Kudos to our US of A

We’ve been flamed so much in the past 2 years, you’d think we were committing genocide, and threatening to use all our nukes to reduce the world to sawdust.

We suffered terrorist acts other nations could only dream of - in their worst nightmares.
Yet we’re not only BLAMED for the attacks inflicted upon us, we’re expected to remain passive.
But we’re not. In 2 years we’ve been to Afghanistan, Iraq, now Liberia. We’re present in the Phillipines. We’ve been to Bosnia, where our pilots got shot down, we’ve been to Kosovo.

I KNOW much of the world doesnt agree with what we do, and just as many hate us. They hate our guts.
Is that ever a reason to drop your beliefs and recoil in your little sofa watching tv and HOPE everything will be okay and that human conscience will lead murderers to do the right thing? Let me put it this way, if someone has killed thousands of innocent people, what are the odds that they will stop? What are the odds those innocent people will live without fear and in freedom?

This isnt just a compelling new story. Its not just words. People are living in Fear and are being killed daily around the world - specifically in Liberia.

France looks at these countries and says out of respect and diplomacy they will not do what their people wont do. They just dont want to be responsible for worsening a situation if things go bad. That’s not responsibility - That’s EVASION of your responsibility to help those in need.

Well, kudos to our GREAT country - the US of A. Because we’re there when someone needs us, well before France and Germany. We’re in Liberia now. And we’ll be in far more places in the coming years if need be.
Somehow, a prosperous country gets a bad rap among other nations. Maybe they’re afraid of our power, or jealous of our prosperity - afterall we’re the most powerful, the most prosperous, and the most free country in the world. They get paranoid and make up stories that we’re hiding little gray man with big black eyes whom we found in Roosevelt, or that we really have a hidden agenda to conquer the whole world and acquire all its greatest resources. Sure.

BUT if that’s the price to pay, so be it. I’d rather have half the world be jealous and envious of my country, knowing we do the right thing, than be pointing my finger at someone for lending a helping hand while I wallow in my own proverty and wish I was as prosperous as them.

Right on. Great post.

I can feel Restless seething already

Restless, before you start, shut the fuck up. Thanks.

Restless, you have such a hatred for the US. I know, you will probably say you don’t but come on…if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.

You certainly are entitled to your opinions but why do you bother interacting with everyone here on the web when its full of people you dislike? Is it to enlighten us or just a way for you to take out your frustration?

I’m not trying to shut you down or get rid of people who don’t agree with me, so please don’t give me that line. I just want to know what your motivation is. I couldn’t imagine spending so much time and energy telling, for instance, French individuals(and other like minded folks) why their foreign policy and subsequent actions or inactions are so fooked.

Bush could smell the oil in Nigeria, that’s why you’re going to Liberia.

Here’s the latest from Greg Palast RE: Liberia

LIBERIA: CORPSES AT OUR DOORSTEP
By Greg Palast
Originally published in the Baltimore Sun, July 25, 2003

“THE PHOTOS of corpses in the streets of Liberia’s capital and news
reports with those words so familiar in the New World Order - ‘warlord,’
‘civil war,’ ‘warring tribes’ - prompt a gut response in both the U.S.
public and U.S. government, ‘Let’s get in the helicopters and just get
the heck out.’ The easiest, obvious policy is to let Liberia die.”

Those words, which I wrote to the U.S. State Department eight years ago, could have been written today. All that’s changed since then is the
name of the president and the names of the dead.

In 1995, at the request of prominent Liberians, I took an unofficial
delegation to convey that nation’s plea to provide material and U.S.
Marines to support a peacekeeping force from other West African states.

Then, as now, visions of another Somalia, of another Black Hawk Down, led
to our government’s deadly hesitation.
This week, as mortar shells burst inside refugee centers, Liberians dropped the bodies of their parents, friends and one headless child at the doorstep of the American Embassy - a ghoulish but apt protest. They are the grim reminders of our culpability in the killings, which goes much deeper than the Clinton and Bush administrations’ policy of benign neglect.

Reporters never fail to mention that former American slaves founded Liberia, yet have passed over more recent history: The administration of Ronald Reagan armed the first berserker to seize power in Liberia, setting in motion the current civil war.

Liberia enjoyed a century and a half of democracy and prosperity until 1980, when a low-ranking officer in the presidential guard, Samuel K. Doe, murdered the president, executed the nation’s entire Cabinet and declared himself ruler. Within months, the newly inaugurated Ronald Reagan locked down Mr. Doe’s hold on power by showering him with $500
million in taxpayer dollars, the most aid granted any African nation.

In return for this largesse, Liberia’s first dictator made his nation the U.S. government’s African spearhead in the Cold War, a counter to Moammar Gadhafi of Libya and the Russians and Cubans advancing in Angola.

America’s cash funded Mr. Doe’s war of misery, atrocity and attrition against rival gangsters (“warlords” is far too grand a name for the greed-driven thugs that vie for the spoils of control). Today, the Cold War and President Reagan are gone; so is Mr. Doe, who was hacked into pieces in the presidential mansion. But the bloody residue of the use of
Liberia as our foreign policy pawn remains.

Liberia is no Somalia. As I wrote in 1995, “The shooters and looters are not organized armies but roving gangs of notorious bullies who flee at the first show of strength. Therefore, a properly armed and supported African peacekeeping force can take guns out of the hands of the teen-agers that make up much of the ganglord’s ‘troops.’”

One of the criminals claiming power is the nominal president, Charles Taylor, who invaded Liberia in 1989 with 125 mercenaries after his escape from a Massachusetts prison. Technically, he was elected to office. However, Mr. Taylor’s technique of armed campaigning - with the implicit slogan, “Vote for me or I’ll kill you” - hardly grants legitimacy to
this jailbird’s authority.

There is, of course, a real danger in U.S. intervention: the Iraqi-fication of a humanitarian policing mission.
In Iraq, America’s first viceroy in Baghdad, retired Gen. Jay Garner, was replaced by President Bush. I suspect his error was to announce Iraqis could hold elections within 90 days of the end of hostilities. His successor has postponed elections until next year or the year after. Mr. Garner had a military man’s instinct that “liberation” begins, after
three months, to look like colonial reoccupation - and the cost of that
shift can be counted up in body bags for U.S. soldiers.

In Liberia as in Iraq, we should be wary of the temptation to overstay our welcome. Liberia is close enough to Nigeria for the Bush administration to smell the oil. The French have moved troops into the nearby Ivory Coast, and Britain has reasserted authority over Sierra Leone.

It is easy to imagine humanitarian intervention taking an ugly turn, with America again using Liberia as puppet, this time in a tussle over control of African resources. But the greatest difference between other nations where our troops have landed and Liberia is that in Liberia we are welcome.
And we are obligated. We rushed in to fund the killings, now we must go
in to end it. Until then, the Liberians will pile the corpses at our
doorstep to remind us of the blood on our hands.

Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his writings for Britain’s Observer and
Guardian newspapers, and view his investigative reports for BBC Television’s Newsnight, at www.GregPalast.com

It looks like Liberia is just another one of the Reagan govt’s puppet states, just like Iraq was. & is it any coincidence that they’re going to Liberia when the same old Reagan gov’t people (Rumdfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) are back in Washington?

monsiour_quebec

If we just want oil how come we have an oil embargo on Iran, how come we didn’t take over Iraq, Kuwait and Suadi Arabia in 1991. How come we spend some much money supporting Isreal when they have no oil. Why go into Liberia with all it’s chaos when there are other more stable oil rich African nations. Hell, wouldn’t it be easier to just drill in Alaska then to risk our men just for oil?

Now, granted, we did fight the first gulf war over oil. We had an agreement with saudi arbia; they gave us oil and we protected them. When Saddam threatened them, we basically had to go in. But to act like all we do is motivated by oil is rediculous.

PS I don’t think Restless has ever said anything bad about the USA as a country. He’s only ever criticized the policies of the government, which has nothing to do with “hating” the USA as a country. They’re not the same thing and have nothing to do with each other.

Actually, mon quebec, restless has had plenty of nasty things to say about America and Americans in general. Just read the last two Iraq threads. (i.e. The stupid Americans that couldn’t find Portugal on a map, are incapable of higher reasoning, and elected a retard as further proof of their stupidity.) The stereotyping and hate manage to boil through time and again.

This is funny…

Mon quebec, did you ever see much video of garner in iraq? If so you would have known a few things.

  1. He wasn’t ever planning on staying any length of time, just was there on a favor to “hold the position” until a committee could choose the real adminstrator
  2. He looked like a deer in headlights the whole time. Just look at him wandering around the place, looked completely like a fish out of water. You could tell he knew he didn’t want to nor need to do anything but keep the peace.

Now with liberia, so what are your favored nations doing about it? What are they doing about any of africa? Many parts are just a mess, and your beloved UN tends to just sit there and hide in their vehicles in most of them, not being allowed to do anything but stand ground, not even return fire most times.
Any military guy I talk with just dreads the thought of getting stuck with UN duty because of how it all works. My brother is going to have to do some more of that crap this summer and he is just not happy about it. It’s akin to babysitting in the pc world (ie can’t discipline the children you are watching even though they stick you with knives).
Sometimes more than just a “presence” is needed, problem is the UN is unwilling to give more than that, or even give anything remotely strong enough to be a presence.

Forget what Monsieur_pussy said.

Let’s keep the focus on the thread: Kudos to our ol’ US of A.

Monsieur wil keep posting radical and liberal opinions and so will restless. Ignore them and focus on the thread instead. They cannot possibly have much of a discussion with only 2 or 3 of them, and it’ll die very fast since they all agree with each other. Dont give them rope, no matter how tasty the chocolate seems.

UN manpower are nothing but BDU filler. They stand in their battle dress uniforms but dont do squat, because of all the limitations and regulations the UN imposes on their troops. Fuck them. The UN will only do the right thing when it has the approval of EVERYONE, so as to not get any bad press (god forbid). Send in the REAL soldiers, the REAL commanders and leaders who know how to get this shit done.

Some points I’d like to make:

  1. If no other country stepped in when shit hit the fan, where would we be now? Thanks to the US for that.

  2. There’s a lot of controversy nowadays over the US fighting the proposal for their soldiers accused of misconduct (read: accidents) in war in international court as opposed to one on US soil. I don’t agree. Yes there are more US soldiers mixed up in mishaps like these than any other nationality. Why? They have more soldiers ACTIVELY making/keeping peace than any other country in the world. In war, shit happens.

  3. I am glad that they went into Iraq - “So-damn Insane” had to go. But, I do think they should have had UN approval first. It undermined the authority of the UN for them to do so.

  4. I wish they’d stop talking and hit those crazy fuckers in North Korea next, soon, and quickly.

  5. I’m Canadian so this is not a biased, flag swinging post. I think the US does do some things wrong of course, but for the most part, they are admirably playing the role of big brother for all the other countries in the world who can’t take care of themselves in times when war is needed. Also, kudos since they are not a country which has the ability but chooses to turn a blind eye to problems outside their borders (China, Russia, yes they still have the ability, as well as a few others.

Thanks US from a gracious neighbor.

“If we just want oil how come we have an oil embargo on Iran, how come we didn’t take over Iraq, Kuwait and Suadi Arabia in 1991. How come we spend some much money supporting Isreal when they have no oil. Why go into Liberia with all it’s chaos when there are other more stable oil rich African nations. Hell, wouldn’t it be easier to just drill in Alaska then to risk our men just for oil?”
The invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with oil. Colin Powell, when he was head of the Joint Chiefs, said that the problem was that Saddam might withdraw & leave a puppet regime in place, just like the USA did 2 months earlier in Panama. There was a popular revolution after the USA’s invasion which probably would have overthrown Saddam’s regime but the USA denied the revolting generals access to the captured Iraqi arms. Why would the USA do that? Well to support their favorite mass murderer. That’s why Iraq wasn’t taken over. RE: Alaska. The USA has lots of oil in Alaska, but if they control other sources elsewhere they can keep others from getting it. France & Russia were interested in Iraq’s oil, but they can’t get any of it now with the USA controlling it.

“Monsieur wil keep posting radical and liberal opinions and so will restless. Ignore them and focus on the thread instead.”
This thread is about Liberia, so I posted something about Liberia. I think diesel just provided more evidence for the narrow ranges of debate in the USA. I post something that breaks out of conventions & it’s immediately dismissed as ‘liberal’ or ‘radical.’ What does that say about the bounds of debate in your country? LOL keep it up pal, you’ll just keep proving my point.

Dunno if it will make anyone feel any better but no reasonable person hates America or its people. Its the government and their policies and motives. Sounds like a dumb thing to say but it might help some people not to take some things so personally. Bali & 911 are personal however. The question is are US activities the cause of these peoples problems. There is one otherwise they wouldn’t be so angry. They need a scapegoat or a target.
I sometimes wonder if some of the more dogmatic religious practices should be outlawed as breaches of human rights.
Send Bigconan & Coercix over as ambassadors.

It would be fairly safe to say that I don’t have the highest of regards for the average patriotic war supporting American’s hability to reason and cultural level but this is not the sam3e as saying that I hate Americans just for the simple fact that they are from the USA. I completely disdain the USA’s foreign policy and the incapacity a large segment of the USA’s population display in seeing beyond governmental propaganda and I do believe that your country is one of the biggest threats to world peace. Oh, and I do hate things like US=NF.

monsiour_quebec

?The invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with oil. Colin Powell, when he was head of the Joint Chiefs, said that the problem was that Saddam might withdraw & leave a puppet regime in place, just like the USA did 2 months earlier in Panama.?

What the fuck are you talking about? Yes, the US did not want Saddam to leave a puppet in place as they pulled out because that would have the affect of continuing the Iraqi invasion. However, we still went in to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, mostly Saudi Arabia. We have a reciprocal arrangement with these countries, they provide oil, we provide security. The same stable oil prices, and subsequently, rather healthy economy we all enjoy in North America, is in large part because of the stability we provide in the Middle East. I don?t expect you to appreciative that. I?m guessing you will instead tell me about all the babies we feed to lions.

?There was a popular revolution after the USA’s invasion which probably would have overthrown Saddam’s regime but the USA denied the revolting generals access to the captured Iraqi arms. Why would the USA do that??

I?ll try to clear it up. After the USA victory over Irag, there indeed was an uprising, led mostly by the Kurds. However, the Kurds really wanted to break off from Iraq and form their own country. The US wasn?t sure how to handle this because on one hand we really wanted Saddam overthrown by Iraqies but on the other hand we did not want Iraq to break apart. Iraq provides a hedge against Iran. It was felt that if Iraq was broken into smaller countries that Iran and its radicals would move across a large part of the Middle East. The US wanted the Kurds to over throw Saddam but we did not want to make them so strong that they would break up the country. Ultimately it proved to be a bad move. We should have provided them the weapons the needed and then gone in and stabilized the country to keep it from breaking up.

Restless,

I appreciate your candor, but I already new that much from reading your posts. I want to know why you spend so much time and energy making sure we all know how much you dislike our foreign policy and the majority of us brainwashed Americans.

It?s certainly your right to do so but your rhetoric is so intense. It?s one thing to have a debate, even a heated one, but you really go the extra mile in making sure we all know your disdain for America. You seem to have such a sense of urgency and vileness about it. It seems you want to insult us more so than debate us.

Why? That is really my question.

“What the fuck are you talking about? Yes, the US did not want Saddam to leave a puppet in place as they pulled out because that would have the affect of continuing the Iraqi invasion. However, we still went in to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, mostly Saudi Arabia. We have a reciprocal arrangement with these countries, they provide oil, we provide security. The same stable oil prices, and subsequently, rather healthy economy we all enjoy in North America, is in large part because of the stability we provide in the Middle East.”

That information is simply false. Colin Powell, the same Secretary of State Powell in the Bush gove’t said precisely that what they were worried about was that Saddam might withdraw & leave a puppet government in its place. He was only duplicating what the USA had done 2 months earlier in Panama. I think Saddam committed the crime of independence, ie he didn’t follow US orders. That’s why J Edgar Hoover plotted to assassinate former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, because he put Canada’s needs first & didn’t follow US orders.

"Why? That is really my question. "

Since you put it in these terms I’m left with no other choice but to answer you. It will probably be long post, or then again, maybe not, and when I have some time I will answer. Of course, the main reasons could all be gathered in my numerous past posts but you probably want to know something else.