A good reason to aid Liberia

Remove all ads!

Warning: This thread might contain material considered offensive by some readers - it deals with a more shadowy side of US foreign policy in west africa in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan and his aidees, some of which nowadays are known under the acronym "neocons".
.
.
.
.
.
.
How comes Liberia fell prey to ruthless bullies like Taylor? And why should the US help? Why the US?

When you help creating a bloody mess it is only adequate to help cleaning it up later.

[ July 26, 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

America Stay Out! (Except of course when we want you in.)

Not really why I'm here though. I'm here to attack the source. It seems to be your favorite and is posted again and again as support for 'the truth.'

Are you familiar with Spinsanity.org? It's job is, "Countering Rhetoric With Reason." Tompaine.com is a frequent visitor on spinsanity. Tompaine.com likes to do things like, oh, make up quotes. It also likes to do things like resort to unfounded criticism of the patriotism of those who disagree with them - truly displaying that neither right nor left has a monopoly on such silliness.

The editor of tompaine.com is a Moyers - related to the Bill Moyers who of course has long been criticized for bias and indeed it is through Bill Moyers that tompaine.com is funded. See, Bill helps make the decisions for the Florence Fund and it is through it that tompaine.com makes its money - indeed, tompaine.com is probably in violation of its own mantra. Tompaine.com is supposedly neutral and "does not engage in partisan politics" (snicker) but that is difficult to make sense of given they regularly spend 6 figures in lobbying efforts - all of them left wing.

There is no doubt it is a heavily biased source that you insist on continuously relying on.

So, I'd ask what your purpose is? If it is to simply preach to those who already agree with you anyways then by all means carry on providing link after link to an admittedly heavily biased source. If it is to actually engage in rational discussion you may have to broaden your mind and seek out news sources that are less biased. I mean, suppose that someone came on here and linked a bunch of Ann Coulter articles as evidence for whatever position that person was supporting - someone would be silly to take anything said there on face value. Likewise, people would be silly to read anything you link to that website without going out and buying a pound of salt first.

Want rational responses? Find rational sources. Want a flame war? Link tompaine.com.

EDIT - oh, and the title of your thread is misleading. It should be something like, "The US has been awful and callous and now they should do something about it." I mean, you're not really going on about why, say the UN, should help Liberia. You aren't mentioning why, say your own nation Germany, should help Liberia. You're not...well, basically you're just saying what the US should do and what the US has done wrong.

[ July 26, 2003, 01:30: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Laches,
this article from a more reliable, politically correct right source, that is by Douglas Farah, Washington Post on June 18, 2000, may perhaps convince you:

Actually I know why I quoted which part fom above's post; to avoid making it too long to digest I left out the other sites I checked before posting this threat.

TomPaine may be a polemic but sometimes that's just what's needed.

There is no denying the fact that for the Reagan administration Liberia's dictator, bastard or not, was just the right man at the right time. You know, the "our bastard" tune. The mob they helped creating with US tax dollars, that is Doe's army of thugs, laid the foundation for todays problems in Liberia. That is my point, nothing more, nothing less.

The US didn't care about their proxies once they weren't longer needed, treating them as expendables. Maybe it's time to change that and to show some gratitude or respect for the people who fought and died for US interests.
America's "afghans" struggled with the soviet empire in the hindukush mountains - they would have deserved some respect and gratitude too, yet they didn't get any - but they are considerably more ill-tempered and passionate to just accept that ...

 

This link, an article from the Congressional Research Service [CRS] Reports Military and National Security, found on FAS-Org, hints on that it is resaonable to assume that US aid for Doe resulted in a partial US responsibility for the mess in Liberia:

Nothing about numbers but still. And the "expendable" comparison isn't that far fetched too. More on the numbers as I find them ...

 

It's funny, I know that y'all cited the US' former involvement with Hussein as evidence of why it shouldn't be in Iraq. Now it is because of the US' past involvement with Liberian dictators that it should go to Liberia? Shouldn't there be inspections or something instead?

