I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Hey, right now Uday and Qusay are propped up in a tent in Iraq, on display for reporters.
So don't tell me we don't have "moral clarity".
We had to liberate the Iraqi from Saddam's tyranny right now but with Liberia we can take the time to scratch our heads and ponder whether or not it's worth doing.
Bush won't commit US troops to a peacekeeping mission in Liberia because (1) "peacekeeping" is ideological anathema to Bush's political base, and (2) he would have to commit troops as part of a multi-lateral force, also anathema to his base. Do a Google search on "The Citizen Soldier Protection Act of 2000" and see how many GOP fruitcakes co-sponsored this piece of artwork. (Tom Delay was a primary co-sponsor.) Some day I'll get around to writing something about the sorry case of SPC Michael G. New, and all the GOP fruitcakes who actively supported this soldier who refused to obey a deployment order - a tad more serious than the bitching in the ranks that they're so upset about now.
Bush can't commit troops because there are literally no troops available. I was sorta surprised he could scrounge up a Marine platoon to reinforce the embassy detail.
There was a juicy comment regarding the exhibition of Uday and Odelay from a Pentagon soldier who said there were a lot of uniformed types in the building whom he figured thought that this display was no better than dragging Americans through the streets of Mogidishu. See, these guys are believing that there will come a time when American dead are desecrated in retribution.
"See, these guys are believing that there will come a time when American dead are desecrated in retribution."
At Friday prayers in Falluja, west of Baghdad, angry Muslims said the bloodshed would go on until the Americans left.
''I don't understand why the Americans say it is the former Baath Party people who are killing their soldiers. All Iraqis want to kill the Americans because of the way they act,'' said shopkeeper Muhammad Abbas.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/Famulus...asp?
reg=MIDEAST
Fox will tell you they love us down there.
a
"Offical decisions are as shy as little girls."
Franz Kafka's "The Castle"
Bush doesn't really intend on helping Liberia. This is a token effort to momentarily divert attention away from Iraq. How do I know? I don't. But his behavior thus far argues against any sincerity this particular effort. Call it a hunch.
yes John, what exactly can we expect from troops ON A BOAT???
all i hear from people-'well, it's a french colony, why aren't THEY doing anything.'
could we get a little edjumication here??? maybe a history lesson?
Liberty-liberia?
If we should go into Liberia, why is it that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, where we had at least an argument for strategical interests as well as a humanitarian issue?
Then again, I've already seen people write that Bush won't go into Liberia because there's no oil, and then an article saying Bush has oil interests in Liberia. Everything's just got to be a conspiracy, doesn't it?
It almost sounds like one of those hypothetical situations.
"I'm against using American troops for peacekeeping."
"But what if it were a country with historical ties to the US and there were more deaths every day, and the people were begging for our help and the UN asked us to go in and other nations had already promised troops and the dictator offered to step down if we went in and the rebels promised to cooperate with the peacekeepers, THEN would you send in troops?"
Well, George, would you?
Charles Taylor has been implicated in various diamond-smuggling and money laundering schemes involving Al Qaeda. I honestly don't understand why we didn't seize on the war crimes charge and spirit him to Sierra Leone months ago.
I suppose that would involve actually going after Al Qaeda, though, which is obviously not a major priority of this Administration at this time.
the only reason for the adventure in liberia is to make a halfa--ed attempt to stablize the african west coast for further oil and diamond consumption. thnk gawd almight that tom delay is spreading the gospel of racist crusade to the bros in israel.
IRAQ US UK
Total 239 44
casualties
And hundreds of wounded soldiers.
And thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis.
And millions and millions of dollars.
I repeat a theme from up thread: regardless of "moral clarity," conspiracy theories, whatever, we don't have the troops. Take a look at Steve Gilliard's piece on staffing levels over at Kos. In order to do any significant rotation of the troops in Iraq, we are going to have to reach deep into the Guard and reserves, and this is not going to go over well. There will be a political price for over-deploying these folks.
I don't know what the right thing to do is. We have turned our back on African atrocities so often that we have no credibility on the continent, but it also seems to me that we do not gain credibility by taking a scattershot approach to humanitarian intervention based on US self-interest alone. We (as in US alone or with UN or Nato) have a demonstrably shitty record at nation building (Afghanistan, anyone? All we've managed in the Balkans is to keep the sides apart, those aren't going to be stable democracies in my lifetime,) but the situation in Liberia seems like it could be sorted out with UN help, the leadership of Kofi Annan, as an African, would give an effort there some credibility. I dunno.
