Bush's motives for stability in Liberia??

[*d*]

"Mr. Bush should intervene not out of great humanitarian motives, but out of basic accountability. For damages knowingly incurred, his country owes Liberians compensation in full." -Blame America for conflict in Liberia too, Gerald Caplan
www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030711.coliberia11/BNStory/International/
I understand that there is a need for stability in Liberia, I just question Bush's motives for sending in troops. Somehow I doubt it's on humanitarian grounds as Mr. Caplan suggests. Nor is it to avert the growth of terrorist cells within Liberia, as Condoleezza Rice suggests. That's not how America operates. There must be money involved???

d

 

[Honeyman]

Isn’t that useless to debate president Bush’s foreign policies. As a Canadian, we rather watching BBC and CBC, not because we are patriotically to our national, we simply agree that we rather have our own brain than a brain for ourselves.

Isn’t that the point, Bush’s era will conclude? Deeds will speak.

 

[CyberGoth]

oil, diamonds. natural resources. opec has too much influence?

 

[thecoolguyms72]

Yeah, because I'm so proud of Jean fucking Chretien.

 

[mrpolarbear]

Maybe he wants them to look for wea pons of mass destuction since he sure as hell can't find them in IRAQ. Bush is a moron and i just hope and pray hes a one termer. I'm sure as hell tired of seeing our boys and girls die every day over oil and no wmd.

 

[Zorba]

A cynic might suggest that he's trumping up his African causes as a means of offering a *successful* example of American intervention in the affairs of other nations.

I wonder if he would be so keen on Liberia if Iraq was not the debacle that it has become. After all, there have been countless conflicts that the U.S. has NOT become involved with.

Bush and his top aides may see this as a prudent re-election decision (i.e. "See, we're not all about the oil! We're all about peace and freedom and blah blah blah").

 

[Wired For Sound]

A cynic might suggest that he's trumping up his African causes as a means of offering a *successful* example of American intervention in the affairs of other nations.

I wonder if he would be so keen on Liberia if Iraq was not the debacle that it has become. After all, there have been countless conflicts that the U.S. has NOT become involved with.

Bush and his top aides may see this as a prudent re-election decision (i.e. "See, we're not all about the oil! We're all about peace and freedom and blah blah blah").

Debacle? Zorba, I thought you were more intelligent than that. What do you expect, a made for T.V. movie where we train a bunch of mystics to respect individual liberty in 2 hours?

The U.S. should only involve itself with Countries that are a threat to it's (or it's friends) national interest. Perhaps, you can expand on what you mean.

As for the oil, who discovered it? Sure as hell not the towel head, anti-human, mystics. It was the Capitalists. It's a false dichotomy to see it as rights to oil vs peace and freedom. The right to the product that you produce is the means to which peace and freedom are possible.

 

[HornyTime]

As for the oil, who discovered it?

It was Capitalists who discovered it. The original oil demand was for Kerosene for lighting lamps. If you are interested in the oil industry there's a great book by Daneil Yergin called The Prize - it won a Pulitzer and is very interesting and shows how it also influenced the development of the governments in the middle east. Here in Hamilton I was able to borrow a 8 hour videotape version from the library rather than read the 600 pages. Check your library if you're interested.

Well call me a nerd but I found it very interesting. And it is not a biased/opinion ladened piece, rather factual (at least in my opinion).

 

[HornyTime]

Oh on this Topic, I would be very pleased if the US intervened. I was uncomfortable with the entry into Iraq, but to me the Liberian intervention is all above board on humanitarian grounds. I just hope they bring in enough troops, not a small number, as it seems they are considering.

My only concern is not with Bush it is weather the US military is getting overstretched. Looking at Iraq, I think they need to increase their troop strength. And Afgan seems to be loosing control back to the warlords, and although I can't seem to get much info on the current situation, it might need an increase in troops too.

