Liberia - why?

[TheAnvil 0]

Nice swipe at GWB.
Liberia itself doesn't have oil - at least not to my knowledge - but many of its surrounding neighbors do, hence stability of that nation would be of importance to us from an oil importer perspective.

If the UN should be here, why not the Congo, Burma, or Colombia? I still don't see why the EU/African nations are so anxious for the US to commit troops here.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

GWB vs a Divinity School flunkout? Hmm...call him a chimp all you like....I don't think Harvard MBAs are bought.

Nice article from the BBC on the oil there.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,156]

My only guess would be that their sentiment is along the lines of:

The country was founded by freed slaves from the US. Hence it is more the US' problem then ours. So you guys fix it.

I agree with you though. Why Liberia and not one of the other scores of countries where civil war is raging wild.

I am buying this whole Saddam was bad for his people argument less and less as a validation for war. Zimbabwians are being killed by the thousands in political violence. the US wants the government gone, but South Africa is strongly opposing that. Do you think Bush would talk to Mbeki about that when they are sitting next to eachother. Noooo, off course not, that would just be too easy. Might as well ignore it and continue with what is truly important for his re-election campaign. Zimbabwe obviously isn't.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Well, if Iraq was about
WMD
terrorism
oil
not finishing them off in 1991
liberating the oppressed people of Iraq, then Liberia has at least as many oppressed people.

My thoughts almost verbatim...I just read before posting them to be sure someone else hadn't. Of course if oppression was the primary reason for Iraq, aren't the several other countries we should have "liberated" first? (note to self: sshhh...must not question the shrub)

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[SkyDekker 1,156]

Quote

Of course if oppression was the primary reason for Iraq, aren't the several other countries we should have "liberated" first?

Maybe this Q&A between father and son will clear up any questions you have.

DADDY, WHY DID WE HAVE TO ATTACK IRAQ?

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, son.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass
destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find
something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a
war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with
them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons,
so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had
all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons
our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons.
We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was
a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his
country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor,
where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops
to make U.S.corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain,
it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who
criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is
Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent
to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand,
is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws
that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba
until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started
doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein
came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate
leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by
force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our
friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly
overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate
leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us
invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians
hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over
3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of
the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's
heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's
heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back
in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job
fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium
poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would
have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing
flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for
other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's
hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for
stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that
oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public,
with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet
fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes
and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal
oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and
fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our
friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from
Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad
man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald
Reagan

talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or
thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call
them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets, I mean the Russians, are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after
they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our
invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French

and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries
and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we
want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our
friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the
other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our
friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an
enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit
by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for
America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a
godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked
Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what
to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George
W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes,
make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Good night, Daddy.

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Absolutely brilliant. Thanks for posting that, SkyDekker.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

The country was founded by freed slaves from the US. Hence it is more the US' problem then ours. So you guys fix it.

Quote

indigenous African tribes 95% ..., 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)

Descendants of freed US slaves make up a small part of the population. Since the French and Belgians do most of the commerce with them, maybe it is their problem.

Quote

industries - rubber processing, palm oil processing, timber, diamonds

The CIA factbook has a lot of good information on the background of why Liberia is in such difficulty. It is a short read and very informative. Seven years of civil war destroyed almost all the economic infrastructure and industries.

[rhino 0]

Probably because it is the right thing to do. And no one else will do it.

Rhino

[SkyDekker 1,156]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The country was founded by freed slaves from the US. Hence it is more the US' problem then ours. So you guys fix it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


indigenous African tribes 95% ..., 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)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Descendants of freed US slaves make up a small part of the population. Since the French and Belgians do most of the commerce with them, maybe it is their problem

Hey I never said I agreed with the sentiment. I am not sure why the US would send troops. There seems to be far worse going on in other countries.

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

Well first of all, I don't think they have had enough time yet to make up some false intelligence to justify an invasion

Not all falsified, but a valid point. That really pissed me off. I'm going to be eager to see all the facts on this. Despite that bit of ineptitude, there was a lot of intel that hasn't been shown false that was used. Leftists are ignoring all of that for the tidbit in question, but I am glad it was brought to light. Heads should roll for this.

Quote

I think that Bush's trip to Africa is a great campaign ploy, aimed at winning over some african-american votes.

Perhaps. It might be something to jump-start a weak US-African trade relationship and piss off the Frenchies, who have always had a strong presence on the African continent. This as a precursor to buying more oil from this region of the world. This trip and his AIDS program could definitely be an attempt to counter the leftist lie that Republicans hate minorities.

