May be the reason is that there are so many children soldiers killing each other.
And the USA didn't sign the UN convention on the rights of children [Ratified by 192 countries, btw, only two countries worldwide have not ratified: the United States and Somalia.].
Good point, Walter (as usual).
Just as the deliberations were global and lengthy about Saddam--so should they be re: NK, IMO. This is happening, but not yet to the appropriate scale. The result has not yet been reached. Maybe diplomacy will work with them...
Certainly, deaths in Liberia are as bad as deaths everywhere else. And, if we decide to act militarily because of civil war and deaths in Liberia--it will set a precedent, propelling us into every corner of the world, when things go wrong. I don't like the idea of the US being Globo Cop.
What obligations re: nukes has the US failed to meet?
Sofia,
We withdrew from a treaty not too long ago. Don'tcha remember? We promised the Russsians not to test and deploy star wars as this type of a defense would mean other nations would ahve to match us in that or other areas.
We had every right to (though I think it was daft).
Just as NK has every right to withdraw from theirs (though the armistace might become endangered).
Correct me if I'm wrong--but NK never even signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty....?
I know they had some dealie thingamabob with Clinton, which was basically a blackmail treaty--We'll pay you not to start up nukes...?
We quit paying, and they fired up their reactor?
Yes, I remembered we withdrew-- Was it legal?
Yes it was legal to withdraw, just as it is perfectly legal for NK to build nukes.
What would you suggest re: NK?
Point me to a link or thread if you've detailed it already.
I'd like to let the neighbors or the UN run that show. This was Bush's first response, as well. Is it wrong, in your estimation?
And, for clarification: You believe the US should put out all civil war-type fires?
I never said I think the US should become involved everywhere. Just that we should stop using humanitarian reasons as our mantra and the people here should stop acting like we are charitable freedom donators.
If I were Bush I'd not become involved in Liberia at this time. But if I were Bush starting back when Bush started I'd not be in Iraq right now so I WOULD go to Liberia.
As to the NK I would negotiate with them directly with teh promise of a non-agression treaty. They fear us (for good reason) and we have had nukes aimed at them on their pennensula. I understand why they want nukes (even though we pulled ours in a deal we still do things like leak our pre-emptive nuclear attack plans for them).
They want a full solution, not something half assed. They don't want to give up nukes only to find that they are still embargoed and find taht we might still attack them.
They also have shown an interest in becoming capitalist (creating such "zones" as experiments).
So I'd go for the gold. I'd put full normalization on the table. Right now NK wants a non-agression treaty and we are saying no. We are expecting them to atke our word that we won't attack them and to degrade their defensive capabilities. There is sound reasoning cited for this approach (don't "reward" their "blackmail") but I believe it to be mistaken or intentionally misleading.
In short, I'd go for normalization, what's happening right now is that one enemy is demanding that teh other not build weapons that the one enemy has. North Korea and the US are technically at war. And we refuse to sign a non-agression treaty and also demand that they do not build nukes (which they see as a deterrent).
I think the current policy is headed for war and possible intentionally so.
President Orders Troop Deployment to Liberian Coast
By ERIC SCHMITT
President Bush gave orders for a naval amphibious force
that includes 2,300 Marines to sail to a position off the
coast of Liberia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/26/international/africa/26LIBE.html?th
The motto for the armed forces of the US is now:
Have gun will travel!
Is this the Bush administration's hidden agenda to end unemployment? Roil up anyone they perceive as an enemy and then start a conflict until the draft is reinstituted and the unemployed work force is absorbed into the military?
well LW thats an interesting proposition however it came to me in a dream last night that THE REAL REASON for the continued boondoggle in Afghanistan-Iraq-et al is that bush is concerned about PTSD, yes, he and his staff of non-combatants have read all the reports of Post Traumatic Stress Syndome disorder following Viet Nam quickly realizing that by maintaining constant stress (not resolving foreign occupation in hostile environments) he is providing a theraputic solution by averting any possible POST trauma. the wars shall continue equates to supporting good mental health among the troops....
Oh, you mean, like, stay drunk - avoid hangovers, dys?
Follows Gore Vidal's concept of "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace," but it also means they need to get those who are stressed out because they have no job into the arm services. Somehow there's a flaw in their thinking but I am not a mind reader. I do somehow see it in their feces...I mean faces.
Bush has also stated that the Charles Taylor will have to leave Liberia in order for peace keeping (!) forces to invade (sic) Liberia. That shouldn't make Pat Robertson happy that Taylor is leaving but it will make him happy that his gold mines are being watched over by his Siamese twin.
