Somalia's Capital Seized by Islamic militia members
The Lone Alliance
06-06-2006, 06:49
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/06/05/somalia.fighting.ap/index.html
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- Islamic fundamentalists whose ideology is similar to the Taliban seized control of Somalia's capital Monday, unifying the city for the first time in more than a decade and posing a direct challenge to a fledging U.N.-backed government.
The advance against a secular alliance rumored to be backed by Washington comes after weeks of bloody fighting and 15 years of anarchy in the Horn of Africa nation, raising fears that Somalia could fall under the sway of al Qaeda.
"We won the fight against the enemy of Islam; Mogadishu is under control of its people," said Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, chairman of the Islamic Courts Union, on a radio broadcast. The militia now controls a 65-mile (100-kilometer) radius around the capital after fighting off a secular alliance of warlords.
The Islamic militia is gaining ground just as the U.N.-backed interim government struggles to assert control outside its base in Baidoa, 155 miles (249 kilometers) from Mogadishu. Weapons prices soared there Monday amid fears that the militia could head next to Baidoa.
The militia is the first group to consolidate control over all of Mogadishu's neighborhoods since the last government collapsed in 1991 and warlords took over, dividing the impoverished country of 8 million into a patchwork of rival fiefdoms.
Omar Jamal, director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, said the Islamic militia's victory in Mogadishu was a major turning point in the country's history.
"It is exactly the same thing that happened with the rise to power of the Taliban," he said, adding that the extremists are "using the people's weariness of violence, rape and civil war" to gain support for a government based on Islamic law.
The battle between the militia and the secular alliance has been intensifying in recent months, with more than 300 people killed and 1,700 wounded -- many of them civilians caught in the crossfire of grenades, machine guns and mortars.
Alliance leaders could not be reached for comment Monday and had likely fled Mogadishu. One of them, warlord Mohamed Dheere, was believed to be in Ethiopia seeking reinforcements.
The United States is widely believed to be backing the secular alliance in an attempt to root out any al Qaeda members operating in the Horn of Africa, but American officials have declined to comment. The United States has not carried out any direct action in Somalia since the deaths of 18 servicemen in a 1993 battle depicted in the film "Black Hawk Down."
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said recently that three al Qaeda leaders indicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania are being sheltered by Islamic leaders in Mogadishu.
The same al Qaeda cell is believed responsible for the 2002 suicide bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya that killed 15 people and a simultaneous attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner.
The Islamic militants and their secular rivals began competing for influence in earnest after a U.N.-backed interim government slowly began to gain international recognition. The weak government, wracked by infighting, has not been able to enter the capital because of the violence.
Interim Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi recently fired four ministers who were part of the secular alliance, leaving the alliance without any support in the government.
Mogadishu residents expressed relief at Monday's relative peace, but they had mixed responses to the Islamic militia's advance.
"The victory of Islamic Courts is a major step toward a lasting peaceful settlement in Mogadishu," said Somali economist Abdinasir Ahmed. "We are tired of the deception and rhetoric of the warlords."
Computer engineer Abdulqaadir Bashir disagreed. "The Islamic clerics want to be like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan," he said. "People have no hope at all."
Just Freaking Great, another safe haven for al-Qaida and another mess that the US might end up cleaning up.
'The US has failed in Somalia - again' (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3F68B1F2-633E-4D73-B3D3-251F39208815.htm)
Minnesotan Confederacy
06-06-2006, 07:05
I wonder if these guys will be as bad as that bastard Siad Barre was (he wasn't an Islamic extremist, but he was a mass murderer and absolute bastard)?
The Lone Alliance
06-06-2006, 07:06
'The US has failed in Somalia - again' (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3F68B1F2-633E-4D73-B3D3-251F39208815.htm)
Failed? They didn't even try.
Failed? They didn't even try.
I too am confused.
Why does this have to be a failure for the US. Are we responsible for every negative turn of events in every third world country everywhere?
Tropical Sands
06-06-2006, 07:20
I too am confused.
Why does this have to be a failure for the US. Are we responsible for every negative turn of events in every third world country everywhere?
It can be considered a failure for the US, and any First World democratic state, for a number of reasons. To begin, as someone already mentioned, it acts as another African outpost for terror. Islamic states are known for their human rights violations, and allowing countries to become Islamic is an affront to any state that believes that human rights are important. In fact, a gross human rights violation that comes to mind specifically regarding Islam in Somalia is that of female genital mutilation.
Failed? They didn't even try.
From the article you posted:
The United States is widely believed to be backing the secular alliance in an attempt to root out any al Qaeda members operating in the Horn of Africa, but American officials have declined to comment.
Why does this have to be a failure for the US. Are we responsible for every negative turn of events in every third world country everywhere?
No, we're not.
But when the US is backing one side of a conflict, and that side loses, that's a failure.
No, we're not.
But when the US is backing one side of a conflict, and that side loses, that's a failure.
Well, then it is the governments failure. Not mine, and not the American peoples'.
I too am confused.
Why does this have to be a failure for the US. Are we responsible for every negative turn of events in every third world country everywhere?
look seeing as how the US is the world leader in like everything yes it is our fault.sad thing is,the US is #1 in the world and yet it still belives it can defeat illegal immigration.so if the US wats to stay #1,they have to b involved in EVERYTHING.
Well, then it is the governments failure. Not mine, and not the American peoples'.
If ur idiotic enough to belive that when people say its the "US's" fault or we hate America,they're talking about you,u need to shoot yourself,what they mean is the US government,how can it be your fault,the people who r writing this dont even know u,moron
Duntscruwithus
06-06-2006, 08:05
If ur idiotic enough to belive that when people say its the "US's" fault or we hate America,they're talking about you,u need to shoot yourself,what they mean is the US government,how can it be your fault,the people who r writing this dont even know u,moron
And yet you know Undelia well enough to call him names? Smooth. And quite a few people have th ehabit of equating the people of the US with the actions of the government of the US. As do plenty of people here in the US who do the same of other countries.
No, we're not.
But when the US is backing one side of a conflict, and that side loses, that's a failure.
Believed to be and is are two different things. Maybe the USG is backing it, but the UN is the primary sponsor, correct? Therefore, wouldn't it be a failure for the UN?
The Lone Alliance
06-06-2006, 09:06
From the article you posted:
I don't see throwing money at the problem as 'Helping'.
US Handout: Here Warlord, Have some Cash, now go kick Islamic Terrorist Ass.
Warlord: Sure, let me kill that Warlord down the street first though.
Real helpful...
Any real help ended in 1994. Besides that country hasn't had a real government in years. I think it might be the only long term Anarchy nation in the world right now.
Free shepmagans
06-06-2006, 09:22
Believed to be and is are two different things. Maybe the USG is backing it, but the UN is the primary sponsor, correct? Therefore, wouldn't it be a failure for the UN?
Considering the UN's track record, I wouldn't be surprised...
BogMarsh
06-06-2006, 10:36
Oh, well.
Can we now please redeploy our lads out of Asia and into Africa?
Neu Leonstein
06-06-2006, 11:38
I was pissed off at those news. Somalia, and Mogadishu in particular had actually been an interesting experiment in working anarchism of sorts. And in some respects, it really was working.
But I suppose that's over now. :rolleyes:
Duntscruwithus
06-06-2006, 21:27
What anarchy? They had a bunch of warlords fighting each other. So you have little governments shooting it out in the streets. That be chaos, not anarchy. And proves what happens when you have too many governments in the mix.
Carnivorous Lickers
06-06-2006, 21:34
what a fucking shithole
Neu Leonstein
07-06-2006, 00:15
What anarchy? They had a bunch of warlords fighting each other. So you have little governments shooting it out in the streets. That be chaos, not anarchy. And proves what happens when you have too many governments in the mix.
Believe it or not, but in those areas where one warlord rules, there was no fighting going on. And when I say "rule" I don't mean he actually controls what anyone is doing. It's more like a private security sort of thing.
I watched a documentary about Mogadishu not too long ago. It really was quite an amazing place, not nearly as bad as everyone thinks it was.