Seriously though, what is the point of this? Today the Iwo Jima was dispatched by the US with 2000 marines, 30 choppers, harrier jets etc. Meanwhile the European Command has sent an additonal... 5 troops.

The US has recently given 10 million as an initial payment to support the West African troop deployments of the surrounding nations that are also sending troops.

So, are you really about trying to rally support for intervention by the US in Liberia, something that is currently underway, or is this simply another opportunity to post about how bad the US is.

I mean, given that the US is sending troops and money as we speak, isn't the real question where are you 'peace loving fellas' across the pond and are you really so hard up you can only send 5 people?

No need to answer, I'm well aware what the real purpose was here, and it's time to mosey on I guess.

Edit - Kenya, India, Ghana, and Guinea make up the UN force for the most part btw.

 

Some detail on Reagan & Doe's cooperation:

Some more interesting links on this dark chapter here and here, the latter with this notable part

All spin, no doubt.

 

Oh, one more thing before I move on -- let me clarify -- I'm not saying the US didn't do anything wrong in Liberia in the past. I would support US intervention in Liberia - like is going to happen. That group should stay as long as needed and should listen to the West African nations as well but make sure they don't dominate Liberia.

I'm just kinda pointing out the tediousness of, "Yeah, and 20 years ago the US was bad!' and "I agree, they were really bad!"

At least be honest, if you want a discussion on what should occur in Liberia then make that thread and we can talk about all kinds of things like how many troops are needed, when elections should start, where are the Europeans?, etc. Such a thread probably wouldn't start with a "the US is bad."

I mean, y'all have yet to say one thing about what should be done in Liberia, have you noticed? All you've said is that the US is to blame. It makes your agendas obvious - be honest, (ad hominem alert - hey if ya'll can do it) you don't give a damn about the Liberians except in how they allow you to criticize the US - how else do you explain the lack of any discussion about what should be done and the lack of any discussion about what the Europeans should do?

 

The point is more the lack of consistency in the US policy.
Bush & crew "liberated Iraq" for the sake of humanity to end Saddam's carnage. Well, if you believe that, you have to ask: Then why not Liberia too? Aren't you on the humanity trip?

The reply is that they unfortunately are not. As Krauthammer, a neocon propagandist, said: Liberia is not of US strategic interest. It's merely the point that humanity isn't a criterium in US foreign policy - which is regrettable.
It is a pity the US left tries to instrumentalise this contradiction to pommle Bush.

And I can only repeat my point from above: The US make a mistake forgetting their proxies once they're used up. The US could do a lot of good in Liberia with comparably little effort, after what Liberia did for the US that is just fair.

Yes, that might sound weird to you, but minor countries like Liberia and Afganistan fought the US proxy wars and paid the blood toll in the cold war against communism and other foes, so US soldiers could stay home in safety - maybe it's just time for a little thank for that. The US are in debth there.

 

Whew, you came right out and said it. Your primary concern is attacking the US - not Liberia. Thanks for being blunt.

BTW, the US has sent troops to Liberia. The US promised war unless Taylor was gone and then he agreed to leave. The US promised war in Iraq unless Hussein left and he refused to leave.

Also, clearly the two cases aren't analagous - but again -- THE US SENT TROOPS TODAY. WHAT ARE YOU WHINING ABOUT THE US IS DOING WHAT YOU WANT?

Also, like the quotes in the previous post state this also points out the inconsistency of European nations like Germany and France. What, no post on their inconsistency here? Geeze, I wonder why?

 

Laches - So you agree that the US should send troops to Liberia afterall. Since you agree with Ragusa's point, I guess you just don't like the way he said it? Or is it just that he ain't American enough to point out the obvious inconsistentcies in American policies? Damn those Germans and French anyway. They never want to go along the way the English do. I guess that they must think they are sovereign states and capable of making their own decisions without US "guidance."

I don't think we should send troops at all, IMO. Not that there is anything wrong with both your arguments for US involvement. I'm tired of our guys having to play policeman for the rest of the world. That is, of course, if you believe that is what we are doing. I think the politics are just too murky. It must be those "inconsistencies."

