I just finished reading "Blood Diamonds" by Greg Campbell. It is an incredible book and I would highly recommend it.
Toward the end of the book it discusses the role diamonds played in funding Al Queda before 9/11. Al Queda had diamonds smuggled (without much difficulty) out of Sierra Leone into Liberia, where they could trade the diamonds for cash, guns and ammunition. Diamonds are easy for people who are hiding to use as currency because they are small, travel well, and are difficult to trace to the original source. Liberia was a major trading place for many illegal activities that definitely impacted America (i.e. 9/11) and the rest of the world (the terrorist organization Hezbollah had a large presence in Monrovia). So I don't understand why America is refusing to go into Liberia, when it is obviously in our interest to bring order back to an area that is completely chaotic (and chaos definitely helps people and organizations that are up to no good). This article, by Nicholas Kristof, makes some really good points such as:
"I argued against invading Iraq, but Liberia presents a much more compelling case for intervention. The difference is not that Saddam slaughtered at most 1 percent of his population over the last 14 years, while Liberian warfare has killed more than 6 percent of its population so far. Nor is it that rescuing Liberia would bolster our international stature rather than devastate it. No, the crucial differences lie elsewhere. First, Liberia has an urgency to it that Iraq did not: people are being hacked apart daily in Liberia, and if we do nothing, the conflict may spread across West Africa. Second, success can be more easily accomplished in Liberia, using just 1 or 2 percent of the number of troops we have in Iraq, mostly because Liberians desperately want us to intervene."
"Other nations have stepped up to the plate after the collapse of countries where they have a special responsibility: Britain in Sierra Leone, France in Ivory Coast, Australia in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. Now it's our turn."
Another plus point for Dean here. Once again: what is wrong with President Bush?
Toward the end of the book it discusses the role diamonds played in funding Al Queda before 9/11. Al Queda had diamonds smuggled (without much difficulty) out of Sierra Leone into Liberia, where they could trade the diamonds for cash, guns and ammunition. Diamonds are easy for people who are hiding to use as currency because they are small, travel well, and are difficult to trace to the original source. Liberia was a major trading place for many illegal activities that definitely impacted America (i.e. 9/11) and the rest of the world (the terrorist organization Hezbollah had a large presence in Monrovia). So I don't understand why America is refusing to go into Liberia, when it is obviously in our interest to bring order back to an area that is completely chaotic (and chaos definitely helps people and organizations that are up to no good). This article, by Nicholas Kristof, makes some really good points such as:
"I argued against invading Iraq, but Liberia presents a much more compelling case for intervention. The difference is not that Saddam slaughtered at most 1 percent of his population over the last 14 years, while Liberian warfare has killed more than 6 percent of its population so far. Nor is it that rescuing Liberia would bolster our international stature rather than devastate it. No, the crucial differences lie elsewhere. First, Liberia has an urgency to it that Iraq did not: people are being hacked apart daily in Liberia, and if we do nothing, the conflict may spread across West Africa. Second, success can be more easily accomplished in Liberia, using just 1 or 2 percent of the number of troops we have in Iraq, mostly because Liberians desperately want us to intervene."
"Other nations have stepped up to the plate after the collapse of countries where they have a special responsibility: Britain in Sierra Leone, France in Ivory Coast, Australia in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. Now it's our turn."
Another plus point for Dean here. Once again: what is wrong with President Bush?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home