Us to liberia?

[Harnu 0]

Why does the US always have to be the worlds police force? we have our own problems without having to fix everyone else's.

Even if we don't continually use our military, chances are that the money wont get put back into the country where certain things really need it.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Look, if we really want to do it right, we'd need to fully commit substantial military and humanitarian resources for at least 5 years. First stabilize the country from a military point of view, build or rebuild (as the case may be) civilian infrastructure, and set up a government that is A) functional and B) free from corruption.

Of course, we aren't prepared to make that kind of commitment, because it will be expensive, time-consuming, and eventually deadly. So, we'll commit a small force with limited objectives- might be successful, might not be. But the situation will certainly devolve when they leave, and they will leave eventually.

[Milkman 1]

As I said, Europe stands for 90% of all the aid that goes to Africa, so I don't think USA has any right to say that our involvement is inadequate.

90% of all Aid? Then why the hell are you against us feeding them with genetically engineered food? The stuff is not only healthier, it is mostly disease and pest proof. And the European Union refuses to allow the UN and Red Cross to use american genetically engineered food as aid to african countries. Do you want them to starve?

Well boo-hoo. So you got a bloodied nose. So what? Did you see Germany chicken out from Afghanistan when their peacekeepers were killed?

Are you saying that USA can only fight when there is no risk involved?

No risk? Do you think there is no risk in Afganistan? Iraq? We lose atleast 6 soldiers every week over in Iraq to some punks with ak-47s. You call that no-risk? There is ALWAYS risk, nomatter where you send troops. There are even risks here back in the states, two sargents died when they lost control of their truck and it went pulnging into a river a couple weeks ago.

[ran 0]

90% of all Aid? Then why the hell are you against us feeding them with genetically engineered food? The stuff is not only healthier, it is mostly disease and pest proof. And the European Union refuses to allow the UN and Red Cross to use american genetically engineered food as aid to african countries. Do you want them to starve?

Any proof that it's healthier ? we don't even know the impact of the gentically alterated food on human organism at long terms

and overall , these plants can generate new pests even worst than the ones attacking natural plants

and it's great to send food aid to these country , but you have to learn them how to become independant of this international help , food aid is a temporary meens

American firms are the only ones which own patents for the genetically enginered grain , it would only create a huge dependance for the local peasants toward american firms from which they would have to buy the grain

EU opposes to genetically engineered plants because it will have bad consequences on the international market and on the local populations

Quote[/b] ]

Well boo-hoo. So you got a bloodied nose. So what? Did you see Germany chicken out from Afghanistan when their peacekeepers were killed?

Are you saying that USA can only fight when there is no risk involved?

No risk? Do you think there is no risk in Afganistan? Iraq? We lose atleast 6 soldiers every week over in Iraq to some punks with ak-47s. You call that no-risk? There is ALWAYS risk, nomatter where you send troops. There are even risks here back in the states, two sargents died when they lost control of their truck and it went pulnging into a river a couple weeks ago.

don't talk about afghanistan , it's not your job anymore

for Iraq , you generated this risk , there's no excuse

what denoir means by risk is a strategical threat against US armed forces i think

[denoir 0]

90% of all Aid? Then why the hell are you against us feeding them with genetically engineered food? The stuff is not only healthier, it is mostly disease and pest proof. And the European Union refuses to allow the UN and Red Cross to use american genetically engineered food as aid to african countries. Do you want them to starve?

You see, this is typical bullshit propaganda. The EU does not stop anybody from using GM food. The only thing the EU does not want is to use GM food itself.

Bush accused the EU of making the situation in Africa more difficult because he believes that EU's position will influence African countries into choosing the same path and banning GM crops. EU officials replied that it was complete bullshit, that the African countries decide for themselves.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L013843.htm

It's amazing how low people can sink. This whole issue exists becuase we don't want to use GM food and therefor we don't import any from the US. American farmers on the other hand use more and more GM crops. When they can't export it to Europe they get cranky and complain to Bush. Involving Africa into this is just bad taste.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

As I said, Europe stands for 90% of all the aid that goes to Africa, so I don't think USA has any right to say that our involvement is inadequate.

Yeah, Europe supplies most of the aid, and with good reason. European colonialism is reason number 1 why many African countries are so messed up right now. America, on the other hand, isn't responsible for Liberia's current problems, so there is no good reason other than philanthropy for us to commit anything, least of all fighting troops, to Liberia. In fact, the situation in Liberia has been exacerbated by interference in the conflict by the Sierra Leone and Cote D'Ivoire governments, and as you all ready pointed out, those are European problems. So not only do Europeans have no right to heave cheap shots about who should be helping in Liberia, they also have a responsibility to help out because stabilization failures in former European colonies has played a large role in Liberia's current crisis.

So we invested in Liberia at one point. Fine, whatever. We didn't turn it into a mineral company-run principality like some countries I could mention. In fact, it marked one of the first instances of a Western country doing anything but raping an African country insofar as diplomatic relations are concerned. So Europeans in general, have nothing on Americans as far as Africa is concerned. So what if you're paying for most of it now? You did mess it up, remember? There's a sign that hangs in many shops here in America. It reads:

"You break it, you bought it."

So pull out those checkbooks, Europe- Africa is officially your problem. And as such, you should regard any help that we give you with the utmost gratitude, because there's no real reason why we should be over there.

[ran 0]

@ July 26 2003,18:05)]

As I said, Europe stands for 90% of all the aid that goes to Africa, so I don't think USA has any right to say that our involvement is inadequate.

Yeah, Europe supplies most of the aid, and with good reason. European colonialism is reason number 1 why many African countries are so messed up right now.

not our fault , they wanted their independance , they got it ...

[denoir 0]

The people that founded the country were slaves that you used and abused. It was an American colony. Many of the people who moved there were forced to do so (hint: read about the Maryland Colonization Society).

Quote[/b] ]We didn't turn it into a mineral company-run principality like some countries I could mention.

Not mineral, but rubber. The principle's the same though.

Quote[/b] ]So pull out those checkbooks, Europe- Africa is officially your problem. And as such, you should regard any help that we give you with the utmost gratitude, because there's no real reason why we should be over there.

As I said, we're already paying 90% because we feel that we have a moral responsibility. Just in the same way as you have one for your former colony. If anything, you should be eternaly grateful to us for keeping Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast stable, otherwise Liberia, your former colony, source of rubber and where you expelled your unwanted citizens, would have been in serious trouble decades ago.

You can't have it both ways. Either both Europe and America are not responsible for what they did during the colonial era or pay up and fix your little corner. I would actually prefer the first alternative becuse it would push you to pay up much more than what you are doing.

We may have colonized the place. We may have sold the slaves but you were the ones who used them. We did not have slavery in Europe. You were the largest customer and you abused the slaves, not us. So you do indeed also have a large responsibility in the matter.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]The people that founded the country were slaves that you used and abused.

Yeah, and we paid for that mistake in the blood of Americans over 100 years ago.

Quote[/b] ]It was an American colony.

In the very loosest sense of the word.

Quote[/b] ]Many of the people who moved there were forced to do so (hint: read about the Maryland Colonization Society).

Now that's just pure revisionist bullshit. The MCS never forced any emigrations- the fact is that at that time, America was a very unfriendly place for black people to live in, and the MCS was network of charitable societies and churches that allowed free born blacks and freed slaves to emigrate from America.

Quote[/b] ]Not mineral, but rubber. The principle's the same though.

Hardly. So we imported rubber- we didn't create a cartel to control the trade or hire mercenaries to keep things in line. You think Executive Outcomes did their work for the hell of it?

Quote[/b] ]As I said, we're already paying 90% because we feel that we have a moral responsibility. Just in the same way as you have one for your former colony. If anything, you should be eternaly grateful to us for keeping Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast stable, otherwise Liberia, your former colony, source of rubber and where you expelled your unwanted citizens, would have been in serious trouble decades ago.

Wrong. You don't feel you have a moral responsibility, you are nigh-criminally liable for the mess that Africa is in. And now, you try to maintain your business interests on a continent that's disintigrating, and the only way to do that is to hold things together the best you can, through military, humanitarian, and peacekeeping means.

America, on the other hand, never dominated Liberia. We had a vested interest in them at one point, but never on the scale of European colonialism. And not only that, but we didn't leave them in the lurch when our interest faded. They lost economic income, sure, but we didn't leave them with a power vacuum or political chaos.

Anyhow, I'm heading off to work now, so i don't have anymore time to talk. Later

[hellfish6 7]

As I said, we're already paying 90% because we feel that we have a moral responsibility. Just in the same way as you have one for your former colony. If anything, you should be eternaly grateful to us for keeping Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast stable, otherwise Liberia, your former colony, source of rubber and where you expelled your unwanted citizens, would have been in serious trouble decades ago.

(Honest question) Does Sweden provide aid to Africa?

Quote[/b] ]

The US has no business to be in Africa. We learned our lesson in Somalia.

Well boo-hoo. So you got a bloodied nose. So what? Did you see Germany chicken out from Afghanistan when their peacekeepers were killed?

Are you saying that USA can only fight when there is no risk involved?

No, I'm saying the US will only fight when there is little or no risk involved. Unless, of course, there is something economically substantial for us to gain. Last I heard, DuPont made some excellent synthetic rubber.

And I'm probably the most liberal American on this board but I still do not see anything positive coming out of an American intervention in Liberia. Probably because we'll screw something up (like mission creep in Somalia) and because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. If we go in an stabilize Liberia successfully, in two or three more years, another rebel movement will be trying to get power or another cabal of Army officers will launch a coup. Africa is a hellhole.

If it's one thing that I think the Europeans realize is that there is no such thing as stability in Africa. Yes, France and Britain have done some great things in recent years in Sierra Leone, the Congo, and Cote D'Ivoire. But it won't matter in the long run. At any given moment another coup or rebel offensive may be launched.

Until fundamental issues of African politics are resolved, namely accounting for the incredibly strong tribal tradition and lack of a democratic tradition, you cannot bring stability to the continent.

Africa.

[denoir 0]

@ July 26 2003,18:40)]Wrong. You don't feel you have a moral responsibility, you are nigh-criminally liable for the mess that Africa is in. And now, you try to maintain your business interests on a continent that's disintigrating, and the only way to do that is to hold things together the best you can, through military, humanitarian, and peacekeeping means.

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.

Quote[/b] ]

America, on the other hand, never dominated Liberia. We had a vested interest in them at one point, but never on the scale of European colonialism. And not only that, but we didn't leave them in the lurch when our interest faded. They lost economic income, sure, but we didn't leave them with a power vacuum or political chaos.

That's exaclty what you did. After you lost interest in them when the cold war ended, the country collapsed and left a power vacuum and political chaos.

And it's quite pointless to dispute it as even the Bush administration have recognized that. The situation in Liberia is far better than in many other African countries, and yet you are stepping in to help them. So obviously there is a feeling of responsibility.

What I don't get is what you are whining about. Take a bow and say "Yes, we are taking our moral responsibility seriously and are helping Liberia".

It's a good thing that you are. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

[Warin 0]

I think it's obvious what I personally think about Dubya.

But if he sends aid to Liberia (who has asked for it on many occasions), and helps them avoid the sort of bloodshed that seems endemic to conflict in Africa, then he will move up a great deal in my estimation.

Sometimes 'the right thing' doesnt have obvious profit involved in it.

[FSPilot 0]

exactly

I'm all for the US going into Liberia. Might make us seem like less of a greedy country to the rest of the world.

Of course I don't want this to get too bloody. But if it does I don't think pulling out is the answer.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

Lets see what mr Bruckheimer can squeeze out of this mess

[Warin 0]

Lets see what mr Bruckheimer can squeeze out of this mess

I genuinely hope there isnt anything in Liberia to give Bruckheimer (that evil bloodsucker! See 'Pearl Harbor' for clarification) a chance to make a movie.

[ran 0]

I think it's obvious what I personally think about Dubya.

But if he sends aid to Liberia (who has asked for it on many occasions), and helps them avoid the sort of bloodshed that seems endemic to conflict in Africa, then he will move up a great deal in my estimation.

Sometimes 'the right thing' doesnt have obvious profit involved in it.

150 000 victims in 4 years , the bloodshed already started

(and no i don't talk about victims of domestical accidents)

[Uncle_Sam 0]

Bush only sends his troops to get the oil from the soil and to protect to ambasade workers for bullets

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Until fundamental issues of African politics are resolved, namely accounting for the incredibly strong tribal tradition and lack of a democratic tradition, you cannot bring stability to the continent.

Replace Africa with Iraq and you have a problem with your current policy

[Warin 0]

I think it's obvious what I personally think about Dubya.

But if he sends aid to Liberia (who has asked for it on many occasions), and helps them avoid the sort of bloodshed that seems endemic to conflict in Africa, then he will move up a great deal in my estimation.

Sometimes 'the right thing' doesnt have obvious profit involved in it.

150 000 victims in 4 years , the bloodshed already started

(and no i don't talk about victims of domestical accidents)

:S

I guess I need to do more reading on Liberia. I didnt think it had gotten to that point yet

[ran 0]

Taylor is a dictator , but he is(or is it was ?) also one of the only sources of stability in the country

[USSoldier11B 0]

It's not that I'm opposed to troops going into Liberia, I'm just a little tired of Europe "picking and choosing" our battles. (In a moral sense)

Quote[/b] ]You see, since Vietnam it has been a general policy of protecting the troops at all costs and to avoid any potentially dangerous situation.

During war this is solved with superior fire power and technolgy. If the enemy has 10 tanks - then attack him with 100 tanks etc

Duuuuh!

Keeping your men alive is paramount, especially somewhere no one wanted to be in the first place.

Murphy's Law of Combat:

Peacekeeping Missions are neither.

If the UN is so good at "peacekeeping" why don't they go in and do it? We don't like keeping peace, the ROE are too restrictive. Killing all the trouble makers is my idea of keeping peace, obviously we are not up to par on Euro-Peacenick doctrine. Yeah, I respect what you did in Kosovo Denoir, but when was the last time Sweden deployed the majority of it's military? What have I done? Well, you can't exactly just grab your rifle and go. If I had it my way I'd be shooting bad guys.

[denoir 0]

It's not that I'm opposed to troops going into Liberia, I'm just a little tired of Europe "picking and choosing" our battles. (In a moral sense)

As I said, we do take it seriously what our former colonies do. Just as we worry about former colonies in Africa we worry about our former colonies in America as well.

[Donnervogel 0]

If the UN is so good at "peacekeeping" why don't they go in and do it? We don't like keeping peace, the ROE are too restrictive. Killing all the trouble makers is my idea of keeping peace, obviously we are not up to par on Euro-Peacenick doctrine. Yeah, I respect what you did in Kosovo Denoir, but when was the last time Sweden deployed the majority of it's military? What have I done? Well, you can't exactly just grab your rifle and go. If I had it my way I'd be shooting bad guys.

1. The UN: The UN can't do that. Especially because nations like the US don't let it do it. The UN has NO power. It can't punish anybody nor can it deploy troops. The only way this works is when a coalition or a state is willing to send troops it can get "the approval" of the UN - the UN mandate.

Now why has the UN no power. It's becase nations like the US, China or Russia were always very keen on not letting the UN get any power. So they just can ignore it if it doesn't fit their interests and don't have to fear any punishment.

2. "Your" way of peace keeping: It doesn't work. You want to shoot all bad guys? Well that's not that easy. Best example Afghanistan and Iraq. Saddam and Osama are still not found.

But the real problem is that peacekeeping is not war. When you go and shoot all bad guy you'll piss of more and more people. Because you will also kill many innocent people or destroy their lives. It's like war then. So you archieve the opposite and you'll get more and more "bad guys" who actually are "good guys" whose home was bombed and whose wife was killed by the "peacekeepers".

[denoir 0]

We don't like keeping peace, the ROE are too restrictive. Killing all the trouble makers is my idea of keeping peace, obviously we are not up to par on Euro-Peacenick doctrine.

Look at Iraq and learn. You don't know who your enemy is. You have no idea who "the trouble makers" are. Very often they're part of the people you are protecting.

It sets higher requirements on the quality of soldiers.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, I respect what you did in Kosovo Denoir, but when was the last time Sweden deployed the majority of it's military?

The last four wars Sweden was involved in:

1808-1809 agianst Russia

1810-1812 against England

1813-1814 agianst France and Denmark

1814 against Norway

The liberation of Norway in 1814 was the last time Sweden was officially at war. We let them go in 1905. Since the last war Sweden has never been invaded and we have kept our territorial integrity. That's almost 200 years of peace.

However having Russia/Soviet as a neighbour has always forced the Swedish military to keep in shape. Sweden has also always been a large contributor of UN troops that have been involved in every major UN operation, ranging from Korea in the 50's to Kongo today.

Quote[/b] ]What have I done? Well, you can't exactly just grab your rifle and go. If I had it my way I'd be shooting bad guys.

And tell me, if you got your wish through today, who would you be shooting?

[ralphwiggum 6]

The liberation of Norway in 1814 was the last time Sweden was officially at war. We let them go in 1905.

i really want to hear bgnorway's perspective on this issue.....

Quote[/b] ]And tell me, if you got your wish through today, who would you be shooting?

pinko-ass-commies?

Quote[/b] ]Bush accused the EU of making the situation in Africa more difficult because he believes that EU's position will influence African countries into choosing the same path and banning GM crops. EU officials replied that it was complete bullshit, that the African countries decide for themselves.

You sure that there were any "influence" of any sort. if a nation is dependent upon others, more or less the supplying nation can influence the reciever's decision.

Quote[/b] ]As I said, we're already paying 90% because we feel that we have a moral responsibility. Just in the same way as you have one for your former colony. If anything, you should be eternaly grateful to us for keeping Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast stable, otherwise Liberia, your former colony, source of rubber and where you expelled your unwanted citizens, would have been in serious trouble decades ago.

I'm pretty sure europe's interest in African nations exceeds realm of philanthropy. with Africa, the wildcard in world politics, it's better to have them on your side rather than on ours or independent. as much as US is criticized for its selfinterest, europe is not an angel on this issue either. Unfortunately, Sierra Leon and Ivory Coast is not stable, so it's their former colony's falut that Liberia is now affected. Just what did US do to Liberia in last 100 years? May be we should have kept those initial settlement of slaves here instead of sending them back to Liberia. sure that was humane :rollseyes: