News Liberia - your opinions

GENIERE

Are you implying that the nations supporting the coalition did so for financial gain? I'm sure they acted in response to what they believed was he right thing to do. Do you have a low opinion of any country acting in opposition to your views?
 

Zero

Originally posted by GENIERE
Are you implying that the nations supporting the coalition did so for financial gain? I'm sure they acted in response to what they believed was he right thing to do. Do you have a low opinion of any country acting in opposition to your views?
No, but I have a low opinion on a country using coersion and bribery to creat a coalition, especially in the face of worldwide protest.
 
Originally posted by GENIERE
Are you implying that the nations supporting the coalition did so for financial gain? I'm sure they acted in response to what they believed was he right thing to do. Do you have a low opinion of any country acting in opposition to your views?
No need to imply the 'truth'.

As for replacing it, your 'trite' answer Implies that it should be removed from existence, simply to be brought back out into existence, under some other name? as in an "Anything would be better League" cause if you cannot make this type of system work, don't think your going to find much else, as there isn't really alot of manners of operation, of such ventures.

You list 50 'participants', what percentage of the Worlds population does that 'fifty' really represent? Out of how many nations in the World??
 

kat

12
0
Wasn't this thread about Liberia?

I think it's important that we lead in doing SOMETHING to help Liberia. I'm not sure what..but I see this area of the country becoming another area of fundamentalist fanatacism. On the other hand spreading yourself to thin results in lots of attempts and an equal amount of failures. It is obvious by this thread, however, that we ignore this portion of the world..the situation is far more dire then israeli/palestinian yet discussion specificly in regards to liberia fills less then a page....
 

Zero

Originally posted by kat
Wasn't this thread about Liberia?

I think it's important that we lead in doing SOMETHING to help Liberia. I'm not sure what..but I see this area of the country becoming another area of fundamentalist fanatacism. On the other hand spreading yourself to thin results in lots of attempts and an equal amount of failures. It is obvious by this thread, however, that we ignore this portion of the world..the situation is far more dire then israeli/palestinian yet discussion specificly in regards to liberia fills less then a page....
Uh huh...most of what I know about Liberia is that it's government is propped up by American Christian fundamentalists.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...most of what I know about Liberia is that it's government is propped up by American Christian fundamentalists.
You know..I've never heard this nor, after much searching, can I find anything even remotely pointing to this, can you post a link, reference, anything?
 
Heck! you oughta try living my life. My recent highlight is that I have been getting to watch some television for the last couple of days, first time in 'bout a month.

Liberia, wheres that?
(it's sorta humor!)
 

Zero

Originally posted by kat
You know..I've never heard this nor, after much searching, can I find anything even remotely pointing to this, can you post a link, reference, anything?
Hmmm...on reflection, I should have said 'certain fundamentalists'. Pat Robertson and his '700 club' crew(Which is alot of people).
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed073103b.cfm [Broken] but Robertson has been a vocal supporter(and business partner) of Charles Taylor and his regime for quite a few years, and you know as well as I do, where Pat leads, the brainwashed masses follow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,828
5,016
Thats still pretty thin, Zero. Second-hand statements by someone who regardless of poularity in some places is generally considered to be on the fringe. Also, the words "propped up" imply tangeable support, IE, political, economic, or military aid. Giving a sermon on your tv show doesn't count.
 

kat

12
0
Thanks for the link zero, it's interesting that behind any fanatical movement, be it for whatever belief...the loudest ranter and raver is almost always making a tidy profit.(although I would point out that he seems to be not only alone on this one but being clearly denounced by other christian organizations who have gone so far as to initiate the ban on the diamond imports etc.) MotherJones has a nice little article about robertson/taylor as well. http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/28/we_477_05.html#three [Broken]
I think he needs to be put on the state depts. list of terrorist collaberators.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats still pretty thin, Zero. Second-hand statements by someone who regardless of poularity in some places is generally considered to be on the fringe. Also, the words "propped up" imply tangeable support, IE, political, economic, or military aid. Giving a sermon on your tv show doesn't count.
So we should ignore the millions Pat has sent over there, and the political power which he wields though his followers?

He's 'fringe' to you because you aren't a religious nutjob...and of course he is 'conservative', so he can't be all bad, right?
 

Zero

Ok, Pat Robertson is now distancing himself from Charles Taylor...of course he smears Clinton and implies his hatred of Muslims in doing so, while claiming a decade of ignorance about Taylor while being business partners with him.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,828
5,016
Originally posted by Zero
So we should ignore the millions Pat has sent over there, and the political power which he wields though his followers?
Where did it say he sent money?
 

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters
Where did it say he sent money?
That wouyld be the business partners bit...pay attention, I know I hop around really fast...



..and why are you sticking up for Pat, anyways? Besides your constant assumption that I am a liar?
 

Zero

I guess this whole discussion is moot...the Marines are going in.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
I guess this whole discussion is moot...the Marines are going in.
Marines are going in? Oh Jeez...I'll be waiting to read the outrage at our invading a democratic country with an elected leader......Yeah, right
 

Zero

Originally posted by kat
Marines are going in? Oh Jeez...I'll be waiting to read the outrage at our invading a democratic country with an elected leader......Yeah, right
What's that supposed to mean?
My 'outrage' is that I'm not sure the U.S. has an exit strategy. Otherwise, you can trust the U.S. to possibly do the right thing if there isn't oil involved. Further, almost everyone on both sides in Liberia wants international intervention, which is different from the Iraq situation.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
What's that supposed to mean?
My 'outrage' is that I'm not sure the U.S. has an exit strategy. Otherwise, you can trust the U.S. to possibly do the right thing if there isn't oil involved. Further, almost everyone on both sides in Liberia wants international intervention, which is different from the Iraq situation.
Hmm, I wasn't actually referring to you Zero. Do I read you clearly though? the difference in why it is okay to invade Liberia and remove an elected official (wasn't this a U.N. supervised election?) is that there is no oil and an overwhelming majority of countries think it that it should be done?
My question would be why, in this case, the international community finds it acceptable to invade this country and in Iraq they found it unacceptable...
The answer obviously isn't because the leader is squelching uprisings in a brutal manner, supporting uprisings against neighboring countries, or because of poverty of the masses and the suffering thats resulted because of it..all of these existed in Iraq......yet, those who had interests in the oil in Iraq ignored the genocide of the marsh Arabs and the Kurds in far greater numbers then those who are being killed in Liberia. Sorry, I just don't get it.
 

Zero

Originally posted by kat
Hmm, I wasn't actually referring to you Zero. Do I read you clearly though? the difference in why it is okay to invade Liberia and remove an elected official (wasn't this a U.N. supervised election?) is that there is no oil and an overwhelming majority of countries think it that it should be done?
My question would be why, in this case, the international community finds it acceptable to invade this country and in Iraq they found it unacceptable...
The answer obviously isn't because the leader is squelching uprisings in a brutal manner, supporting uprisings against neighboring countries, or because of poverty of the masses and the suffering thats resulted because of it..all of these existed in Iraq......yet, those who had interests in the oil in Iraq ignored the genocide of the marsh Arabs and the Kurds in far greater numbers then those who are being killed in Liberia. Sorry, I just don't get it.
No you don't...and I think it would be better served in another thread.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,828
5,016
Good point kat - and though it may not be Zero's opinion, I certainly think that many people chose to ignore the same atrocities in Iraq because of the oil. France and Germany specifically.

So my question is: Why is it ok to go into Liberia (or Somalia or the Ivory Coast for that matter) to remove a bad government or put down an insurrection when its not ok to go into Iraq to remove a bad government?
 

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters
Good point kat - and though it may not be Zero's opinion, I certainly think that many people chose to ignore the same atrocities in Iraq because of the oil. France and Germany specifically.

So my question is: Why is it ok to go into Liberia (or Somalia or the Ivory Coast for that matter) to remove a bad government or put down an insurrection when its not ok to go into Iraq to remove a bad government?
No, it isn't a good point...mostly because of your constant strawman attacks of my position(and the position of many who are not brainwashed by Bush's down-home 'charm')

The truth is, I don't know where to come down on the invasion of Liberia. I haven't heard nearly enough. I would, however, hold it to a similar standard to the one used to suggest postponing and better planning in Iraq:

1) Is there an urgent need to act NOW?
2) Do we have a sound strategy for withdrawl?
3) Do we have the support of the international community?
4) Who is paying for all of it?
5) What are our motives?

Iraq failed on all of those counts. I'll have to do more research on Liberia(this one came out of nowhere, relatively speaking)
 

schwarzchildradius

It seems like an un-necessary entanglement at first glance, and I think that that's how the president sees it also. Remember Somalia - nobody wants a repeat of that miserable nightmare. (Yet Iraq is already worse than that.)
Yet Liberia's flag is a replica of the yankee flag, except with one star. Twas founded by american freed slaves. Certainly we as a nation have a deeper philosophical connection to this nation than Iraq. But the truth is that wars won't be fought for ideals, but for the benefit of a few individuals.
exception: al-qaeda
 

Zero

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
It seems like an un-necessary entanglement at first glance, and I think that that's how the president sees it also. Remember Somalia - nobody wants a repeat of that miserable nightmare. (Yet Iraq is already worse than that.)
Yet Liberia's flag is a replica of the yankee flag, except with one star. Twas founded by american freed slaves. Certainly we as a nation have a deeper philosophical connection to this nation than Iraq. But the truth is that wars won't be fought for ideals, but for the benefit of a few individuals.
exception: al-qaeda
DO you really think al-qaeda was an exception?!?
 

schwarzchildradius

Well, yeah! they're fighting for their twisted religion, correct? (not for money or land or oil) Why else would you destroy the 2000 year old giant Buddhas in your mountains?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,828
5,016
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Well, yeah! they're fighting for their twisted religion, correct? (not for money or land or oil) Why else would you destroy the 2000 year old giant Buddhas in your mountains?
I honestly don't know how to classify Al Queda other than to say they are wacked out of their ghourd. I'd be just as likely to believe mass insanity as religion, power, or greed.
 

Related Threads for: Liberia - your opinions

  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
55
Views
7K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
44
Views
5K
Replies
69
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
66
Views
6K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
8K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top