Liberia is "basically destroyed"

[KevinTheOmnivore]

There probably won't be enough Liberian children left to wave American flags when it's all said and done....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43078-2003Jul24?language=printer

U.N. Envoy Says Liberia Destroyed

By REGAN MORRIS
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 24, 2003; 9:56 PM

UNITED NATIONS - Liberia is "basically destroyed" and its only hope is for the international community to quickly send more money and soldiers to stop the killing, the U.N. special representative to Liberia said Thursday.

Jacques Klein, an American, welcomed news that Nigeria planned to send the first troops of a multinational force, but expressed doubt they could arrive within the promised seven days.

Klein also welcomed the U.S. decision to provide $10 million to help the peacekeeping force deploy and urged the United States to play a greater role.

"In Liberia, now we stand between two options: hope and disaster," he said after briefing the Security Council behind closed doors.

Rebels in Liberia are battling to oust Charles Taylor, a warlord-turned-president who launched the country into 14 years of near-perpetual conflict in 1989. Fighting in the capital Monrovia has killed hundreds of civilians since Saturday.

The United States has not said whether it would contribute soldiers the peacekeeping force in Liberia, a major African Cold War ally of the United States that was founded in the 19th century by freed American slaves.

John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador indicated the United States would not send troops.

"My understanding is that the decision in principle has been made," he said. "The two battalions that have been identified are Nigerian battalions. We've decided to provide the material support that I just mentioned to you, the $10 million."

West African leaders have announced they would send the two battalions, up to 1,300 men, ahead of what would eventually be 3,250-member force to separate the warring sides.

Klein said the two battalions weren't enough to secure Liberia and more money was desperately needed. "The country is basically destroyed," Klein said.


© 2003 The Associated Press

[mburbank]

If only Charles taylor had sought weapons of mass destruction. Then we would have liberated his people.

[Zhukov]

Rebels in Liberia are battling to oust Charles Taylor...

I would love to know what the rebels want. Although my best bet is that they simply want power for themselves.

When I first heard that US troops were going to Liberia, nothing overly negative sprang to my mind. I actually thought that sending in peacekeepers was a good idea. Then they tell me that they are not going. Typical.

What broke my heart the other day was seing a picture of a bunch of 14 year old kids with AK's guarding a checkpoint decorated with human bones - bones from the people they had killed and eaten :(

More and more places around the world are descending into babarism. :(

[kellychaos]

Rebels in Liberia are battling to oust Charles Taylor...

I would love to know what the rebels want. Although my best bet is that they simply want power for themselves.
:(

Could be control of billions of dollars worth of export oil. They're something like the 12th largest oil exporter in the world. Interesting that our "humantarian" efforts are going toward aiding another top oil exporter, don't you think?

[mburbank]

As of about three minutes ago, Bush announced we were sending an unspecified amount of US troops to the Liberian Coast to assist the West African peackeepers.

I'm not sure what all role that means we're taking, but it's a step.

[The One and Only...]

Interesting that our "humantarian" efforts are going toward aiding another top oil exporter, don't you think?

So what? Let me tell you something: If you can help a nation in need (with few casualities) AND get better deals for oil, that's good. It's called killing two birds with one stone, and nothing that we should be complaining about.

My only hope is that Bush does not act like a further fool with taxes. I'm all for tax cuts, but only when the president knows how to balance the budget...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So what? Let me tell you something: If you can help a nation in need (with few casualities) AND get better deals for oil, that's good. It's called killing two birds with one stone, and nothing that we should be complaining about.

I agree. Dependancy on terrible regimes for our natural resources is a very GOOD thing. And when we get tired of that regime, there's probably nothing wrong with moving in some troops and kicking butt. This is the kind of foreign policy I'd support....

[The One and Only...]

So what? Let me tell you something: If you can help a nation in need (with few casualities) AND get better deals for oil, that's good. It's called killing two birds with one stone, and nothing that we should be complaining about.

I agree. Dependancy on terrible regimes for our natural resources is a very GOOD thing. And when we get tired of that regime, there's probably nothing wrong with moving in some troops and kicking butt. This is the kind of foreign policy I'd support....

