The article titled, “Who Will Liberate Liberia?” by Charles Quist-Adade is basically trying to illustrate how the world, specifically the US spends it’s money in the most bizarre ways, when it could be spent in more productive manors. The example that this article uses in how the US is under the influence of president Bush and in his mindset it is okay to spend millions and millions of dollars to seek out and kill any terrorists but when there is an actual need for the money in the country of Liberia there isn’t any money to spare. This begs the question, why do American presidents always put war and killing before the needs of millions of innocent people dying due to starvation and hunger everyday. The reason for this is that Americans have always been blind followers of their “elected” officials and are usually very naive in the way that they vote, not knowing what the people they are electing actually stand for. The billions of dollars that the US spent under Bush to try and end global terrorism was not spent wisely, pure and simple. There were multiple things going on around the world that the money could have gone towards instead, the civil war in Liberia was a prime example, even more obvious was the fact that Liberia had always been an ally of the US; just look at Liberia’s flag. The article then goes on to attempt to explain why this is the case, and in Iraq specifically I completely agree with the author, it was 100% about the oil in the country. If there wasn’t any oil in Iraq or if Saddam Hussein was favorable towards US-Iraqi relations there really wouldn’t have been a problem. If anyone really looks at a lot of the wars in the 21st century a lot of the major ones have been either started by or finished by the US when they are in a country that is oil-rich.