Liberia

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Its interestiong how during the Iraq conflict conservatives couldnt stop with the posts but here with Liberia there arent any. Maybe its because they dot have oil there. Anybody care to share thier thoughts on the situation?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Nobody really talked about Somilia after the first Gulf War either.  Civil War in Africa (and when isn't there at least one happening) doesn't bring interest because it's hard to bitch about the US military stepping in to help stop fighting and distribute food.  Not that France and Germany still didn't abstain from the vote, still being bitter over the war crimes court issue.  Not to mention their bitching about who's paying for it (sure, it's all about the oil, isn't it?).

But to answer your question, it's much harder for the ultra-liberals or just anti-Americans to attack this move, so with them not attacking it, you don't have the need for people defending it.

[Brain]

if i remember correctly us troops in liberia was originally the french and the german's idea (or at least it was supported by them)

[Overthrow.aHa!]

Err... I'm pretty sure Nigeria has oil or is it Niger...

[alaric]

Bucc seems to have a pretty good assessment of the situation here, but I'd like to add that nothing really interesting has happend yet. Interesting in a World News sense of the word anyway. It's just been kinda business as usual so far.

[tasty]

I just don't really think we should have our military around the world either way. If military presence there is required, let the UN do it. That's their job. I don't see why unilateral action by the US would be requisite in this situation. As Pat Buchanan said: "A republic, not an empire". Goes both for nation-building, peacekeeping, and wars of imperial conquest too.

[kami]

Right now I don't really give a shit about who steps into Liberia, it's just hell over there, something has to be done. I'm happy Nigeria is sending a couple of batallions together with some other African countries though, and if the Liberian president goes into exile in Nigeria most of the troubles will probably go away sooner or later.
On another note, I'd love to see the strengthening of the AU (African Union) together with a similar development as the European Union has had. Would really bring stability and peace to that troubled continent I think.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Glad to see at least a few people are educated on the topic. Personally I agree that a Unilateral offensive in nations are wrong, thus my protests to the Iraq war, had It been done through the UN then I would have probably had a different stance. I agree with Kami in saying unilateral or not, something has to be done. Of course the preferred way is through the UN, but many of these things start in the United States seeing as we have veto power and are on virtually every counsil un the United Nations. Ultra-Liberals have a little, but still existent basis for complaint due to the standing of the United States in the world community. Should the United States set an example it could bring other fence-sitting countries along with them. The Nigerian oil compliment is in my opinion rather useless because any country in shape to send 1000+ peacekeepers probably isn't in the midst of a civil war. I understand that news isnt news if it happens every day but many situations in Africa are being overlooked by prominent news agencies, partly because of ultra-conservative and possibly discriminatory ownership.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

It is a UN action, however Liberians don't give a rat's ass about any other country besides the US, and that is why we are stepping in. This is not a "unilateral action" as we are complementing the vanguard forces sent by ECOWAS. As for news coverage, it has had more than its fair share lately, taking up the front pages of newspapers, internet news sites, and television. There is no conspiracy, it is just that most Americans don't give a shit about yet ANOTHER African civil war.

Like it has been said in many other previous war threads, get your facts straight before making assumptions.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

It is hard to give a rats ass about countries when your in the midst of a bloody revolution. The Liberians know that swinging the United States, and having us promote action through the United Nations will likely bring across many other votes as well.

Secondly, If you would kindly re-read my post, nowhere in my statement do I say ""the united states is involved in unilateral action in Liberia". So I guess you need to check that.



And as to the last line, "get your facts straight before making assumptions" lets look at the second sentence in my comments. "personally I agree" I think thats opinion which is neither assumption nor fact and i didnt claim it to be anything else then an opinion. Then in the next sentence it starts "i agree with Kami", again it is not a fact, nor is it an assumption. The perferred way IS through the United Nations, even Bush would agree with me there seeing as he did it in Iraq even.

Next I say the United States has veto power on virtually every council. AS we resort to the UN website http://www.un.org/aboutun/mainbodies.htm we find (simple, just click one, then click members) that out of the General Assembly, Economic Growth and Security Council, International Court of Justice, and the Security Council (terrorism committee) The United states is a perminent member on every single Main Body. Perminent members have veto power.