Quote

Liberia. I think it would be wiser to let the UN deal with it. But then again, according to the US the UN is useless, so it is an interesting situation to be in.

I've hated the UN for years. If they go in, the US will fund a ton of it, so why not do it ourselves? Since the EU is so keen on the idea, how about pulling troops from Boz-Herz and let the EU take that peacekeeping effort over completely, like they should have done in the first place?

Quote

I would say that if Bush decides to send troops to Liberia, he will start pulling out from Afghanistan. Canadian troops are heading there, plus there really is nothing left to win there. It is obvious that all that great intelligence that is so often cited can't find them the most wanted man after 911. And accoriding to the US administration he is not important anymore. Hence, might as well pull out of Afghanistan.

Perhaps, but I think it would be a mistake for the US not to maintain a presence there - especially of construction crews (SEABEES and others) and infrastructure essential personnel, hospital folks, etc. Going in then leaving without improving the infrastructure and supporting the new government getting onto its feet would be a huge mistake. Your projection might indeed turn out to be true, though I think it will be a gradual withdrawal over a several moth time frame.

Quote

As a side note, interesting to read today that the so called coalition of the willing is not very willing to committ troops. Looks like they want a UN resolution before doing anything now.

Hadn't read that, but don't doubt it to be true.

Quote

Anvil, I know you and I rarely agree, but would you not say that the US economy is getting pretty darn fragile to be spending so much money on (I can't really call it defence, because it has pretty much all been offence) militairy objectives? 3.6Billion dollars per month and that is just to stay in Iraq. Wonder how many jobs that could create?

I know we don't agree on damned near anything politically. That's why I like you and asked for your opinion specifically. It's here where our political differences are most profound. I don't think the economy is all that fragile right now compared to June '01 or all of '02, though unemployment is quite high right now.

I don't think that government spending creates jobs. I think that private industry & entrepeneurs creates jobs. Spending that cashola on Iraq is a very very indirect stressor on the economy in that regard. Direct on the US deficit/budget, but indirect on the economy.

Beers,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[happythoughts 0]

Nice twist. The Russians are our friends now, so that has what relationship to our actions in 1980 when they invaded Afghanistan? None.

The Japanese and the Germans are our allies now. We shouldn't have fought them 50 years ago? In 1980, there was a different Russian political system, we were fighting against it. The Afghans were fighting against it. We supported them.

Taking decisions out of their context in time is like lifting words out of context. It is used to twist their meaning.

[TheAnvil 0]

Mugabe redefines the term royal sonofabitch. He and the Zambian president turned away TONS of US supplied grain because it had been genetically modified (the same stuff we eat over here) even though their people are starving. Mugabe's policies have ruined that country and it will take years to recover. Idiot. I visited that country and found it fascinating, its people charming, and the scenery beautiful. That whole situation infuriates me. I wanted to throw up when I heard he spoke in the US and some ignorant jackasses actually gave him applause.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

We shouldn't have fought them 50 years ago? In 1980, there was a different Russian political system, we were fighting against it. The Afghans were fighting against it. We supported them.

Right, but they were using the same exact tactics and methods that we have declared to be "evil". So it's ok for us to support terrorism when it's against our enemy? When you look at it in context it only further illustrates that we are perfectly willing to allow and support terrorism when it helps us. The first step in a war on terror should be to not support it in the first place and stop being hypocritical.

[SkyDekker 1,156]

Quote

Despite that bit of ineptitude, there was a lot of intel that hasn't been shown false that was used.

Ohh I completely agree. Though I think just like statistics, many bits of intelligence can be shown to be many things. I am starting to believe more and more that the White House was looking for intelligence to support their standpoint and did NOT use intelligence to form their standpoint. I am starting to believe that the end goal was already decided and the intelligence community was "asked" to ensure that the intelligence to support them was in place.

I don't think there will ever truly be a way to prove that, so it will always remain a point of contention. But it is getting clearer and clearer that not all was above board, to say the least.

Quote

This trip and his AIDS program could definitely be an attempt to counter the leftist lie that Republicans hate minorities.

Not sure what to say about that. Don't consider myself left or right, Republican or Democrat. Nor do I consider myslef a liar.

Quote

though I think it will be a gradual withdrawal over a several moth time frame.

Without a doubt. Anything to quickly could look like a defeat.

Quote

It's here where our political differences are most profound. I don't think the economy is all that fragile right now compared to June '01 or all of '02, though unemployment is quite high right now.

yeah, but when unemployment stays high, people will eventually have less money to spend. Which will then slow down the economy further.

I think the real problem will come when the state banks of both the US and Canada start increasing interest rates. Debt in both countries is at its highest level ever. Most people can offard their current debt load. But, will that be the case when the interest rates are 3% to 4% higher? I guess only time will tell.

Quote

I don't think that government spending creates jobs. I think that private industry & entrepeneurs creates jobs.

I agree, though government spending can make it easier on private industry and entrepeneurs to grow and hence creating jobs.

[Kerozene 0]

Happythoughs:

I didn't say that aiding Africa is bad.

I'm not questionning the actions taken...which are good...

I'm questionning their motives...

And I won't be surprised to see their motivation "disapear" once the elections are finished.

"That makes me angry, and when Dr. Evil gets angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset. And when Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset....people DIE!!!"

[SkyDekker 1,156]

Quote

Taking decisions out of their context in time is like lifting words out of context. It is used to twist their meaning.

I agree with that. I did not write that, but I thought that even staunch Bush supporters might get a little giggle out of that. Some of the items discussed are a little far fetched, but that just indicates the humour IMHO.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Right, but they were using the same exact tactics and methods that we have declared to be "evil".

Could you give an example of Afghan terrorism against the Russians? Like what? The Russian army is traveling in a convoy and the Afghan people ambush them. So? That is a reasonable combat tactic.

The Russian presence was an armed, uniformed army, a legitimate target of attack. Terrorism is different than that. What terrorist acts did the Afghans do to the Russians that you are referring to?

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Taking decisions out of their context in time is like lifting words out of context. It is used to twist their meaning.

I agree with that. I did not write that, but I thought that even staunch Bush supporters might get a little giggle out of that. Some of the items discussed are a little far fetched, but that just indicates the humour IMHO.

You posted it, so I thought it was your opinion. Someone else posted that they agreed with it, not thought it was funny. Just pointing out that taking decision out of their time-context is an old political technique. When someone agrees with an illogical construct, I just wanted them to think about that.

[SkyDekker 1,156]

Quote

Just pointing out that taking decision out of their time-context is an old political technique.

Ohh I could not agree with you more. I am sure Rumsfeld is agreeing with you as well. He did admit yesterday that there really was no shocking new evidence when it came to Iraq. That they just saw the same evidence through a differnt prism after 911.

And they had us all believing that there was shocking new eveidence. But it really was just the same shit on a different day. Well, that and God talked to Bush.

[Tonto 1]

Brilliant, thought provoking stuff... Scary too.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[cptfunky 0]

Quote

Well, if Iraq was about
WMD
terrorism
oil
not finishing them off in 1991
liberating the oppressed people of Iraq, then Liberia has at least as many oppressed people.

Just not as much oil.

I'd like to see the UN there, personally. Sounds like a situation where they would be able to provide quite a bit of legitimacy to that kind of operation. But since we are setting ourselves up as world policemen, it makes sense that some of the world will look at us that way.

Wendy W.

no need to say more! also exactly my opinion.

[Tonto 1]

You have to concede though, that in recent World history, the most likely people to attack the US are people and groups formerly funded by the US to attack the people the US considered ememies at the time.

This constant "They were our friends - but now they're our enemies" reminds me of George Orwells, "1984"

All nations need to deal in weapons with a "Best before: (we change our mind)" date. It's tough at the top. I've been angry at the US ignoring diplomacy and going to war with Iraq, and yet when I see my own countries slow, stumbling steps towards a diplomatic solution to the Zimbabwe problem while people die and President Robert Mugabe just gave himself a 600% increase, I wish for more direct action.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"This constant "They were our friends - but now they're our enemies" reminds me of George Orwells, "1984" "

I'm more in mind of the changing policy / lies / spin / political machinations from the Animal Farm.....

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kerozene 0]

"But since we are setting ourselves up as world policemen, it makes sense that some of the world will look at us that way."

I'm happy to be your neighbor (Quebecer), but there is sometimes a problem when a country becomes police, judge and jury...

"That makes me angry, and when Dr. Evil gets angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset. And when Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset....people DIE!!!"

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

You have to concede though, that in recent World history, the most likely people to attack the US are people and groups formerly funded by the US to attack the people the US considered ememies at the time.

If anyone can tell whether the political structure of a country 15 years down the road will support the US, I'm sure there is a lot of people who want to talk to them. Political alliances change.

Condemning actions today that were done in the context of the time is popular. It is easy to sit back and do that. The same people would never say what to do, just criticize.

The US supported the Afghans against the Soviet Union. No one ever said, "Everyone should stand by and let the SU exterminate the Afghans", did they?

The US saved France from learning how to speak fluent German. They liked it when the US flew over to bomb Germany, but 40 years later, they didn't allow the US to fly over to bomb Libya.

People try to make the best decision at the time. No psychics in govt.