Psychotic Mongooses
07-06-2006, 00:29
It will be interesting to see what kind of Islamic Law is applied in the end- not all of the Islamic Court supporters want Sharia necessarily imposed.
Simply 'Islamic peace' (i.e some form of stability) and given the past decade of turbulence it's not hard to see that support for the one strong, stable option has blossomed.
I can only hope it doesn't turn into the Taliban of Africa.:(
Deep Kimchi
07-06-2006, 00:32
'The US has failed in Somalia - again' (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3F68B1F2-633E-4D73-B3D3-251F39208815.htm)
Gee, as I recall, we failed in Somalia back in the first term of the Clinton Adminstration, and haven't been back since.
Neu Leonstein
07-06-2006, 00:56
Gee, as I recall, we failed in Somalia back in the first term of the Clinton Adminstration, and haven't been back since.
I think the article's point is that the US government supported one side of the conflict that now blew up in everyone's face. And they seem to think that it wouldn't have come this far if the conflict hadn't been fuelled like this.
Whether or not that is true is obviously open to debate.
Betzefer
07-06-2006, 01:05
well, I guess we hafta go in there again now, because I highly doubt any other country is going to even give effort towards any sort compromise there. The U.S. is blamed for failing, but isn't it failing if you don't even try?
Ferrum Testudo
07-06-2006, 01:10
Why people advocate American inaction as some kind of example of hypocrisy, while advocating American action in other places as hypocricy, is beyond me.
The US should stop trying to build nations. We suck at it. We can't do it. The best we've done is a stalemate with North Korea, a loss in Vietnam, a fascist Islamic government in Afghanistan, and fractured, disorganized Federal government in Iraq.
There is no way in hell we should go into Somalia or Darfur. We aren't good at it.
Kroisistan
07-06-2006, 01:11
Read the BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5051220.stm). The movement itself says it doesn't want to form an Islamic State.
I look at this as a good development. The UN backed 'government' is a state in name only, with the nation controlled by warlords and kleptocrats. If a popular movement wants to bring peace and order, who are we to bemoan it, or call it a failure?
Teh_pantless_hero
07-06-2006, 01:18
Gee, as I recall, we failed in Somalia back in the first term of the Clinton Adminstration, and haven't been back since.
Let's analyze this statement shall we?
The exploitation of a simple statement in order to insult a figurehead of a political system he disagrees with.
I can do that too, watch me: Clinton may have fucked it up, but he has been out of office for six years. I win.
Corneliu
07-06-2006, 01:20
Damn UN. They are royally screwing the planet.
Good Lifes
07-06-2006, 01:30
Oh well, the US took out the worst dictator possible so all is right with the world.
Greater Somalia
07-06-2006, 01:47
First deploy about twelve thousand American troops in Djibouti (northwest of Somalia) and then give aid to losing side (alliance secular warlords). Get them to fight each other until the expected side wins (the Islamic court) and then allow the U.S media to jump onto this (Al Qaeda controls Mogadishu). Get Americans all stirred up and you get a green light to wage a war (almost too perfect :cool: ). What I like to know though, why has the U.S media only picked up this news right about now while these kind of battles (between Islamic court and the secular warlords) have been happening for months? The Irony of the backing of these so-called secular warlords by the American government is that, some of warlords being backed by America are the perpetrators behind the black hawk down incident (which led to 18 US servicemen dead). These secular warlords don’t care about nation building, because it was them who for fifteen years kept Somalia divided into fiefdoms. Everybody (specially the Somali people) knows what this battle is really about and it’s about territory and commerce. As one side loses, the winner gets a swath of territory, a population to harass into paying them. Also the winner gets the loser’s possessions, like air strips, ports, hotels, factories, and etc. So, for the most part, religion is used to hide the greed these warlords seem to harbor. Somalians are for the most part secular people, but because of the civil war and the lack of support from the international community, they have resolved their problems by supporting any group that would stand up against these thuggish warlords. Most Somalians support the Islamic courts as they are the only alternative to the uneducated, uncivilized, brutal warlords. The American government should not have backed a losing side (majority of Somalians don’t even support them) and now that the Islamic courts are winning and the Somalians are becoming aware that the U.S was backing the much-hated warlords, it’s a double blow. Supporters of Islamic courts are weary though (because they know what happened in Afghanistan with the Taliban) and they wish that the Islamic courts exclude themselves out of politics and education. Who ever want to support the warlords, they want no peace and unity in Somalia, and Somalians don’t have the time to listen to them.
