GWBush and GOP: The Socialists

[Mare Tranquillity]

First of all, everyone profiteers.

I'm not a Christian, I can see a difference between mowing grass or going to school and trading in death like arms dealers. I thought the movie Lord of War with Nicholas Cage was good on this subject. How is it that a self-identified follower of Jesus cannot see any morality when it comes to making money?

 

[Andy]

I'm not a Christian, I can see a difference between mowing grass or going to school and trading in death like arms dealers. I thought the movie Lord of War with Nicholas Cage was good on this subject. How is it that a self-identified follower of Jesus cannot see any morality when it comes to making money?

I'm not following you at all.

If you claim that making money is immoral, then I assume you have never once held a job?

 

[GenSeneca]

Socialism is state ownership of the means of production.

1. Try this on for size...

Social Democracy: a political philosophy of the left or centre-left that emerged in the late 19th century from the socialist movement and continues to exert influence worldwide. Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism.

2. When the state owns 80% of an industry, how can you justify calling it capitalism?

If, along with the bailout money, comes government also trying to run the industry, then the auto industry will be socialized.

Exactly what do you think the position of "Car Czar" would be?

We are still very much a capitalist state. Much moreso than we are a socialist state.

Our government owns 80% of AIG and has total control of the company... You call that Capitalism?

Our government has partial ownership and total control of the banking system in America... You call that Capitalism?

Our government will soon have partial ownership and, with the advent of the "Car Czar", total control of the auto industry... You call that Capitalism?

Capitalism is an economic ideology in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.

If the term Socialism is only applicable when 100% of ownership and control is in the hands of the state, then by the same narrow standards the term Capitalism is only applicable when 100% of ownership and control resides in the hands of private interests.

we have some people who are on "welfare" but most of us arent.

Lets go over this again since you are still confused on what qualifies as being a welfare state:

Welfare State: the concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.

As you can plainly see, having "most" of the public on welfare isn't a requirement to being a welfare state. Do we, or do we not, provide for "those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions" in America?

Yes we do... We don't need "most", doesn't have to be "all", we only have to let the state provide for some to meet the qualification as being designated a welfare state.

The U.S. welfare state is now among the most austere in the developed world, reducing both relative poverty and absolute poverty by considerably less than the mean for rich nations.

Now are, or are we not, according to the definition of a welfare state, a welfare state? Please don't bother with once again comparing us to other nations who are bigger welfare states, thats just posturing and equivocation to avoid admitting that we are, by definition, a welfare state.

A question for both PLC and Bunz:

As a nation, which direction are heading?

A. Towards Capitalism (Expanding private ownership and control)
B. Towards Socialism (Expanding state ownership and control)

A question for Bunz:

As a nation, we are looking to:

A. Expand the Welfare state
B. Reduce the Welfare state

And a question for anyone:

We are said to be a "mixed economy"... What, if not Socialism (state ownership and control), have we "Mixed" into Capitalism (private ownership and control) to create such an economic dynamic?

 

[Sihouette]

As to Vietnam:

I thought JFK was the first to actually put military personnel there, and LBJ was the first to actually send an all American force. That's what I was taught, and that's what I'm seeing on Wiki. Eisenhower only supported South Nam, but didn't send troops of any kinds (as best I can tell).~ Andy

You are such a bad liar. Yes, any idiot who reads the spoonfed version of Vietnam will find cursory information that JFK was the one "who started it". Those of use who know what framing is all about and have read into the history of it deeply know that American might was being "inserted" in the 1950s over in Nam...well in advance of JFK.

Nice. Are you on the committee to spindoctor the Iraq war too as Clinton's fault? If not, you should seriously consider applying for a position..


On a similar note, if Obama is duped, fooled or otherwise erroneously continues military BS in Afghanistan, or anywhere else this ruse "anti-terrorist" [read: excuse to invade the Middle East for oil] wars are happening, he'll provide the same type of fodder to be blamed himself for any future fallout from said.

Word to the wise Obama. Walk away from Afghanistan and sink every penny you would otherwise have sunk there exterminating the "terrorists" from the pocketbook up. Put it into alternatives and drastically reduce demand for foreign oil. Let the America-politics-made terrorists go back to farming goats in the sand. It's hard to afford ammunition and tanks with goat skins and lentil beans..

 

[Andy]

As to Vietnam: You are such a bad liar. Yes, any idiot who reads the spoonfed version of Vietnam will find cursory information that JFK was the one "who started it". Those of use who know what framing is all about and have read into the history of it deeply know that American might was being "inserted" in the 1950s over in Nam...well in advance of JFK.

Up until LBJ, no American combat unit had fought against N.Vietnamese troops. Can you prove otherwise? I'd love to see your evidence.

Further, the war between the Vietnamese people didn't start until 1959. Can you prove otherwise?

Moreover, Military Advisors, are not the same as sending combat troops. Can you prove otherwise?

If you want to make the claim I am lying, then by all means, submit your evidence. Mine is Wiki, and associated articles.

Nice. Are you on the committee to spindoctor the Iraq war too as Clinton's fault? If not, you should seriously consider applying for a position..

Straw-man.

On a similar note, if Obama is duped, fooled or otherwise erroneously continues military BS in Afghanistan, or anywhere else this ruse "anti-terrorist" [read: excuse to invade the Middle East for oil] wars are happening, he'll provide the same type of fodder to be blamed himself for any future fallout from said.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why everyone everywhere has a view supporting dealing with terrorism in the middle east, is because you might be wrong, and they might be right?

Word to the wise Obama. Walk away from Afghanistan and sink every penny you would otherwise have sunk there exterminating the "terrorists" from the pocketbook up. Put it into alternatives and drastically reduce demand for foreign oil. Let the America-politics-made terrorists go back to farming goats in the sand. It's hard to afford ammunition and tanks with goat skins and lentil beans..

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

- Barack Obama.

I suppose you alone are the only one correct on this issue, in the whole world

 

[Mr. Shaman]

First of all, everyone profiteers. Everyone. Every single human being on this planet, unless they are in some tribal 3rd world mud hut village, they all profiteer.

Why do people pay money to go to school? They do so because they believe the money they will earn from getting that education, will exceed the money they spent to get it. Profiteering.

Why do people cut lawns and mow grass, and do yard work? Because they believe the money they will receive from doing that work, will exceed the cost of the mowers, the gas to get to the location and run the equipment, and the time spent doing it. Profiteering.

If you're not (now) looking-forward to the end of Christmas Vacation, you should be. You (quite) obviously haven't fulfilled your requirements for basic-English.

You're reliance on Bush-style grammar makes that (quite) obvious. ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As for staying 10 years, we should have destroyed Ho Chi Minh, and wiped out the VietCon.

Yeah....right.....what'd he ever do-for-us, huh? ​

"U.S. involvement in Vietnam during World War II saw the Vietnamese as our allies. A group of OSS agents (later to become the CIA) made contact with anti-Japanese guerrillas in Southeast Asia. The French who had controlled the area were the "Vichy" French who, with their Nazi leanings, supported the Japanese. Of the different Vietnamese nationalists, only the Viet Minh under Ho Chi Minh led the national network of underground organizations and guerrillas fighting.

Ho Chi Minh met with the U.S. operative, Major Patti, and they agreed on joint anti-Japanese actions. The U.S. dropped supplies behind the lines to Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh helped Americans downed behind Japanese lines. The first American advisors helped train, equip and arm the Viet Minh. In 1945, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was formed with Ho Chi Minh as the first President. American planes flew over Hanoi in celebration of the founding. The Vietnamese Declaration of Independence echoed that of the U.S.: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. Understood in the broader sense this means: All people on earth are born equal. Every person has the right to live, to be happy, and free."

We SCREWED-OVER the Vietnamese.....and, our Karma (eventually) took-over....​

"Ho Chi Minh asked the Americans to honor their commitment to independence, citing the Atlantic Charter and the U.N. Charter on self-determination. However, by the end of the war, the U.S. government had begun to redirect its foreign policy from the wartime goal of the liberation of all occupied countries and colonies to the postwar anti-communist crusade, which became the Cold War. In France, where communists had led the resistance to the Nazi occupation, American policy supported General Charles de Gaulle and his anti-communist "Free French." De Gaulle aimed to restore the glory of France, which meant the return of all former French colonies. U.S. relations with the Vietnamese turned sour. President Truman refused to answer letters or cables from Ho. Instead, the U.S. began to ship military aid to the French forces in Indochina."

 

[Andy]

If you're not (now) looking-forward to the end of Christmas Vacation, you should be. You (quite) obviously haven't fulfilled your requirements for basic-English.

You're reliance on Bush-style grammar makes that (quite) obvious. ​

That did not answer the point made. You never do.

 

[Andy]

Yeah....right.....what'd he ever do-for-us, huh?

We SCREWED-OVER the Vietnamese.....and, our Karma (eventually) took-over....​

I'll repeat, since you clearly didn't read...

Let me explain to you what happened to the people of south Vietnamese after we allowed the Vietcong to over run our ally. All people who wore glasses, were killed. All communities had a mandated 5% population reduction. Meaning 5 people in every hundred were selected at random, and murdered, and buried in mass graves. All people who either didn't support Vietcong troops, or gave any help to anti-vietcong forces, were systematically executed. All people had their land rights removed, and we forced into government communal labor camps. All young boys were striped from their parents and raise in government militia camps. To refuse resulted in not only your boys taken away, but you and your family would be shot for going against the Vietcong.

Of course this resulted in the infamous boat people of Vietnam.

And for those that didn't get away...

The people in both of those pictures, are the ones we screwed over, but letting them die in the face of communism.

 

[Bunz]

Hi GenSeneca, sorry it took me a bit to get around to this, I have been busy the last few days. So ill take a few minutes and reply now.

Our government owns 80% of AIG and has total control of the company... You call that Capitalism?

One example or even a few examples of individual companies that have government ownership is not at all indicitive of a form of economy. There are millions of privately owned companies out there.

Our government has partial ownership and total control of the banking system in America... You call that Capitalism?

You might want to talk to someone who was alive during the great depression about the banks and a lack of government control.

Our government will soon have partial ownership and, with the advent of the "Car Czar", total control of the auto industry... You call that Capitalism?

No I call it absolute utter communism! Here is the fact of the matter, letting any of the big three car makers go under would have a much more signifigant negative impact on America and the government. Besides the share holders and direct employees of the car companies, we also hurt the metal producers, considering the auto industry uses about %20 of the steel production in this country. Not to mention the aluminum, copper and platinum and other metal producers that goes into cars. Not to mention all of the other components that are in modern cars, plastics, fabrics, glass, etc.
By putting those industries under further economic stress, you take away one of the main sources of income for them.
Those people end up losing thier jobs, and they go on direct welfare, and probably take jobs that dont pay as well, thier houses go into foreclosure, they spend less money in the general economy laying down a massive dominco effect that I dont think is fathomable outside of someone who is an economic specialist.

If the term Socialism is only applicable when 100% of ownership and control is in the hands of the state, then by the same narrow standards the term Capitalism is only applicable when 100% of ownership and control resides in the hands of private interests.

Those are the opposite ends of the spectrum, if looking at a 2D model of where America lies in this system, we are still very much so a capitalist country. Among the most in the world.
Lets go over this again since you are still confused on what qualifies as being a welfare state:

Welfare State: the concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.

Interesting definition.

As you can plainly see, having "most" of the public on welfare isn't a requirement to being a welfare state. Do we, or do we not, provide for "those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions" in America?

If by the above definition is what you want to use, then yes we are a welfare state and should be doing more to make that vision happen.

A question for both PLC and Bunz:

As a nation, which direction are heading?

A. Towards Capitalism (Expanding private ownership and control)
B. Towards Socialism (Expanding state ownership and control)

In the short term, we have taken on more socialistic methods due to the necessary pragmatic approach to save the American economy. But only in some directed and targeted areas. We are still much more capitalistic then we are socialistic. Considering the socialist/communist movements of the 20s-30s, and the era of the new deal, when it was critical the government step in to do something about the conditions of America in that period, I think it is tough to tell in which direction we are moving in in that regard.

A question for Bunz:

As a nation, we are looking to:

A. Expand the Welfare state
B. Reduce the Welfare state

It really depends on what scale and time frame you are talking about here.
And a question for anyone:
We are said to be a "mixed economy"... What, if not Socialism (state ownership and control), have we "Mixed" into Capitalism (private ownership and control) to create such an economic dynamic?

You have it backwards, we are a capitalist country with dots of socialist mixed in where it has been necessary. This began over 100 years ago. I am not at all interested in going back to the days of "pure" capitalism we had in the 1880s.

The issue that I take with the term socialists being thrown around on the campaign trail is two fold.
It is being used by the GOP as an attack through a loose association with the biggest American enemy of the second half of the 20th century, those evil communists. Now it would be even more suicidal to say someone was a communist on the campaign trail, but want to pound away on a dumb connection between the two.

The second issue I take is that the GOP is just as guilty, if not moreso than the Democrats despite yelling at the top of thier lungs about it. You can read George Bush and the administration, plus the leading candidate in 4-8 years, Sarah Palin.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'll repeat, since you clearly didn't read...

Let me explain to you what happened to the people of south Vietnamese after we allowed the Vietcong to over run our ally.

.....The operative-words being our ally (when, we didn't need to be there, in the first-place).

​

"In the post-war era, Americans struggled to absorb the lessons of the military intervention. As General Maxwell Taylor, one of the principal architects of the war, noted "first, we didn't know ourselves. We thought that we were going into another Korean war, but this was a different country. Secondly, we didn't know our South Vietnamese allies ... And we knew less about North Vietnam. Who was Ho Chi Minh? Nobody really knew. So, until we know the enemy and know our allies and know ourselves, we'd better keep out of this kind of dirty business. It's very dangerous."

 

[Sihouette]

Up until LBJ, no American combat unit had fought against N.Vietnamese troops. Can you prove otherwise? I'd love to see your evidence.

Further, the war between the Vietnamese people didn't start until 1959. Can you prove otherwise?

Moreover, Military Advisors, are not the same as sending combat troops. Can you prove otherwise?

If you want to make the claim I am lying, then by all means, submit your evidence. Mine is Wiki, and associated articles.~Andy

You do like creative use of words and wilfull obfuscation of their meaning. Here, let's revisit what I actually said:

American might was being "inserted" in the 1950s ~ page 2

"might" does not always mean guns and soldiers. It also can mean political might and manipulation. To that degree the US was up to its elbows in Vietnam in the 1950s. Another republican sympathizer, LBJ actually ordered troops in..

France Steps Out, U.S. Steps In
In 1954, after suffering a decisive defeat at Dien Bien Phu, the French decided to pull out of Vietnam. At the Geneva Conference of 1954, a number of nations met to determine how the French could peacefully withdraw. The agreement that came out of the conference (called the Geneva Accords) stipulated a cease fire for the peaceful withdrawal of French forces and the temporary division of Vietnam along the 17th parallel (which split the country into communist North Vietnam and non-communist South Vietnam). In addition, a general democratic election was to be held in 1956 that would reunite the country under one government. The United States refused to agree to the election, fearing the communists might win.
With help from the United States, South Vietnam carried out the election only in South Vietnam rather than countrywide. After eliminating most of his rivals, Ngo Dinh Diem was elected. His leadership, however, proved so horrible that he was killed in 1963 during a coup supported by the United States. Since Diem had alienated many South Vietnamese during his tenure, communist sympathizers in South Vietnam established the National Liberation Front (NLF), also known as the Viet Cong, in 1960 to use guerilla warfare against the South Vietnamese.


First U.S. Ground Troops Sent to Vietnam
As the fighting between the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese continued, the U.S. continued to send additional advisers to South Vietnam. When the North Vietnamese fired directly upon two U.S. ships in international waters on August 2 and 4, 1964 (known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident), Congress responded with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This resolution gave the President the authority to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam. President Lyndon Johnson used that authority to order the first U.S. ground troops to Vietnam in March 1965.

Source: http://history1900s.about.com/od/vietnamwar/a/vietnamwar.htm

Just as with Iraq, we were there messing around with trying to insert puppet regimes to further our economic interests long before US public was duped into approving murder (military) to get the job done.

Back then the public's fear was manipulated by buzzwords of "communism". Now they've just switched it to "terrorism". That's really the only difference: semantics. Otherwise it's just business as usual. Literally business as usual. Organized crime really...when you boil it all down..

The GOP "Grand Old Party" or as I like to call them recently.. "Grifting Oil Pirates" are always lurking about in the shadows when it comes to these types of atrocities. Ironically it is the democratic party or what the GOP likes to label (semantically) "the haven of liberals and godless kooks", that has been the only moral ballast holding this country back from outright crimes against God. And usually, like JFK, they wind up dying early of mysterious or "non"-mysterious "natural" causes.. "accidents" and the like..

