"So you are saying that if the Bush reluctance is staged and he is considering doing so to divert the public eye from what's going on in Iraq, then you oppose or favor going to Liberia? "

I'll tell you in just a second, now that you finally got around to actually asking and not attributing. But your post says a lot, and I should respond.

"Which is it and what has Bush got to do with it? Isn't it just right or wrong or hard to call either way?"

Your first question is immaterial to your second, It may be right OR wrong AND Bush is using it as a diversion.

"The only thing I got out of your post is that you didn't like Bush, then after 911 you kind of liked him with a few instances of not liking him in the middle and now you do indeed hate him. "

Yep, works for me.

"And BTW, your suggestion that Bush could "DIVERT THE PUBLIC EYE" by sending troops to Liberia is a hoot."

Your affected derision at this claim is amusing, but if you have been listening to/reading the news for the last week, you will see that there has been more time spent on the should we/shouldn't we Liberian question, and less time on the missing WMD.

How did you feel about Clinton launching bombs after bad turns in his struggles? And if you thought negatively or positively- did you not notice that (even for a moment) it shifted the monomaniacle media attention on his penis? (and, oh yes, the lies told thereof in a court of law)

My position on Liberia:

I have never been able to establish for myself with pure and certain rational and moral certainty one-way-or-the-other if 'humanitarian psycho-stop cop' military actions are supportable or not. I have tried to apply simple case-by-case pragmatism where possible in the absence of sound rational footing- but that becomes a hall-of-mirrors very fast.

Lets take Rawanda for example. In rawanda, we had up to SEVERAL MILLION folks running around with knives, axes and Machetes. We had a country filled with MILLIONS of people spread out through nearly a HUNDRED THOUSAND very small rural villages. It was in these rural villages where most of the slaughter was taking place.

We also had the total lack of a 'theatre'- this is to say that the slaughter was holographic and systemic throughout the country. One neighbor against the other. There were also no clear discernable 'sides' to keep apart. Only a very 'in-the-know' person could be right mnore than half the time telling who was a Tutsi and who was a Hutu. In fact, in many villages, it was only birth family and NOT physical characteristics that discerned one from the other.

So in this situation, how on earth could military intervention be reasonable or effective? Sum together all of our troops and deploy them in Rawanda- then we could MAYBE put about 5-10 in each village- and that assumes all of our troops are off-the-shelf for this kind of mission- they are not! most are logistics, support, training and supply.

And even if we put 100 in every tenth village- what good would that do? How would they tell the 'BAD' hutu and tutsis? The 'BAD' hutu and tutsis could just go off to any of the 9 nearby villages we were not looking at? And its not like we could tell shit from shinola with all of our gadgets- these are machetes! Everyone in the country has at least one.

And all of our technological superiority would be nullified. Ever hear of a BAD-hutu-or-tutsi-But-Not-Good-Hutu-Or-Tutsi-seeking-weapon? an Anti-Machete-Weapon?

Its not like a lot of rawandans could speak english, or even write their own- so how do we even enlist native help?

How do you stop a nation of a million 'postals'?

Okay, now lets take the various and sundry Balklands interventions.

Here we DO have a 'theatre', more or less and more than in Rawanda
Here we DO have an 'opposing force' to fight, more or less and more than in rawanda.
Here we DO have hard identifiable targets to assult (Tanks, army units, factories etc).
Here we DO have a set of 'bad guys' that live in a specific area and some of them even are so kind as to wear uniforms.

So here we COULD make a difference. And we did, in fact, make a difference.

But, still- SHOULD we have done it? Afterall, as you so very sagaciously stated- it is either wrong or right.

The answer is- I really don't know.

I don't know the situation on the ground in Liberia. I am trying to learn. When I have read enough, I will decide if we can make a difference. If I decide we can, I will probably give at least weak support IF there is a major genocide (and I mean major!) underway or demonstrably about to get started.

But in the in-general. I have debated this with myself for over a decade without success. I'll let you know Frank, since you are so earnestly and honestly interested, what I deduce(Sarcasm).

Now, as to Bush. I find the timing of this HIGHLY SUSPECT. there has been a disaster going on in the Congo, Zaire, Ethiopia etc for MANY years. Yet suddenly, we are poised to intervene in Liberia of all places, out of the blue? Right on the cusp of it being completely undeniable for any lonbger that the Bush admin either lied or screwed up WRT WMD in Iraq?

Dubuious at best.

And yes, this is independent of the moral, ethical and rational arguments to be made for and against intervention. I can find this a wag-the-dog scenario, but still the right thing to do. Different orders of things that you should not confuse.

Davin L.