Liberia

Technically Geforce, it’s Gulf War III (you forget the Iran-Iraq War I’m sure).

And don’t go turning things around. You know exactly what I mean. And Liberia isn’t like Iraq. It’s a completely different situation, and in my opinion way too simlar to Somalia. I certainly don’t want another incident like that.

That’s why I’m irritated that we’re being put under pressure to go in there because it appears that we should do what the rest of the world wants all the time. That’s how it comes across to the American people, and likely to the American government.

I don’t like policing the world if you want me to be frankly honest about it. And we are criticized for when we do it, and now it appears when we wish not to. Double Standard? You betcha it’s a double standard.

As far as the “EU” handling things I say go ahead. For once I agree with you in that the EU should take more responsibility in matters such as this, especially if they are so seeminly concerned about it. Simply put, if you want it done, then do it yourself.

Don’t forget that Liberians (well, the not-native ones) really feel close with the US since the whole country has been founded as a new Heimat for liberated American slaves – the capital Monrovia is named after president Monroe. This also is how they get boys-from-da-hood names like Charles Taylor and Prince Johnson (Charlie’s nemesis during the previous civil war, a few weeks/months/years ago). This is also the reason why many Liberians still have high hopes the US will rescue them.

Unfortunately, part of Liberia’s problems are because when former American slaves settled, the native peoples were forced to move inland, and have since become second-class citizens. Somewhere in the 20th century they started to realise what happened, and a first series of rebellions broke out. Those inland-rebels were quite soon hijacked by the ‘newcomers’ (Afro-American Africans, so to speak) for their own political purposes. In the early 1990s, both Johnson and Taylor made large use of drugged-up ‘inland’ child soldiers. This also explains the interesting military concepts of soldiers fighting butt naked/wearing wigs/wearing (wedding) dresses/…

But don’t forget that the horror could have been much worse. Just imagine what could happen if some military advisor/NGO/journalist/diplomat/aid worker explains those soldiers that accuracy will increase tremendously if you start aiming that AK, in stead of dancing around and spraying bullets…

No, because going into Liberia means sending in a small expeditionary force of some 1000-1500 GI’s, and it’s not at all a big air campaign like we’ve seen during Gulf War II. It doesn’t mean the US should occupy and rebuild the country. Frankly, I think it’s a shame the EU can’t send forces of its own (really, really sad) so we could deal with this kind of problems ourselves. Placing some GI’s or Marines on some strategic points in the capital Monrovia could ensure that the rebels would fullfil their commitments to continue peacetalks.

As far as the double standard, isn’t that actually more a Bush-administration thing? If we assume that GWII was to free the Iraqi people from a dictator, why can’t this be done to the people of Liberia? Are Iraqi’s better? Or is this the double standard you’re talking about.

Also, sending Indian troops would be a good thing. But like you said, since India already has so many peace missions running, it’s time someone else, someone who wants to police the world but only wants to send in soldiers when THEY want to, does the job.

It would be a good chance for America to show its willingness to cooperate with the rest of the world.

Bowing to the wishes of the rest of the world is not our job Geforce….

And another thing……why is it everyone is so worked up over us going into Iraq and getting rid of a truly horrible regime, but when something happens in Liberia of all places, we are put under pressure to actually go in?

Do I smell a double standard?

India is the 2nd largest troop contributer in UN so why do you have to boast up Europe in UN. Here’s a link…

http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Peace_Keeping/history_india_UN_peace_keeping.htm

Just off the screen and to the left of the photo, you could see a secret stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Yes. as these satellite photos show.

Originally posted by keltic
And the result was indeed “brilliant”:D

Unfortunately for US troops who served in Somalia, the administration that was sitting in the White House at that time was not what you would call “brilliant”.

Furthermore, it was partly the UN peacekeeper’s fault that the “Blackhawk Down” fiasco was as bad as it was…since they seemed to take their sweet-azz time getting heavy armor to the scene of the incident.

The EU or the US will only intervene in Africa when their economic interests be endangered, or the media presses their goverments to do it. No much differences between the US and EU in this case.

Originally posted by US Agent
Speaking of stupidity…the US forces weren’t under the command of the UN in Somalia…we were there solely under US command…thus Americans were NOT wearing blue berets.

You’re dismissed Eurotwit. :rolleyes:

And the result was indeed “brilliant”:D

Re: Hand…

Originally posted by Vortex
it’s not to forget what the French are doing elsewhere in Africa…but it’s the point that nearly all of this “UN” thing with all of these “peacekeepers” are basically after the massive attrocities are committed and/or there’s already a working ceasefire agreement on the higer level. There’s no real ceasefire here, Taylor is WANTED by the UN, and you want Americans there in haste? You have to be unbiased here and not equating this to somekind of lack of American effort. This thing needs to be well planned or we’ll see another Somalia. Because how the rest of the world views Taylor the US almost have to arrest him, yet if doing that, he has no choice but to commit mass attrocities(in his own survival game)….sounds quite a bit like Aidid doesn’t it? You see on the news a Liberian holding up signs of how this killing is Bush’s fault? If people there indeed have that kind of irresponsible logic…it’s a very bad sign if US soldiers are there without a really good plan.

I agree , this thing looks like a real mess , and I don’t see what US troops could do there before a real cease fire.

French troops had to deal with a similar mess in Ivory coast and it’s not easy to handle.
In this case I think that GWB is right to be over cautious

Originally posted by Geforce
US Agent, if you would actually try to overwin your enormous stupidity, you would find out that 70 % of peacekeepers are European, I do mean the official UN-peacekeepers. When was the last time US soldiers got to wear blue berets, Somalia 1993. German, French, Dutch, Danish, Belgian, Spanish troops, they all perform important peacekeeping missions in and outside the European continent.

Speaking of stupidity…the US forces weren’t under the command of the UN in Somalia…we were there solely under US command…thus Americans were NOT wearing blue berets.

You’re dismissed Eurotwit. :rolleyes:

For once, I fully agree with Bush. He has it right.

Western nations would be ill advised to interfere. Ignoring the (in my opinion) dubious ethics involved with messing in another country’s internal affairs (as there is no threat to any Western national security)- it is a potentional geo political powder keg.

The whole of black Africa is in strife, and one of the key reasons is tribalism vs. nationality. Are you a Liberian first, or is your loyalty to your tribe?

It is a mess, but Africa has got to sort itself out. If the West gets involved, it will all go wrong.

Radio 4 gave a very brief summary of the history of Liberia today in their 6pm news bulletin:

1. Freed American slaves found Liberia.
2. The slaves are nasty to the natives living there.
3. For the last 20 years the whole thing has been a mess.
4. Charles Taylor is a wanted war criminal.

Hand…

it’s not to forget what the French are doing elsewhere in Africa…but it’s the point that nearly all of this “UN” thing with all of these “peacekeepers” are basically after the massive attrocities are committed and/or there’s already a working ceasefire agreement on the higer level. There’s no real ceasefire here, Taylor is WANTED by the UN, and you want Americans there in haste? You have to be unbiased here and not equating this to somekind of lack of American effort. This thing needs to be well planned or we’ll see another Somalia. Because how the rest of the world views Taylor the US almost have to arrest him, yet if doing that, he has no choice but to commit mass attrocities(in his own survival game)….sounds quite a bit like Aidid doesn’t it? You see on the news a Liberian holding up signs of how this killing is Bush’s fault? If people there indeed have that kind of irresponsible logic…it’s a very bad sign if US soldiers are there without a really good plan.

Re: ..sure…

Originally posted by Vortex
If Europeans are so keen to claim “independence” from the US, why don’t they take initiative now? Why doesn’t the UN take initiative now to claim back the “legitimacy”…why all of the sudden telling us to quickly do something. This is exactly what we are talking about, soverignty over our own citizens/military. We are not here to have our military to be in harms way if its not for our own national interests UNLESS other nations are welling to do the same. IIRC many UN peacekeeping efforts only started AFTER thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people are killed already and with somekind of cease fire agreement from both sides…what’s the point to keep the peace when it’s already too late. I’m sure that if this Liberian thing gets even worse, the US will intervene…the point is you don’t tell them that when they know that your troops are physically days away. We don’t even have an agreement here on cease fire and you want US troops there in haste?

I guess that an other EU/US argument is useless. Howver I agree , why to wait so long?
Don’t forget anyway that French troops are engaged in several conflicts in Africa (Ivory Coast for ie)

..sure…

in our hearts we want some kind of intervention to stop these murderers and i wish American troops can be there to stop them…until i realize that if Americans are so quick to committ to Liberia…what about other places…and after a few days/weeks/months these very same people will start to condemn Americans. That’s the very nature of things. If Europeans are so keen to claim “independence” from the US, why don’t they take initiative now? Why doesn’t the UN take initiative now to claim back the “legitimacy”…why all of the sudden telling us to quickly do something. This is exactly what we are talking about, soverignty over our own citizens/military. We are not here to have our military to be in harms way if its not for our own national interests UNLESS other nations are welling to do the same. IIRC many UN peacekeeping efforts only started AFTER thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people are killed already and with somekind of cease fire agreement from both sides…what’s the point to keep the peace when it’s already too late. I’m sure that if this Liberian thing gets even worse, the US will intervene…the point is you don’t tell them that when they know that your troops are physically days away. We don’t even have an agreement here on cease fire and you want US troops there in haste?

Gee. I thought Egypt was in Africa. I must take another look.

Any excuse to avoid admitting that this is essentually an African problem requiring an African solution.
🙁

Sauron

Originally posted by skythe
That’s not true, the Arab nations of North Africa also recognize themselves as African nations and are very active on African forums and organizations. Foremost among these is Lybia, which for over a decade now has been a leader in promoting Pan-African causes, Kaddafi using his oil money to promote projects across the continent.
As for military intervention, since Egpyt and other Arab nations took a role in the Biafran war, there’s no reason that they shouldn’t take part in events only a little farther away in Liberia.

Agreed, these days many of the north african countries bar Egypthave been looking south than to the gulf. For years now Ghadaffi wears african dress more often these days and even withdrew from the Arab league earlier this year.

Originally posted by mixtec
Sauron- North african nations are part of the arab world and I dont believe that have any desire to get mixed up with anything south of the sahara.

That’s not true, the Arab nations of North Africa also recognize themselves as African nations and are very active on African forums and organizations. Foremost among these is Lybia, which for over a decade now has been a leader in promoting Pan-African causes, Kaddafi using his oil money to promote projects across the continent.
As for military intervention, since Egpyt and other Arab nations took a role in the Biafran war, there’s no reason that they shouldn’t take part in events only a little farther away in Liberia.

US Agent, if you would actually try to overwin your enormous stupidity, you would find out that 70 % of peacekeepers are European, I do mean the official UN-peacekeepers. When was the last time US soldiers got to wear blue berets, Somalia 1993. German, French, Dutch, Danish, Belgian, Spanish troops, they all perform important peacekeeping missions in and outside the European continent.

Sauron, I don’t even think Egypt is part of Africa (geographically spoken). And I don’t think Lybia would get a mandate from the UN to perform a peace-keeping mission. Maybe Morocco could do the job, assisted by Nigerian or South African soldiers.