Liberia vs. Iraq

[Cpl Stumps]

For Discussion:

Why is it O.K. for the U.N. to ask us (the U.S.A) to go into Liberia to stop the fighting, basically fill in while the leader leaves (removed, depends on how you look at it). Protect Liberian Civilians and prevent further needless deaths and if we have to shoot and kill some guerrilla to protect them, then that's ok. But it's a bad thing to remove from power a man and his offspring that have killed hundreds if not thousands of his own people.

So before anyone goes off on me, let's say that the justification about WMDs was not the main reason to go into Iraq. But what if the Kurds had gone to the U.N. and said "Hey, Saddam is shooting, gassing, raping and torturing us. Would you please intervene." Would the war have been justified then??? So for the U.N the atrocities that have been found in Iraq were not enough to deploy troops, but a mortar shell landing in a market killing 12 is. I'm not saying that those 12 lives weren't precious, I'm just asking were the 10s of thousands of Iraqi's that disappeared under Saddam's rule not equally as precious??? And yes it it tragic that civilians were wounded and killed as we went into Iraq. But can anyone honestly tell me that there is no chance that if we're asked to pacify the guerrillas in Liberia that some innocents aren't going to get injured.

Just my thoughts, feel free to unleash yours.

[Trigger]

It's OK by the UN because either way it's a 'lose-lose' situation for the U.S.
We go in - the Mortimers of the world chalk it up to American Imperialism.
We go in - the Saints of the world get their rocks off as Americans die.
We go in - we get to kill children carrying AKs. :|

[JiJoMacLE45]

Agree w/ you %110 Stumps. Hey I don't fault them for wanting to stop the violence in Liberia, it is the right thing to do. But to do it in this manner, it's extremely hypocritical. Why didn't they intervene in Rwanda, what took them so long in the Balkans. Hell they wouldn't even go into Somalia until the US Marines had been ashore. To say that Charles Taylor is more of a threat to the rest of the world and than Saddam Hussein, well somebody at the UN has been hitting the helium to much. It's just another one of those things that makes you shake your head.

[martinexsquaddie]

er The American goverment worked damm hard to make sure nobody intervened in Rwanda
Iraq was a premptive attack the reason given to the UN was the threat of WMDs not many people believed the Wmd threat was that real.
Liberia is a peace keeping mission not a pre emptive attack and the west african countries are ready to send troops.
Unlike Iraq where no neighbouring countries offered troops

[budanski]

The Iraq war was fought under the War on Terrorism. Unless Saddams hanging out at Charles Taylors house, I dont see why we should go in.

[spier]

So before anyone goes off on me, let's say that the justification about WMDs was not the main reason to go into Iraq. But what if the Kurds had gone to the U.N. and said "Hey, Saddam is shooting, gassing, raping and torturing us. Would you please intervene." Would the war have been justified then??? So for the U.N the atrocities that have been found in Iraq were not enough to deploy troops, but a mortar shell landing in a market killing 12 is. I'm not saying that those 12 lives weren't precious, I'm just asking were the 10s of thousands of Iraqi's that disappeared under Saddam's rule not equally as precious??? And yes it it tragic that civilians were wounded and killed as we went into Iraq. But can anyone honestly tell me that there is no chance that if we're asked to pacify the guerrillas in Liberia that some innocents aren't going to get injured.

Just my thoughts, feel free to unleash yours.Do you have evidence for that thousands of civilians actually were killed by the Iraqis? Serious question.

[martinexsquaddie]

oh dear god
saudi's were involved in 11/9/02
not iraqis . Not even tony belives saddam was very active in international terrorism he was to busy causing terror in iraq

[budanski]

In case you havent noticed, It was declared a War on Terrorism, not War on Al Qaeda, not War on Saudis, but on Terrorism. pretty general.

What do you call Saddam supporting international terrorism by supporting such groups as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.? $10,000 to suicide bomber's families is damaging evidence where I'm sitting.

[Cpl Stumps]

As far as proof of 10s to hundreds to thousands of dead Iraqi's killed by Saddam, there have been quite a few reports of mass graves being found in Iraq. There have been quite a few reports of people who's loved ones went missing never to be seen again. It's from these reports that I base my arguement. Here is just some info from ABC and the BBC.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq030513_massgraves.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2785095.stm

As far as Liberia being a peace keeping mission, those are just words. Reality is that 2100 Marines are most likely going to deploy to LZs from helos and amtraks. Their then going to fan out and set up road blocks and escort convoys and provide air cover and security while the Western African Nations move in. Call me quirky, but this sounds like a pre-emptive strike to me. I mean what if anything has the Liberians done to America. They haven't fired at our aircraft over a U.N. mandated No-Fly zone. Have they helped sponsor terrorist that might someday attack us? Have they attempted or been successfuly in creating WMDs in the past? So what justification is there for us going in besides to help out the people who are caught in the middle. Is Taylor any kinda threat to Europe, or Nigeria or South Africa? Taylor has been accused of War Crimes by the U.N. So why should the U.S. go in to Liberia for the U.N. when it clearly is for their interests but we're not allowed to go into Iraq, when Saddam has done much worse than Taylor. Peace Keeping Mission, Invasion, Pre-emptive strike are just words. It still going to be the same thing military intervention and aggression by one nation against another to facilitate a change.

[spier]

As far as proof of 10s to hundreds to thousands of dead Iraqi's killed by Saddam, there have been quite a few reports of mass graves being found in Iraq. There have been quite a few reports of people who's loved ones went missing never to be seen again. It's from these reports that I base my arguement. Here is just some info from ABC and the BBC.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq030513_massgraves.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2785095.stm Sorry, but I don't think you fully understood my question; where is the evidence that proves that the Iraqi regime were responsible for these murders? And were they all innocent civilians?

Remember some of the mass graves found in Europe after WW2? Everyone assumed that the Nazis were the guilty ones, but later it was proved that in many cases the locals had gone to work completely independently from the Nazi occupiers. When the Allies freed them then they just blamed the Nazis. Who were going to argue against them anyway?

The massgraves in Iraq could be filled with victims from the Iraq-Iranian war, they could be criminals, they could be rebels from the Gulf War uprising and they could be victims of tribal conflicts. Again, people accuse the bad people for everything, even without any hard evidence. And no, people lie, so eyewitnesses are not what I would call hard evidence.

I am not defending Saddam's regime, but I think we should have as many facts as possible before we start assuming things like we did after WW2.

[Herrmannek]

By spier:

Remember some of the mass graves found in Europe after WW2? Everyone assumed that the Nazis were the guilty ones, but later it was proved that in many cases the locals had gone to work completely independently from the Nazi occupiers

What countrys, places you are taking about?

And remember mass killing under Sadams regime whitout his permision or inspiration was almost impossible. So naturally he is indicted for all that crimes.

[Spearin]

The situation in Liberia is something that the UN has experience at intervening in. The War on Terror and the conflict in Iraq is completely different from Peacekeeping which the UN is familiar with.

[Cpl Stumps]

Spier,

The BBC article says that a Colonel who defected said that they buried Shia Muslims who rose up against the Saddams after the first Gulf War. The report also said that they buried Kurds after gassing them and also brought live Kurds and buried them using bulldozers. Your point could be valid, that these are mass graves for real criminals. But are there really that many criminals in Iraq that would have been executed and needed to be buried. Here in America we have something like 2 million people in prison for crimes and we have 250 million people. Iraq has 24,683,313 people (from CIA website). So you have to wonder if they truly have that many criminals. Also I read in a Time article that they did find mass graves containing Iranian Soldiers from I & I War, but those bodies were going to be sent back to Iran. So the bodies they're finding are people that Saddam's government did not like.

[Seiyuuki]

So, Saddam and his sons were Saint (or the Islamic equivalent). They were good leaders who only killed criminals...How do they define criminal? :lol: p-)

[RealUltimatePower]

About Rwanda Martin, why was that the US's responsibility? There were already Canadian, Belgian and other nations sent there under the UN. They are the one's we should hold responsible for not sending sufficient forces to stop the genocide, shouldn't they?

[usa320]

I highly doubt the UN will ever play a large roll in deciding where American troops are sent after the last circus.