Bush & Liberia
 

What are your feelings on the crisis in Liberia and Bush's trip to Africa?

Personally.........

I believe Bush has begun "caring" about Africa because the election is right around the corner. So he gave some monetary aid to combat AIDS in Africa. But since then not another word was said about it and much of the money can not be used for prevention programs that advocate for condom use :eek: . The Liberian Civil War has been going on for 14 years and now he's stepping in to "help". For a party that doesn't believe in "nation building" he's surely spending more time destroying and rebuilding every other nation but ours. :rolleyes:

*The opinions presented represent me and me alone!*

I'm not really for Bush going to Liberia. I don't really see what it will do. It seems to me more like he's bowing to pressure from Kofi Annan and others. It would be very hypocritical for Bush to use humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq (Operation: Iraqi Freedom) and then ignore Liberia when the United States does have historic ties to the country.

I also think the timing of this trip is important. Bush is in Africa just as the major news networks are saying that the reasons for engaging in war in Iraq were falsified and exaggerated. But if he is in Africa, consiering sending forces to Liberia, then maybe he is a caring leader after all...maybe Iraq was an innocent mistake and he didn't know anything about the information being untrue.

If he does decide to send forces to Liberia, it will be great. However, I think it will be done as a diversion from the fact that we engaged in a war where many American lives were lost and it was based on inaccurate information.

These may be dumb questions, but I'm going to ask them anyway:

* Is there oil in Liberia?
* What other natural resources are there that can be exploited?

Edited to add: I answered my own question. From the CIA World FactBook:

Natural resources: iron ore, timber, diamonds, gold, hydropower

DIAMONDS

it has been discussed on some the news programs I've been watching. Diamonds keep coming up

There is no oil in Liberia but they have diamonds and Iron ore, gold and a fertile land.

I think that the importance of Liberia in the eye of the American governement lies in the historical strategic ties that links the
two countries. This country gave for many years an opportunity for the USA to have an economic presence in West Africa whose foreign presence is largely dominated by French and British interests.

As for Bush in Liberia, or his trip to Africa... ... whatever !
He should have stayed home and save himself the trouble... I don't think Americans care some much on his views about Africa that this trip will sway their vote.

I don't think that him sending troops in Africa will change the views many have about the involvment of USA in Iraq. The stakes are so much higher... ...

Oops Sistermadly I did not see the editing part sorry!:D

What will history say?
 

What do you all think history will say regarding this visit?

Just asking--'cuz the president did come dayum close to apologizing for the enslavement of our Afrikan ancestors... Which concerns me, 'cuz I'm thinkin' whatsup, heerah now??? :confused:

Watch out for the all out reshipment of negroes back to Africa... Watch out for these "special cards" that all amerikkklans must carry to show that they are not terrorists...

And y'all bedda believe that this whole think is about exploiting the diamonds... Iraq was about oil... Liberia is about diamonds... Oil and diamonds... Even if they are not jewelry grade, the diamonds are good for weapons of mass destruction... A diamond is the hardest substance on earth... Only another diamond can cut a diamond... You gotta get those WMD's in the satellites somehow...

There is "chatter" that foreign countries will make dayum sure ads for the democratic presidential candidate are WELL funded... The whole of Europe is rather pissed at Bush for jackin' they chit up in Iraq--France lost billion dollar contracts on oil... The EU don't like Bush's style at all. France and Germany don't like the US right now... And the UK is very close to not liking Bush also...

I'd say that 2004--foreign countries will make sure the presidential "chads" will be specifically counted!!!

Re: What will history say?
 

You are too funny !! :D (rooling on the floor!)

Re: What will history say?
 

Good question. What has history said regarding the Clintons' visit to Africa a few years ago? Precious little, if my memory's right. Africa is still thought of as (1) one country instead of an entire continent and (2) full of "those people" that no one cares about. Think: how often do you hear news about Africa in mainstream media sources that doesn't involve AIDS, political unrest, or inter-tribal warfare?

I admit that I'm very skeptical of anything this administration does, but in the long run, I'm afraid this trip will have little effect on the day to day lives of Africans. I believe that this visit will be used by the Republicans as "proof" of their "Compassionate Conservatism" and as a way to make African Americans take notice so that they'll turn out in greater numbers to support the GOP in 2004.

Posted on Thu, Jul. 10, 2003

Bush 'won't overextend' troops for Liberia
BY G. ROBERT HILLMAN
Dallas Morning News

PRETORIA, South Africa - Facing growing worldwide demands on U.S. military forces, President Bush said Wednesday that he intends to honor his commitment to African leaders to help enforce a tenuous cease-fire in Liberia but will not push America's military beyond its limits.

"We won't overextend our troops, period," he said during a joint news conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki.

Again, Bush stopped short of committing troops to Liberia, saying he was awaiting an assessment from an advance military team in the war-torn country.

But he made it clear that he intended to continue to support the training of African peacekeeping forces. "It's in our interest that we continue that strategy," he said, "so that we don't get overextended."

The U.S. military is already deployed in large numbers in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and the Philippines, among other places.

As he travels across Africa this week, Bush is increasingly finding that his messages of trade, aid and health care to combat the AIDS epidemic ravaging the continent are competing with persistent questions from African leaders and others about his commitment to help ensure stability in war-torn Liberia.

On Tuesday in Senegal, the issue arose during Bush's meeting with President Abdoulaye Wade and other West African leaders. And on Wednesday in Pretoria, it arose in a meeting with Mbeki and again during their news conference.

"He asked whether or not we'd be involved, and I said, 'Yes, we'll be involved,"' Bush said. "And we're now determining the extent of our involvement."

While the South African president welcomed the U.S. commitment, he emphasized that "we're not saying that this is a burden that just falls on the United States."

"It really ought to principally fall on us as Africans," Mbeki said. "Of course, we need a lot of support, logisticswise, to do that, but the will is there."

Bush again called on Liberian President Charles Taylor, who has been indicted for crimes against humanity in neighboring Sierra Leone, to leave the country. But in Liberia, there were no signs of a quick Taylor departure to Nigeria, where he has been promised asylum, or to anyplace else.

Bush is ending his five-day, five-country sweep of Africa on Saturday in Nigeria. And aides indicated it would take considerably more time for members of the military team to complete their assessment in Liberia.

Nelson Mandela, the revered civil rights leader who fought apartheid to become president of South Africa, has been harshly critical of Bush's decision to invade Iraq. And for that or whatever other reasons, the two men are not meeting this week. Mandela, the State Department noted, is out of the country during Bush's visit.

There have been protests against Bush in Senegal and South Africa, though none disrupting his trip.

At a Ford auto plant, though, where he swept through an assembly line in a campaign-style, hand-shaking, backslapping photo opportunity, Bush was greeted enthusiastically.

And in a round-table discussion with Ford executives, he pressed his case for a five-year, $15 billion global AIDS program and listened intently to descriptions of the company's aggressive program to fight the disease, which infects one of every five South African adults.

Bush flies to Botswana today for a half-day visit that includes short tours of a new trade hub and a wild game preserve. He will return to Pretoria in the afternoon.

On Friday, he'll stop in Uganda on his way to Nigeria, where he'll address an African conference Saturday before flying back to Washington.

On his agenda, in addition to trade, aid and health care, is $100 million in new money to fight terrorism, particularly in East Africa, where Osama bin Laden's terrorist network has been active.

"We are determined to fight and to join our friends to fight terrorists throughout this continent and throughout the world," Bush said.

------------------------

surprise, :rolleyes: surprise :rolleyes:

Does anyone else find the amount of money being spent on the anti-terrorism campaign to be completely ridiculous?

Not to mention what $100 million could do here in the states :eek:, but think about the affect it could have if used to fight wars where we actually know what the culprit is, as in inadequate health care, improper water sanitation, famine, etc.

That money is not going to change the religious views or steadfast opinions of the people that are against America and what it stands for. It's more than just finding Bin Laden and his followers. That is not going to change what has been drilled into the lives and culture of a people for many, many years.

I just had to vent for a sec...sorry

I agree 1908%!!!

To add, $100 million is just about that much to buy out maybe 2-5 diamond mines in that area--which is not saying much, 'cuz some of those mines do not have diamonds, much less, one would decimate the environment stripping for the dayum unusable kimberlite pipes that don't have any diamonds to begin with...

