Us to liberia?

[denoir 0]

The problems in Liberia did not start because the US did something to them. The problems started once the US lost interest in them. During most of the cold war Liberia was seen by the US as the country that would fight communism in Africa. A lot of money was invested and a lot of political support was given. In the late 70's as the Soviets showed no interest in Africa, US cut more or less all of its support. Some five years after that (in 1980) the Liberian government was overthrown and one of the most stable African countries became violent and chaotic.

Oddly enough the Liberian people were very happy about the bloody coup and the new president got massive popular support.

During the 9 years to come, some serious tension was built up in the country and in 1989 a civil war started. One of the rebel factions managed in the end take power. Charles Taylor, the leader of one of those factions took power and declared himself president in 1996. In 1997 he was democratically elected.

Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately, Sierra Leon and Ivory Coast is not stable, so it's their former colony's falut that Liberia is now affected.

It's actually the other way around. Liberia (or better to say Charles Taylor) is causing havoc in Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast by funding rebels/terrorists. That's why he isn't very much liked by the international community who have invested a lot in those two countries.

Q&A: Liberia's conflict

[USSoldier11B 0]

The problems in Liberia did not start because the US did something to them. The problems started once the US lost interest in them. During most of the cold war Liberia was seen by the US as the country that would fight communism in Africa. A lot of money was invested and a lot of political support was given. In the late 70's as the Soviets showed no interest in Africa, US cut more or less all of its support. Some five years after that (in 1980) the Liberian government was overthrown and one of the most stable African countries became violent and chaotic.

How is Iraq any different? Once the Ayatollah Kholmenhi was gone we did the same thing with them.

[denoir 0]

The difference:

Liberia:Please come and help us. Pretty please.

Iraq: Piss off. Leave us alone.

All sides in Liberia advocate a US intervention, yes including Charles Taylor.

Plus, the reason for the Iraq occupation was not the liberation of the poor oppressed Iraqis.

Iraq was also never politically tied to USA. They appriciated the weapons and the support, but neither their economy nor politics was dependant to USA.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Good point. However the host nation's opinion isn't always a key factor for fighting a war. Take Somalia for instance.

[denoir 0]

True, however if we separate wars in two categories:

1) Good for us

2) Good for them

Iraq, Afghanistan etc fall into the "good for us" category i.e motivated by your own need for something (stopping terrorists, wmds, oil, take your pick)

Somalia, Liberia and Kosovo on the other hand fall into the "good for them" category. In this case it does not affect you any way if Liberia is wiped off the map or not, but you choose to do it to help them. (humanitarian reason).

[ralphwiggum 6]

The problems in Liberia did not start because the US did something to them. The problems started once the US lost interest in them.

Again, US pulled its imperialist hands away from the region. what's wrong with that? And now US is getting blamed for NOT sticking her nose?

anyways, back on more serious note, I think it's good that we are sending troops to Liberia. If they want us, we should help them. They are BEGGING for US intervention.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Agghh, 9 hour shift- on my feet the entire time. In other news:

Quote[/b] ]Business interests in Africa? Today? Please, Africa is only a big expense - there is no profit for us. Our investments in Africa are more or less only humanitarian.

Think of it as a long term investment. No country does anything out of the goodness of its collective heart, not even you enlightened hippy pseudo-communist European countries

Look, I don't mind us going into Liberia (IF we do it correctly), I'm just a little annoyed with the attitude of "Well, it's about damn time you did your part" that some people are displaying.

[denoir 0]

Again, US pulled its imperialist hands away from the region. what's wrong with that? And now US is getting blamed for NOT sticking her nose?

I would say the exactly opposite. You go off invading Iraq saying "We take responsibility! It is our duty to eliminate this threat to humanity. We must stabilize the region!". In his State of the Union speech Bush even said something like that the American people are chosen by God to bring peace to the world. And you whine about uncooperative Europeans who sabotage your quest for world peace and stabilty.

And now when we say "Excellent, this is a worthwhile cause. It's good that you are doing something out of humanitarian reasons" - then you go "Why should we be the world police?", "We have no responsibility to do anything." and "Go fix it yourselves."

