quote: SIR-Those who claim that America has a moral obligation to send troops to stop the civil war in Liberia have it exactly wrong:our government has a moral obligation not to place its soldiers at risk except to defend the interests of Americans. This principle of freedom means that the government may not treat the citizen as a serf; it may not regard him as someone who exists to serve the needs of others. A foreign policy of self-sacrifice denies that principle. To send our soldiers into a battle in which they have no personal interest-to make them risk their lives solely for the sake of warring tribes in Liberia (Or Somalia, or Kosovo)- is to negate the underpinnings of liberty. Peter Schwartz Irvine, CA
Does anyone actually agree with this? Should troops only be sent in when American interests are at stake or should the world's powerful countries defend the interests of other nationals? Sierra Leone is a good example this type of conflict; a small detatchment of British troops managed to restore relative peace and stability to the country.
Personally I believe that if, in a situation such as a civil war that it is in the power of another country to stop and there are no other options that country should step in. The difficulty of this is, of course, not interfereing with the country's independance and knowing when to stop. The attitude expressed in that letter is incredibly arrogant.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, just to toss out a few counter-arguments at random, I guess you have: the desire to improve the lot of others less fortunate than yourself; the potential for trade and resources from that country post-conflict; even, the desire to 'get there first' before some other country you don't like reaps such benefits or even has an influence on the future political and social development of the target country. . . Of course, that doesn't really negate his point about the rights of the soldier, but then surely anyone who joins the armed forces has to expect some decrease in liberty and free will? Or does the correspondent expect that the armed forces should only conduct operations in which all soldiers involved fully understand the issues? Because the anti-Franco forces in the Spanish Civil War tried that and, well, they lost. I think what he actually means is the armed forces should only be used in the defence of the US; however, if he's going to justify that using individual liberties, he's got to consider the other side of the coin.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
This guy's sentiment was shared by most americans-and congress- just prior to Pearl Harbor. It's isolationism and it no longer works for any superpower. Our foreign intrests are so varied that we'll be pulled into any ongoing conflict (either via diplomacy or the military)to resolve it as long as another superpower is not already handling the situation. The other side of this guy's argument would come out if we did nothing (as in Bosnia)while the deathtoll mounts untill the press flip-flops and begins asking why are'nt we doing anything to help.....then we get involved (as the press sways public support in favor of resolving the crisis)and suffer months or years of the world's fingerpointing and recriminations about how we did nothing for months as civillians died. It's always easier to resolve a bad situation at it's begining instead of after it spirals beyond all control.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think you're not quite addressing the gentleman's point, though, Jason. Arguably it is within the interests of most every nation in the world today to keep states intact. But in that case we can more or less ignore the issue of intrinsic morality, since we're judging based on outcomes. As the question is framed, it isn't concerned with whether or not various international interventions can have desirable outcomes, but whether mercy itself is a sufficient motivation.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I know, but the writer of the letter seems to think that only one person decides what situations to become involved in and what defines the moral grounds to take action. The Commander in Chief (even those with ZERO military experience)have to balance the people's desire for military intervention. In the current situation, the locals WANT us there to restore order (something rare enough) and we could at least maintain a policing force for a short time with minimal loss of life. On the other hand, Liberia elected this asshole freely and there is no sign of any electoral misconduct (that I'm personally aware of anyway)so who are we to oust a democratically elected official from office? What kind of precedent does that serve?
The short answer to your question is YES. Moral grounds are sufficent to warrant military intervention. It is required to consider the long-term consequenses of such an act though. As horrible as it may sound, most military interventions are taken only after enough evidence is gathered to make a public case to the people and garner their support (our people, not those we're "helping"). The down side: While we gather evidence to support a case for intervention and garner public support (the CIC is a politician after all)those we're intrested in helping die. Who sets the morals that provoke our action? Do we invade every country whose leaders starve their own people to get rich by selling relief supplies? If so, we're going to need a much larger military....
Posted by Dr Phlox (Member # 680) on :
The war in Iraq is over and if Bush wants peoples thoughts of the economy to go away he needs to start another war. He needs to start a war where it's needed it would be Liberia. We jump in everybody else's business but when they're darker than Khaki you out of luck. --------------------- If they can't take a joke fuck 'em.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You so rule.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
This guy probably supported the War in Iraq to defend America's interests. Mainly oil.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
A broader range view would have it that it is not in "American interests" not to sit back and watch thousands of people dying in Liberia.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
But it'd be for "American entertainment" to do so, which these days is pretty much the same thing.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Wanna place some bets? If Fuck-O president of Libera does'nt leave office, we'll get involved in a military action "to maintain the peace". The Press will run stories on the US losses making the action seem like it's not our problem and we should'nt be there while (at the same time) lauding any single act of bravery of compassion on our troop's part (Jessica Lynch anyone?). The action will conclude and the Press will begin to harp on the casualties incurred before the US stepped in to help and they'll look for someone to blame for us not getting involved sooner. Meanwhile, the UN sits back and ignores the problem completely.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: A 17-year-old calling himself War Black sprinted on the spot, euphoric. His friend, General Death, 31, issued orders to assemble but Richard Shakpeh, 28, was not ready. "I'm in charge. I'm deputy commanding general lance corporal of the..." he paused, thinking hard, "of the 51st platoon section."
quote: The seven dashed back behind a wall, panting. It was the turn of David Kollie, 12, nicknamed Deputy, to lead the next wave. He wore a red headband, a yellow T-shirt which said "AK Baby, Man Moving, Man Dropping" and a serene expression.