$100 million ain't about heppin' folks who have AIDS in Africa, it's about allowing the big ticket drug companies to further exploit infected people causing them to bare children that have an AIDS antibody, no symptoms but full of the protease inhibitor cocktails which renders them defenseless to opportunistic infections that have become resistant based on the dayum drugs they bequeathed upon them from jump... And doctors say they have NADA idea what the AIDS drugs do to the unborn??? What, more genocide? Oh well... :rolleyes:

$100 million guarentees a feel good status for those folks and negroes that need to throw money away, disempower, disable and dismiss--just a total diss--what really needs to be done is Africa. Forget that fact that folks see the CONTINENT as a country--that just isn't good enuf for the sound bites :rolleyes: They gotta have some "human interests" stories on TV...

My take: Bush is surveying for the, um Corporate World (called the "Supremacists powers that be") for further exploitation--err, I mean exploration before investing (also known as throwing money away) on a space project...

If one controls Africa, they control the world...

"I am just not quite evil enough... I'm quasi evil, semi-evil, I'm the margerine of evil. I'm the diet Coke of evil... Just one calorie, not evil enuf..."
Dubya

Bush receives lukewarm reception in Africa
 

The African Bush
By June Thomas
Posted Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 5:41 PM PT
George W. Bush's trip to Africa—with stops in Botswana, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, and Uganda—received a lukewarm welcome from the African press. South Africa's Sunday Times said the whirlwind tour is "part of an elaborate plan to give [Bush's] presidency a human face. Being seen to be helping 'poor, starving Africans,' and expressing support for the New Partnership for Africa's Development will work with African-American voters who are key to Bush's re-election campaign." On a less high-minded note, an op-ed in the Nation of Kenya looked forward to hearing Bush "pronounce African tongue-twister names like Olusegun Obasanjo and Abdoulaye Wade."
South Africa's Mail and Guardian likened Bush to a prostitute: "Like the world's oldest profession, the Republican administration of United States President George W Bush has interests, rather than principles." The editorial warned, "It would be a mistake to take Bush's 'compassionate agenda' seriously. His whistle-stop tour of five African countries … must be seen for what it is—hard-eyed self-service posing as a mercy mission." Bush's main concerns, the paper said, are "domestic security, the advancement of corporate America and the securing of strategic assets, mainly oil." The paper concluded, "Africa can exert some beneficial influence in bringing the world's most destructive and irresponsible rogue state back into line."
The Cape Argus said it was in the United States' interest to help Africa: "The 11 conflicts currently tearing the continent apart must … make Bush realise that any one of those theatres of war has the potential to hide and nurture those who wish to harm the US. … It is important that when Bush leaves, he leaves behind hope and economic prospects that will lift Africans out of poverty." The Cape Times, meanwhile, counseled Bush's opponents to exercise "restraint and sobriety" in the interests of realpolitik. "It is foolish to castigate and vilify the US yet, in the same breath, demand that the US increase its aid to Africa."
The Financial Times said Bush goofed by leaving Kenya off his itinerary. The East African nation has suffered significant losses as a result of two al-Qaida bombings—of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi in 1998 and an Israeli-owned hotel in Mombassa last November. "In both cases, the victims were mostly Kenyans. Subsequent warnings against travel to Kenya by the US, Britain and others … have caused disproportionate damage to its economy. If anyone wants to persuade Africans that the world does not treat them unfairly, this is not the way to do it."
An op-ed in Kenya's East African concluded that Bush is not serious about Africa because "he won't eat matooke." Rather than traveling with his own chefs, the president should sample local food, because for "most Africans nothing speaks more eloquently of your affection for them … than having a meal in their homes."

Re: What will history say?
 

True, he did come close to apologizing. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The point is he DIDN'T. I find it further insulting that he made such a speech in Senegal yet has said nary a word like that right here in the U.S.

You also stated correctly that diamonds have worth besides jewlery, they are used in manufacturing and lasers I think.

Sistermadly, actually there was some hulaballoo about Clinton's trip to Africa. I think it was the most extensive one ever by a U.S. president prior to Bush #2. However, it had little other historical signifiance as far as I know.