Make up your mind, either you are the global defender of peace and stabilty and then you have to act on it or stop using "peace and stability" as a pretext for invading other countries!

You can't very well have it both ways.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Make up your mind, either you are the global defender of peace and stabilty and then you have to act on it or stop using "peace and stability" as a pretext for invading other countries!

You can't very well have it both ways.

Can so! *pouts*

[ralphwiggum 6]

Again, US pulled its imperialist hands away from the region. what's wrong with that? And now US is getting blamed for NOT sticking her nose?

I would say the exactly opposite. You go off invading Iraq saying "We take responsibility! It is our duty to eliminate this threat to humanity. We must stabilize the region!". In his State of the Union speech Bush even said something like that the American people are chosen by God to bring peace to the world. And you whine about uncooperative Europeans who sabotage your quest for world peace and stabilty.

And now when we say "Excellent, this is a worthwhile cause. It's good that you are doing something out of humanitarian reasons" - then you go "Why should we be the world police?", "We have no responsibility to do anything." and "Go fix it yourselves."

Make up your mind, either you are the global defender of peace and stabilty and then you have to act on it or stop using "peace and stability" as a pretext for invading other countries!

You can't very well have it both ways.

uhmm....we are talking about Liberia...  

guess it's better not to intervene huh?

[USSoldier11B 0]

::scratches grunt head::

1. Who is the bad guy?

2. Who do we shoot at?

3. Are we preserving the current regime?

[denoir 0]

::scratches grunt head::

1. Who is the bad guy?

The people loyal to the current president and a large number of rebel factions. Expect this to change on a daily basis.

Quote[/b] ]2. Who do we shoot at?

The bad guys.

Quote[/b] ]3. Are we preserving the current regime?

Nope. The current regime has agreed to leave power as soon as peace keepers are in place. The rebels doubt that very much and think the current president will use the peace keepers as protection and use them to stay in power.

[Donnervogel 0]

2. Who do we shoot at?

Your goal is actually not to shoot at anybody. And if you have to shoot then you're on the wrong way. Then you have to create a situation where you don't have to shoot anybody. It's called peacekeeping/making mission for some reason.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your goal is actually not to shoot at anybody. And if you have to shoot then you're on the wrong way.

This is high hopes but nothing else. Do you think armed forces will throw away their guns only cause I have such a cute face ? No.

First they need to know that a new sheriff is in town.

Media isn´t available that much in regions far from cities.

It´s kind of surprising that people often don´t know that peacekeepers are in their region, but it happens a lot.

So presence on streets, disarment operations and tight contact to locals is what will make them aware of you.

Some of the militias will choose to attack you. Well they don´t know better and they will try for sure. At least they tried it whenever I was in Africa. It´s kind of a sport for some of them.

They want to demonstrate their power and want to make sure that you realizethat they are running the deal not you.

This has to be made clear to them. Either with force or not.

Remember, Liberia is a kid-soldier country and they are pretty pushed from their leaders. You can tell kids a lot of stories and they will believe their leaders. Facing kids in arms is no fun but a thing to come for the US troops IF (and that is still not sure) the US forces participate in disarming missions. In my assumption they will leave this to Western africa army men. Bad press will be attached to kidsoldiers like a bad smell. IMO the US will not run into this. Imagine headlines in US papers like "8 year old boy pumped with lead by USMC members". Noone really wants to have that on his/her shoulders, so the US will stay out of this IMO.

[Harnu 0]

::scratches grunt head::

1. Who is the bad guy?

The people loyal to the current president and a large number of rebel factions. Expect this to change on a daily basis.

That's pretty broad... How about who are the good guys?

[ran 0]

Skirmishes in Monrovia , a large troop of rebels passed one of the main strategical bridges leading to the presidential compound

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your goal is actually not to shoot at anybody. And if you have to shoot then you're on the wrong way.

This is high hopes but nothing else. Do you think armed forces will throw away their guns only cause I have such a cute face ? No.

First they need to know that a new sheriff is in town.

Media isn´t available that much in regions far from cities.

It´s kind of surprising that people often don´t know that peacekeepers are in their region, but it happens a lot.