Then I said "should the united states set an example it could bring fence sitting countries with them" Notice I said I could, I could means its possible but not positive, and thus is not a fact.

The beginning part of the next sentance has "In my opinion" an Opinion is neither an assumption nor a fact and its not disguised as either. (P.S. I meant comment not compliment.

cAs for news coverage, I never denied there is coverage on the situation in Liberia? I said, and I quote, "but many situations in Africa", now lets define that word many. Thats most, however not all. Thus it is very possible that in the "not all" part of many falls Liberia. Referring to the conservative owners of many news agencies I site examples such as Fox and the news media corporation owned by Ruford Murdock.


SORRY ASSASSIN BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME

[Cossack]

Well I guess Liberia is ok. I mean there is nothing new happening there. And you know there will be another civil war there in ten years. I think it is the United State's job to go in there and help them. It sucks that the US has to do it though, why do they always have to take care of other people's shit, but then again the US founded that country as a nation for freed slaves. France was involved in Sierra Leone and it was them because Sierra Leone was a French Colony back in the day. Britain sends troops to help stabalize countries that now make up former Rhodesia. So I guess the rule is, your former colony you fix it. Then again why didnt the Italians do anything in Somalia?

On a side note Africa really needs to get its shit together. The notion of tribalism is destroying that continent. The era of Colonization really screwed them over and its gonna be really hard for them to recover with rampant instability. Pfffff no shit Cossack.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Zaitsev, your lack of knowledge and total disregard of anything that doesnt conform to your views is retarded. My orignal post was directed at the people responding in the thread in general, not just you...but since you went off on your little tangent about the UN, the last line applies to you.

I will say it again...Liberia is now A UN ACTION. Liberians don't give a shit about swinging votes, they just want American troops on the ground to break up the fighting. There is nothing about votes (or for that matter swing votes) that is relevant to this because no country in their right mind would veto or vote against such a resolution (Annan and Bush already have a deal in place and an exit strategy for American troops). Maybe you are getting confused about something else, beats me. The understanding is that US and ECOWAS troops will be sent in to bring peace and stability to Liberia (yes dummy, the Liberian's only give a rat's ass about American troops - they don't really trust any other country besides the US) and within a couple months time blue helmet troops will relieve the current peacekeepers and we will be on our way.

For the most part I agree with Cossack, but I will take it a step furthur...without major influence from outside the continent changing the way things work within Africa, Africa is going to stay as a bloody mess that will remain unstable for future generations (it is so unstable now that I guarantee you that your maps or globes are already outdated with changing boundaries and names.)

I'm tired, sick, and bored...so if you dont understand this, tough shit.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Glad to see at least a few people are educated on the topic.

Zaitsev, you are in no position to talk down to people like that.  "a few"?  pfft.

Personally I agree that a Unilateral offensive in nations are wrong, thus my protests to the Iraq war, had It been done through the UN then I would have probably had a different stance.

First, you are using the word unilateral wrong there.  Used like that, even UN action is unilateral, since it is still "one sided".  If you mean unsupported by the UN, unilateral isn't quite the right word.

Second, I don't think the action in Liberia is considered an "offensive" either.

I agree with Kami in saying unilateral or not, something has to be done.

So, let me get this straight.  You don't agree with the US acting alone, without the UN's approval, but in the very next sentence, you do?  I see.

Of course the preferred way is through the UN, but many of these things start in the United States seeing as we have veto power and are on virtually every counsil un the United Nations.

The veto power of the US in the UN has absolutely nothing to do with why many of these matters start with the US.  These matters usually start with the US because 1) we have a large military, 2) we are willing to spend the money on other countries and 3) because we have treaties and other ties with many countries.  Liberia being a country that we have long standing ties with.

Ultra-Liberals have a little, but still existent basis for complaint due to the standing of the United States in the world community.

Each action should be taken on it's own merits, which is why almost nobody is bitching about this.

Should the United States set an example it could bring other fence-sitting countries along with them.

No, those governments have proven long before Iraq what they are about.

I understand that news isnt news if it happens every day but many situations in Africa are being overlooked by prominent news agencies, partly because of ultra-conservative and possibly discriminatory ownership.

I have no idea what you get for news where you are, but it is in the "prominent news" here every day.  That is just your beating on the press bullshit.

Kami, I don't know if the African Union is the answer, but Africa needs help, in a big way.  I know that famine and war is a chicken and egg situation, but the cycle needs to be broken.  Somehow.

Tasty, I don't agree at all that peacekeeping makes empire building, which is what you implied at the end there.  "The only thing evil needs to triumph over good is for good men to do nothing" - (I think it was Bates)

Cossack, I don't think Colonization screwed up Africa, they have a long history of tribal warfare going well back before the British Empire (or the French, etc).  I think the climate, available food/water and other natural resources just cause too much competition amongst the people there.  

One last thought.  It's one thing to label food as a major problem in Africa, and say we should ship more, but it's not that simple.  Food is a political tool and a weapon when it's that hard to come by.  We aren't solving anything just by sending food, we have to ensure it gets to the right people.  And that doesn't mean just for a month or two.  And if we ignore the problem, what kind of people does that make us?

[cookie]

lol tasty, pat buchanan is also the guy who wanted to build walls around america and keep everyone else out.

as for everything else here, i will address this later when i'm not so tired. i'll give you time to prepare for my wrath.


l

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Assassin maybe you should read again, once more I never said the UN action in Liberia hasnt happend or isnt happening and the whole " LIberians dont give a shit about_____" looks like an assumption to me, bucc ill reply later

[Cossack n' San Antonio]

Well its the lack of development there. Look at it. No roads, no irrigation, and a booming diseased population with a couple wars going on at once. Lack of infastructure and no wealth to start out with. Colonialzation is a factor to blame Bucc. I am not saying its the only factor, but I am saying its a major factor. The exploitation of Africans during the Imperial days made them dependent! Think about it, exploitation of sub saharan Africans has been happening since the times of the Pharoe of Egypt. Persians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs did it. Then there were the colonial empires of Europe.But when the 50s and 60s rolled around the African colonies became independent, seperate from the sucessful European economies and left with no wealth, bad farms, and no infastructure. They were not given the wealth or really had any chance to acquire wealth to build infastructure and capital. However it seems Sub-Saharan Africa is the unfixable situation. Famine, War, Oppression, Poverty, and Plauge.

I think what the main problem is, is that embedded in the African mind is the arcane notion of tribalism. They have the mentality of cavemen, but with Industrial Era technology. Education could be a slow solution, but that will not prosper unless there exists stability. What do all Africans have in common? What is one quality that they can unite around? The African situation is not hopeless. After all Medeval Europe was no fun place to be, then again we had Christianity as a unifing force. There is no sociological principle or idea that unites Africans. They cannot be united by religion with the millions of tribal beliefs along with European exported Chritianity and Arabic exported Islam. Could it be possible atleast in West Africa to unite or rebuild the old African empires. Maybe they should strive to build a succesful Mali. Make a new Axum and Abbysinia(sp). After all the European nation tried to rebuild Rome many times. Hopfully fate will give the Africans their version of Charlegmane, their version of Luther and their version of Thomas Eddison. Africa cant be the black hole of the world.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Well its the lack of development there. Look at it. No roads, no irrigation, and a booming Colonialzation is a factor to blame Bucc. I am not saying its the only factor, but I am saying its a major factor. The exploitation of Africans during the Imperial days made them dependent! Think about it, exploitation of sub saharan Africans has been happening since the times of the Pharoe of Egypt. Persians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs did it. Then there were the colonial empires of Europe.

Cossack, you just said it, but not the right way.  There was an "era of Colonization" that was in the 16th - 19th centuries, depending on who you are talking about, but all the shit that went on in Africa before that time, all the empires that rose and fell (including some African kingdoms) did the job there too.  

But I can't really see how European Colonialism is to blame at all.  You can look at other countries, like Canada, or on a bigger scale, Australia and South America.  They do not have the same problems as Africa.  I think you have to look at other causes.  Why all the civil wars?  Who is in power, what are the beliefs being fought over?  It's just too easy to blame the old European Empires, even when you are just saying that they are a major factor.  If anything, they contributed to infrastructure.  Like Cuba took ours, like Rome left behind roads, the Europeans did leave behind infrastructure when they finally left.  

Also, understand that part of it is just nature.  You have too many people living together, where nature can't sustain them.  There's not enough food and water to go around.  So there's more competition for the resources, and more unclean conditions that breed disease.  It's called carrying capacity.  In a way, we contribute to the problem, we send food and medical help, which keeps babies that would die alive.  Good for us, bad for nature, which has it's own rules.  

That's what I was getting at with we can't just send food and think it will make it better.  All we are doing is treating a symptom.  

So, when it really comes down to it.  When one tribe raises up and slaughters 100,000 of it's neighbors (men, women and children), what was the root cause?  Tribal hates are what are touted, just like Hitler used hate of the Jews to accomplish his own goals (like taking their wealth, which he needed badly).  When these things happen, what is behind it, the real reasons.  Knowing those is the only thing that can help solve the problems.

As for "African cant be the black hole of the world."  - Yes, it can.  It shouldn't have to be, but it can be.

[Cossack]

The Black Hole part did not mean its not possible for Africa to be the black hole of the world, but that it shouldnt. I am blaming their mentality on ages of colonialzation and exploitation.

America was getting exploited and you fellows rose up. You built the Interstate systems. I am not saying England had nothing to do with your logistics and infastructure. I am saying that most of your infastructure was built by Americans and funded by Americans.

However in Africa they cant build infastructure because there is too much fighting, and when it does get built, it gets blown up. Remember back in the day Africans were used as slaves. They didnt use Native Americans as slaves (well the Spanish did but very breifly) the Spanish Colonialzation didnt treat latin America very well either. Look at Columbia and those Central American countries. There are civil wars and overthrows almost as often as African countries. Keep in mind Bucc I am in no way saying the European Empires are souly to blame. I am just saying that they have contributed to the African mentality of dependence and tribalism.
    Maybe Africa should just be redrawn. Lets look at a moderatly stable African nation. Kenya, what makes their society work? There is no dominate ethnicity in that country, but they do have a unified mentality. The movement of Pan-Africanism is strong in that country wich is why there is very little strife in that nation. Look at their statshttp://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kenya

Pan Africanism, something that Mandela started can be a thing that pulls Africa together. Whatever is working in Kenya can work in Zimbabwe, Angola, Uganda, or Rewanda. If not, maybe we should just redraw bounderies to suit ethnicity, not what European country owned what long ago.

Unfortunently AIDS and disease from Kenya's neighbors can ruin Kenya's post colonial success.


Oh and I do agree with you about the lack of ariable land and other resources. Its a very arid continent. However they do have much wealth in minerals. South Africa has the largest gold reserves along with substantial Uranium deposits in thier bitch country Namibia. Zaire has huge diamond reserves. However the wars in the provincial areas there have destroyed their mines and infastructure.

[kami]

Bucc, I wasn't saying that the AU was the answer to the African problems, I'm just saying that it's a good way to start out, building a continental organisation to increase stability over the whole continent.

I don't think colonization is the only reason for the bad shape of Africa but no one can deny that it's one of the biggest reasons.

[tasty]

Tasty, I don't agree at all that peacekeeping makes empire building, which is what you implied at the end there.  "The only thing evil needs to triumph over good is for good men to do nothing" - (I think it was Bates)

Didn't mean to imply that. Don't know how it came across, but I meant for the three (peacekeeping, empire building, or nation-building) to be separate.

cookie - obviously I don't agree with everything the man says. It just so happens that there are quite a few areas where far leftists and far rightists agree (always for different reasons). He doesn't want to do it because he doesn't want our resources to go to other countries. I don't want to do it because I like the US to operate within the UN whenever possible, but since we are already doing that, there is no need to worry.

Bucc - I have a lot to say about colonialism (just ask cookie), but unfortunately I don't have time for a detailed post now cuz I'm about to go out. I'll finish later tonight.