Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Liberia - your opinions

  1. Jul 23, 2003 #1
    Personally I believe we should wait this out and see how it develops. Here are some of the reasons I've been hearing and mostly agree with:

    1. We shouldn't be the worlds police
    2. We have no national interest in Liberia
    3. If we kill the Liberian dictator and install the rebels, they may be just as bad
    4. We shouldn't strech out military to far
    5. In combat we wouldn't be able to pick out allies from the enemies.
    6. There are many other countries that are in the same situation, we can't help them all.
    7. We aren't finished in iraq
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 23, 2003 #2
    I will have to do more research on this topic but here are a few suggestions.

    If we are to try and keep peace and install a government that wont be troublesome and dangerous, then why not send in diplomats? The diplomats should meet with the leaders of the rebels and the current government (seperately) and try to find a peaceful solution. If progress is made, then they could easily move onto the next step: A meeting that has all 3 parties involved. (rebel, diplomats, government officials.) Perhaps there is a way to resolve the matter peacefully and make the tyrant and rebel leaders see reason. To make this plan work though, there would have to be body guards or special operations units with the diplomats to ensure safety of course, but not a full military force, just an escort. Hopefully that would show them that we really do not want a war or a fight and that we merely wish to seek a way to avoid war. And to speak truthfully, another war to remove a tyrant would not look good right now so that gives even more of a reason to do this peacefully.
  4. Jul 23, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well thought out, but I disagree with most of them:

    #1 in principle and in practice. Matter of opinion though.
    #2 is true, but not relevant.
    #3 is true, but thats part of doing a good job - you have to follow through.
    #4 is a real problem right now, but that should be dealt with from the other end of the stick (the blunt end, not the pointy one).
    #5 is true, but its true in a LOT of fights. We deal with it when we have to.
    #6 is true, but its connected to #1 - matter of opinion whether or not we should TRY.
    #7 is true, but just because the fire department is putting out a fire, doesn't mean others won't pop up.

    I think you pretty much hit on all the relevant issues (even the irrelevant ones are relevant insofar as you brought them up), but what it really comes down to is #1 and #6: Are we/should be be the world's police man (or better yet, fire man)? In my opinion, yes. Reasons:

    1. We're the only ones who can.
    2. We're the world leader.
    3. We are morally obligated to.

    Does this mean we should go EVERYWHERE there is a problem? No, but it does mean we should go to a LOT of places. If the problem is bad and we can reasonably fix it (no, it is NOT reasonable to think we could fix North Korea), we should do it.
  5. Jul 23, 2003 #4
    I agree with you completely but I want to point out this: Police don't always use weapons and neither should we, when possible. Being World Leader means you cant go to war repeatedly, you have to show a 'good example' too.
  6. Jul 24, 2003 #5
    I respect your opinion, Greg, but I agree with Russ on this one.

    1. In some situations, we should be. Ever seen Tears of the Sun? It's a great movie. We have the power to contain this will our superior technology and skill.
    2. We don't have an interest, per se, but Liberia was formed by freed slaves from the USA (although it is true that most residents today are indigenous). The capitol, Monrovia, is named after Monroe.
    3. hmm. I don't know about the politics or motivation of it. I don't know who should be installed in power, but taylor obviously can't keep control of Liberia and is wanted for war crimes. I don't see how things could get much worse than they are now.
    4. I really don't think that it will take that large of a force.
    5. If they are a "peacekeeping" (more like peace-getting) force, there aren't really enemies. You just stop whoever starts an attack. Our presence will be a deterrent, as well.

    I'm not going to repeat what Russ, said for the other two points.
  7. Jul 25, 2003 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Agreed, and thats kinda what I meant by "fire man". If we can fix a situation by sheer force of our will (we have enormous political power) then we should try. And clearly its tough to decide when that isn't enough and troops should be deployed. Personally, I think we're well beyond that point with Liberia.
  8. Jul 26, 2003 #7
    All Greg’s points are valid, but should be given short shrift in the strategic planning of our government. The likely breeding grounds for terrorism are those poor countries having an unstable government. This is especially true in Africa, which will likely see a huge growth of the Muslim religion. It is vital that a stable republic replace the existing government. As even the UN seems to want us there, lets jump in. US troops will have a stabilizing effect in neighboring countries as well.
  9. Jul 26, 2003 #8
    I say the UN should handle this themselves. THe US has been doing everything.
  10. Jul 26, 2003 #9
    The UN has proven itself totally inept in political resolutions to any conflict. Let the UN provide the food and health services as it has some ability in that regard. As Tony Blair implied in his recent speech to congress; it seems to be our fate.

    For a young feller, you’re up to late. Go to sleep!
  11. Jul 26, 2003 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I agree wholeheartedly with both statements. That makes it kinda tough, doesn't it?
  12. Jul 26, 2003 #11
    The UN? What UN? They did nothing in the Iraqi conflict. Why should we trust them to deal with this situation properly? Yes, I know it may look bad to other countries but SOMEONE has to do something and it seems the US is the one.

    I agree with you Geniere
  13. Jul 27, 2003 #12
    Even if it was the UN that decided to do something about Liberia, the majority of the UN's forces are made up from US forces anyway (correct me if im wrong) so it wouldnt make much difference, just that the US and its allies will take the blame for anything that goes wrong rather than the UN.
  14. Jul 28, 2003 #13
    True, so I guess the only difference is this: (A) Either the UN gives us support and makes other countries happy or (B) We don't listen to the UN to do the right thing. Sad to say this but I have a feeling the answer is B.
  15. Jul 28, 2003 #14
    Lets see, the Worlds "Police" should have a "Captain/Chief/Comander", just to make certain that they do NOT go to far with their own authority, kinda of how Democracy works, 'Checks and Balances' and all of that kind of stuff, so, reguardless of the UN's percieved history, it's place as "Arbiter of World's Policing Needs" should be respected by all who have agreed (previously, in writting, signed their names to it!) to respect that authority, and the excersize of that Authority.

    Greater certainty of achivement of desired results, in greater numbers/concensus, coupled with better planning.(?) (Hopefully)

    EDIT SP!
  16. Jul 28, 2003 #15
    Yea i agree with that, but what do you do if you have lost faith in the Cheifs ability to make the right decisions and do the right thing?
  17. Jul 28, 2003 #16
  18. Jul 29, 2003 #17
    We should let the UN police us when it basically uses us? We make up most of the UN's forces, as was stated before. And, unless I am mistaken, the UN came from the US. Woodrow Wilson came up with the League of Nations which failed, mostly because the US was a superpower and never joined it, because the US senate voted against it. The League basically became the UN and the UN hasn't done much to help in recent times...can you truthfully say it has?
  19. Jul 29, 2003 #18
    What is the point in voting when almost every country in this alliance has different agendas, just look at the french when it came to the Gulf 2, they where a great help in doing the right thing there.
  20. Jul 29, 2003 #19
    Uhmm, Yes.

    Most of the adherance to the law, that goes on in the world, is volontarily done so, that is how a "Just Society" maintains it's right to act with authority, by upholding and maintaining the Rule of Law.

    The constraints of getting consensus, have balanced realities, inasmuch as, it doesn't allways work out as fast, or as well, as we can idealistically think it should, but that does not mean that it doesn't work at all.

    Personally, I prefer that the "Rule of the World" is done by consensus of opinion, amongst NationS.

    Safer, and more democratic, that way.
  21. Jul 30, 2003 #20
    The UN did crap for the Iraqi conflict, and they have not been supportive in many recent issues. You say yes because...what?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook