Bush orders troops into position off coast of Liberia

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-25 11:44am

CNN.com has it on their breaking news ticker. Details to follow. *Sigh* I'm really not enthusiatic about this one.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-07-25 11:49am

What has happened in Liberia lately sums things up quite nicely. People have been bitching about the fact that we havn't sent troops in yet. I guaran-fucking-tee that as soon as our troops are on the ground those same people will be bitchig about hegemonistic America sticking it's hand into African affairs.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-25 11:51am

Like we really need to see those savages dragging more American corpses through the streets. We tried the humantarian approach in Africa, they spit in our faces and we had nothing to tell the parents of those fine young men, nothing to show for it.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-07-25 12:16pm

Stravo wrote:Like we really need to see those savages dragging more American corpses through the streets. We tried the humantarian approach in Africa, they spit in our faces and we had nothing to tell the parents of those fine young men, nothing to show for it.

While I agree the Somali's are fucking savages as it a lot of Africa, does is follow for Liberia? Should'nt we look at it on a case by case basis?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-25 12:19pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Stravo wrote:Like we really need to see those savages dragging more American corpses through the streets. We tried the humantarian approach in Africa, they spit in our faces and we had nothing to tell the parents of those fine young men, nothing to show for it.
While I agree the Somali's are fucking savages as it a lot of Africa, does is follow for Liberia? Should'nt we look at it on a case by case basis?

I've seen the news photos and video, same hoodlums running around with RPG's in the streets, dead bodies littered everywhere and gunmen running among the civilians.

Trust me, the moment an American soldier kills a civilian all that good will vanishes like so much smoke and we'll be the Imperialist aggressor again.

I say keep our military out of humanatrian missions and get to kicking more terrorist ass and securing American vital interests. Humantarian missions are what UN peacekeepers are for.

Guess it says alot about peacekeepers when they demand anything BUT peacekeepers.

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2003-07-25 12:37pm

this is what the bbc says about it

US President George W Bush has ordered American warships to deploy off the coast of Liberia to support a peacekeeping mission in the war-torn country.
A White House statement said the US troops' role would be "limited in time and scope" while United Nations forces deploy to assume "the responsibility for peacekeeping".

The West African regional body, Ecowas, has promised to send more than 1,000 Nigerian peacekeepers into Liberia within a week.

The Liberian capital Monrovia has seen three onslaughts by rebel fighters in the past two months, with several hundred people believed to have been killed in recent days.

The US has been under intense pressure to send peacekeeping troops to Liberia, which was founded by freed American slaves in the 19th Century.

Assault craft

Mr Bush has said Liberian President Charles Taylor must leave before he will put US troops on the ground.

The statement released on Friday did not specify what "appropriate military capabilities" the Pentagon had been told to send to the region.

But a Pentagon spokesman told the Reuters news agency on Thursday that the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima, leading a three-ship group carrying 2,300 Marines, had entered the Mediterranean Sea for possible duty in a Liberia operation.

The White House statement said the overall aim was to allow humanitarian aid back into Monrovia.

"The immediate task of the (West African peacekeeping) force is to reinforce a cease fire and begin to create conditions where humanitarian assistance can be provided to the Liberian people," it said.

People in the capital are enduring a seventh consecutive day of fighting between government and rebel forces, which has led to at least 12 people being killed in heavy shellfire.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-07-25 01:23pm

I think the 'Taylor Must Leave' bit is just a ploy to hold off deployment as long as is humanely possible. Taylor's too afraid to leave until the country's settled down. But meanwhile the death toll mounts, and Bush will look pretty bad(even worse?) if, after invading a country against the will of half the world(the truth, even if one did support the war), he refuses to step in when the country in question is almost unanimously begging him to.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-25 02:41pm

I don't think that we will deploy in that country for a while, because of the catch-22 that exists. Bush won't order the military in until Taylor the Scumbag leaves, but Taylor the Scumbag won't leave until Bush sends the troops. One has to give, and I think the US Military has enough on it's hands that I can safely say if it's going to be anyone, it will be Taylor leaving first.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-07-25 03:07pm

Good.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-25 03:14pm

This isn't new and was announced several days ago. However the ARG's transit time is still about two weeks. In theory by then Nigerian troops should already have arrived and Taylor should have left. I'm not concerned about this turning into a blood bath for America forces, the people really do like America. My only concern is its tying down more resources.

