Somalia falls under the hands of whacky radical Muslims

[KurtCobain2902]

I heard there was an African country taken over by a militia group and was wonderign if it was true. I heard they rape the women non stop and make the children sleep almost on top of eachtoher because it's so crowded...

[Already_Taken]

Yeah that myspace bulliten, right? you just didn't wanna say you had a myspace.

[Doop]

that sounds like a lot of african countrys.

[Already_Taken]

As you read this, over 3 million people in Darfur, Sudan are crammed together in concentration camps, dieing of disease and hunger, while government sponsored troops slaughter civilians, use rape to destroy group unity, and shoot children for sport. 400,000 men, women, and children are already dead. Entire races have been exterminated by the Sudanese government's campaign of ethnic cleansing.

"Omar al Bashir told us that we should kill all the Nubas. There is no place here for the Negroes any more"

sounds questionable to me, but it wouldn't surprise me anyways.

[KurtCobain2902]

Yeah that myspace bulliten, right? you just didn't wanna say you had a myspace.

I do have a myspace, but I seriosuly didn't see a bulletin about it.

[MAthiAS]

Sounds like Uganda.

[Amit]

sounds questionable to me, but it wouldn't surprise me anyways.

actually it's one of the biggest and most publicized humanitarian crises in a long time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

[Reaganista]

take your pick, really

[BassRevelation1029]

that sounds like a lot of african countrys.
cause you've been there, right?

[PepsiMetal]

Many african countries are full of individual militias who fight each other day and night and they have younger children fight for them as well. It's been going on for a while.

[Hababi]

Sounds like Uganda.
No, it's Somalia, which has been caught in conflict between the warlords and Islamic radicals for months, and has lacked a central government for 15 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_re_af/somalia;_ylt=Alo9B_.MuPI7yVwyy3fklj.s0NUE;_ylu=X3o DMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

This neccesitates US action. The alternative is a radical Islamic state similar to Afghanistan forming and becomming a haven for Osama Bin Lain and co.

[Britney Diva]

The US in Somalia? Oh dear.

Zero, edit your linky plz.

[Hababi]

The US in Somalia? Oh dear.


Better than the alternative. Anyway it'd be really easy to just eliminate the radical Muslims, or just weaken them enough that the warlords could eliminate them. Nation building wouldn't be necessary.

[Doop]

No, it's Somalia, which has been caught in conflict between the warlords and Islamic radicals for months, and has lacked a central government for 15 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_re_af/somalia;_ylt=Alo9B_.MuPI7yVwyy3fklj.s0NUE;_ylu=X3o DMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

This neccesitates US action. The alternative is a radical Islamic state similar to Afghanistan forming and becomming a haven for Osama Bin Lain and co.
Ever seen Blackhawk Down?

[Britney Diva]

Better than the alternative. Anyway it'd be really easy to just eliminate the radical Muslims, or just weaken them enough that the warlords could eliminate them. Nation building wouldn't be necessary.
So the 15-year civil war could be resolved that easily?

[Reaganista]

if clinton only had a pair

[Hababi]

Ever seen Blackhawk Down?


We were wrong to leave. We went in not willing to stick to it, and you can never win a battle without the determination to stay the course.


So the 15-year civil war could be resolved that easily?


You don't need resolution. You just need the radical Muslims out of power.

[Doop]

I thought one of the biggest problem regarding Somalia is that there is no one in power, only a bunch of warlords who are just fighting against each other?

[Britney Diva]

You don't need resolution. You just need the radical Muslims out of power.
They're in power because they can guarantee peace, or at least are perceived to.

[Against Miik!]

Better than the alternative. Anyway it'd be really easy to just eliminate the radical Muslims, or just weaken them enough that the warlords could eliminate them. Nation building wouldn't be necessary.

If you were president, you would honestly put troops into Somalia today?

[Hababi]

They're in power because they can guarantee peace, or at least are perceived to.


I think they're in power because they have more organized and dedicated goons with effective weapons.


If you were president, you would honestly put troops into Somalia today?


Definately, I'd have them there within 72 hours.

[Britney Diva]

I think they're in power because they have more organized and dedicated goons with effective weapons.
They couldn't do it without a support base.

Definately, I'd have them there within 72 hours.
ITT: Zero gets impeached

[Hababi]

They couldn't do it without a support base.


Yeah, I'm sure radical Islamic groups are funnelling money to them.

[Already_Taken]

I think they're in power because they have more organized and dedicated goons with effective weapons.



