Liberia Calls

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-03 01:05pm

Oberleutnant wrote: Actually, they could do it. Kongo operation was initiated after two weeks the idea of sending a EU force to Kongo was suggested by Javier Solana. .

Wow, two whole weeks? You could send the troops by ship in that time, the RRF is suppose to be able to move the first division in 96 hours. Course that's impossible without the gold plated A400M paper plane of doom and will remain dubious with it.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-03 01:07pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Oberleutnant wrote: Actually, they could do it. Kongo operation was initiated after two weeks the idea of sending a EU force to Kongo was suggested by Javier Solana. .
Wow, two whole weeks? You could send the troops by ship in that time, the RRF is suppose to be able to move the first division in 96 hours. Course that's impossible without the gold plated A400M paper plane of doom and will remain dubious with it.

Damnit SKimmer, where do you come up with this shit?

For some reason I get a kick out of watching other militaries get the shit kicked out of them.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-07-03 01:11pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Oberleutnant wrote: Actually, they could do it. Kongo operation was initiated after two weeks the idea of sending a EU force to Kongo was suggested by Javier Solana. .
Wow, two whole weeks? You could send the troops by ship in that time, the RRF is suppose to be able to move the first division in 96 hours. Course that's impossible without the gold plated A400M paper plane of doom and will remain dubious with it.

You're assuming they were in full readiness, eagerly waiting for Annan's approval, or that they were in a big hurry to get there ASAP. I don't believe that was the case.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-03 01:19pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Oberleutnant wrote: Actually, they could do it. Kongo operation was initiated after two weeks the idea of sending a EU force to Kongo was suggested by Javier Solana. .
Wow, two whole weeks? You could send the troops by ship in that time, the RRF is suppose to be able to move the first division in 96 hours. Course that's impossible without the gold plated A400M paper plane of doom and will remain dubious with it.
You're assuming they were in full readiness, eagerly waiting for Annan's approval, or that they were in a big hurry to get there ASAP. I don't believe that was the case.

Olrik, isn't the whole point of a rapid reaction force to be ready to go at all times??

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-07-03 02:13pm

Stravo wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Wow, two whole weeks? You could send the troops by ship in that time, the RRF is suppose to be able to move the first division in 96 hours. Course that's impossible without the gold plated A400M paper plane of doom and will remain dubious with it.
You're assuming they were in full readiness, eagerly waiting for Annan's approval, or that they were in a big hurry to get there ASAP. I don't believe that was the case.
Olrik, isn't the whole point of a rapid reaction force to be ready to go at all times??

As Olrik said, they were not in a hurry to get there. The decision to send troops was made on June 4. Operation Artemis began on June 12 when the first first troops arrived to Congo. Considering that this is the second EU military mission ever, I think they acted quickly enough.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-07-03 09:57pm

Well you now that the US will be pressured to intervene due to our moral obligations as the world's superpower to right the wrong and protect human rights and so on....

....the second the first US soldier puts a boot on Liberian soil these same clotheads will immediately scream and howl, "Imperialists! Colonialists! Militaristic evil America taking over the world, oh, the humanity!"

That said, I actually have to agree that it is a good and just mission that may finally stop up the endless cycles of wars that have wracked the area. The human rights violations-- the mutilations-- are reason enough.

If the rest of the world whines and cries after pushing us to get involved, well, then the little backstabbers can kiss my butt-pucker for all I care. It's the right thing to do and they'll have no legit cause to bitch.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-07-03 10:32pm

Agreed, it is the right thing to do. We should, when able, help others to shirk the ravages of war and strife. Besides, politicaly, its nice to tell some lefties that we helped them and they didn't have any oil, so STFU. But thats just the cherry on top, helping those who need help is good enough for me.

Even just a MEU would be benificial for Libera at this point. I don't think it would be a large commitment nor would it take decades. Hell, pull the fuckers out of Korea and put them in Africa. (only half serious).

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-04 12:13am

....the second the first US soldier puts a boot on Liberian soil these same clotheads will immediately scream and howl, "Imperialists! Colonialists! Militaristic evil America taking over the world, oh, the humanity!"

No, the Liberians will certainly appreciate our help if we go through with it, you can count on that. That won't stop the rest of the world from spouting the typical anti-American line.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-07-04 12:35am

We should get involved. First, the U.S. does not have a very good international reputation right now. Many countries are accusing us of ignoring international law and using our military for purely selfish and political ends. Many people believe our invasion of Iraq was unlawful and unwarranted and immoral. Whether this is true is not really the issue; many, many people around the world believe it. Going into Liberia at the Liberians' invitation with the full backing of the U.N. and world community might do much to improve our reputation and diplomatic standing, which would help our interests.

Second, Bush needs some credibility. He went into Iraq on very flimsy grounds. The WMD have yet to turn up, and the administration has been emphasizing the humanitarian reasons for removing Saddam. Lately it seems that the Human Rights issue was one of the chief reasons for going into Iraq. Whenever anyone defends the action they almost always talk about how much the Iraqis were suffering under Saddam. So now we have another nation suffering terribly, and, unlike the Iraqis, they have asked for our help. How can we use humanitarianism as a justification for going into Iraq and then ignore this situation? If we do not send at least a token force then Bush and our country will lose all credibility and any claim to a moral high ground.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2003-07-06 04:15pm

I approve of an entry into Liberia. Think about it when the International community connects "U.S." and humanitarian aid, the wonders it will do for our public image!

On the domestic frontier, it would certainly help the Bushies and the right wing- which is actually a good thing on this subject. It's about time someone showed conclusively that you build a successful society off a rule of law, viable economy, and a democratic civil sector, not off love power and photo-ops.

Of course, you could take this as evidence against bush, but anyways . . . we should go in.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-06 04:47pm

Liberia does have a humanitarian crisis right now, one that needs to be dealt with. After all, I remember people going on non-stop about how Iraq was a humanitarian crisis under a blood soaked dictator with innocents being slaughtered et cetera et cetera (I'm one of them and I actually mean it). Liberia has much of the same problems and could really us a military force intervening in it.

What strikes me as funny though, looking at all the various boards I poke around on, is that the the same extreme Right Wingers who were screaming that the war in Iraq wasn't about oil or anything like that but was rather a solely humanitarian thing to liberate a people who were wracked with Horrible Atrocities now are turning their nose to Liberia and going "What do we care? America isn't the worlds policemen, we have no obligation to help anyone." If we had a moral obligation then, why not now?

Post by **Steve** » 2003-07-06 06:36pm

There are many fools in the world, Gil.

Aiding Liberia, a country we created and protected for so long, is our duty as a nation.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-06 07:14pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
What strikes me as funny though, looking at all the various boards I poke around on, is that the the same extreme Right Wingers who were screaming that the war in Iraq wasn't about oil or anything like that but was rather a solely humanitarian thing to liberate a people who were wracked with Horrible Atrocities now are turning their nose to Liberia and going "What do we care? America isn't the worlds policemen, we have no obligation to help anyone." If we had a moral obligation then, why not now?

Perhaps because a state of war and an active armed conflict don't exist between the US and Liberia.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-06 07:47pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Perhaps because a state of war and an active armed conflict don't exist between the US and Liberia.

First of all, no state of war was ever declared between Iraq and the United States, but that is largely irrelevant. The point is that these people were claiming that they thought that Iraq should be invaded because it was a humanitarian crisis and there is a moral obligation et cetera et cetera above all else, but now that another one comes along, one without all the other obvious ulterior motives that they claimed were of no consequence (sometimes retroactively, in the case of the WMD), they turn their nose to it and suddenly it's none of our concern.

The worst thing you can do on political issues is be consistant, I guess, but it's still rotten.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-06 07:49pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: First of all, no state of war was ever declared between Iraq and the United States, but that is largely irrelevant.

And yet a US general was able to sign a cease-fire which was then broken. Kind of tricky to do that without a state of war existing for you to end.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-06 07:51pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:And yet a US general was able to sign a cease-fire which was then broken. Kind of tricky to do that without a state of war existing for you to end.

So tell me, when exactly did Congress convene to declare war on Iraq? Last I checked the Gulf War was by UN Coalition, not an US action. But as I said, that is irrelevant to what I was talking about.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-06 07:53pm

You're attacking a strawman. I doubt whether any SDNet right wingers really advocated the Iraq war on a solely humanitarian basis; I certainly didn't, at any rate, and most of the other pro-war folks I know usually appealed to many reasons, i.e. U.S. interests in the region, neither excluding humanitarian reasons or relying solely upon them for justification.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-06 08:05pm

Durran Korr wrote:You're attacking a strawman. I doubt whether any SDNet right wingers really advocated the Iraq war on a solely humanitarian basis; I certainly didn't, at any rate, and most of the other pro-war folks I know usually appealed to many reasons, i.e. U.S. interests in the region, neither excluding humanitarian reasons or relying solely upon them for justification.

First of all, actually read what I said originally. Particularly "...looking at all the various boards I poke around on,.." This wasn't exclusive to SD.net.

Secondly, you may not have, but there are plenty of people who have. Or rather, eventually settled on the humanitarian issue, but not before making claims like we should have attacked them because they were involved in 9/11 (proven false), then moved on to claiming that Iraq was building ten gazillion tons of Killer Super Ultra Biochemical Weapons of Death (still haven't found the stuff, though some of it is still probably out there), plus a whole bunch of other things, before deciding that they didn't care about all of that stuff retroactively and claiming that they really only cared about the poor ickle childrens of Iraq under the boot of Saddam, which is likely the only good reason they had to begin with. But most were all very careful to say that it had nothing to do with us wanting Iraq more for it's strategic value and being an oil source that isn't under OPEC. You can't possibly claim that people haven't done what I've described, either.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-07-06 09:08pm

I had many reasons for supporting the Iraq war, and both humanitarian and oil reasons were included-- it's not like it has to be one or the other, you can legitimately support both as correct courses of action.

I also support going into Liberia, for humanitarian reasons as well as others: the PR boost is good; it will continue to rattle tyrants around the world; and bearing in mind that much of the recent African strife has been stirred by Libyan agents (although I don't know if the Liberian situation is directly influenced by Libya) it continues the war against terrorism and extremism.

My only thought is that, I guarantee it, the minute we step in there the exact same people screeching for us to get involved will turn on us, and while I could give a shit we should be prepared, psychologically, to deal with that betrayal.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-07-06 11:03pm

I agree with Coyote.