Mano, Krahn, Gola, Gbandi, Loma, Kissi, Vai, Dei, Bella, Mandingo, and Mende), Americo-Liberians 2.5% (descendants of immigrants from the US who had been slaves), Congo People 2.5% (descendants of immigrants from the Caribbean who had been slaves)
Religions:
indigenous beliefs 40%, Christian 40%, Muslim 20%
Languages:
English 20% (official), some 20 ethnic group languages, of which a few can be written and are used in correspondence


Also the

We really need to stay univolved.
CIA World Fact Book (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/li.html) gives this background info on Liberia:


Seven years of civil strife were brought to a close in 1996 when free and open presidential and legislative elections were held. President TAYLOR now holds strong executive power with no real political opposition. The years of fighting coupled with the flight of most businesses have disrupted formal economic activity. A still unsettled domestic security situation has slowed the process of rebuilding the social and economic structure of this war-torn country. In 2001, the UN imposed sanctions on Liberian diamonds along with an army embargo and a travel ban on government officials for Liberia's support of the rebel insurgency in Sierra Leone.

Kinda makes it sound like Pres Taylor was elected in free and open elections...

Today in the AP it says that:
Taylor has pledged to resign and accept an offer of asylum in Nigeria — but only after peacekeepers arrive to ensure an orderly transition.
but...
Bush has said any deployment of U.S. troops is conditional on the departure of Taylor.

I guess that is one way to stay out of it...


What say the rest of you? yay or nay in Liberia?

farranger
July 21, 2003, 07:03 PM
No way. We need to be saving our troops for places of interest, such as the PRK.

Greg L
July 21, 2003, 07:39 PM
No. There is no national interest to do so either now nor in the (foreseeable) future. If the UN wishes to (and can find reliable) send in troops drawn from local countries who have a reason to want stability then fine. However just because we sent some slaves back 150 years ago doesn't create eternal indebtedness.

Greg

PileDriver
July 21, 2003, 07:43 PM
it seems to me that if bush really believes the un to be irrelevant, then why is he so intent on enforcing their sanctions?

i don't see anything in the constitution that allows us to enforce the sanctions of anyone. it's unconstitutional as hell and that should be the only analysis needed.

bush is way too focused on securing other countries while leaving our borders wide open so his hispanic pals from mexico and everywhere else can sneak in. couple that with his proposal of amnesty for illegals as well as proposing SS bennies for all should tell us something.

bush has a constitutional responsibility to defend this country and he's failed miserably. with himself and his daddy involved with bin laden's family one should really wonder.

couple all this with the lies about iraq and i say we should keep our noses out of it and deal with the unconstitutional government we have here first.

Kharn
July 21, 2003, 08:28 PM
I say go, but dont pull a Mogadishu: take an AC-130 or two along in case anything goes wrong (leave them sitting in hangers loaded for bear, the ordies wont like that, but the Marines on the ground will love the firepower that can get on-station within a few minutes). A few Cobras loaded with 2.75" Zuni rockets sitting on the ramp and a few LAV-25s in every convoy would also be helpful.

Screw not looking too aggressive (why Clinton refused to allow armor and heavy air support in Mogadishu), anything starts to go wrong and level the town for as far in every direction that it takes to stop the fighting and save American lives.

Kharn

longeyes
July 21, 2003, 09:10 PM
Bush should go in, riding on a white horse, followed by The Black
Caucus.

If Bush is stupid enough to get us involved in a war in Liberia,
or anywhere in Africa, he's unqualfied to be President. I agree
with the previous post that suggests Bush needs to focus on
getting our own borders under control. Frankly, he is looking
more and more like someone with an addiction problem--he likes to
call it "compassion;" some of us would chose other terms.

Griff
July 21, 2003, 11:10 PM
NO GO.

1. Bad move militarily (overextended already) and politically (UN and EU whined about our "imperialistic war-mongering", then lost their concessionary/punitive business contracts in Iraq. Oops. Let them take their superior morality on the road and find out just how much fun it is being the world's cop)

2. No longer our responsibility. Their country was set up for persons who wanted to leave ours. Remember? (Yes, I know it's a gross oversimplification, but what more do you want for free?)

Anyone heard of the work of fiction entitled "The Mouse That Roared"? Seems a small, backwater country was in dire straights, learned from their history books that every place that we kicked *ss in got rebuilt with a resulting higher standard of living and infrastructure. Marshall Plan, etc.
Sound familiar?

On a more positive note, If I recall correctly, UN Sec Gen Anan told a recent summit of African leaders that the only real progress could come when they clean up their own back yards. He should hang out with W more often.

Drjones
July 22, 2003, 05:59 PM
Anyone here who was for the Iraq war but against Liberia is obviously lying and a hypocrite too.

We all know that people who were for the most recent war are just war-mongering, blood-thirsty, line-towing, blind Bush worshippers.

MicroBalrog
July 22, 2003, 06:53 PM
And lest anyone take issue with my tag-line (human life is worth defending), we are talking about the equivalent of sending a cop to investigate a domestic dispute in which every family member is hosing down the place with a belt-fed.

Oleg... is that how a domestic dispute looks in Tennessee?:D

Kharn
July 22, 2003, 06:55 PM
MicroBalrog:
Tennessee residents prefer BetaC and drum mags, easier on the thumbs to load. :neener:

Kharn

Waitone
July 22, 2003, 09:19 PM
The US should only provide logistics support to a force composed of:

--Jesse Jackson and his fellow-shakedown artists
--Congressional Black Caucus
--Any number of democrats who complained the loudest
--UN "peace" keepers.
--Any media outlet with video cameras

Somolia was caused by TV cameras and American grunts paid the price for nothing.

Bill Clinton was able to look at unbelievable butchery in Rowanda where 400,000 people were slaughtered and did nothing. Surely Bush can do nothing also.

Silly me! Bush is compassionate conservative (AKA compassionate chump).

Zip06
July 22, 2003, 11:00 PM
If this isn't a job for the United Nations what are they for?

LD
July 23, 2003, 05:38 AM
As it stands at the moment I'd say we need to keep out of it. We've got our troops in too many places taking care of other peoples problems.

My take is to let Kofi Annon strap on some gun-leather and lead a contingent of French troops into Liberia and do some "peacekeeping"

Most likely outcome: A replay of Dien Bien Phu


LD

tommytrauma
July 24, 2003, 05:52 PM
At least long enough to get Bruce Willis and the Doctor out.

If you enjoyed reading about "Liberia? Go or not?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!