They need a mission, and it needs
to be specific.
Worst case senario, all US troops
are killed, what then?
Pat Robertson and Charles Taylor are business partners.
The business is blood diamonds.
This is why the fratboy coward is unwilling to intervene.
Talking about moral clarity:
Want to make the World a safer place? Answer the following ten trivia questions and take a Valium!
Which country has:
1.charged activists with subversion for using the Internet to promote causes ranging from political change to worker rights.
2.required Internet service providers to use only domestic media news postings, to record information useful for tracking users and their viewing habits, to install software capable of copying e-mails, and to immediately end transmission of so-called subversive material.
3. required foreign television outlets to use a permanent "rebroadcast platform" to distribute their channels, thus enhancing official censorship capabilities.
4.sentenced ·· ···· and ···· ··, members of the banned ···· ······· Party, to eleven- and ten-year terms, respectively, on subversion charges for supporting striking workers.
5. allowed 70 percent of criminal defendants that were not represented, a reflection of lawyers' fears that such cases jeopardized their livelihoods and freedom. Lawyers working on civil cases also faced repression
6.allowed torture and ill-treatment to continue to be widespread and is reported in many state institutions as well as in workplaces and homes. Victims of torture include people detained on suspicion of criminal and political offences, bystanders at protests, migrant workers, vagrants and women suspected of prostitution. Common methods of torture include kicking, beating, electric
shocks, suspension by the arms, shackling in painful positions, and sleep and food deprivation.
7.sent dissidents off to so-called re-education and slave labor camps.
8.smashed religious sites and arrests the clergy of those faiths that refuse to submit to the state.
9.In 1996 Amnesty International recorded over 6,100 death sentences and 4,367 confirmed executions in ····. A total of 424 death sentences with a two year reprieve were recorded. These figures, which broke all records since 1983, are based only on public reports, and are believed to fall far short of the reality.
10.Damn, still looking for more…?
Does it qualify for regime change? Not according to our neo-con regime changers! Sadly it’s not Iraq, it’s our preferred trade partner “China”!
Love, Orestes
PS If in need of sources, ask and I’ll deliver!
It seems to me that Bush almost has to commit troops to Liberia to save what little credibility is left on the international front. Since the WMD's are no where to be found in Iraq, the administration has tried hard to sell the idea that freeing the Iraqi people was the true objective. In order to dispell the idea that Iraq is about oil, Bush has to make a half-hearted attempt to help Liberia even though it would seem like America has little interest in the matter. Remember he is a Christian president who is driven by conviction and priciples. Right? (No double entendre intended)
The BBC's Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says part of the problem for the Bush administration has been devising some sort of mission that could achieve clear goals but still be limited.
And we wonder why the situation in Iraq is not under control?
Tell me again about Bush's competence to be president.
Does anyone have the goods on what the Carlyle Group's footprint in Iraq is?
This is an outfit that thrives on "privatization" of public services. It is very hard to see how appointing Baker is anything but a huge conflict of interest.
If we should go into Liberia, why is it that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, where we had at least an argument for strategical interests as well as a humanitarian issue?
I'm curious what the strategical [sic] interests we had in Iraq. Further, you don't think that being asked to intervene, and supported by the world community (including pretty much all our allies), is a bit different than a unilateral (don't tell me there's a coalition) invasion?
That said, I'll repeat what I said during the first Liberia thread from a couple weeks ago: I don't think we should be militarily involved in either case.
Jesse: Whaddup, sapphire.
Internet Lawyer | 07.25.03 - 9:41 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
My main spoolie.
Internet Lawyer | 07.25.03 - 9:42 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
my jivin' jason.
Internet Lawyer | 07.25.03 - 9:42 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
you is my biscuit.
Internet Lawyer | 07.25.03 - 9:43 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
shonuff.
Internet Lawyer | 07.25.03 - 9:43 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
yo sho am sweet, um um, jesse.
Internet Lawyer | 07.25.03 - 9:44 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
you better stay away from that affirmative action: it's bad for you, boy.
Internet Lawyer | 07.25.03 - 9:44 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
a'hm sayin' swath-a-mo, lame.
Internet Lawyer | 07.25.03 - 9:45 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
"it am da hankie ! it am da hankie !"
jesse, playin' othello
Internet Lawyer | 07.25.03 - 9:47 pm | #
Why isn't anyone asking if we have a plan? Do we have an exit strategy? Why is there a double standard with Liberia?
They should already be making a plan, and an exit strategy.
That's the point.