I don't think that we will deploy in that country for a while, because of the catch-22 that exists. Bush won't order the military in until Taylor the Scumbag leaves, but Taylor the Scumbag won't leave until Bush sends the troops. One has to give, and I think the US Military has enough on it's hands that I can safely say if it's going to be anyone, it will be Taylor leaving first.

Actually no. Taylor never said US troops where required for him to leave, and Nigeria has agreed to send a battalion within the next couple days. Once it arrives Taylor would go to Nigeria, which has also agreed to accept him.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-25 04:01pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Actually no. Taylor never said US troops where required for him to leave, and Nigeria has agreed to send a battalion within the next couple days. Once it arrives Taylor would go to Nigeria, which has also agreed to accept him.

Certain? I seem to remember hearing that Taylor would accept exile if the US sent troops to suppress the rebels, but not before.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-07-25 04:11pm

Peace keeping in Africa... that we should be so lucky as Sisiphus.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-07-25 04:14pm

HemlockGrey wrote:I think the 'Taylor Must Leave' bit is just a ploy to hold off deployment as long as is humanely possible. Taylor's too afraid to leave until the country's settled down. But meanwhile the death toll mounts, and Bush will look pretty bad(even worse?) if, after invading a country against the will of half the world(the truth, even if one did support the war), he refuses to step in when the country in question is almost unanimously begging him to.

Actually, I can see a really good reason for the Taylor must leave part. Taylor's a scumbag every bit as bad as the rebels and we don't want to support him. The idea is to leave a country that's at least functional and stable behind. Not send our guys to die for a third world butcher against other third world butchers.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-07-26 12:02am

BTW, I meant to say 'humanly possible' not 'humanely possible'.

But Storm, Taylor has agreed to step down if Bush intervenes. And Taylor would have to be an idiot to practically invite the US Army into his country and then refuse to follow through.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-26 12:09am

HemlockGrey wrote:BTW, I meant to say 'humanly possible' not 'humanely possible'.

But Storm, Taylor has agreed to step down if Bush intervenes. And Taylor would have to be an idiot to practically invite the US Army into his country and then refuse to follow through.

And forcefully removing him would create yet another political problem for the Bush Administration while gaining nothing for the US.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-07-26 05:40pm

HemlockGrey wrote:BTW, I meant to say 'humanly possible' not 'humanely possible'.

But Storm, Taylor has agreed to step down if Bush intervenes. And Taylor would have to be an idiot to practically invite the US Army into his country and then refuse to follow through.

He is an African Leader. Idiot is a requirement for the job.

And it still leaves the enormous problem with both sides being utter scum and more than likely willing to shoot at us should we try to do anything to clean up the situation. This is no clear cut situation and I can understand why Bush would be reluctant to get involved in an African civil war under the circumstance.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-07-27 08:48pm

The big thing is - why SHOULDN'T the US intervene?

You [Stravo] say that they're savages with no respect, and cite Somalia as an example?

In Somalia a lot of the population was on the side of the US and the UN, same in Liberia - or did you miss the fact that there are tens of thousands of innocents holed up in Liberia desperately waiting for SOME help? Yes a UN peacekeeping force is on the way, but whats to stop the US from giving troops to that force, or is your entire nation still in a hissy fit with the UN? You seem to think that the US should be able to intervene wherever it damn well wants militarily [Afghanistan & Iraq], but also completely ignore the requests of every other goddamn nation in the world when they ask for a little help, even when the rest of the world supports them in that request.

Liberia is a fucking mess, but surely you should get out of your armchair, stop watching CNN and FOX and think for yourself - is it worth letting tens of thousands more die, just so you don't have to risk having one of your own soldiers killed? The Nigerians and others are going in - why not the US?

