Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Liberia - Does The US Have a Duty?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 05:40 PM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

America's 'special role'

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, has called on the organisation's Security Council to back the urgent deployment of a multinational peacekeeping force in Liberia.


Earlier, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said France and Britain had "assumed their responsibilities" to bring relative peace to their former colonies of Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone, and that the US had a special role to play in Liberia.


Liberia was founded by freed American slaves in the 19th century.




posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 11:18 PM
link   
To play devil's advocate...

canada was populated (in large part, originally) by ex-americans who had to leave the USA after the war for independence because they were Tories... if the USA should interfere, directly, in Liberian affairs, the argument could be put that the USA could invade Canada every time the Canadians had problems.

Similarly, Spain could invade most south american countries whenever they were in difficulty.

The colonies the French and British speak of were conquered and colonized DIRECTLY by their respective governments... Liberia was not colonized by an act of the US government, nor was it run by the US government. Instead, it was founded by expatriot americans who, as a private society, were acting on their own.

So, under the 'former colony' argument, I'd have to say that the USA is not responsible for what goes on there.. Still, the moral issues at hand are more important than legal ones.



posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I'd say no also.
With the current world opinion of the 'US Hegemony', etc. Nada. The US gets involved, its another round of you 'grand imperialism', etc., etc.
And I agree with 'onlyinmydreams', the US never had colonies in Africa....that was a European 'playground.'
Personally, I think the French Foreign Minister is barking up the wrong tree by saying/claiming that Liberia was founded by US/American slaves.... Sounds like to me they (the French) are back at their old stunts again of 'jumping in and then calling on the US and bailing back out.' This will probably piss some French folks here off, but I think you'd be surprised at how many American's actually feel that way....bottom line, it's only an opinion.

Let the French/UN take care of it.....the US has made it clear that they have no plans to send troops. Here's another idea....let the Russian's start carrying some of the load.


BTW, here's a prime opportunity for the EU to show what its really made of......?!

Just my 2 cents.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 29-6-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 29 2003 @ 12:05 AM
link   
yeah the French really messed a lot of things up.

It's because of them that Vietnam is communist. Because of them we couldn't support Ho Chi Min who wanted to build his government like our own, but noooooo the french were our "allies".

Because of those pu$$ies who relied on the Foriegn Legion to do all the fighting (non-frenchmen lol!), they withdrew leaving us with a bittered enemy.



posted on Jun, 29 2003 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I don't see this as having anything to do with the French.

Africa has been used as a laboratory to study man.



posted on Jun, 29 2003 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by HuramAbi

1) It's because of them that Vietnam is communist. Because of them we couldn't support Ho Chi Min who wanted to build his government like our own, but noooooo the french were our "allies".

2) Because of those pu$$ies who relied on the Foriegn Legion to do all the fighting (non-frenchmen lol!), they withdrew leaving us with a bittered enemy.


1) Hell sure !!! Uncle Ho was a former french communist party member.

2) Not only the Foreign Legion. France Air Force, Navy and Army were heavily involved too.

Did you know most of these Foreign Legion troopers were, at this era, Russians and Germans soldiers ? ( Waffen SS, Whermacht...etc... )
VIVE LA FRANCE.


Oh yes, for staying in the topic subject, I don't think the USA have to go in Liberia.


[Edited on 29-6-2003 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Jun, 30 2003 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Though not speaking for myself.....

I'm sure most Americans would answer with...

"WHERE?"
"LI WHERIA?"

And that's just sad...

That said though, I think we've got bigger fish to fry right now...(or at least....angrier fish)...



posted on Jul, 1 2003 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Poor Africa.

An example of what happens if man is allowed to run wild.

Africa needs to be levelled.
They can never do it for themselves. We have to help them or set ourselves as an example.
Examples only work though, if Man wants to help himself.



posted on Jul, 1 2003 @ 05:24 PM
link   
There's an article up on WWW.nytimes.com right now where they say that the White House is considering some type of peacekeeping mission, for all those interested.



posted on Jul, 1 2003 @ 07:34 PM
link   


canada was populated (in large part, originally) by ex-americans who had to leave the USA after the war for independence because they were Tories... if the USA should interfere, directly, in Liberian affairs, the argument could be put that the USA could invade Canada every time the Canadians had problems.



hey if it gets the liberals and french PM's out of power i'm all for it

[Edited on 2-7-2003 by f16falcon]



posted on Jul, 2 2003 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Dumb question for Leveller

"Africa needs to be levelled."

I'm sure you don't mean what most people would get as their first impression, which would be

"Africa needs to be smashed to smithereens."

But I haven't seen you explain anywhere how levelling works, and you should be the one to know.

What is levelling, Leveller?




posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 09:48 AM
link   
During the entire Iraq conflict, every other post made on ATS brought up the question of why the US hasn't involved itself in Africa (even though we've been trying to work with them for years). I read so much "Africa has no oil so the big bad US won't bother with it." Well, I thought as soon as everyone heard that the US was getting involved in Liberia, I'd read at least as many post taking back those comments but to my surprise...none. (sarcasm by the bushel)



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 08:04 AM
link   
The new battle cry is "NO WAR FOR DIAMONDS!!!!"

From the CIA:
Natural resources: iron ore, timber, diamonds, gold, hydropower



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Oh so its diamonds we're after now huh? I knew it had to be something that we could gain from. It could never be because we're interested in helping our fellow man and progressing the ideas of personal liberties. Thanks for clueing me in on that one. I guess we can now theorize that the Evil Mr. Bush is now after a mega-diamond to power a new laser of something like that...or maybe Haliburton is getting into the Diamond mining business and Cheney wants a "treasure bath".

Treasure Bath!

Treasure Bath!

I'm going to have a Treasure Bath!



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 11:11 AM
link   
It's much deeper than that!
EVIL BUSH is developing the Super space laser that will turn everyone on the planet into a heterosexual, white, male, bible thumping, catholic drone!!!!!
I swear we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!

at least according to Colonel


Anyway, what ever gave you the idea that all us americans are NOT evil colonialists bent only on our own fortunes? Silly man


OK, too much sarcasm is hurting my head....



posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Read this excerpt from Wayne Madsen's article entitled A Sad Independence Day - Little To Celebrate In A Country Gone Mad

Already dealing with a demoralized military, Bush, on the eve of his trip to Africa, mulls sending U.S. troops to Liberia. He also tells Liberian dictator Charles Taylor to step down. Never mind that Bush's friends in the international diamond industry, especially the head of the Corporate Council on Africa, Maurice Tempelsman, were largely responsible for the upheavals in West Africa, including Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, and Guinea. The diamond merchants have found it lucrative to keep West African governments unstable. They found unfettered access to the diamonds controlled by local warlords to be far more profitable than having to deal with centralized governments. However, when Charles Taylor began threatening neighboring countries's blood diamond supply lines and stood ready to upset the status quo enjoyed by the diamond cartels of Tel Aviv, Antwerp, and Amsterdam, Taylor's days were numbered. Bush's priority is to maintain leaders in power throughout Africa who will not stand in the way of Western exploitation. That includes the leaders of those countries he plans to visit, especially Uganda, Botswana, and Nigeria.



posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 08:00 AM
link   
..And there you have it. I knew it would come out. If Bush is doing it , it must be bad!

...come on, you can take a little more sarcasm, can't ya?



posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 10:32 AM
link   
At least I read that the Americans would be welcome in Liberia unlike, uh Somalia. But no, America has no duty to go anywhere unless we have a pact with a country and that country is invaded. But I assume this is about a moral duty instead of a legal duty. I don't buy that, either. Because Liberia was founded by ex-slaves? Hmm do the Irish, Italians, English, etc., etc., have a moral duty to defend America should America experience a cival war? Afterall, America was founded by European rejects.

And, no, this is not about obtaining cheap diamonds. A stable Liberia would increase the cost of diamonds because Liberia's diamonds would presumably be taken off of the black market.

What the heck is wrong with Africa as a whole? The only stable states seem to be in northern Africa. The rest seem to squander their resourses to buy arms for their perpetual wars.



posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 10:53 AM
link   
well, we're into it now...Just hope it stay relatively peaceful. There seem to be no threats waiting in the wings, like with our inspections of Iraq.



posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 10:54 AM
link   
My question is why is the UN and France pressing the US to intervene? Why always the US??? WTF is wrong with this?

We goto them over Iraq and we get nilche...nada....no....no comprede'.......we now nothing but one word: veto!! But this comes along and guess who they come running to....the freakin US!!! Hallluhhaaa..Wooohooo! Somebody needs to seriously put a foot in Koffi Anan and Chirac's a$$!!


regards
seekerof





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join