 

[Zorba]

Debacle? Zorba, I thought you were more intelligent than that. What do you expect, a made for T.V. movie where we train a bunch of mystics to respect individual liberty in 2 hours?

The U.S. should only involve itself with Countries that are a threat to it's (or it's friends) national interest. Perhaps, you can expand on what you mean.

As for the oil, who discovered it? Sure as hell not the towel head, anti-human, mystics. It was the Capitalists. It's a false dichotomy to see it as rights to oil vs peace and freedom. The right to the product that you produce is the means to which peace and freedom are possible.

By debacle, I meant politically, to Bush and his government.

Polls have indicated that support for Bush on the Iraq issue has waned. As the populace realizes that their military is committed to that country for the long run, and as troops continue to be cherry picked, one would expect this. Also, democrats and media outlets are becoming bolder in their questioning of the justifications for the war, whether warranted or not. The front page of CNN today has the head of the CIA taking a metaphorical bullet for the president.

You don't have to read Sun Tzu to understand the impact of sustained conflict on a populace. Ideology aside, weariness is an issue.

I completely agree that "...the U.S. should only involve itself with Countries that are a threat to it's (or it's friends) national interest". So why get involved with Liberia?

Why do mayors kiss babies?

As I allude to in my post, public perception might be the answer. "Doing the right thing" in Liberia, in all likelihood, wouldn't be as messy as the Iraq effort. I think it might make future military intervention in cases where U.S. interests *are* actually served more palatable to the public.

Wired, I take issue with your use of the term "towel head, anti-human mystics", particularly in contrasting them with Capitalists. I think you are unnecessarily mixing religion with economics/politics and tainting an otherwise sound argument. There are a fair number of "towel headed mystics" in both of our countries that could also be categorized as staunch Capitalists.

 

[Wired For Sound]

By debacle, I meant politically, to Bush and his government.

Polls have indicated that support for Bush on the Iraq issue has waned. As the populace realizes that their military is committed to that country for the long run, and as troops continue to be cherry picked, one would expect this. Also, democrats and media outlets are becoming bolder in their questioning of the justifications for the war, whether warranted or not. The front page of CNN today has the head of the CIA taking a metaphorical bullet for the president.

You have a point. A few points to remember.

1) I think the problem is that the U.S. Government had done a lousy job defending the war to begin with. It's a red herring to argue that WOMD was the justification for the war. They'd already proved to be a threat prior to the war. The defintion of WOMD is also ridiculous given the methods used on 9-11. Moreover, should the U.S. have waited until Iraq was fully armed?

2) The Bush Government accepts the moral premises of it's critics. The occupation (which should be for a limited period) is only justified as long as it's in the self interest of the United States. It shouldn't be defended on selfless grounds because it's NOT the job of the U.S. Government to Govern the world. And because Bush argued on selfless premises for liberating Iraq he's now trapped himself by it's logic for countries like Liberia. Of course occupaton will only work *if* the various groups accept the Western style rule of law and free markets -- this is not likely until some grass roots intellectuals start popularizing this view.

Wired, I take issue with your use of the term "towel head, anti-human mystics", particularly in contrasting them with Capitalists. I think you are unnecessarily mixing religion with economics/politics and tainting an otherwise sound argument. There are a fair number of "towel headed mystics" in both of our countries that could also be categorized as staunch Capitalists.

The economics and politics that distinguishes the West (the rule of law, individual rights, free markets, constitutionally limited Government) is best defended by a certain philosophical worldview: that is by a this-worldly reason and a rationally selfish ethics. True, there are many Capitalists that are mystics, (and I'm really no fan of of any kind of Mystic) but that *doesn't* mean that they can defend it by reference to their own beliefs. In fact, the philosophy of the Enlightenment that lead to our uniqueness is being undermined by the current intellectual/political elites. Indeed, what you claim taints my argument is in fact absolutely necessary for it; because these so-called "staunch Capitalists" argue for Capitalism using moral premises that are more suited for Marxism than for Capitalism.