And before you come back and say: "Why not Australia?" we've kind of got our hands full between: Iraq, East Timor, Solomon Islands, Afghanistan [unofficially] and several long term peacekeeping ops.

So the basis of your argument would seem to be that a US life is worth far more than an African life - in that case, fuck you. If not, please explain why the US shouldn't fully support such an operation. Yes, they gave 10 million in "military aid" to the force - 10 million, its fucking laughable, the most token fucking gesture I've ever seen, thats barely enough to run a peacekeeping force for a day, let alone a long term op...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-27 08:54pm

Liberia is a fucking mess, but surely you should get out of your armchair, stop watching CNN and FOX and think for yourself - is it worth letting tens of thousands more die, just so you don't have to risk having one of your own soldiers killed? The Nigerians and others are going in - why not the US?

Because getting involved in another war is not in the best interests of the United States at the moment.

And why the obsession with Liberia, Ando? There are thousands of people suffering in the Congo, as well. Liberian life worth more than a Congolese life?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-07-27 08:58pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Liberia is a fucking mess, but surely you should get out of your armchair, stop watching CNN and FOX and think for yourself - is it worth letting tens of thousands more die, just so you don't have to risk having one of your own soldiers killed? The Nigerians and others are going in - why not the US?
Because getting involved in another war is not in the best interests of the United States at the moment.

The American people are aware they exist in a world with a number of other nations, correct? Worldwide stability is in everyone's best interests.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-27 09:00pm

The situation in Liberia will not result in worldwide instability.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-07-27 09:02pm

Durran Korr wrote:The situation in Liberia will not result in worldwide instability.

You're right, worldwide instability is already here. The point I am attempting to make is Americans must wake up to the fact that if the world is to become less unstable, effort must be expended on places that don't have, for example, oil, or major political gains.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-07-27 09:10pm

weemadando wrote:The big thing is - why SHOULDN'T the US intervene?

Few good reasons:

1) In all likelyhood it'll do no good. Africa is a perpetuale shithole and most people have the common sense to realize it. The fact that we'd be spending American lives to do no good is not going to sit well.

2) We don't have the troops to send them into yet another opened clusterfuck. Like it or not we don't have much of anything for ready to deploy anywhere.

3) The fact that both sides are equally responsible for atrocities. We'd in all likelyhood have both sides after us and it'd take years to scour them out.

That isn't to say we shouldn't intervene but it's very good reasons to pause and give things some serious thought. There's little chance we can do any good and the potential for a lot of lost lives. It's a tough justification.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-27 09:12pm

And what makes you think that the consequences of such a war won't be the replacement of one tinpot dictator with another? I find it immensely ironic that many of the same people here and elsewhere who harp endlessly on the negative consequences of American foreign policy are sounding the war drums the loudest on Liberian. Any gain in worldwide stability, from the perspective of the U.S., will be offset by the consequences of deploying troops to yet another foreign war when we're still paying heavily for the last one.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-27 09:25pm

weemadando wrote:The big thing is - why SHOULDN'T the US intervene?

Because 2/3s of the US military is already deployed and the other third is needed to replace them. The British went into Sierra Leone expecting a short deployment, it's been a couple years now, the country is still requiring a divisional sized garrison and the UK is running the government with no exit strategy. Liberia is a bigger nation and stands a good chance of being the same story.

I suggest you complain to the PRC, it has good relations with many African nations and more then four times as many ground troops as the US with basically zero overseas commitments for them.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-07-27 09:44pm

Durran Korr wrote:
And why the obsession with Liberia, Ando? There are thousands of people suffering in the Congo, as well. Liberian life worth more than a Congolese life?

If you look back through the archives you'll see that I made a similar argument about the Congo months ago and got similar responses.

Liberia is the topic, so I made a point - and you never answered, is an American life worth so much that you are willing to ignore the problems in Liberia and the Congo in case you hear that there was a casualty on CNN?