Just so you know, we do not get most of our oil from the ME - so we don't really depend on them. Even though I sense sarcasm in your post, you cannot deny the logic in mine.

[Helm]

I see the logic in your posts. That doesn't mean they're not stupid, however.

[ItalianStereotype]

As of about three minutes ago, Bush announced we were sending an unspecified amount of US troops to the Liberian Coast to assist the West African peackeepers.


I read 3 destroyers and 2,300 marines are already there.

[ranxer]

this ties in with all my reasons to want a windgenerator/solar

If you can help a nation in need (with few casualities) AND get better deals for oil, that's good. It's called killing two birds with one stone, and nothing that we should be complaining about.

damn.. really need to pick the concept apart .. i dont think im qualified but,
assumptions .. (correct me if im wrong)
So the countries economy is linked with oil right?
its in our national interests to seek cheap oil?
i think a corporate country might have this idea.. maybe we have stock in USA INC. ? argh skip that..
the oil profits those calling the interests, the paybacks are rampant many say politicians are crooks .. so? who are they crooks with? gee.. i dunno duh maybe oil cartels.. brutal ones sometimes :p sheesh, maybe policies are influenced by corps? any idea how many lives are lost there around the globe?
i can see them now.. 'oooo, hey, look humanitarian protection from a brutal regime and we get oil from them!.. save a bundle, lol'
how much?
for what?
who's the cheap oil for? so we can save 30 cents at the pump?
who profits?
homeland..we spend so freaking much cash on oil and gas designs and infrastructure its crazy.. overengineerd crap that is destined to be fossils.

if we spent a fraction of the oil industry subsidies on Simple designs we'd have clean local transportation and better air in less than a year.

[The One and Only...]

Alternative sources of energy are fine and dandy, but I doubt we will truly catch on for a long time. As for the brutal regime thing, I think they'll do much like what they have done: tear down the current govt. and put up a new, democratic one. I give the new govt. a year, but hey: can't say we didn't try.

I don't see why you guys are complaining in the first place. We are helping a country out that seems to be in dire need of it. If they have oil, it means that we could cut a deal with them and help get their economy up. It's humanitarian efforts with economic bells and whistles: sounds like a win-win to me.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Just so you know, we do not get most of our oil from the ME - so we don't really depend on them.

Right, and where do we get it from?? Which South American country?? Venezula?? Colombia?? These countries are MUCH more stable!!!

We still get oil from the Middle East, and we still consume a massive amount of the globe's resources (that's more than just oil).

Even though I sense sarcasm in your post, you cannot deny the logic in mine.

I can deny the kind of logic that has perpetuated a global disdain of my country, I most certainly can.

Alternative sources of energy are fine and dandy, but I doubt we will truly catch on for a long time.

Why not? Many alternatives, such as wind, have made grade strides in their efficiency over the past few years. Why won't these catch on?? Might it have anything to do with the lobbies in Congress that would be harmed by such a turn of events???

I don't see why you guys are complaining in the first place. We are helping a country out that seems to be in dire need of it. If they have oil, it means that we could cut a deal with them and help get their economy up.

I apologize, but I'm a bit lost. Are you refering to Iraq or Liberia?? Either way, your theory that exporting to America = economic boom is a bit unfounded. Where it may work for a select few countries, it has left many remaining in the gutter.

It's humanitarian efforts with economic bells and whistles: sounds like a win-win to me.

I think the prevailing point here is that many horrors have gone on around the world which the U.S. has often turned a blind eye to. If the only things that motivates us to righteous action are "economic bells and whistles," then I think it's time for us to hand in our good guy badges and turn over our decoder rings.

I for one am happy we are sending some help to Liberia.

[The One and Only...]

Right, and where do we get it from?? Which South American country?? Venezula?? Colombia?? These countries are MUCH more stable!!!

We still get oil from the Middle East, and we still consume a massive amount of the globe's resources (that's more than just oil).

I never said we didn't get oil from them. I just said that's not where we get most of our oil.

Why not? Many alternatives, such as wind, have made grade strides in their efficiency over the past few years. Why won't these catch on?? Might it have anything to do with the lobbies in Congress that would be harmed by such a turn of events???

Quite frankly, they just haven't advanced enough. There are not enough sources for hydroelectric power. Wind works great out in rural areas, but I sincerly doubt it work well for large cities. People are afraid of nuclear energy and waste. Solar energy look ugly, and heck: we are vain. I can also say I've never met anyone who wants to charge up their car.

That, and our govt. would never stand by and watch a ton of jobs be lost with the shape our economy's in - even if the Congress was in a different shape.

I'm not saying it won't catch on, but it will be a while.

I apologize, but I'm a bit lost. Are you refering to Iraq or Liberia?? Either way, your theory that exporting to America = economic boom is a bit unfounded. Where it may work for a select few countries, it has left many remaining in the gutter.

Liberia's economy is already in the crapper, and will most likely remain that way. At least this way, they have one partner. I think this will be much more of a "if you want some more of those food packages, support us in the UN" situation than anything else. You know, you scratch my back, I scratch yours.

I think the prevailing point here is that many horrors have gone on around the world which the U.S. has often turned a blind eye to. If the only things that motivates us to righteous action are "economic bells and whistles," then I think it's time for us to hand in our good guy badges and turn over our decoder rings.

I think it's an incentive to go there over others, but I don't think that we would not go anywhere were there no incentive. That said, I would prefer we stayed out of other countries will little for us unless it got really bad - we don't want countries to become dependant on us (well, yes, we do; but we don't want the blame if we stop supporting them and it becomes living hell).

I for one am happy we are sending some help to Liberia.

So am I.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Quite frankly, they just haven't advanced enough. There are not enough sources for hydroelectric power.

Huh?

Wind works great out in rural areas, but I sincerly doubt it work well for large cities.

Works okay on rooftops, as do solar panels.

People are afraid of nuclear energy and waste.

As they probably should be, but it seems to work for France. I'm very critical of nuclear energy, but I think we should discuss/investigate it more, rather than simply dismissing it like some would prefer.

Solar energy look ugly, and heck: we are vain. I can also say I've never met anyone who wants to charge up their car.

If electric cars were cheap and more efficient (which they can/will be), people will be fine with it. It's no more alien of a concept than sticking a hose in your car and filling it up with a fossil fuel.

As for solar energy, I think they kind of look cool, IMO. And who cares what's on your roof top? The Israelis are way ahead of the game on this one...

And why not put large panels out in the deserts and dry lands out of sight for most "vain" Americans...?

That, and our govt. would never stand by and watch a ton of jobs be lost with the shape our economy's in - even if the Congress was in a different shape.

What jobs, oil refining??? You have to think in terms of balance. What good does it do our economy if we need to have a bloated military budget to protect every resource we need in every third world military dictatorship?? If we can be self-sufficient here, that's the route we need to take, IMO.

I would prefer we stayed out of other countries will little for us unless it got really bad - we don't want countries to become dependant on us (well, yes, we do; but we don't want the blame if we stop supporting them and it becomes living hell).

You kind of answered that for me.

[The One and Only...]

Huh?

In order to generate large amounts of energy via hydroelectric, you need lots of fast moving water. There just isn't enough like that to make hydroelectric the main source of energy in the country. It could help, but never be the major source.

Works okay on rooftops, as do solar panels.

A lot of it also depends on how much the wind is moving. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see wind powering huge apartment buildings.

As they probably should be, but it seems to work for France. I'm very critical of nuclear energy, but I think we should discuss/investigate it more, rather than simply dismissing it like some would prefer.

I'd like to see it explored too, but I'm speaking as a whole. It's a very hot topic, and I think that in the end, it would be like the abortion discussions in this country.

If electric cars were cheap and more efficient (which they can/will be), people will be fine with it. It's no more alien of a concept than sticking a hose in your car and filling it up with a fossil fuel.

My point is, when will these cars become cheap and more efficient?

As for solar energy, I think they kind of look cool, IMO. And who cares what's on your roof top? The Israelis are way ahead of the game on this one...

A lot of people car about what's on their roof top. That, and solar energy has to be used somewhat conservatively. It's not like you can just write up an electric bill.

And why not put large panels out in the deserts and dry lands out of sight for most "vain" Americans...?

Think of the cost it would take to transport that energy out of the desert. I mean, just look at long distance phone bills and I think you'll see my point...

What jobs, oil refining??? You have to think in terms of balance. What good does it do our economy if we need to have a bloated military budget to protect every resource we need in every third world military dictatorship?? If we can be self-sufficient here, that's the route we need to take, IMO.

How very true. Unfortunatley, I don't think the govt. would see it this way.

Here's a thought: if the world did switch over to green energy, wouldn't that kind of hose countries like Liberia? It's only real chance to get on it's feet right now is by exporting oil.

[Zhukov]

Tasmania is almost 100% Hydroelectric dependant - and we have much smaller dams and water sources than you do in the US. Have they hooked up Niagra Falls? That looks pretty powerful.

And I agree that solar power looks ugly, black billowing smog looks much better.

My point is, when will these cars become cheap and more efficient?


Ha! When the government wants them to!

[kellychaos]

I was only half-kidding ... but who wants to take the wager that our next mission of humanitarian aid involves Venezuela?

[Zero Signal]

Here's a thought: if the world did switch over to green energy, wouldn't that kind of hose countries like Liberia? It's only real chance to get on it's feet right now is by exporting oil.
Oil is still needed for things like plastics, lubricants, etc.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Huh?

In order to generate large amounts of energy via hydroelectric, you need lots of fast moving water. There just isn't enough like that to make hydroelectric the main source of energy in the country. It could help, but never be the major source.

I'll admit that petroleum is probably the most diverse fuel on the planet, being that it can be used for more various purposes than other outlets.

This doesn't mean we can't change our mindset and revert to multiple sources of energy. I also think you're mistaken about the hydro power. I think we probably have the benefit of more rapid water ways than most other nations....


If electric cars were cheap and more efficient (which they can/will be), people will be fine with it. It's no more alien of a concept than sticking a hose in your car and filling it up with a fossil fuel.

My point is, when will these cars become cheap and more efficient?[/quote]

When do DVD players and hummers become cheaper? Like all things, through marketing and advertisement, demand will increase for an efficient "charge her at home" kind of vehicle. Demand often fuels innovation.


A lot of people car about what's on their roof top. That, and solar energy has to be used somewhat conservatively. It's not like you can just write up an electric bill.

It's more DIY, IMO. It's more about personal responsibility and balance. Aren't these "American" attributes....?


And why not put large panels out in the deserts and dry lands out of sight for most "vain" Americans...?

Think of the cost it would take to transport that energy out of the desert. I mean, just look at long distance phone bills and I think you'll see my point...

I think the amount of energy they'd absorb and generate could compensate for that, but I might be wrong....

[The One and Only...]

This doesn't mean we can't change our mindset and revert to multiple sources of energy. I also think you're mistaken about the hydro power. I think we probably have the benefit of more rapid water ways than most other nations....

I'm all for multiple sources of energy, though I can see quite plainly how that may not seem like the case.

On hydro power, we do have a lot of rapid waterways compared to other countries - but proportionally, that may not be the case.


When do DVD players and hummers become cheaper? Like all things, through marketing and advertisement, demand will increase for an efficient "charge her at home" kind of vehicle. Demand often fuels innovation.

That's reasonable, but doesn't really answer my question.

It's more DIY, IMO. It's more about personal responsibility and balance. Aren't these "American" attributes....?

DIY??? I would agree with you there, but you still have to admit that it is inconvienent. I also think we both know that "American" attributes are great for idealism, but do little for realism. I can, however, see such things as being one of the major advertisements for them.


I think the amount of energy they'd absorb and generate could compensate for that, but I might be wrong....

You might be right, as well. Not really my forte, but I am suprised that, if you are right, some solar energy companies have not already come up with the same concept...

I think we may not be seeing each other eye to eye here. I'd love to see green energy become our main source, but I also think that we need to plan for the present as well as the future. Implimenting green energy will come as the technology gets even more advanced, but in the meantime, americans don't want to pay a $1.80 per gallon.

My argument has nothing to do with only using oil, just that I don't see a problem with going to Liberia, helping them out, and possibly setting up a deal. I just don't think it's wrong to do that; perhaps morally wrong for that to be the reason we are going there, but I don't think that is the reason anyway.