Someone better check out how Clinton handled a chance for peace during his admin.
I gather the three warlaords were offering a sit down. One of the African leaders went to DC asking to allow African forces to handle the situation. Clinton sent him home with a pat on the head and promises of troop transports, which were never sent.
Don't ever think this situation developed overnight or Just under Bush watch.
On the positive Aaron Macgruder is on Bill maher tonight.
The point of what? Why wasn't there even a debate if we should send our men and women to die in Liberia as "Peacekeepers"? Is there any peace to keep there in the first place? If there is no peace, you can't have any peace to keep. Our troops won't be peacekeepers, they will be targets. It doesn't look like Charles Taylor or the Rebels are going to give up. It seems like Charles Taylor has been saying he will step down every week and never does.
We are about to step in a huge pile of it...
I opposed Iraq, and I oppose Liberia. We can't be the world's police force forever. It breaks my heart to turn our back on Liberia, but you've got to draw a line somewhere. I mean, if something were a threat to us (Nazi Germany) I'd be all for getting involved. But other than that, we really need to stop thinking we know what's best for the entire world.
If there is no peace, you can't have any peace to keep.
Yeah, Earl, so "peacekeepers" is a euphemism. Good point.
Let's send 'em to Berkeley, instead.
"State of the Union, what State of the Union...Look, we must rescue Liberia!"
Liberia is a very complicated situation. Bush is not a complicated man. Rumsfeld is likewise not a complicated man. We should not go into Liberia alone. The U.N wants us to intervene - ok, they can lend a hand here. This isn't Iraq.
I hate this for the Liberian people, so I sincerely hope the UN is putting something together.
If the US isn't going to intervene in an indisputable humanitarian crisis in Liberia, what, exactly, are they doing in Iraq?
Seraphiel - Well, they have kind of backed themselves into that corner, haven't they?
Liberia is an ideal chance for Bush to show he really does give a damn about evil men and human rights around the world - that it wasn't simply a convenient excuse to invade Iraq.
Let's have some consistency in foreign policy! American troops should be in Liberia now.
As a basic rule, the US military should not enter or invade a country unless 2/3 of its citizens can find it on a map. This would have the desirable effect of limiting the potential scope of future military entanglements to Canada, Mexico, and Florida.
And speaking of Florida, anyone else think we should unleash the 3rd ID on that groveling dog, Jeb Bush? Even Hussein lasted 3 weeks; Jeb wouldn't last 3 hours...
I'm amazed at home many people here buy this "let's do it for hummanity" bullshit. Anyone who thinks this whole Liberia story is anything but a feeble attempt to create the impression that we care about humanity in general, and not for a specific humanity sitting on billions of barrels of precious black gold, needs a quick philosophical lesson in the basic dichotomy of "appearance" and "reality", or of "rhetoric" and fact.
The mind of an ideologue is a hopelessly traped and closeted creature. You can't alter it through dialogue. It simply implodes when the contradictions it produces overwhelms it from the inside.
Bush better go into Liberia... where else would all those oil corporations register their tankers?
Bush better go into Liberia... where else would all those oil corporations register their tankers?
Panama, of course 
Melanie is right. No matter what Bush should do or wants to do about Liberia, he can do nothing. The USA simply does not have the men in uniform. They are all either in Iraq, going to Iraq, or coming home from Iraq (oh yeah, plus Bosnia, Afghanistan, the Sinai, and some other places). To support the Iraq operation, the US is sending troops that have long been earmarked for Korea, so there are no troops for Korea, either, if, God forbid, something should happen there.
They lied to get us in - they don't know how to get us out.
Why can't the UN enter Liberia without US assistance. The EU nations collectively have 2 million uniformed soldiers, not to mention China, Russia, India. Yet the UN- the great multilateral institution- needs the US to send in troops. Maybe if the UN acted as if it should be taken seriously, US presidents would have no choice but to take it seriously.
The sad thing about Bush's modified, limited, hesitating quasi-intervention is that we could do a lot of good with 1-2% of the force that is now engaged in the Iraq quagmire.
This is all bullshit.
If Bushit takes us into Liberia, it's because there is oil in Africa, and the lure of all that easy money for BushCo overwhelms his racist tendencies.
If the pResident doesn't take us in, we know that blood is thicker than water, and Bosh's racism is thicker than oil. That's all there is too it.
Don't forget they are also sending a new regiment to Iraq that has never seen combat duty. I don't know what this regiment is called (boy scouts maybe?) I just caught the tail end of the reprt the other night on the local news. But this is a major problem. We seriously need to get our asses out of Iraq in case something actually life threatening happens (say in N. Korea).
O course, if we had never gone into Iraq we'd have enough troops sitting around to handle Liberia with plenty left over in case Kim looses his kimchee and starts pushing buttons. Would, shoulda, coulda...
Bloggers Slam Gov. Dean Hoping to Boost Traffic
(2003-07-26) -- Several so-called "webloggers" announced today that they would begin ridiculing presidential candidate Howard Dean on their so-called "blogs" in order to increase site traffic.
The announcements came after a Washington Post story said supporters of Gov. Dean's presidential bid are using email to deluge reporters who write negative things about their candidate.
"My sitemeter's been languishing around 25 visitors per day," said one unnamed blogger. "I figure if I can tick off Dean's backers I could get that up to 50 or even 75."
Editor's Note: The vast editorial staff at ScrappleFace will never resort to attacking the anti-American leftist wacko Governor of Vermont in order to increase visitors to this site.
Editor's Note: The vast editorial staff at ScrappleFace will never resort to attacking the anti-American leftist wacko Governor of Vermont in order to increase visitors to this site.
No, they do it gratuitously.
"America's armed forces are not a global police force,
they are not the world's 9-1-1."
-America-hating, terrorist-coddling traitor Condoleeza Rice, 2000
Simon: "Maybe if the UN acted as if it should be taken seriously, US presidents would have no choice but to take it seriously.
Simon "
Maybe if we were serious about supporting the UN operations, as we pretend we are, we wouldn't be facing this mess now perhaps.
I don't see how we can go ahead and cut funding and then sit back and whine about the UN not doing its job right.
From Sep 2000:
http://www.africaaction.org/docs...s00/
un0009b.htm
---
This posting contains an action alert from the Washington Office of Africa, calling for immediate action to urge Congress to restore funds for UN peacekeeping in Africa. Congress is currently on the verge of cutting funds for Africa peacekeeping to zero, despite previous U.S. commitments and the $1.4 billion debt the U.S. owes the UN for past peacekeeping obligations. The posting also contains an eloquent tribute from Jeff Drumtra of the U.S. Committee for Refugees, for Mensah Kpognon, a UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) worker who was killed a week ago in Guinea, and a call for full funding of the UNHCR budget for this year, which has a 36% shortfall on its modest target of $976 million worldwide.
While the obligation for providing more adequate funding for these UN efforts is worldwide, the most glaring failure to fulfill the obligations is in Washington. [Since this posting contains action requests primarily relevant to U.S. citizens and residents, it is going only to U.S.-domain (three-letter suffix) e-mail addresses on the Africa Policy list.]
APIC/Africa Fund director Salih Booker, commenting on the proposed Congressional action, said: "Proposals for cuts like these specifically targeting Africa reflect the unashamed racism that still permeates U.S. foreign policy. The same mentality is at work in the failure to fund even modest cancellation of illegitimate debts of African countries or to address the global health emergency which is devastating Africa."
---
a
Only in special cases should the American military be used outside of a threat. I don't think it was necessary to invade Iraq if we wanted to get rid of Hussein. However, if we were to invade, we should have been forthright in the beginning and gain support for such a venture, both at home and abroad. Hussein's crimes were of such magnitude that it was quite possible. We would have committed less troops to Iraq, that's for sure, since we'd have some help.
If there's a compelling reason to go into Liberia, it's more to do with his real ties to Al-Qaeda, than humanitarian. He's aiding and abetting a threat to us. We're so stretched thin, however, that committing more troops to Liberia needs to be taken with caution. It needs to be determined, too, whether this is a large enough threat to send troops to an insignificant part of the world. Right now, I'm not sure it is.
If we continue to ignore Liberia, and the government remains in a long-term state of instability, it will only become a haven for international terrorists.
Think about it: disorganized military, already occupied with rebels. Police powerless to do anything. The civilian administration barely able to go into the streets. No controlling legal authorities to investigate or arrest anyone.
If we continue to ignore Liberia, and the government remains in a long-term state of instability, it will only become a haven for international terrorists.
You could say this about more than a dozen different areas at any given time.
You could say this about more than a dozen different areas at any given time.
Probably.
Several places already are known to be terrorist havens, in spite of being in a state of relative stability.
The absolute chaos reigning in Liberia right now could only make it worse. It's an opportunity for us to get in early, and help set up systems to prevent terrorism from taking root there.
Or is this whole "war on an emotion" just a duplicitous publicity campaign?
Oh, yeah...
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
