Should the US intervene in Liberia?

[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]

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]

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]

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 that's 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 that's 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]

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]

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.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

its definitely religious, maybe more like simply trying to destroy the western religions by causing the west to fall, or at least suffer.