Liberia vs. Iraq

US Intervention in Liberia is justified…?

  • By humanitarian reasons alone
  • Even though not in America’s strategic interests
  • No, US too busy with Iraq/North Korea (strategic)
  • No. US intervention is never justified

0 voters

Just curious as to how those on the Left view possible US (humanitarian) involvement in Liberia and how those on the Right feel about it since it lacks strategic importance.

I guess I am interested to know how much of US foreign policy should be governed where it has strategic as well as humanitarian concerns (Iraq) versus humanitarian (Bosnia, Kosovo and Liberia) where no strategic interests are involved. OR if there are, please clarify.

Does the situation then justify US intervention based on your interpretation of the priorities of US foreign policy?

I’m still trying to find out the angle here. There’s no such thing as humanitarian intervention. Things are always done with a purpose. Bosnia and Kosovo were not strategically important to the U.S. except for the pressure that was applied to the U.S. by its European allies.

[quote=“fred smith”]Just curious as to how those on the Left view possible US (humanitarian) involvement in Liberia and how those on the Right feel about it since it lacks strategic importance.

I guess I am interested to know how much of US foreign policy should be governed where it has strategic as well as humanitarian concerns (Iraq) versus humanitarian (Bosnia, Kosovo and Liberia) where no strategic interests are involved. OR if there are, please clarify.

Does the situation then justify US intervention based on your interpretation of the priorities of US foreign policy?[/quote]

“Turn left! left? no, your other Left!” left, right, left, right eating eskimo pussy…

June 17, 2010 “Scientists have found a way to squeeze gold from a stone”

In Trois Pistoles, Quebec, scientists have made a major breakthrough here in the silicon valley of energy research and development.
Jean-Pierre LeRoc, head researcher of Energon Cubes, announced on Friday that his team has found a way for diamonds to power today’s power plants. "The results are startling. Using the same kind of rough-grade diamond used in today’s drillbits, like those used in Alaska and Los Banos Energy Park, we are able to extract enormous amounts of energy by using such diamonds in a catalytic process involving triphenyl compounds. The tight carbon lattice structure provide the perfect matrix for this exothermic reaction to occur. We estimate energy output in the order of 100-200 MJoules. That’s about the output of 3 of today’s LNG/renewable hybrid plants. In the past few months, we have been testing a small version at our Winnipeg plant in joint cooperation with
S.E.T.I.B. and H-S.U.B, the research divisions of Halliburton. The results have been very surprising. We expect to be able to implement this technology very soon. However, we foresee a shortage of diamonds. Unfortunately, most diamonds mines are located only in a few regions of the world.

In other news:
A joint alliance of U.S., E.U. and China have embarked on an ambitious program to bring peace to the Western and Southern regions of Africa. For years, these regions have been embroiled in civil war, lawlessness, AIDs epidemics, and cannabilism of the now-extinct pygmies. Global warming has also aggravated the problems of these regions by bringing 4 years of drought. A spokesman for the joint alliance Claus von Stuffhimbugger said only this, “We are here to bring stability to the regions and end years of human rights abuses. We will not stop until we get what we came here for. The people of west and south africa have a right to live free and in peace. That is our goal.”

Now this, just in and straight from the press:

a real serious answer.

I guess I am going to have to vote no intervention (if Liberia had oil though…) just kidding.

I think that the US is busy enough with five major problems already.

  1. al Qaeda. While other countries are helping, the party doing most of the work, pressure, surveillance is the US.

  2. Afghanistan still needs peacekeeping in a major way.

  3. Iraq. This is a long-term commitment that is already sapping the strength of the US troops although not having to contain Saddam is also relieving stresses in other ways.

  4. North Korea is a major problem and not to the US but to South Korea and Japan lesser extent China and Russia but I think the US will have to lead here too.

  5. Iran (this is going to be a major problem as well and the US will need all its forces).

Would this not be a good time for Europe and other “concerned” nations to do something?

After all it was the British who restored order to Sierra Leone. Now the British are in Iraq and Afghanistan too. If this is a problem, how about sending Japanese peacekeepers or Korean or Taiwanese peacekeepers. After all, these three nations have benefited greatly from others security guarantees. OR how about Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Greece, etc. or even Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica (Argentina is broke so…)

The French do not seem to be doing a very effective job in Cote d’Ivoire or Congo. Why have their missions failed and has the British effort in Sierra Leone truly been successful.

i think cake is trying to answer the age-old question:

what would pilger do? :smiley:

liberia shows exactly how empty the words of the left were. in iraq it was all about legitimacy bestowed by the un and how the us couldn’t act alone. the us should let the un lead. the un is the only institution with the authority to deal with these kinds of problems. etc., etc. so now look where we are in libera. the un realizes it can’t do crap and begs bush to send us troops in(keep in mind these are the culturally insensitive and trigger-happy troops as portrayed by media like the bbc).

the america-bashers can’t say anything now because they can’t win either way. how’s rascal going to turn this one into a “the us is only doing this out of greed and naked commercial self-interest”? :wink:

what they WILL do is wait till the us goes in there(and we’re going to be in there, i don’t doubt that) and then babble on about how we’re making things worse. they’ll post pictures of someone killed by a us servicemen and then decry the use of force. maybe they’ll break out the “bring our troops home” signs they made the day after saddam’s statue went down.

the un is such a joke. seriously, they can’t even deal with a problem in liberia without wimping out and trying to guilt-trip the us to take care of it(well, it was founded by ex-slaves…so it’s your problem). and this is the institution that we needed to get the support from to make anything legitimate? this is an institution we must go through to solve problems in countries 100 times larger than liberia? sad.

The WSJ’s Taranto had a blurb on it in his “Best of the Web” column on Thursday (second item) :

[quote=“James Taranto, WSJ”]
Dean Beats the War Drums

The Associated Press reports that Howard Dean, who emerged as the Democratic presidential front-runner with his uncompromising antiwar stand, now favors military intervention–in Liberia, where he’d like to send 2,000 U.S. troops: … _liberia_2

Does Dean really think there wasn’t a “serious human catastrophe” in Baathist Iraq? (What’s the alternative, a frivolous animal catastrophe?) No, it seems there are two real differences between preliberation Iraq in today’s Liberia. First, Iraq’s history of invading its neighbors, using chemical weapons and pursuing nuclear ones, and backing terrorists actually made it a threat beyond its borders–and thus the U.S. had a strategic interest, not just a moral one, in removing the dictatorship. Some on the left seem to think U.S. intervention is just fine, so long as its moral purity isn’t tainted by self-interest. In this view, the Liberians are worth helping, but the Iraqis can go to hell (or stay in hell) for the sake of America’s moral vanity.

The second difference is that, as Dean puts it, in Liberia “the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership.” But if America simply does whatever the “world community” wants it to do, in what sense can it be said to be exercising “leadership”?[/quote]
In other words, it’s ok to get people killed in Liberia or Kosovo if it is purely a self-caused problem that would have no effect on the rest of the world, but if it is a cancer it has to be left to rot.

Also notably, it’s apparently just fine by Dean if 2000+ Iraqis are being murdered every week by a brutal dictator.

Hi boys! (shabab)

Have you ever taken the notion on board that the current United States administartion see the situation in Liberia as an opportunity to gain some credibility and respect? So they don’t see it as a “humanitarian issue at all” but rather as an opportunity to help them avoid getting their butts kicked out of Iraq.

While the situation really starts to heat up for the boys on the ground in Iraq ( and it’s a long hot summer boys)! Old Rummy and Co will soon be pleading for assistance from the UN for a hand. That’s right folks – close the door, turn off the fan, empty the ashtrays – pleading for help from the rest of the world for a bit of assistance.

So which is it to be? The United States “going it alone” or is it time for them to put on the knee pads and prepare to do a bit of PR with the UN?

Maybe if you ask really nicely, you might get some assistance!

Donald Rumsfeld on tha capture of the first US prisoners of war (who were subsequently released – unlike the detainees at Camp X in Cuba and those being tortured by proxy in Egypt, Morocco, and the KSA on behalf of the CIA):

Rummy: “These prisoners must be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention.” Oh, I see?

Looks like Rummy and Co are rapidly realizing the relevance and necessity of such bodies. This – of course – is a reluctant acceptance.


I can not for the life of me understand the duplicity of the UN and liberal left wing attitudes in general. Liberia is a quagmire plain and simple as the plan put forth by that useless organization known as the UN has done. Seems they didn’t have enough UN peacekeepers skinned alive or held hostage last time.

For a brief introduction: … id=1893195

What any armed force in Liberia will face:

1- Competing factions with no history of even civil behavior to civilians or enemy comabatants.

2- Young teenagers high on coke and/or crank shooting at you with AK-47s. Do you understand that they will have to be killed if they enter combat? How much real choice do they have under their drug influenced brains? SOme of these kids are hardened killers by now.

3- Nation building yet again. This means a from the ground up rebuilding effort, with a truth commission, new professional army, schools and a reliable banking industry with a currency.

4- A country deeply scarred by current and past atrocities.

You can’t just go down to Liberia and stick a bunch of soldiers in blue helmets there and say, “please stay here till they stop shooting at each other.” It’s not going to work. You have to be proactive and engage people at all levels of society. This includes fighting a just fight and taking out the means of support for your enemy despite charges of wanting to plunder them(Diamond fields will have to be secured, to cut off funding of rebels).

The reason that the British were so successful in Sierra Leone was because while British regular troops were securing the country. British special forces were hunting people in the bush who sought to do them harm. I’m sure the French are doing similiar things in Congo.

Personally I think a US mission to Liberia would be a worthwhile cause with restrictions.

US troops must be under US or NATO command with a clear objective and goal. They are not human shields. A clear picture of what they will face and why must be put forth to the American public. A plan must be put forth for the rebuilding of Liberia, before US troops are committed.

Liberia currently does not have WMD capability or productive capacity nor is it a known terrorist haven yet. It does destabilize its neighbors and commit human atrocities. Al Qaeda has used the illegal diamond trade to dund its operations. Expect for the WMD, it bears a remarkable resemblance to Iraq and the reasons for the regime change.

To Big Dunc,

Please learn how to put forward logical arguments like a normal person and give up on the soundbite remarks. I will not engage in your banter like Tigerman as I know you have neither the faculties nor the sense to respond in like.


I know, it’s tough having a Messiah complex on your shoulder. You can’t ever get any respect. Especially when it’s a selective Messiah complex.

You know, Iraq really would have been so simple. All you had to do was tell the truth and have sincere motives and ‘we’ pretty much would have all been behind you – like back in '91 during Desert Storm. Now wasn’t that pretty much a cooperative group effort?

If you start beating the war drums about Liberia though by saying Charles Taylor is really an alien warlord from planet WMD and Liberia is a hotspot for alien abductions threatening to spill out and engulf the rest of the planet but you just can’t show all your proof until after the deed is done because it will compromise your secret agents then we’re probably going to have to all get into it all over again.

And if you start saying you’re going have to save Liberia by dumping hundreds of cruise missiles and smart bombs on it first in a Shock and Awe liberation plan then I know there’s going to be trouble.

I can help you write up an effective business plan if you like. It should pretty much just follow the KISS principle: gangs of bad people are raping, mutilating and murdering people in Liberia and we’ve got to do something to stop it. Anyone want to help?

I’ll be there.


I’m sorry. I will learn to work on my preparation of logical arguements – although forums tend to be open to all and not constrained by your humble view as to what constitues a “logical arguement”, are they not? Or are you telling me how to act and think? How come I always get flashes of George Orwell when I read stuff like this?

My passionate posts on this forum (do you insist that they be dispassionate?) are in response to the advocates of sophistry who post on this board and their one-sided perception of the world. Those posts are equally as passionate (and offensive) albeit in a deceptive way.

Your passion for “logic” is admirable, but I would like to remind you that we are living in a very illogical world, so I would suggest you take some time to reflect on that. Of course, this is nothing new, but we – as illogical creatures – tend to forget this.

Anyway, I’ll pre-empt your decision of not engaging in “banter” by naming this a “read-only” post.



PS. I’m busy looking at the plot of the new Terminator movie to see how this parallels the current state of affairs in “the war against terror”.

In Terminator 2, did you notice how we were deceived by the cop into thinking that he was the good guy [parallel: Wolfowitz: soft spoken, side parting, and family photo in the background] and tricked into thinking that Arnie the Terminator [parallel: cross-eyed terrorist in dirty robes] was the bad guy?

Termnator 3 should be interesting.

Rebuttal deleted as arguments with Big Dunc go no where and put me on the same level as a “guest” flamer at

I will kindly use my ignore button for the first time.

Gavin Januarus- I remember how well presenting the evidence for attacking Iraq was before the whole WMD things swept it up. I also remember everyone saying we couldn’t do it with Germany opposed to it on any grounds and France threatening to use their veto. Can’t let money get in the way of enforcing UN resolutions can we? France and germany enjoying lucrative business with Iraq. Listen for you even to use that argument, " they should of just gone with the facts" is silly. Are you even F#^$ing aware that the will of the UN is the will of a bunch of petty dictatorships. I do not want to read about US troops or any other troops under UN command being skinned alive(has happened in W Africa), held hostage(again W. Africa), or turning over civilians to be butchered to save their own necks(Dutch UN peacekeepers did this in former Yugoslavia). I do not want to see them sitting in a fortress while raping, pillaging, and mutlilating are going on aroung them(Congo).

This is not a Messiah complex, but a reality check. The post I wrote detailed how US military operations are planned according to the Powell Doctrine. I support helping Africa, but the US can not do it alone nor should it. I do not support nor would I ever want US troops under UN command. Time and again this has been a mistake.


Hi Boys! (shabab!)

Ignore that little post above with its amateur/superficial synthesis of snippets from newspapers/mags etc. Christ! . . . Information overload or what?

Anyway, back to business:

Stub out the fags, make sure a cold one is in the freezer; take off your socks as well; No!, you can’t have another chicken wing: no we’re not going to that “laptop bar” either.

Looks like the current US administration is rapidly moving from its particularist foreign policy to a more universalist one. Sophists, please note, I said more universalist policy.

Source: The Economist

[b]As Mr Bush said in an interview with African journalists ahead of his trip,

Dunc Dude! (Shabaab!):

Listen up my main man. It’s time for other countries to start putting their money where their mouths are! Yup, you know what I’m sayin! It’s time for countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland to send some troops! Cashola only is a cop out. While the money no doubt funds many worthwhile programs like teaching African farmers how to grow bananas, and don’t we all just love them!!! it’s time to play in the big league. That’s right my head honcho, it’s time to piss in the grass with the big dogs.

Brazil, India, Japan and Germany are all angling for permanent seats on the UN Security Council. You want the honor boys, it’s time to pay the price. Send your troops to LIBERIA Inc. today, right now and have a nice day.

Shazoom, Shazaam AND Shazawwy!

Yes, I agree. These countries need to get their asses in gear. I also believe that the Iraqis would be far more welcoming to a multinational force than a bunch of misled American grunts. They (the grunts) are ill-equipped to deal with the problems they currently face in Iraq. Rummy and Co have seriously failed their “contingency exam”.


What I find disconcerting is Bush’s cavalier attitude of “bring it on” while young men and women soldiers pay the price with their lives in Iraq.

"If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath

I’d live with scarlet Majors at the Base,

And speed glum heroes up the line to death.

You’d see me with my puffy petulant face,

Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel,

Reading the Roll of Honour. `Poor young chap,’

I’d say – `I used to know his father well;

Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap.’

And when the war is done and youth stone dead,

I’d toddle safely home and die – in bed." -props to Mr. S. Sassoon

While each death is one too many, I hardly think that 24 deaths (from shootings) in Iraq since May 1 (that was after all a whole two months ago) means the U.S.-led campaign is failing. In fact, that such news is reported means that for all practical purposes things are going VERY well.

It is hot. 45 degrees and no air conditioning. Hell. Think of what that would do for you. I know people who start bitching and losing their minds when the plane is delayed 2 hours and then of course what do you hear?

I am never flying this airline again. You suck. I will tell all my friends. This is it. I hate you and your organization and will never spend another nickel etc. etc. So if we hear negative things coming out of Iraq, well…

The Kurdish north is fine. The Shiite south is mostly fine and the rest of Iraq will be better once a few more ringleaders and disaffected soliders are “pacified” and a few of the criminals Saddam let lose are rerounded up.

After all, it might be wise to remind the Sunni Center that if the US leaves that means the Kurds and Shiites will be running things and given their treatment of those two groups over the past three decades, who would they really rather deal with?

Let’s wait and see. Two years is my threshold at this point.

Although it really doesn’t have anything to do with the issues, I thought this news photo was too good to pass up: … 4mg7t.html

(Photo will probably disappear from Yahoo’s system after around July 23 2003)

A male government soldier stands guard at the Irongate checkpoint as the U.S. military assessment team are refused passage to enter a refugee camp, in Liberian capital Monrovia Tuesday, July 8, 2003. Many government soldiers wear wigs and female clothes believing it will protect them in battle. The military assessment team turned back after being refused entry. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis)