Neo-Cons, Liberia & A Fine Mess on a Forgein Policy Quagmire Tree

[Homer12]

An Asterick means a catch-22 or Irony *

The Neo-Conservatives attacked Iraq becuase it was supposed to be an immenant threat with its Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons programs to the USA; thus, invoking the, "What's in the USA's vital intrest Policy Direction?"

-Remeber...the long standing that the military is to be used in defense of the country and vital US intrests abroad; a long staniding US forgein policy mainstay...*

And of course added that Saddam is evil, Liberate the People default clause as justification *.

...obvioulsy lack of concrete evidence on WMD's and thus their lack of being found makes the vital US intrest/defense mainstay null and void at this moment....

So, the neo-cons said the liberateing the people and getting Hussein out-of-power was justification enough and the WMD's were then made a default clause and justification*.

Then comes, "LIBERIA"... A problem they did not need so soon while they try to spin the quagmire in Iraq.

-Remeber...One of the major neo-conservatives mantnra's is also to spread American democracy and economic system to the oppressed masses around the world... This is also well known now before and during the Iraq war...

So this is their stance on Liberia ... the USA should not get involved in Liberia, or if it does it should have many allies with them from Africa or Europe, becuase it is not in American VITAL INTREST OR DEFENSE... You'd think they'ed jump to the chance to free the people of Liberia that marched ASKING the USA for Liberation since that suddenly became the new REASON on why we attacked Iraq*.

An action like this would actually show the world that the USA really wants to spread democracy (or it's empire as many would see anyway, and really have quite a good argument, why would an empire want a nation without many resources or strategic value)*.

1 = Analysis on Modus Operandi ... Since the neo-conservatives are now hiding behined the orginal stance of using the Military for Defense and Vital intrest and not helping Liberia (a nation asking for it), the summarily destroyed the vision that they want to bring democracy to nations that lack it.

And show they have alterior motives with their policy by not directly and agresivly helping liberia.

It has become smoke-and-mirrors feel good mantra, and lIberia has shown this by their hypocritical actions.

2 = Anaylsys on Military Justification ... Liberia has backed them into a corner becuase they fell back on the traditional use of American military when face with Liberia.
This reluctance also helps to focus then on the Justification for attacking Iraq if they were not an immenenant threat for the WMD's reasons given by the Bush.
Ask: Why did the Liberation then become the defualt reason for an invasion?
Ask: Why is their a problem with Liberating the Liberians IF they actually want US to do it, asking for the United States for Help?

answer from neo-cons - It's not in the USA's vital intrest*.

Question: If liberating oppressed people is not in the USA's vital intrest, when it's actually one of the PNAC's and the neo-cons major world goals, and this became reason enough to invade Iraq once WMD have not been found; why the hell do you Neo-cons stick now use the excuse that it is not in the USA's Vital INTREST********????????**************************************

====Last Anaylsis ..... there is no logical progression with this type of forgein policy if it is situational, which with LIBERIA we can no all see in the light of day.

-Bush's reluctance to go to LIBERIA, which seeminly could be a major posotive poltical victory if it works, with the pure intentions to free a country for PURLEY humanitartian reaons would not only help raise the USA's tatterd international rep, but help him get relected.

-This reluctance shows that the Neo-Cons running are forgein policy really had and have alterior motives all aloung with the use of Military force. Could it just be that the IRAQ quagmire is doing this, yes to some extent, but if that's true why are we still in afghanistan?

LIBERIA has shown the problem with shoot-first empire building forgein policy.

Any move they make, is now automaticaly questioned, distrusted, critizised, becuase they have shown themselves to be without any ethic or convition when it really comes down to using the military for a humanitarian cause!!!

This is Compassionate Conservatism my friends.
Every decsion made by them from now in will be a wrong descion. The Neo-Cons have opened the pandora's box of catch-22's and a road to the land of Murphy's law, !!!!

[RobertSeattle]

1. Remember, it's now spelled qWagmire...

:)

[Darranar]

2. You mean you...

DO support American intervention in Liberia without being a part of a UN peacekeeping force? I'm a good liberal, but I don't think that everything that the conservatives, including Bush, do is automatically wrong.

[Homer12]

3. Real Humanitarian intervention

Is to go into Liberia and help the people their; they want the help, they are sick of the civil war.

So, yes, I hope they go into Liberia, becuase it will be for the right reasons...unlike Iraq.

Yet, the Bush administration is reluctant none-the-less to go into Liberia? Why? If it has a clear defined moral, ethical, and compassionate even christian justification?

I was just pointing out that Liberia, is showing that the neo-conservatives forgein policy is doomed to failure as a uni-lateral policy. And this policy puts the USA into a box, when it comes to making descions like going to Liberia, when the neo-conservatives really have alterior motives all along and don't follow their own rhetoric.