Definately, I'd have them there within 72 hours.
Would you yourself go to Somalia right now and fight them? We know you don't care about the men that make your military, but perhaps your life is a little more important?

[Hababi]

Would you yourself go to Somalia right now and fight them?


Nope. And I wouldn't go to Afghanistan, though I support that operation. And I wouldn't go to Iraq, even though I think we need to stay. Because I'm not a soldier, and I'd make a terrible one (there's a chemical that's alledgedly linked to risk taking behavior, like riding roller coasters and jumping out of planes and stuff. I don't have it). If I was a soldier, I'd have no problem with going there.

But this isn't a job for regular soldiers. Bring in some marines, do some strategic sweeps and kill as many radical Muslims as possible. Then leave it to the warlords.

[Already_Taken]

Nope. And I wouldn't go to Afghanistan, though I support that operation. And I wouldn't go to Iraq, even though I think we need to stay. Because I'm not a soldier, and I'd make a terrible one (there's a chemical that's alledgedly linked to risk taking behavior, like riding roller coasters and jumping out of planes and stuff. I don't have it). If I was a soldier, I'd have no problem with going there.

But this isn't a job for regular soldiers. Bring in some marines, do some strategic sweeps and kill as many radical Muslims as possible. Then leave it to the warlords.
lol right good answer.

What would be the point of going to Somalia anyways? Do we really need to force our government and beliefs on more countries? Have we not done enough of that already?

[White Riot!]

We were wrong to leave. We went in not willing to stick to it, and you can never win a battle without the determination to stay the course.



You don't need resolution. You just need the radical Muslims out of power.


lol typical american view of world affairs hit them before they hit you :smash:

American Foreign Strategy
ingredients:
hypocrisy
ignorance
arrogance

just add water :chug:


Hell why dont you just nuke the hell out of the world's other continents and invade cananda?

[Hababi]

What would be the point of going to Somalia anyways?


If we do not, we are giving a haven for radical Islamic terrorists and a base for the planning and execution of their ideas.

[Reaganista]

right place wrong reason. we should be in somalia because it's a humanitarian disaster

lol typical american view of world affairs hit them before they hit you

you're an idiot

[Hababi]

right place wrong reason. we should be in somalia because it's a humanitarian disaster


Well yeah that too. I don't know if unilateral nation building could be entertained, though, and likewise it'd take time to build a coalition, while the problem needs immediate action--the longer we wait, the more difficult it gets. We could overthrow the government and then press the African union to do their duty, but they're inept.

[Reaganista]

we should make the Italians do it.

[White Riot!]

right place wrong reason. we should be in somalia because it's a humanitarian disaster



you're an idiot

way to go!.............:smash:


you can call me an idiot but are you actually smart enough to debunk what I said? NOPE :thumb:

hmmm there was this thing called the cold war right and that led to alot of hit them before they hit you tactics


or give someone who doesnt like them a gun!


name one humanitarian crises they stayed the distance that they led the initiative on that didnt involve the above tactic (and dont claim bosnia cause it wasnt the US's initiative)

[Reaganista]

kosovo

you can call me an idiot but are you actually smart enough to debunk what I said?
you didn't make an argument, you just spat out some meaningless generalizations

[what]

Kosovo? You destroyed the whole infrastructure of a country which even wihtout the war was one of the poorest in the world.

This neccesitates US action.

oh yes, of course that's what everyone needs right now


This neccesitates US action! Quick! where's my super hero costume?

[ringworm]

lol typical american view of world affairs hit them before they hit you
I can't even remark how moronic some of you posters are in here.
Complete repetative nonsense. blah blah blah. It's like you have a speedial option that randomly inserts the same crap without having to actually type.
And mostly from people who in the past we have helped out in some way or another. Hilarious

Somalia would just be another safe haven for terrorist activity.
If Clinton had been any kind of president, maybe the situation would "perhaps" be a little different.

[-1up!-]

Actually there is a general pattern the US have when acting through foreign policy, and "meaningless generalizations" as Tway qualified are actually real when you examine the history of the US's actions worldwide.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12472439&postcount=41

There are countless reasons to be cynical about any American action in foreign countries. And manichaeism, or dualism, is a sign of being insanely indoctrinated. Reality is not black and white, snap out of it. "Everywhere America is not, becomes a haven for terrorists and bin Laden omg!" That's ****ing idiocy. "You're either with us or against us!" is a completely unrealistic approach to international relationships, and the purest expression of imperialism.

[Reaganista]

aahh GERMANY TRIED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD