Replies

"In terms of brutality, systematic repression, number of killings, relish for torture, sum total of human misery caused, Charles Taylor is a piker next to Saddam Hussein."

Now I'm not necessarily backing the argument for U.S. intervention in Liberia, although there is a case to be made for an international mission. And if the precedent has been set for Western powers to lead forces in their former African spheres of influence, there is perhaps something of an obligation. Britain led the force to Sierra Leone, just like France leads the force in Ivory Coast.

But that is off the point. I take issue with Krauthammer's point above. The indictment of the UN Special Court, backed up by considerable evidence, shows that Taylor was the motivating force of the horribly bloodthirsty war in Sierra Leone. Half a million were killed, more, many of them children, had their arms severed and their tongues chopped off. He's also repsonsible for the deaths of at least 300,000 people in Liberia. Ten percent of the population. He is the only leader I can think off who has, under the literal interpretation of the word, decimated his people. Up to half of his population, 1.5 million people, are refugees. He is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Guinea and Ivory Coast. He has personally tortured to death scores of political opponents. Weekly, people are dragged out of prison and into the Executive Mansion, where taylor, surrounded by Zoes (witch doctors), hacks off their ears, legs and genitals, disembowels them, drinks their blood and eventually eats their innards to give him magic protection from his many enemies.

A piker next to Saddam Hussein. Taylor has killed close to one million people. Maybe Saddam was worse, but not much worse. Anyway, comparisons in this case are odious. A monster is a monster is a monster. I'm sorry, Krauthammer should do a bit of research before opening his inkpot.

And before you accuse me of being a namby-pamby lib. I'm not. I backed the war in Iraq 100 percent, mainly for humanitarian reasons. I'd like to see the Americans and the Brits take out a few other bad guys as well...

I don't think we should go in, because I don't think we could control the outcome. Iraq was a much more developed country, and even in Iraq, we're having problems getting the die-hard Baathists and fundamentalist Muslims to calm down.

One of the problems with taking Taylor out is that his opposition is not only divided, but includes a very dangerous Islamic fundamentalist wing that wants to impose Islam on Liberia (and all of Africa). We don't want to end up doing another Bosnia, supporting people who are actually our enemies in the long run, so that they can take over Liberia and use it as another staging ground to attack us.