Should the US intervene in Liberia?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Opinions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether the United States should intervene in Liberia, exploring various perspectives on military involvement, diplomatic solutions, and the role of the UN. Participants examine the implications of intervention, the potential consequences of supporting different factions, and the broader responsibilities of the US as a global leader.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the US should not act as the world's police and that there is no national interest in Liberia.
  • Others suggest that diplomatic efforts could be a viable alternative to military intervention, proposing meetings between diplomats and local leaders.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential consequences of removing the Liberian dictator and replacing him with rebels who may be equally problematic.
  • Some participants emphasize the need for the US to set a good example and avoid repeated military actions.
  • There is a viewpoint that the US has a moral obligation to intervene in situations where it can make a difference, particularly in unstable regions that may foster terrorism.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of the UN in handling conflicts, suggesting that the US may need to take action regardless of UN involvement.
  • Some argue that the US military presence could stabilize the region and prevent further conflict.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on whether the US should intervene in Liberia. Some support diplomatic solutions, while others advocate for military action or express skepticism about the UN's capabilities. Disagreements persist regarding the implications of intervention and the responsibilities of the US as a global leader.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions about the effectiveness of military versus diplomatic approaches, the role of the UN, and the historical context of Liberia's formation. There are unresolved questions about the potential outcomes of intervention and the complexities of the local political landscape.

  • #31
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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!)
 
  • #33
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 a lot of people).
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed073103b.cfm 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:
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
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
I think he needs to be put on the state depts. list of terrorist collaberators.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
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?
 
  • #37
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.
 
  • #38
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?
 
  • #39
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?
 
  • #40
I guess this whole discussion is moot...the Marines are going in.
 
  • #41
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
 
  • #42
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.
 
  • #43
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.
 
  • #44
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.
 
  • #45
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?
 
  • #46
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)
 
  • #47
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
 
  • #48
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?!?
 
  • #49
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?
 
  • #50
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.
 
  • #51
its definitely religious, maybe more like simply trying to destroy the western religions by causing the west to fall, or at least suffer.
 

Similar threads

News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News Yemen's Unraveling: US Surprised by Collapse of Govt
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
News Why is the US ignoring the violence in Syria while intervening in Libya?
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
23K
News Public opinion regarding US Gun laws.
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
Is a noninterventionist policy viable for the US?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
News Should the US drunk-driving threshold be lowered?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?
  • · Replies 298 ·
10
Replies
298
Views
74K
News Was Defense a lie during the Cold War?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
News Should the World Intervene in North Korea?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the Media Neglecting to Report Iraqi Insurgent Casualties?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K