 

I just think it's funny that Ragusa puts a warning in his post, how this material could offend some people, because it shows the shadow side of US foreign policy. Like we didn't already know what was coming.

 

That is the point, I decided that I'll add such a warning to all my future threads dealing in some way with US policy - in order that no one complains later I lured him or her into something they didn't like to read, be it because of me posting it or because of the content.
It's like the Spoiler warning in the game forums: Just don't complain later ...

Other totally non-political threads, like "The evil dentist ..." lack this warning, for exactly that reason - it's safe to read

 

Well, indeed Bush sent troops to Liberia - after beeing tormented with the demand for weeks. I doubt that anyone in the US gvt did it for the reason brought up here.
The ever influential neocons still staunchly oppose the intervention, against state department and some dissenters in the Pentagon - so it is pretty likely this time it's more for national prestige rather than humanity.

"I have nothing of national interest here and still I help ... isn't that idealistic and selfless of me?"

Bush has a damaged reputation to repair. And helping a few poor once ex-slaves can only help to get rid of the silly 16-words-headache and the stench of hegemonia, oil and national interest. Sounds cynical? Well, I'm not alone there - just on washington's level.

The second half, of course, nothing's for free, is the typical UN-bazaar: We aid Liberia and now we expect you UN to help covering our ass in Iraq as we seriously lack troops, experienced peacekeepers and humanitarian expertise to handle security and buildup there.

Right decision, wrong reason - but who could surprise that?

[ July 26, 2003, 13:44: Message edited by: Prozac ]

 

That's precisely it. It isn't surprising to me that STILL he or Prozac haven't bothered to really talk about Liberia and have failed to talk about whether Europe should be involved - they don't give a damn about Liberians they just see this as an opportunity to be critical of the US.

I AM tired of the WAY in which points are argued and not the underlying points. For example, I stated way, way back in at least last Nov. that I was against war in Iraq and explained my reasons:
http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000010#000022

I feel that the Bush administration should be criticized. I stated in another thread a long attack on that administration and encouraged people to vote for whoever has the best opportunity to oust him:
http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000241#000000

So, I'm not against criticisms of Bush or the US for its involvement in Iraq. I AM against hyperbole and ad hominem and general lack of rationality - this includes comparisons to Nazis, fascist states, use of highly biased sources etc.

I AM also tired of obsessive agendas. I did a quick search - Prozac has 51 posts and from my search it appears that 50 of them are criticisms of the US. When I do a search for Ragusa I come back with 128 threads in the Alley and in only ~15 of them did he not have something critical to say of the US. There is a preoccupied obsessiveness with attacking the US that I have now chosen to call people on - for example in a thread about genetically modified jellyfish - Ragusa attacks the US. In a thread about the ozone layer -- Ragusa attacks the US saying it must just be mad at the environment for destroying the Columbia. In a thread about good things America has given the world -- Ragusa posted underground bunkers and mocked the US for being paranoid.

Yes I AM tired of it and I have a few choices - 1) leave, 2) ignore everything they write (which I did for a while) or 3) call them on it.

And it IS NOT because they aren't American. I read with great interest everything joacqin posts about the US because while he is most often critical of the US he doesn't exhibit an obsessive agenda and it is apparent that he has more to talk about than just 'the us is teh suck.' Same story for Viking, for Sprite, Z, Johnny RTFM, Oaz, for....well, for most people. Ragusa says this is his "radio free US" and Prozac says he is here to "educate and teach" us Americans implying a certain superiority - I find that arrogant. EDIT - I'd add BOC as someone I always read with great interest and that I didn't mean to leave anyone out; Yago for example or....

So, I guess the real question is should I just shut up or should I be allowed to call people on it?

[ July 26, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

See it this way Laches: Why the US in Liberia? For a practical reason:
Well, because the brits who intervened in Ivory Coast already are bound in Iraq, the germans in ex-Jugoslavia and Afganistan, the French in ex-Jugoslavia and godforsaken Kongo - and the russians just can't help because they are busy in Chechnya (and frankly, no one wants them).

The US have the capacity, they are the only major power with free capacity and they are, unlike in Iraq, even welcome in Liberia, kind of an advantage for a peacekeeper. Not to mentions the debth for former favours. Reason enough?

You may remember I made some alternative suggestions how to deal with Iraq. About all the stuff the US gvt said it wouldn't work.

Personally I do have an interest in bastards like Taylor to be dealt with, and I think impoving conditions in Liberia is a worthy goal - that's why I support UN and the ICC.
US policy under Bush trampled all the principles of international law in the dirt stampeding forward with his neocon agenda, their 9/11-frenzied country rushing behind him. Take a breath and recap: Only 9/11 enabled Bush to start the Iraq war and Wolfowitz and crew were only waiting for something like that to happen.

Not attacking and not voting pro-US would appease Saddam, mind the Munich treaty. The only thing it might have appeased would have been the US.

Neocons, the guys who tell Bush where these remote places are with these names he can't spell (as if war teaches him geography), promote an american empire, nothing less - and hegemony, even the warmhearted US variant (a lá Iraqi Freedom ), is something dangerous.

The necons are totally persuaded they're on the side of the angels, and they're not very particular in their methods. If ****ing up relations with france, germany and other old friends is the price - so be it. It it's violating international law? They don't care. If poeple in other countries have to die because they are in the way of US national interest? So what?
Their faith in america is astounding - and blueeyed. I don't believe in US exceptionalism.

Along Lord Actons saying: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!" They must be on opium to believe that the US can pursue imperial ventures without beeing corrupted temselves, or that the US can go to wear without beeing brutalised by war. You can't be hegemnon without abusing that hegemonic power.
I can't see a point why the US should be such an exceptional country none of these rules apply. History tells a different story.
There is a word to characterise neocon ambitions: Hubris.

Despite all the good things US policy has done (not for altruistic motives, but anyway) I do not think that the present US are some sort of inherently good and immutably good place. Much less so is a government. This "imperial presidency" especially.

And that's why I speak it out here. Yes, persistently. You have insane and dangerous people in your gvt, I just wanted to let you know.

 

See, ad hominem and hyperbole. The tools of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are also the tools of Ragusa. Note the geography lesson and insanity provocations. It's something that is used to demonize and demean - and then he proclaims, "oh, I'm just trying to let you know." Elsewhere both he and Prozac imply or come right out and say that if you disagree with them you are stupid or naive. That too is a tool used by the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. It are these things that I'm talking about - not the underlying criticisms of the US.

I will admit however though that when 98%+ of Prozac's posts are criticisms of the US and when over 90% of Ragusa's posts are as well it gets to a point where their credibility begins to be undermined imo. I've decided to point it out.

 

Of course you should respond, Laches. That is what this board is all about, IMO at least. But the bashing of France and Germany only makes it appear that the "superior attitude" you are referring to in your post runs both ways.

Some of us in the opposition are mighty sore about the way things are going in this country right now (to say the least). And you may be one of them; you may not. Regardless, taking a stand on the issues and making that stand known and felt is what's important. But the debate shouldn't stop. The stakes are too high.

 

What bashing of Germany and France? Do a search for those words on this forum and you get a small handful. In one of those a moderator closes it and says that he'd leave it as an 'example of stupid Americans.' There is hardly any of that particularly compared to the hundreds of posts by Ragusa for example.

 

For god sakes, you're driving me to the limit Laches.

Well, that stupid line with "ah, look at those cheese eating surrender monkeys in Europe" couldn't last long on a board, which usally forcers to backup statements. So this acid-trip products are not found often here.

But that's not that many Americans often show a dam "holier-than-thou" attitude. In this the continents are pretty equal, I guess.

Well, the faggot who posted that was obviously a complete jerk.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying Yago. But you might want to do a search before you type, you just called Tal a 'faggot.'

And I'd say I'm probably close to gone but this place would likely be better off without me I suppose so *shrug.