Liberia

[tipsy88]

With all the hoopla around Iraq, i thought maybe some light should be draw attention to another country.

I just read a fairly interesting article on Talyor, lack of US intervention in Liberia and Al-Qaeda ties. Some people have argued that the situation between Iraq and Liberia are the same and that the reason for invention in Iraq is actually stronger in Liberia than in Iraq itself, which begs to ask why is the Bush Administration passive about it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11142-2003Aug1.html

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/r_outlook_farah080103.htm

The author provides one very good reason why action taken in Iraq have not been unfolded in Liberia, simply the money and support requierd to rebuild liberia infrastructure in terms of social, political, and economic is 10x worst that Iraq's current state.

Bush himself said that africa itself is not strategic value to the US, add the compunding widely held notion that invention in other peoples countries for the sake of helping them out provides zero graditude even resentment (note: Iraq), perhaps it is a "no-brainer" that bash is passive.

Yet a historic relationship to Al-Qaeda may be a very good reason to do something about it future.

Personally I believe the safety of democracy lies in the destruction of despotism.

[urobjective]

Somebody help me figure this Liberia thing out. I'm getting a few impressions. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm open to being smacked around by you guys.

1) Liberians are acting very very immaturely by not taking responsibility for their own safety. They have continuously requested for US/international intervention - both sides have (those who support Charles Taylor and those who do not) - yet they still continue to maim each other. When the peacekeepers come from Nigeria, they hoist up the peacekeeper on their shoulders like, "For he's a jolly good fellow..." Both SIDES. BOTH of them. It's like a kid fighting with his brother and waiting for mommy or daddy to stop the both of them when they both know it's wrong and should stop it themselves. That's impression I get.

2) Liberia keeps talking about its connection with the US because of the fact that Liberia was founded by freed African slaves in the US. They have said that Liberians fought in the Revolutionary War and have otherwise been involved in US affairs. That is true. But do you get the feeling that the US-Liberia relationship is desperately one-sided? Like Liberia is the nerdy freshman in high school that everyone picks on; the jock helps him out one day when he's beaten on the street, rescues him and all; or the other way around, the nerd rescues the jock and demands friendship; the jock, being a bit of a softy, doesn't say anything but just goes with the flow. Meanwhile, the nerd keeps hanging out with him, making friends with his crowd, flirting with his girlfriends, basically cramping his style. K? It's one-sided because only one person is benefiting from this relationship while the other doesn't quite know what to do. Liberia is, like, hanging on to the pant legs of the US, is still sucking on its thumbs, but it's just as old a country as the US. Liberia "looks up" to the US - as I often hear on the radio - but why should they? Why should anybody? Yeah, the US is a rich nation, powerful and all, but I think Liberians are erroneously idealizing this relationship. There is no even exchange, be it int'l trade or military power or oil. I'm not saying we shouldn't have relations with poor countries, but rather the relationship that Liberians assert they have with us is exaggerated - the obligation we are supposed to feel for them is unfounded. That they will find any reason to sentimentally - thus effectively - align themselves with "the most powerful nation in the world," romanticizing a kinship that is more "babying" than equal.

3) But let me reiterate #1: Both sides were demanding international intervention, yet still shooting at each other. Okay, fine, I know that not everyone was fighting, and those who were fighting were probably not the ones demanding international aid, but I know SOME of them were doing both - fighting and asking for help. It's ridiculous... Now help comes and suddenly fighting stops, like a Drill Sergeant enters the barracks and the recruits stand up really fast, "At ease!" everybody orders. Peacekeepers haven't done anything - but having an "adult" in the room keeps everyone in-line. Thus, my point: are you babies? Are you children? (That's a sad thing too, as in any developing nation: the children are doing the fighting - 10, 12, 14 year olds.) The peacekeepers are, at the moment, 30 miles from the front lines, where the fighting takes place. They aren't shooting the shooters yet; why have you, shooters, stopped killing your brothers and raping your sisters? Keep going! Nobody's stopping you yet!

So that's my take, my point. Somebody, I cannot be correct about this! It's too ridiculous.

[jku]

Looking back on Liberia, there were two reasons it was in the news. True, America had a hand in establishing it - but we also:
- reaped natural resources to the point of destruction from the late 19th through mid 20th century.
- Put the evil Charles Taylor in power

So when there was an evil dictator oppressing his people, Liberia was good litmus test as to whether or not policy on Iraq was really humanitarian, or more about lucrative oil contracts and the re-election in 2004.

We didn't go in when we should have. Thousands died needlessly.

What does that tell you about Bush?