 

[Andy]

You do like creative use of words and wilfull obfuscation of their meaning. Here, let's revisit what I actually said:

"might" does not always mean guns and soldiers. It also can mean political might and manipulation. To that degree the US was up to its elbows in Vietnam in the 1950s. Another republican sympathizer, LBJ actually ordered troops in..

I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that if we had not sent military advisors to Vietnam prior to Kennedy, that Kennedy would not have, and thus LBJ would not have, and thus the war would never have happened?

Are you also saying that you personally do not care about the millions of people slaughtered under Ho Chi Mihn rule?

And what about our mortal enemies the Chi-Coms and Soviets, who were funding the communist movement in those areas. Just as thought, when south-east asia fell, our allies near there were then threatened. Should we not care about that?

Just as with Iraq, we were there messing around with trying to insert puppet regimes to further our economic interests long before US public was duped into approving murder (military) to get the job done.

Can you name other puppet regimes we control? We don't control Japan. Nor south Korea. Nor the Philippines. On what evidence do you make this claim? In fact, even the Iraqi provisional government has made some moves we don't like. I thought they were a puppet? How can they anger our government, if we supposedly control them? Many claims, zero evidence.

The GOP "Grand Old Party" or as I like to call them recently.. "Grifting Oil Pirates" are always lurking about in the shadows when it comes to these types of atrocities. Ironically it is the democratic party or what the GOP likes to label (semantically) "the haven of liberals and godless kooks", that has been the only moral ballast holding this country back from outright crimes against God. And usually, like JFK, they wind up dying early of mysterious or "non"-mysterious "natural" causes.. "accidents" and the like..

Funny, I remember the Marc rich pardon, and the Enron ties to Clinton, and Oxidental Petrols connection to Al Gore, Worldcom's connection to the DNC.

Why is it you see only the GOPs connections to oil and business, and not the democrats?

 

[GenSeneca]

One example or even a few examples of individual companies that have government ownership is not at all indicitive of a form of economy. There are millions of privately owned companies out there.

Name one sector of the market thats "Free", as in, free of government regulation. Aside from that, government is taking over the major industries, who also happen to be their biggest political donors, but you don't see that as being a conflict of interest or even a problem at all.
Would you support a law that forbid companies from making political donations, taking tax breaks and/or government subsidies if those companies were controlled and/or owned (even if partially) by the government?

Here is the fact of the matter, letting any of the big three car makers go under would have a much more signifigant negative impact on America and the government.

Still using this fallacious argument I see... and its still a False Dilemma. Chapter 11 allows failing companies to restructure, bailouts allow failing companies to continue losing money, only now at the taxpayers, rather than investors, expense. Nobody is arguing that we should put them out of business... only that we shouldn't reward failure.

Those are the opposite ends of the spectrum, if looking at a 2D model of where America lies in this system, we are still very much so a capitalist country. Among the most in the world.

Why the double standard on your part? You hold Socialism to a very narrow definition but hold Capitalism to a very broad one... I know why others do it... They want us to be as socialist as possible but understand that its not politically correct to advocate for socialism, so they relabel it as being some newfangled form of Capitalism. (a kindler, gentler form of capitalism)

If by the above definition is what you want to use, then yes we are a welfare state and should be doing more to make that vision happen.

Its that kind of thinking thats put us so far in the hole... Our debt keeps skyrocketing, politicians keep putting off the inevitable, and you want to dig deeper.... You still don't know the difference between Provide and Promote.

Do you see yourself as a Statist?

In the short term, we have taken on more socialistic methods due to the necessary pragmatic approach to save the American economy.

We are "saving" the present by destroying our future. Of course, you don't see it that way, you rationalize the massive debt we're laying on future generations as somehow in the nations best interest but its just another ruse from politicians that don't think past the next election. We don't have to suffer now, we don't have to suffer later, if only we were smart enough to liberate the economy from bureaucrats and politicians, we could face this storm and come through the other side stronger than ever.

You have it backwards, we are a capitalist country with dots of socialist mixed in where it has been necessary. This began over 100 years ago. I am not at all interested in going back to the days of "pure" capitalism we had in the 1880s.

All economies ebb and flow. Every time there is the slightest drop, Capitalism is blamed as the villain, socialism steps in as the hero, and the politicians get re-elected for being seen as taking action. As time goes by, small problems that wouldn't be so much as a speed bump to capitalism, are mountains for socialism to deal with, and when we hit a mountain who gets blamed? Capitalism, and the process repeats.

The issue that I take with the term socialists being thrown around on the campaign trail is two fold.

But you take NO issue with the politicians who constantly use the words Capitalism, Capitalist, and Free Market as derogatory terms, equating them with greed, corruption and heartlessness.

As for Republicans being no better, that much I can agree with but calling people hypocrites doesn't make me feel better and it does nothing to improve our national circumstances.

You said elsewhere that Socialism works in some places... I asked for an example and don't remember you giving one. Perhaps you could humor me and give an example.

 

[Sihouette]

I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that if we had not sent military advisors to Vietnam prior to Kennedy, that Kennedy would not have, and thus LBJ would not have, and thus the war would never have happened?

Are you also saying that you personally do not care about the millions of people slaughtered under Ho Chi Mihn rule?~Andy

Oh, my yes...

There's always a "bad guy". I forgot to mention that along with the buzzwords of the day. Thanks for reminding me to include that in my previous post illumination..

You know...

There's people getting slaughtered all the time by bad guys. It's just that the US really only gets huffy about the ones who try to take back control of their own natural resources...like with Vietnam and Iraq.

Sierra Leone in Africa, for instance, is experiencing ongoing horrific killings against its citizenry at the hands of gangs of thugs. Why aren't we there? No tea or rubber plantations. No oil.

Sierra Leone has seen serious and grotesque human rights violations since 1991 when the civil war erupted. According to Human Rights Watch, over 50,000 people have been killed to date, with over one million people having been displaced.

While the rebel force, the Revolutionary United Front, (RUF) have called the various governments corrupt and accused them of mismanagement of diamond and mineral resources, they themselves have committed horrendous abuses. People have been raped, had limbs amputated and more. While the RUF may have started from respectable aims, they themselves have been corrupted and attracted others who see the RUF as a way to get at the diamonds and profit from it.

Prior to the current conflict, there had been little media coverage and definitely nothing on the scale seen during and just before the crisis in Kosovo. Here, 25 times as many people have been killed compared to that in Kosovo when the international community decided to act. In fact, it has been pointed out by many that the atrocities in Sierra Leone have been worse than was seen in Kosovo. Before the current crisis, the media coverage at the height of the conflict was minimal, apart from the odd scandal in the UK about their use of mercenaries, illegal arms shipments and the odd mention of the conflict, with a bit of sustained coverage in 1996/97.

Both sides have also used a large number of child soldiers. For example, the UN estimates that of those fighting with Sierra Leone government forces, a quarter are children below the age of 18. (For more about children and conflicts, visit this web site's section on Children, Conflicts and the Military).

As a possible, but fragile, peace deal had been agreed to in 1999, this made a bit of media attention. The UN-brokered peace deal however fell under much criticism. Human Rights Watch, for example condemned the UN on this peace deal because it would give amnesty to the rebels for their human rights abuses. Even Kofi Annan tried to clarify that while peace may have been agreed to, this does not give amnesty to anyone for human rights abuses. However, the Sierra Leone government has the "sovereign right" to do this, leaving the UN with a weak excuse to concede that it is not a perfect situation, but it is all that can be done to prevent the war from continuing.

Despite any peace agreements, Human Rights Watch reported that abuses were still continuing towards the end of 1999. Some Sierra Leone Rebels suggested that they would reject deployment of UN Peacekeeping forces if they were authorized to use force in order to disarm various factions. The process of disarmament had been slow going.
Source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/88/sierra-leone

Where were/are we? Conspicuously absent..

If we put diamonds in our gas tanks, we'd be up to our eyebrows in Sierra Leone. But we don't, so we're not. Diamonds are an extravagance...one that the US public would not be able to be duped into getting behind for blood.
Rubber or oil for our cars and industry...those are a bit more dear to our "necessities"..so yeah, we select our "bad guys" dependant on what resource they're trying to keep us from.

Plenty of "bad guy" fodder in Sierra Leone though to justify any "mandatory" US Military occupation though eh Andy?