Sel Appa
07-06-2006, 01:51
I don't even recognize Somalia anymore...what's wrong with part of the world being controlled by warlords who don't care about the world stage. On maps, it should say "Local Warlords" or something.
Does it says something when the article had to mention that our previous presense in Somalia and what occured was depicted in the movie "Black Hawk Down"? We really need a movie reference?
Upper Weston
07-06-2006, 03:54
Why people advocate American inaction as some kind of example of hypocrisy, while advocating American action in other places as hypocricy, is beyond me.
The US should stop trying to build nations. We suck at it. We can't do it. The best we've done is a stalemate with North Korea, a loss in Vietnam, a fascist Islamic government in Afghanistan, and fractured, disorganized Federal government in Iraq.
There is no way in hell we should go into Somalia or Darfur. We aren't good at it.
The same way the US failed in Europe and Japan after WWII?
Corneliu
07-06-2006, 03:56
The same way the US failed in Europe and Japan after WWII?
:confused:
excused me but where in the name of the Lord did you get this idea?
Upper Weston
07-06-2006, 04:02
The fact that Germany and Japan were bombed into utter rubble, noe they're among the world's leading economy's, not to mention functional, peaceful democracies. Who do you think financed this rebuilding?
Corneliu
07-06-2006, 04:16
The fact that Germany and Japan were bombed into utter rubble, noe they're among the world's leading economy's, not to mention functional, peaceful democracies. Who do you think financed this rebuilding?
The United States of America as well as the other allied powers.
DesignatedMarksman
07-06-2006, 05:02
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/06/05/somalia.fighting.ap/index.html
Just Freaking Great, another safe haven for al-Qaida and another mess that the US might end up cleaning up.
We tried to in 93 with the Mogadishu raid. The Rangers were cut off from using armor, and that in the end DOOMED them. We might have to send in guys AGAIN, only this time with some fireworks and tanks. If we don't nip this in the bud, imagine chechnya and how bad it is for the russians.
I too am confused.
Why does this have to be a failure for the US. Are we responsible for every negative turn of events in every third world country everywhere?
Well it is sort of our fault because of Clintons cluster**** in the 93 somali raid. Might need a little fixing.
Watch blackhawk down.....
LaLaland0
07-06-2006, 05:04
I too am confused.
Why does this have to be a failure for the US. Are we responsible for every negative turn of events in every third world country everywhere?
Apparently, yes.
LaLaland0
07-06-2006, 05:05
Well it is sort of our fault because of Clintons cluster**** in the 93 somali raid. Might need a little fixing.
I understand that we failed them then, but how does that equate to the situation today? It did say "again" in the original post.
LaLaland0
07-06-2006, 05:07
The United States of America as well as the other allied powers.
Which "other allied power"?
It was America and the Marshall plan, no one had the money or the time to do anything for them.
LaLaland0
07-06-2006, 05:09
Does it says something when the article had to mention that our previous presense in Somalia and what occured was depicted in the movie "Black Hawk Down"? We really need a movie reference?
It got the story of Somalia out better than the media did. I understand that it was a serious situation, but really in the memories of people who either were not directly involved or were too young to remember it, the movie is a good starting point. I don't think that people should take all of their info from this movie, but it is a good tool for raising awareness about this event.
DesignatedMarksman
07-06-2006, 05:17
I understand that we failed them then, but how does that equate to the situation today? It did say "again" in the original post.
We could have decimated the warlords and helped to establish a more stable government.
Grrr.....
"Tell my two girls I'm OK"
:mad:
LaLaland0
07-06-2006, 05:19
We could have decimated the warlords and helped to establish a more stable government.
