Why Liberia And Not Iraq

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
There?s a revolution in Liberia. Monrovia is under siege. The president, Charles Taylor, is refusing President Bush?s request to step down. People are dying. It?s not a pretty sight. Oh .. I almost forgot. The revolutionaries who are trying to unseat the current regime are, in large part, Muslim.

Now ? get this. There are some folks out there who want the U.S. to intervene, militarily, if necessary, to stop the bloodshed in Liberia. Among the entities asking the U.S. to intervene are France, Russia and The United Nations. That?s right, France and the U.N. are asking the U.S. to possibly send troops to Liberia, presumably to dethrone Charles Taylor.

Why Liberia and not Iraq? I guess France doesn?t have any huge oil contracts with Taylor that need to be preserved. Then again, maybe because America would presumably be working with, instead of against Muslim insurgents.
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
This is another disaster just waiting to happen. The same scenario all over Africa - the Rebels versus the Government. It has been shown time and time again that no form of compromise can be achieved. If we go in there, we will have to take the side of either the Rebels or current regime. We could work towards a peaceful compromise from now until the twelth of never and it isn't going to happen. And neither is a democracy in Iraq - plain and simple.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I cant remember the whole history but. We have ties there becasue many slaved black men when freed. They went back and helpd start this country. Or Brought democracy to it. Something like that. In any case there are tons of family and relaitives that live here. So in a way means more to many from here then iraq does.
 
Last edited:

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Bush weighs sending troops to Liberia


By Joseph Curl and David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



President Bush is expected to decide today whether to send U.S. troops to Liberia to lead peacekeeping efforts, a move opposed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and top brass at the Pentagon.

Mr. Rumsfeld, who met yesterday morning at the White House with the president and the two top generals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposes a call for the United States to dispatch 2,000 troops to head another 3,000 peacekeepers from various African countries in an operation to stabilize the Liberian capital of Monrovia.

Still, the secretary shared with Mr. Bush a contingency plan for such a deployment.

"It's in play," one White House official said of the option to send U.S. troops to quell an uprising of rebel forces against Liberian President Charles Taylor, indicted June 4 on war crime charges.

Mr. Bush said yesterday, "we're looking at all options," and his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told reporters the option "remains under active consideration."

"I'm not going to guess at what time a decision will be made," the White House Press Secretary said.

While the president did not indicate which way he was leaning on the issue, rumors circulated that the president would announce deployment of 500 to 1,000 peacekeeping troops to Liberia. Fox News reported the Bush administration had already decided to send a "fast team" of 50 to 75 U.S. Marines to Liberia to serve as peacekeepers.

The Marines have been on standby in Spain since two rocket-propelled grenade rounds exploded outside the main embassy compound in Monrovia last month, which was followed by civil unrest and a flood of refugees seeking shelter. Deploying the team would be independent of any decision of longer-term peacekeepers.

"The president could do anything," one White House official said. "I can't tell you the president won't do something."

Mr. Bush, who has opted not to send peacekeeping troops to several nations, including Congo, and campaigned in 2000 on a platform of limiting such deployments, reportedly told top Pentagon officials that troops involved in the Liberian operation ? should he deploy them ? must be given a clear mission that includes an exit strategy.

The president is expected to make a decision before departing for a five-day trip to Africa, with stops in Senegal, South Africa, Botswana, Uganda and Nigeria. In recent days, Mr. Bush has been touting the U.S.-African partnership ? which will be the major theme of his trip ? and some expect the president will announce the deployment of troops to Liberia when he meets today with African journalists.

The State Department yesterday would not confirm that a final decision on U.S. troops in Liberia had been made, but said the decision could be imminent.

"I wouldn't be surprised if there was a decision in the next 24 hours," a senior administration official said. Officials said Mr. Bush faces a practical deadline tomorrow, the beginning of the Fourth of July weekend, after which he makes his trip to Africa.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Mr. Bush's point man in the diplomatic discussions on Liberia, spoke again by phone yesterday with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan about U.S. participation in a Liberian mission.

Mr. Annan has strongly pushed for a U.S. role, but Mr. Powell, interviewed later on the "Sean Hannity" radio talk-show program, insisted that no decision had been made as of late yesterday.

"The president is examining his options. But it's premature to say that he has made a decision and that an announcement is forthcoming in the next day or so," Mr. Powell said.

Senior State Department officials confirmed that the intense discussions have moved beyond whether the United States will participate to operational details about how and how many American troops will work with a contingent of West African troops in a peacekeeping mission on the ground in Liberia.

The State Department last week advised the president to send a small contingent of troops for a limited time to Monrovia to help enforce the cease-fire.

Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, "The whole concept that's coming from the U.N. is that there would be a West African contingent and there would be some additional forces. The question is: What's the purpose? What's the operation?"

A defense official said the issue was discussed at a meeting yesterday morning with the president and Mr. Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman.

"We're looking at a number of options, but no decisions have been made," the official said. "There's been a decision to make a decision."

West African leaders on Monday asked the United States for 2,000 troops to head a predominantly African force to stop the turmoil and keep the peace.

The Pentagon has been training African troops for peacekeeping and there is an expectation that forces from Ghana and Senegal could play a major role in the peacekeeping in Liberia, with U.S. forces providing logistics and transportation, the defense official said.

France, Britain and both sides in Liberia's fighting also have pushed for an American role in a peace force for the country founded by freed American slaves in 1847.

The current round of fighting in Liberia began three years ago as rebels began trying to oust President Charles Taylor, who won contested elections and took the presidency in 1997 after a 1989-96 civil war.

Fighting killed hundreds of trapped civilians in Monrovia last month and the war has displaced more than 1 million Liberians. Thousands of Liberians celebrated outside the U.S. Embassy in the Liberian capital of Monrovia late Tuesday as rumors spread about U.S. intervention.

Mr. Taylor yesterday rejected a Nigerian offer of safe haven in part because he fears it won't protect him from a war-crimes indictment. He was indicted June 4 for backing rebels in Sierra Leone who fought a 10-year terror campaign for the country's diamond fields. He has also been accused of playing a role in several other West African conflicts.

Mr. Taylor had offered in June to cede power as part of peace talks toward ending the Liberia insurgency, which has displaced more than 1 million people. He later retracted the offer, as he has done before, and said he will serve to the end of his term in January 2004. He even suggested he might run again.

Mr. Bush made clear his stance on that. "One thing has to happen: Mr. Taylor needs to leave the country," he said yesterday.

?Bill Gertz contributed to this article, which is based in part on wire service reports.
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I alway wonder what some of the folks in DC are thinking when useing statments such as. It's In Play. What these are just games were playing. Anyplace we send our men there at risk.
When we send them. I do hope someone thought of the out plan.
 

freelancc

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 18, 2002
12,270
264
83
Nevada
i agree djv

i too do not like the trend that i am seeing in foreign affairs. i am all for helping others.... but lets finish one task before taking on another..
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Super-leftist Howard Dean, the current Democratic frontrunner, wants Bush to send a few thousand troops to Liberia to ?head off a human right?s crisis.? Dean, you will remember, was steadfastly opposed to our war in Iraq. He?s all for sending troops to be in harm?s way in Liberia because, he says, ?The situation in Liberia is significantly different from the situation in Iraq.? Bush, he says, never made the case that Iraq posed a threat to the world. This would mean that Dean believes that Liberia does pose such a threat.

OK ? so let?s look at this a moment.

Chemical weapons? Saddam Hussein had used them; Charles Taylor (the president of Liberia) has not.

Biological weapons? Saddam Hussein said he had them, Charles Taylor has not.

Nuclear weapons? Saddam?s own scientists have said that he had an ongoing nuclear program, and parts essential to such a program have been discovered in Iraq. Liberia? Nothing.

Bloodshed? Saddam is probably ahead here. Mass graves in Iraq, and tens of thousands of Kurds and Iranians dead from Saddam?s chemical weapons. Taylor? Undoubtedly he?s killed many ? but the count is nowhere near that of Saddam?s

Terrorists? There is proof that Saddam has supported terrorism financially. No such proof exists for Charles Taylor.

Dean says U.S. troops should go to Liberia because there is an ?imminent threat of serious human catastrophe.? And there wasn?t in Iraq. Again, the mass graves, the torture chambers, and the development of those weapons?

Dean also says ?the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership.? Oh, I get it. The U.S. can?t send troops to protect it?s own interests, but it?s OK to send them when the world community demands it.

I just can?t wait for this clown to get the Democratic nomination.
 

rebel

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 12, 2001
484
0
0
58
Stockholm, Sweden
I dont think Dean means that Liberia poses a threat to the world, Dean means that USA have historical ties to this nation since it was in fact a US colony, colonized by black americans that fought the local population for that land. Liberia was infact one of the last colonies in Africa, the capital Monrovia is named after US president Monroe, the flag is taken after USAs and the eleven stripes represets the eleven people that signed the declaration of indpendance.

liberia.gif


It is more a situation like when Britan took action in Sierra Leone and France in Ivory Coast to put a stop to civil war. Because they where former colonies I think that is the reasons behind nations that where aginst Iraq war and are now Pro US action in Liberia.

Many companies have made good money in Liberia, Firestone and Liberian-American-Swedish Minerals Company - LAMCO.

But the Ore was finished in the 80-ties and they left and the mountain Nimba had been flattend.

What happend next was like a french revulotion, the original tribes people executed the american-liberian colonizers on the beach outside Monrovia, the rebel leader was sergeant Samuel Doe, he was later ( in the end of 80-ties) challenged by Charles Taylor and was tortured in his office and had his ears cut off and then shot while Taylors men tried to find out where the money was hidden from the Lamco and Firestone Years, i saw a documetary a couple of years ago where they showed the torture of Doe that was accually Video taped

Most Swedes stayed in Yekepa near Nimba Mountain.


1953 The Liberian-American-Minerals Company was given a 70 year concession for ore exploration.

1954 A Swedish group of companies were contacted to explore the Putu Range.

1955 The Swedish group joined the exploration project as partners and the company was renamed Liberian-American-Swedish Minerals Company - LAMCO.

The Putu region was proven a disappointment and the Scottish Geologist, Sandy Clarke, was sent to explore mineral deposits in the Nimba area. At Christmas time this year he found evidence of huge iron ore deposits.

1956-1957 Intensive exploration work leading to a proved ore reserve of over 250 million tons high grade iron ore.

1958-1959 Planning, engineering and cost calculation leading to investment forecast at over $200M.
Intensive work to finance the project and ensure long term contracts for ore deliveries.

Bethlehem Steel acquired 20% of the project and guaranteed 25% of the financing and 25% of the sales. The remaining 75% is shared equally with the Government of Liberia and LAMCO.

1960-1963 Construction of the huge project including Nimba, Railroad, Harbor and Maintenance works in Nimba and Buchanan.

Building up the first areas of the communities of Yekepa and Buchanan. In April 1963 production commenced and on the 15th of November the LAMCO project was inaugurated by the late President William V.S. Tubman.

1967 An Ore Processing Plant and a Pellet Plant were constructed for $50M in order to improve the quality of the ore.

1973 Mining started at Mount Tokadeh at a limited production rate (3Mton crude ore).

1975 Exploration work at Gangra, Yuelliton and Beeton indicates considerable iron ore reserves.

1976 Engineering work commenced on a project to develop Tokadeh to a full scale mine with its own concentrating plant.

Liberian History Time Line


Yekepa Memory Project
 

selkirk

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 16, 1999
2,147
13
0
Canada
"Chemical weapons? Saddam Hussein had used them; Charles Taylor (the president of Liberia) has not."

Was the war in Iraq about chemical weapons, the western countries knew over 20 years ago Sadam had chemical weapons and used them on Kurds and Iranian soldiers, he was then given more money, to fight Iran. He killed thousands but sanctions were always discouraged. WAS THE WAR ABOUT CHEMICAL WEAPONS?

Biological weapons? Saddam Hussein said he had them, Charles Taylor has not.

have they found anything. they need to find proof, Tony Blair has fallen in the polls, because they have found very little. he should still win the next election in the UK the opposition is weak.

Nuclear weapons? Saddam?s own scientists have said that he had an ongoing nuclear program, and parts essential to such a program have been discovered in Iraq. Liberia? Nothing.

was Iraq close to building a Nuclear Weapon, no, that is why you make a statement with Iraq instead of North Korea. by the way he tried to start up a nuclear program with western technology and money, but Israel blew it up.

Bloodshed? Saddam is probably ahead here. Mass graves in Iraq, and tens of thousands of Kurds and Iranians dead from Saddam?s chemical weapons. Taylor?

What was the reaction of most countries when he gassed thousands of kurds; massive sanctions, threats of war. no. mostly silence.

Undoubtedly he?s killed many ? but the count is nowhere near that of Saddam?s

yes, but if it is done correctly lives can be saved, the US military is stretched to thin for this mission.

Terrorists? There is proof that Saddam has supported terrorism financially. No such proof exists for Charles Taylor.

OBL hated Sadam, did not consider him a true muslim, Al Quada got most of the funding from Saudia Arabia and Kuwait. percentage from Iraq would have been small if any, would have been growing. they have not shut down the money ring from Saudia Arabia and Kuwait. sometimes it is hard to catch the big fish.


Dean says U.S. troops should go to Liberia because there is an ?imminent threat of serious human catastrophe.? And there wasn?t in Iraq. Again, the mass graves,the torture chambers, and the development of those weapons?

agreed and it is good a evil dictator is no more, however he did most of these terrible acts when he was receiving millions from the west. he was evil; gas and killed people for years, until he invaded Kuwait, he should of launched another war on Iran, he picked the wrong country. if he went to war again with Iran he would have gotten more funding and could have killed millions more, no on e cared.

Thanks
selkirk
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top