Somalia>Liberia, and the difference is?

I don't care what Powell says, Dubya (Cheney, Rove) will have to decided if it is politically correct to send troups, facing the same outcome of Somalia. It will give the impression we are now the world's policemen and, in fact, also the worlds secret policemen (CIA operatives being involved in any way).

I was against going into Somalia, and am against going into Liberia. I have considered our role in the beginnings of Liberia--but they became independant in the '40's/'50's.
They (Somalia/Liberia) are disasters of such epic proportions--the only thing we will accomplish there is dying.

The Powell Doctrine is my standard--though, I think even Powell has reneged on it in this instance--his common sense yielding for personal feelings toward the long, spiralling implosion of Africa. True, Africa is going down. I don't want any more of our country's children going down with it.

We aren't responsible for what is happening there. Any efforts toward Liberia should be global--not strictly American. IMO.

And, this busybody meddling is part of why the world hates us. Why is it always our responsibility to do everything? Our gratitude is shown with murder of our children, bombings of our embassies, and the greedy snatching of our money. If we are to be damned if we do, and damned if we don't--I say we don't.

a comment made on PBS NewsHour (I think it was Tues nite) Liberia will not be a peacekeeping effort, it is a full-blown war zone.

Errrr.....ummm...I can only think of one word here, spelled I-R-A-Q

I can identify with your frustration, Sophia. Now, if either the government or the rebels could conviently be labeled as "good guys", I would probably disagree with you, at least knowing what I do now.

Gautum--
I guess there must be some people, who see Iraq and Liberia/Somalia as similar.

I see them as completely different scenarios.

How so Sofia ? The only difference I see is "no oil"

IMO we should stay out of Liberia. If the Africans are intent on killing themselves so be. I can see no reason for the spilling of the blood of Americans in what in all likelihood be an exercise in futility. Since who ever turns out on top, based on the history of the nations of that continent, will end up with a government no better than the current regime. In addition let me ask where is the UN. I guess they are sitting in NY enjoying the good life and passing resolutions. Brings to mind what Nero did while Rome burned.

Gautum--
Venezuela is loaded with oil; why aren't we warring with them? GET VENEZUELA!!!! :wink:

I think the oil answer for all ills is getting silly.

I am speaking about the Powell Doctrine.
Is the mission very clear?
Do we have a clear exit strategy?
Use overwhelming force to achieve our objective.

There is no clear objective for Liberia-- What would it be? Make them behave? Teach them how to run a country?
The exit strategy for Liberia is even foggier. WE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO LEAVE. Any peace we would be able to enforce there, would collapse as soon as we left. It would be a fake peace, and more of our sons and daughters would die to keep it.
Bush said we wouldn't be peacekeeping, and I am pissed that he seems to be poised to go back on his word.

Sophia,

The Latin American economy is so dependant on the US that Venezuela wouldn't even dream of anatagonizing the US.

Not having a clear objective, or an exit strategy did not stop US from invading Iraq. Did it ? Why/how is Liberia different ?

As au1929 points out "if africans are intent on killing themselves, let them"... so whatever happened to their human rights, which now is being touted as one of the reasons for toppling Saddam ? Or they have no human rights because they are <GASP SHUDDER> africans ?

It is these double standards which really get my goat - and makes me think that there is more to US than just "good intentions" and the only other alternative I can think of is OIL.

au,

And if the Iraqis are intent on killing themselves is it somewhow any different? As to the rest of your post it makes precious little sense. The UN is trying to get something done and your post is simply colored by your opinion of the UN and has no basis in reality.

The UN, is trying to get people to intervene. You are saying that they should continue to "kill themselves". Yet you have the gall to say that the UN is like Nero watching Rome burn. If anyone is "sitting in NY enjoying the good life" with disregard to the suffering it's you.

Sofia,

I'm not in the "oil is the difference" camp, but I think what Gautam was saying is that you said that the US should not go into Liberia and that it should be an international effort. I believe Gautam was applying the same criteria to Iraq.

To my mind the only difference is that in one situation Americans want to invade and in the other they don't. In the situations in which we want to let them "kill themselves" we find excuses about how an intervention would be unwise. While when we want to invade we like to call ourselves great eleemosynary liberators.

I'm pretty sick of the criteria being US interests. There is far more suffering in Africa than there was in Iraq and I'm sick of Americans justifying any of our actions as being eleemosynary and then ignoring more needy hotspots like in Africa.

Craven and Gautum--
I think, as long as we disagree with the reasons we went to Iraq, we won't understand one another's differences or similarities between Somalia/Liberia and Iraq.

I don't believe we went to Iraq for humanitarian purposes, though relief for the Iraqis was a by-product.

Had we gone to Iraq for the sole justification that Iraqis were being harmed, you are exactly right--Liberia poses the same criteria.

And, I argued this point somewhere in these pages. We cannot send troops everywhere people are being hurt and killed--because our troops will be slung out all over the world.

Gautum--You said--
Not having a clear objective, or an exit strategy did not stop US from invading Iraq. Did it ? Why/how is Liberia different ?
------------
We did have a clear mission and exit strategy in Iraq.
The mission was to remove Saddam Hussien from power. This was achieved.
The exit strategy is to leave Iraq, when they have a government in place.

What would the mission be in Liberia?
------------
About this--
As au1929 points out "if africans are intent on killing themselves, let them"... so whatever happened to their human rights, which now is being touted as one of the reasons for toppling Saddam ? Or they have no human rights because they are <GASP SHUDDER> africans ?
-----------
I will answer to my own statements, not those of someone else.

actually i think the US should be in Liberia, but only as part of the UN

Sure, there is intense suffering in Liberia, but again, there seems little to chose from between the government and the opposition (rebels). So what is the objective? Land troops, dig in, and shoot anything that comes near? I'm saying you can support an existing group, but Liberia simply does not have a faction that is significantly better than another.

Craven
Glad to see I raised your ire, again, I would not like to see you become complacent.
As for Iraq, I had never been in favor of our involvement. I think it was a mistake. However, once the move was made I was four square for our troops fighting there and feel we now have no choice and must continue to a successful outcome.
That I have little faith in the UN there is no doubt. That they are calling for a force to go to Liberia to quell the fighting makes me ask where have they been when practically the entire continent of Africa suffers from the same malady. In addition why call on the US? I believe there is something like 180 member nations.

agreeing with roger, there ain't no white hats in liberia which leaves the potential of containment of hostilities as the UN objective. but then i am often wrong.

Sending troops to Africa won't solve the problem but nevertheless will help the people in the region. I think a main problem is that there are so many weapons in African countries.

So why are there so many weapons in African countries and how can the people there afford to buy those weapons? Which nations or companies sell such an amount of weapons to Africa?

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday ordered an unspecified number of U.S. troops to be positioned off the coast of wartorn Liberia (news - web sites) to assist West African peacekeeping forces.
The U.S. role will be limited, the White House said in a statement.
"The president has directed the secretary of defense to position appropriate military capabilities off the coast of Liberia" to help support the peacekeeping force, it said.
The statement did not say how many U.S. troops or ships would be involved.
"The immediate task of the (West African peacekeeping) force is to reinforce a cease-fire and begin to create conditions where humanitarian assistance can be provided to the Liberian people," it said.

Sofia,

I agree in that we did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons. But what are the reasons? Because from where I stand I see no valid casus belli. I do not believe the WMDs posed the threat they were said to ahve posed. Once that became apparant this Administration has taken up the defense of the invasion under humanitarian reasons.

And I posit that humanitarian reasons are a nobel and lofty ideal that is not a part of American policy at all.

You claim that there was a clear exit strategy for Iraq and that there is none for Libera. I posit that exit strategy is as exit strategy does. Liberia is a mess and getting involved there would be troublesome.but IMO, it would take far less than what is being done in Iraq.

You say the exit strategy for Iraq was as simple as removing Saddam. That's a nice way to put it but Liberia can be summarized simplistically as well. We would go to stabilize teh country after Taylor leaves.

Sure it is not that simple, the rebels are IMO worse than Taylor. But it's also not that simple in Iraq either. The difference is simply interest. We are not interested in doing what it takes to "fix" Liberia. Not even when this is unanimously requested of us.

We were, however, altogether too willing to invade Iraq under any pretext, despite the overwhelming unpopularity.

It comes down to the US interests. I agree taht Iraq is more important a hotspot than is Liberia. I am vehemently opposed to that being the criteria for "liberty" and the congradulatory nature of Americans who become all teary eyed at our benevolence yet still advocate that we withold said benevolence from teh most needy if it doesn't fit into our interests.

Au,

The UN has called for action. That's pretty mcuh all they can do. You can't ahve it both ways, when the UN does not give a mandate you can't call them irrelevant and at the same time fault them for trying to get a mandate. The UN is simply a body that represents the world. Their inefficiencies are simply the world's inefficiencies. That they can't fix Africa is a testament to the unwillingness of entities who can to fix it and not an inherent fault on the UNs part.

The UN has resquested a US intervention. The US is justifiably wary. You can't blame the UN for what the US does. When the UN tried to stop the US from invading another nation they were faulted for our ability to flout them. When the UN asks for our intervention they are again faulted for our refusal.

Sure, it'd be nice if France and other able nations would get involved. But the bottom line is that the nation with the greatest ability to get involved (the US) and with a people who like to pride themselves on being part of a nation that brings "liberty" to the dark corners of the globe has cold feet.

More than anyone I'd like to see other nations take up some of the world's policing. If only for the reason that American donations of liberty are only made when it coincides with our national interests. With more participation from other nations there would be more varied interests and hopefully more change wrought.