I guess we coulda nuked them and said the problem was over with once the radioactive cloud settled too.
DesignatedMarksman
07-06-2006, 05:30
I guess we coulda nuked them and said the problem was over with once the radioactive cloud settled too.
Sorta makes rebuilding the capitol and Somalia hard when it's clicking hot.
Although to be honest, I would have dropped FAEs along the route where most of the militia men would have been parked. Would have cleared EVERY building within 500 meters and set off any IEDs, which if there IS a Somali Raid v2, there will be TONS of. Somali insurgents are watching Iraq to see how things go down.
Minkonio
07-06-2006, 05:35
Sorta makes rebuilding the capitol and Somalia hard when it's clicking hot.
Although to be honest, I would have dropped FAEs along the route where most of the militia men would have been parked. Would have cleared EVERY building within 500 meters and set off any IEDs, which if there IS a Somali Raid v2, there will be TONS of. Somali insurgents are watching Iraq to see how things go down.
"FAE"?
Anyway, I agree this needs to be dealt with. We don't need another terrorism-breeding/supporting country in the world.
Which "other allied power"?
It was America and the Marshall plan, no one had the money or the time to do anything for them.
Too true. GB was out of funds, France was in ruins, Russia had been literally raped, China had been decimated...not to mention the numerous colonial rebellions that followed the war; all require funds which the allied nations couldn't spare. (The former Axis nations had to be rebuilt too, btw.) So where was this money going to be coming from?
America was lucky enough to make it out almost completely unscathed.
Anyway, Mogadishu...that's another hell-hole I don't want to be caught in. Iraq is bad enough, now imagine a country and soldiers who have been fighting nonstop for 15+ years. These people will be masters of Guerilla tactics, that means very high losses. So my advice to my government: let someone else handle it, because frankly, I'm sick of handling it and getting critisized for it.
Secret aj man
07-06-2006, 05:57
"FAE"?
Anyway, I agree this needs to be dealt with. We don't need another terrorism-breeding/supporting country in the world.
i agree with you.
but it does not matter what we do,if we intercede and depose a scumbag pillaging murderous maniac...we are bad,
trust me,if we go there,even for humanitarian reasons or to stop people from creating another afghanistan type regime,we are bad!
i say fuck em all,we cant win..ever.
yes we are the biggest boy on the block..yada yada yada,and people resent when we interfere,or when we dont interfere,so we cant win.
i say,fuck em all...the world it is,they say we poke our noses into other countries business,then i say we stop doing that.
dont ask me for anything,i wont bother you is my motto for us,blow up my crap,and i will bring my countries power to bear,with very little concern for anyone,like the good ole days of world wars...total war so to speak,but if you dont mess with us,since we dont mess with you,no problem...correct?
hell,china is the new world power apparently,let them shoulder the worlds problems and get all the grief from all the sideline whiners.
i'll say it again,i think we should completely withdraw from all aid to all countries,basically be an island,free trade..yeah no problem.
it's not our business..iraq apparently too many,us throwing our weight around,etc( i agree was not our problem or our biz)and neither is anyone elses country.
my attitude from watching the damned if we do and damned if we dont rhetoric constantly thrown in my face about us interference is,simply,withdraw from everywhere,maintain trade with countries that want to,and blast the crap out of anyone the attacks us.
simple no?dont attack us..go about your biz,we will not involve ourselves...mess with us,exspect a very serious response.
sick of being the worlds whipping boy,go it on our own is my attitude,and let someone else take the grief whether they try to do good or not.
the hypocracy kills me....iraq...the meddling americans...darfur...the callous americans...somalia,we tried to feed the poor abused people,nothing more,and our boys were murdered,and alot of the world silently smiled at us getting "kicked in the shins"
with thanks like that...no thanks,clean up your own mess and dont come knocking for help.
my neighbor needs help...i jump at the chance to help...same neighbor bad mouthes me every chance...fuck off punk.
Neu Leonstein
07-06-2006, 12:11
Too true...
Let's be fair here though. Yes, US investments like the Marshall Plan helped, but they were not the reason Germany and Japan are such economic powerhouses today. That was due to some good governance and hard-working people.
Psychotic Mongooses
07-06-2006, 12:37
Somali insurgents are watching Iraq to see how things go down.
Somali insurgents...?
Say what?
How easy it is to use a label from another conflict to catagorise other, completely seperate and unconnected groups to try and justify your claim for intervention in Somalia.
We tried to in 93 with the Mogadishu raid. The Rangers were cut off from using armor, and that in the end DOOMED them. We might have to send in guys AGAIN, only this time with some fireworks and tanks.
Ah, yes. How intelligent. Send tanks into a massively built up urban mass of narrow steets and rubble. What could go wrong?
Deep Kimchi
07-06-2006, 12:39
Let's be fair here though. Yes, US investments like the Marshall Plan helped, but they were not the reason Germany and Japan are such economic powerhouses today. That was due to some good governance and hard-working people.
It also helped that Germans and Japanese realized that they had lost the war, and didn't continue a resistance for the next 60 years.
Admitting that you are beaten is something the defeated have to do, in order for the victor to win, and for things to move on.
BogMarsh
07-06-2006, 13:26
It also helped that Germans and Japanese realized that they had lost the war, and didn't continue a resistance for the next 60 years.
Admitting that you are beaten is something the defeated have to do, in order for the victor to win, and for things to move on.
It also helps greatly to have an Ally who is an Ogre.
Let's suppose that the USA somehow managed to get Turkey involved in Iraq.
( That did look possible at one time. )
Iraq has quite a lot of Kurds - who live in fear of Big Bad Turkey.
Are we surprised then, that the Kurds are quite cooperative?
The Yanks could walk out - the Turks could walk in.
Same for Germany: if the Americans were to leave Bavaria, the Russians would enter.
Greyenivol Colony
07-06-2006, 14:33
I think that this idea of imposing a government on Somalia at any cost is misguided.
Basically what we have in Somalia is a civil war that is progressing at a pace so slow that at the best of times it is hardly noticeable. The people would rather there were no hostilities, but they would also rather not have any central government that would abuse its power to achieve that goal.
So, I think what we should do is just leave the Anarchy as it is in Somalia, but just subtly pull the strings on either side of the conflict to ensure that no side gets too powerful. In the stable areas of Somalia a state of hostilities only exists theoretically anyway, the warlords on both sides offer protection but both sides recognise that attack is against their interests.
As long as the balance is kept, then I think prosperity could be maintained and Somalia could become a role model to other troubled African states.
Carnivorous Lickers
07-06-2006, 14:36
Too true. GB was out of funds, France was in ruins, Russia had been literally raped, China had been decimated...not to mention the numerous colonial rebellions that followed the war; all require funds which the allied nations couldn't spare. (The former Axis nations had to be rebuilt too, btw.) So where was this money going to be coming from?
America was lucky enough to make it out almost completely unscathed.
Almost 295,000 men killed in action, over a million wounded cant be called unscathed in any stretch of the word.
If ur idiotic enough to belive that when people say its the "US's" fault or we hate America,they're talking about you,u need to shoot yourself,what they mean is the US government,how can it be your fault,the people who r writing this dont even know u,moron
In a republic such as ours, the government reflects the opinions of the people (or at least it SHOULD). Even though we in America see that is sometimes not the case, it might not seem so obvious to people who dont live in America.
Carnivorous Lickers
07-06-2006, 14:48
Let's be fair here though. Yes, US investments like the Marshall Plan helped, but they were not the reason Germany and Japan are such economic powerhouses today. That was due to some good governance and hard-working people.
and having assistance every step of the way.
How would the US look today if Germany and Japan had completely firebombed and nuked us into total submission? Would we be governing ourselves? Would we have our own industry,agriculture or technology?
How would our allies have faired? Would Britain have been rebuilt ?
Or would there have been a widescale extermination, slave labor, etc...imposed on American citizens? All America's treasure would have been looted-both public and private.
"US investments, like the Marshall plan helped" really diminishes wat the US really did,to the point of making it sound insignificant.
"FAE"?
"Fuel-Air Explosive"
Corneliu
07-06-2006, 17:02
Which "other allied power"?
It was America and the Marshall plan, no one had the money or the time to do anything for them.
You forgot that Britain also participated as well. Not as much as the US but they did. I really wish Americans would recognize the value that our allies had in the aftermath of World War II.
Yootopia
07-06-2006, 17:07
Seeing as most of the population in Soomaalia is Muslim, was it really necessary to make a point that they were "Islamic militia members"?
Ultraextreme Sanity
07-06-2006, 17:09
Let Al queda and all the terrorist you can think of go to Somallia...why not ?
You know where they are ...they are all in one place and easier to kill .
I dont see the problem .
Drunk commies deleted
07-06-2006, 17:10
Mogadishu is under the control of Islamofascists? Fine by me. Somalia's got no natural resources besides Khat and very few educated people, right? It's got plenty of starvation though. Let the Islamofascists worry about how to make money and feed the people there. Maybe doing something constructive for a change will keep them busy. If they get out of hand, well, we've got those MOAB bombs, right? Ten tons of thermobaric high explosive should knock their dicks in line.
Carnivorous Lickers
07-06-2006, 18:56
Mogadishu is under the control of Islamofascists? Fine by me. Somalia's got no natural resources besides Khat and very few educated people, right? It's got plenty of starvation though. Let the Islamofascists worry about how to make money and feed the people there. Maybe doing something constructive for a change will keep them busy. If they get out of hand, well, we've got those MOAB bombs, right? Ten tons of thermobaric high explosive should knock their dicks in line.
Yeah, except its a petri dish of American haters. They all have guns and khat. but cant feed their kids. And all their suffering will be blamed on the US. They'll be churning out new generations of this shit that cant read,write or eat, but can pull a trigger.
Drunk commies deleted
07-06-2006, 18:59
Yeah, except its a petri dish of American haters. They all have guns and khat. but cant feed their kids. And all their suffering will be blamed on the US. They'll be churning out new generations of this shit that cant read,write or eat, but can pull a trigger.
Well, we can drop huge bombs if they become a big enough problem. A MOAB and a few daisy cutters should put a dent in the surplus population.
Deep Kimchi
07-06-2006, 19:02
Guess where all the pirates in the area come from?
Somalia.
The ones shooting at cargo and passenger vessels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4283396.stm
I personally don't think that anyone in Somalia would be missed if we bombed the whole place with cluster munitions and fuel air explosives. It would immediately solve a lot of problems.
One might argue that the majority would starve to death in the next few years anyway (or be killed by internecine warfare).
Drunk commies deleted
07-06-2006, 19:04
Guess where all the pirates in the area come from?
Somalia.
The ones shooting at cargo and passenger vessels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4283396.stm
I personally don't think that anyone in Somalia would be missed if we bombed the whole place with cluster munitions and fuel air explosives. It would immediately solve a lot of problems.
One might argue that the majority would starve to death in the next few years anyway (or be killed by internecine warfare).
OT Holy Crap! Is the anecdote in your sig real? How do people that dumb get elected?
Deep Kimchi
07-06-2006, 19:05
OT Holy Crap! Is the anecdote in your sig real? How do people that dumb get elected?
Yes, it's real.
Neu Leonstein
08-06-2006, 01:58
"US investments, like the Marshall plan helped" really diminishes wat the US really did,to the point of making it sound insignificant.
Look at the time frame though. When was the Marshall Plan, when was the "Economic Miracle". And then there were people like Ludwig Erhard, who told the Americans to fuck themselves and he eliminated price controls, even though the Americans (socialists at the time) wanted him to keep them.
I can't really speak for Britain and France (who both received a lot more aid) but in Germany the Marshall Plan helped, but it was not really all that decisive when compared to some of the early policies, and even such morale-boosting events as the 1954 World Cup.
EDIT: And the beginning of the economic miracle also coincided with the Allies dropping the plans of dismantling German industry (which was planned, although not on the scale that Morgenthau originally envisioned).
http://www.ena.lu?lang=2&doc=13159