So presence on streets, disarment operations and tight contact to locals is what will make them aware of you.

Some of the militias will choose to attack you. Well they don´t know better and they will try for sure. At least they tried it whenever I was in Africa. It´s kind of a sport for some of them.

They want to demonstrate their power and want to make sure that you realizethat they are running the deal not you.

This has to be made clear to them. Either with force or not.

Remember, Liberia is a kid-soldier country and they are pretty pushed from their leaders. You can tell kids a lot of stories and they will believe their leaders. Facing kids in arms is no fun but a thing to come for the US troops IF (and that is still not sure) the US forces participate in disarming  missions. In my assumption they will leave this to Western africa army men. Bad press will be attached to kidsoldiers like a bad smell. IMO the US will not run into this. Imagine headlines in US papers like "8 year old boy pumped with lead by USMC members". Noone really wants to have that on his/her shoulders, so the US will stay out of this IMO.

Sure you have to defend yourself or the civilians. But the mission isn't to go there and shoot bad guys. It's to go there and stop the shooting.

The rebels offered a cease fire when the peacekeeping force arrives. So most probably the shooting will stop or at least there won't be major battle activities when the force arrives. The goal will then be to keep that situation and improve it. It's not to start a war again.

[Milkman 1]

Skirmishes in Monrovia , a large troop of rebels passed one of the main strategical bridges leading to the presidential compound

Okay, what happens if the rebels seize power before we are able to "stabilize" the region? Then what are we suppose to do? Take them out of power?  

Edit: If we are peacekeepers, we are not suppose to shoot anybdy, right? But what if (they) start shooting at us, whether it be a child-soldier or a Goverment soldier? It looks bad for us nomatter what, if we shoot a kid lobbing a grenade at a patrol, we get grilled in the press for being "child killers"    

[denoir 0]

If we are peacekeepers, we are not suppose to shoot anybdy, right?

No, you are there to enforce the peace. That involves shooting if necessary. The ultimate goal is to stop all the killing but peace keepers are called in when non-violent, diplomatic solutions have failed.

Quote[/b] ]But what if (they) start shooting at us, whether it be a child-soldier or a Goverment soldier? It looks bad for us nomatter what, if we shoot a kid lobbing a grenade at a patrol, we get grilled in the press for being "child killers"    :angry

Welcome to the world of peace keeping. It's quite a bit more difficult to handle than destroying enemy tanks marked with enemy flags. (or British flags for that matter )

Nobody said that it was an easy task. Think of it as the current situation in Iraq but with a twist. Besides the popular sport of shooting at peace keepers they will be busy by shooting at each other while civilians get killed in the cross fire.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Well, the way I see it, when you get between two groups of people trying to kill each other you're gonna end up shooting at someone.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, the way I see it, when you get between two groups of people trying to kill each other you're gonna end up shooting at someone.

Now remember to NOT take party at any moment and only shoot for self defence and you know how funny UN missions are sometimes.

[FSPilot 0]

Ok, so given this scenario, what would you do?

You're driving along with your fellow peacekeepers in some APC or something and stumble across a small battle.  Would you

1) Turn around and run

2) Wait and help the wounded

3) Shoot anyone who's shooting, after verbal warnings of course

[ran 0]

Ok, so given this scenario, what would you do?

You're driving along with your fellow peacekeepers in some APC or something and stumble across a small battle.  Would you

1) Turn around and run

2) Wait and help the wounded

3) Shoot anyone who's shooting, after verbal warnings of course

i'd continue my path and shoot back if fired upon

-edit-

and that without verbal warning

but it also depends of the ROE , if not allowed to fire back , then i'd turn around and go back

and that without assistance to the wounded people from both of the fighting sides , it's their own business

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]You're driving along with your fellow peacekeepers in some APC or something and stumble across a small battle. Would you

1) Turn around and run

2) Wait and help the wounded

3) Shoot anyone who's shooting, after verbal warnings of course

Can´t be answered until you give detailed description of what the task of UN in this mission is.

[Harnu 0]

Do we even support anyone in the country? Who are the good guys? Or is it all f*cked and the world has to start over with them?