<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/frown.gif" width=15 height=15>

<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/mad.gif" width=15 height=22>

Hmmmm... What's wrong with this picture?

Liberia: The people of the country WANT us there... The Secretary General of the UN wants us there... Other nations want us there... even Charles Taylor wants us there... and the Shrub makes half-promises of help, and does nothing.

Iraq: It is uncertain whether the people of Iraq want us there... the UN Security Council did not authorize us to be there... Other nations wanted to wait before going in ... and the Shrub tells half-truths about why we INVADED there.

I am a pacifist... I don't believe that the pre-emptive strikes in Iraq were right... but now that we are occupying the country, we should be doing everything possible to put Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people as soon as possible.

But in the case of Liberia, where there has been armed conflict between Taylor's forces and rebel forces for years, and both sides want our help in RESTORING PEACE... we should help. But we are already committed in Iraq - much of our military force is there... do we have troops available to send to Liberia?

Will this mean the reinstitution of the draft? I am afraid it may come to this. Will our political leaders be willing to allow their own children to be drafted? probably not... but if there is a draft, I feel it should be an across-the-board, no exemptions draft. Conscientious objectors can serve in appropriate roles in the medical field or in the chaplain corps or serve stateside...

We are doing almost nothing where we are being asked for help... and asked by the descendents of freed American slaves who returned to Africa... do we owe them something? France and England have helped some of their former colonies, out of a sense of duty... perhaps we have a duty here too?

... these are disjointed thoughts... I am sure that there are many perspectives that make more sense than my ramblings... sometimes I think too much and come up with nonsense...

At least you're thinking...we'd be better off if you traded places with W...

But there's no OIL in Liberia. (So, they must not need our "help") <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/frown.gif" width=15 height=15>

Just a note cautionary wise.Those Liberian folks may sound like American blacks from the 1800s. They do suffer under terrible conditions. They do deserve help and respect.However they have similar corruption and political problems as most of the sub Saharan countrys. Whatever anyone does there must be weighted in light of the mess we ended up in at Somalia.These folks arent Americans that just happen to be in Africa. They have their own country and culture.Imperialist intervention there in the name of "help" might come back to haunt us.Whatever we do in the vain of supporting these poor people must be very even handed, and a quiet suggestion to the Liberians would be"be careful what you wish for" big bother USA never does anything for you without attaching strings you may not enjoy at the end of the day.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by The Electric Horseman on Jul 26, 2003 ---</FONT></center>

hmmm... maybe I'm not totally off base in my thinking???
---------------
Hearing Liberia's Pleas
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
July 29, 2002

The bankruptcy of America's policy toward Africa is evident now in Liberia, a lovely and passionately pro-American country with dazzling white beaches, swaying palms, the greenback for currency — plus 200,000 deaths from unending war, and mass rape that spreads AIDS.

President Bush initially seemed to engage Africa in a way that President Bill Clinton and other predecessors had failed to do. To his great credit, Mr. Bush pushed hard to end Sudan's civil war. He announced a $15 billion initiative to fight AIDS. He visited Africa and has been responsive to the famine raging in Ethiopia.

Yet while it's too early to be sure, it looks as if Mr. Bush's Africa policy may be no more than a symbolic one, full of ringing sound bites and hollow pledges. Mr. Bush refused to ask Congress for funds to pay fully for his AIDS program. And his Africa trip had a check-the-box quality, suggesting it was more about domestic politics than Africa itself.

Worst of all, with Monrovia (named for James Monroe) now collapsing into killing and cholera, Mr. Bush has sent a symbolic presence to the waters off Monrovia for possible deployment later.

Africa needs a lot of things, but symbols aren't high on the list. Liberian children are not being slaughtered offshore, but on the ground, and that's where troops are needed. Sending troops to Liberian waters is a waffle, a gesture that saves no lives. After 9/11, Mr. Bush displayed leadership, moral clarity and decisiveness in sending troops to Afghanistan; today, Africa desperately needs those same qualities.

"Dithering only makes it worse," notes Ken Menkhaus, an Africa expert at Davidson College, arguing for intervention. "If we don't do it, it'll fester and blow up."

To be sure, the Pentagon's concerns are reasonable and go like this: Remember Somalia! It's easy to get into these countries, difficult to get out. There's no peace to keep, and we're already overdeployed and short on troops. Sure, the slaughter in Liberia is tragic, but it doesn't affect us. The harsh reality is that our hands are too full to rescue a distant people determined to murder one another.

These are not silly arguments, but they can be addressed. Military interventions are always risky, but success looks relatively promising in Liberia. All Liberian factions say they want us on the ground, and ordinary Liberians have been pleading for Mr. Bush to send troops.

Would anybody shoot at us? Probably, but in neighboring Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast, local fighters melted away rather than take on European troops. The ragtag Liberian militias, bereft of popular support, would probably collapse even more quickly.

I argued against invading Iraq, but Liberia presents a much more compelling case for intervention. The difference is not that Saddam slaughtered at most 1 percent of his population over the last 14 years, while Liberian warfare has killed more than 6 percent of its population so far. Nor is it that rescuing Liberia would bolster our international stature rather than devastate it.

No, the crucial differences lie elsewhere. First, Liberia has an urgency to it that Iraq did not: people are being hacked apart daily in Liberia, and if we do nothing, the conflict may spread across West Africa. Second, success can be more easily accomplished in Liberia, using just 1 or 2 percent of the number of troops we have in Iraq, mostly because Liberians desperately want us to intervene.

Liberia's warfare has already infected Sierra Leone, Guinea and Ivory Coast, costing perhaps a half-million lives in all since Charles Taylor grabbed Liberia in 1989. Just as the Rwandan crisis (and Mr. Clinton's failure to respond decisively) led to a catastrophe across central Africa that has cost more than four million lives so far, Liberia's civil war could lead to upheaval across West Africa.

Is U.S. national security at stake in Liberia? Indirectly, yes, for failed states anywhere can threaten us.

A collapsed West Africa could become, like the Taliban's Afghanistan, a haven for terrorists and narcotics, as well as a sanctuary for infectious diseases. Illegal immigrants would pour by the millions out of West Africa into Europe and America. In today's world, as John Donne never wrote, no nation is an island.

Other nations have stepped up to the plate after the collapse of countries where they have a special responsibility: Britain in Sierra Leone, France in Ivory Coast, Australia in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. Now it's our turn.

Applause for a very good post Wyld<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>You defend your position more factually than I do mine.
I still have problems with policing the world however.

There is a huge difference in our unilaterally deciding to violate the prime directive and our being asked by both sides to buffer (even militarily) a situation that's so out of control. I think that this has become such a tragedy for the common people that we are obligated by our privileged position to actually help them....which is why the Resident won't do it.<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/frown.gif" width=15 height=15>

Thanks, Bob... but I don't take credit for writing all of that last post... it was Nicholas Kristoff, in an editorial in the NYTimes... Mr. Kristoff basically validated the thoughts I was working through the other day in my first post on this thread.

Like you, I also have a problem with us "policing the world" but in the case of Liberia, it does appear that ALL parties to the conflict want us there... and it appears there is an excellent chance of success ... which is a heck of a lot different than us going into Iraq without being asked by the involved parties, and without the support of the world in general.

BTW... one of the reasons I like these message boards is that you can post something like this, and get other peoples' ideas, and (usually) everyone respects one another's views even if they don't agree.

<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/peace.gif" width=16 height=16>

You folks can't imagine how much I enjoy the input of intelligent people.This is like a breath of fresh air<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15><img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>

Excerpted from New York Times:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld authorized up to 20 members of the 2,300-strong Marine task force to go ashore from their ships now off the coast of Liberia. But fewer than 10 landed by helicopter today to begin their work at the headquarters of a Nigerian peacekeeping battalion, officials said.

FEWER THAN TEN! (elsewhere I heard SEVEN!)even when you add the eighty marines guarding the US Embassy... it's ridiculous!

I am thoroughly pleased, though, with the actions of the Nigerian and other African governments that are sending a real peace-keeping mission. Did you see the picture of the Liberians carrying a Nigerian soldier on their shoulders in welcome! Isn't that what the Shrub would have wanted for his own publicity... well... he blew it yet again!

... and without a real US presence, Charles Taylor may balk at his promise to leave office and leave the country. I hope I am wrong about this.

I know there is much work to be done in Liberia... but it is clear that the work will be done with the cooperation and blessings of the people of Liberia. This is a case where I believe we should be doing as much as we can to stabilize the country and help in its rebuilding.