"I eat the leaf," he said, "but I cannot disclose its nature because that is a military secret." Then he was on the bridge, firing away and joined by older boys, some with women's wigs and toenails painted blue. On Merclin Street a teenager with a bayonet jigged to the rhythm.
Secondly, regardless of what news source one is most fond of, there's hardly an outcry that Bush is rushing into the situation.
As for the UN, it's simply untrue to suggest that they are uninvolved, though of course the value or likely outcome of such involvement is up for debate.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Okay, the UN is not uninvolved, just ineffective. What exactly is the diffrence to the Liberians? The media is still holding it's breath on what side they'll take on Liberia. It all comes down to weither the Liiberian President steps down and who (if anyone) steps in to that position. I forsee our presence nedeed there no matter what happens (and for some time too from the look of that link, BTW).
Things would be so much easier if we could just colonize some of the countries we bail out would'nt it? (Playing Devil's Advocate here, not seriously considering going into the oppression business)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Ironic, considering the nation in question.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:MONROVIA, Liberia - Clutching her daughter's photograph to her breast, Rebecca throws back her head and wails. Gunmen burst into her home and raped the child on her 10th birthday, leaving her lying in a pool of blood and vomit - dead.
Every time fighting surges in Liberia, women are raped, aid workers say. But this time, the scale is incalculable. Wild-eyed men are going door to door, ransacking homes, beating and killing people, and raping any women - or girls - they find.
I wonder if it would be possible to forward that article to the dickhead that wrote the letter to the Econemist.
Man, nothing says "we need to do SOMETHING" like crazy shit like that. Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Problem: Liberia doesn't have the monopoly on gruesomeness in the world.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
One idiotic regine to be changed at a time.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So when's the next US presidential election then?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
ZING!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I am the political comedy beast. Phe@R M3!!!! And so forth.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: So when's the next US presidential election then?
I'd make a snappy retort if you were'nt so embarassingly right.
But as far as morality in intervention in other countries is concerned the first thing we consider needs to be "Is this right". I don't mean "will my right wing supporters approve" I mean "Can we help people here and make a effective diffrence".
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, Taylor seems to have bogged off and an international peacekeeping force moved in. But if things don't get better or the peacekeepers behave like they did last time (not much better than the native troops) then what?
In this case i think it is America's duty in become involved; Liberia was set up by the US and was briefly a US possession. Just as Sierra Leone was our problem Liberia is the US's. And yes, I think we should be doing something about Zimbabwe as well.
quote: Ironic, considering the nation in question.
Even more ironic is the freed slaves setting up a system whereby they retain the political power and most of the economic power.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Libera looks like a good place for a Guam-sized military base right about now. Horrible to say I know, but we'll just have to keep going back if we can't establish something like a government that works for more than a couple of years at a stretch. The UN could (and should)be a big part of the initial re-structuring but they certainly have a bad track record of sticking around (so do we for that matter) to prevent a relapse into anarchy.
I could SO see islamic fundamentalism (read: Terrorism) taking root in Libera within the next decade as the populace becomes frustrated with our half-assed assistance.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
fuck it. i could NOT find that moses necrothread pic. can someone help?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
SHAZAM!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:"It's tough to walk, but I look at it as, 'At least I'm walking,'" she says. "At least I have my legs. They may not work. I have no feeling in the left one. But it's attached, at least.."
Fuck- I totally get that. Eight and a half years of having an open wound and dealing with pain in my left leg has made this wedding guest a humble and wiser man.
She's got the right attitude.
As to the thread's subject...it (amazingly) did not turn out too bad as civil wars go- Taylor is in the Hague and on trial and not too many people were butchered (1000 seems like a low number to me though).
And Liberia still makes those commerative coins, so I guess it's a win(?)
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
thanks Mim. I love you.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah Hugo, never change, man. Personally, I think giving various world leaders cancer is a pretty Cobra-esque gameplan, but whatever works, I guess.
Really though, Christina seems okay- or at least not threatening- no reason to make her (or her husband) die.
Hugo's death will be met with the standad military coup/crackdown/dictatorship so while he's a slanderous clown, keeping him alive for entertainment value is best.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
