Liberia

[Charlito Cafe]

Here's a new topic, since we all seem to be talking about the same ones recently.

Click here. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/07/15/liberia/index.html)

Looks like the U.S. hasn't really chosen a side, or become overly involved. Thoughts?

[WithStamin]

Hopefully we don't become too involved. It's a dangerous situation with zero US interest. No reason to risk American lives.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Hopefully we don't become too involved. It's a dangerous situation with zero US interest. No reason to risk American lives.

::cough:: Iraq ::cough::

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Ronin
::cough:: Iraq ::cough:: Except for the safety of our nation? No, there's not any American interest in Iraq. (But let's stay on topic)

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Except for the safety of our nation? No, there's not any American interest in Iraq. (But let's stay on topic)

Did Iraq have ICBM's aimed at the eastern seaboard?

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by Ronin
Did Iraq have ICBM's aimed at the eastern seaboard?

Nope.

So how bout Liberia???? (I'm guessing all threads degenerate into War on Iraq debates eventually, but I'm stalling as long as possible.)

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Nope.

So how bout Liberia???? (I'm guessing all threads degenerate into War on Iraq debates eventually, but I'm stalling as long as possible.)

Good call

My point is that it's hard to point out how Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US. There's been little evidence that Iraq funded terrorist groups operating against the US (though they've clearly funded terrorist groups). Let's say for a second that Iraq DEFINITELY had weapons of mass destruction. Did the government of the US ever find specific plans that detailed the use of such weapons against America? Not to my recollection.

Yes, Saddam hated America, but if hating America is considered a direct threat to national securtiy, you'd better go to war with half of the countries on earth. I'm not sure what "direct" threat Iraq posed.

Liberia, in my opinion, is more of a direct threat. There are Americans there who have been killed and injured in the fighting. If this had happened in the months before the Iraq war, wouldn't Bush have called it a declaration of war?

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by Ronin
Good call

My point is that it's hard to point out how Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US. There's been little evidence that Iraq funded terrorist groups operating against the US (though they've clearly funded terrorist groups). Let's say for a second that Iraq DEFINITELY had weapons of mass destruction. Did the government of the US ever find specific plans that detailed the use of such weapons against America? Not to my recollection.

Yes, Saddam hated America, but if hating America is considered a direct threat to national securtiy, you'd better go to war with half of the countries on earth. I'm not sure what "direct" threat Iraq posed.

Liberia, in my opinion, is more of a direct threat. There are Americans there who have been killed and injured in the fighting. If this had happened in the months before the Iraq war, wouldn't Bush have called it a declaration of war?

Sure, If Bush was consistent with his foreign policy, which of course he's not. Liberia lacks that oh-so-precious natural resource that starts with an 'O' and ends with and 'L'.

[aframedregret]

This conflict Im sorry to express is bullshit to me....It just looks like Bush is doing this to gain the support of African Americans and thats not worth risking the lives of kids like me. Thats not a cause I would be willing to fight for, for someone elses chance to get others to approve him...

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Sure, If Bush was consistent with his foreign policy, which of course he's not. Liberia lacks that oh-so-precious natural resource that starts with an 'O' and ends with and 'L'. I think that main thing that LIberia is lacking is American interest. There is no reason for America to touch the place. It is potentially very dangerous, expensive, and there's no threat to America from Liberia. In Iraq, there was a humanitarian situation that was just as bad. There was also a dictator building WMDs. Now why weren't you liberals trying to get the military involved there? Why Liberia? Is it just your blinding hatred for Bush that's making your decisions for you?

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
I think that main thing that LIberia is lacking is American interest. There is no reason for America to touch the place. It is potentially very dangerous, expensive, and there's no threat to America from Liberia. In Iraq, there was a humanitarian situation that was just as bad. There was also a dictator building WMDs. Now why weren't you liberals trying to get the military involved there? Why Liberia? Is it just your blinding hatred for Bush that's making your decisions for you?

Liberia = peacekeeping mission
Iraq = Invasion

And I said this before somewhere, but Liberia poses (or posed) a greater threat to American lives. Americans had been killed and were trapped in the country.

[open mind]

while it would be a good thing to help out i think that americas forces are already spread out to much to go off on a humanitarian campaign.
but i think america should do something to help the suffering people of liberia,don't know what exactly though.

[.&$]

i say send UN troops to Liberia. let all the nations of the world help ease the situation. not just America. it isnt our sole responsibility to alleviate this situation. but as a member of the collective UN, we do have responsibility to help these people, just not all by ourselves.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by .&$
i say send UN troops to Liberia. let all the nations of the world help ease the situation. not just America. it isnt our sole responsibility to alleviate this situation. but as a member of the collective UN, we do have responsibility to help these people, just not all by ourselves. Has there ever been a UN force that doesn't consist of 90% American troops?

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Has there ever been a UN force that doesn't consist of 90% American troops?

Many.

But yes, US soldiers do constitute a large portion of the troops.

But Liberia is not a large country. If several countries sent small contingents of peacekeepers, I would imagine that would suffice.