NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, that was a shitty thread title. Anyway. Aye there's been a coup in Mauritania, and no thread has popped up yet (unsurprisingly, since it's kind of a pish country I guess).

NOUAKCHOTT, Mauritania (AP) — Army officers staged a coup in Mauritania on Wednesday and detained the president and prime minister, overthrowing the first government to be freely elected in the desert country in more than 20 years.

The coup in Africa's newest oil producer took place after the president and prime minister fired the country's top four military officials.

A brief announcement read over state television said the new "state council" will be led by presidential guard chief Gen. Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, who also helped lead a 2005 coup. It gave no other details.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmqqO8XJixmimcunkNvDYctnppTgD92CR4380

So aye, thoughts and such?

This was covered in the news today (because i live in one of those crazy wanna-be socialist countries with state-funded television). Ironically our state premier called an election today - coincidence? I and the rest of the Right Thinking majority think NYET. This really isn't suprising news at all and falls into a consistent historical pattern played out around the North African region. I expect the military will either assume their former role as dictatorial power or they may just install one of the former government members who agrees not to piss every other clan representative off by tacking government with their own members.

PS: i have to admit it was your title that drew me in...

Since its apparently vaguely related to oil, I have a sudden vision of the slowly declining gas price freezing where it is, then starting to creep back up.

I also find myself wondering if anybody in a position of power actually cares enough to intervene in the name of democra-...Oh nevermind, I cant say it with a straight face.

Since its apparently vaguely related to oil, I have a sudden vision of the slowly declining gas price freezing where it is, then starting to creep back up.
Already went up today because of worries over supply. IE because of this.
I also find myself wondering if anybody in a position of power actually cares enough to intervene in the name of democracy
Why would they bother? It's a small, poor country with limited natural resources.

Already went up today because of worries over supply. IE because of this.
Reminds me of that story about the mini-tanker that crashed in Alaska in the 80's or something, spilling a grand total of about 10,000 gallons of oil, causing gas prices to go up ten cents or so.
I probably got the details wrong, of course. Its second-hand :P


Why would they bother? It's a small, poor country with limited natural resources.

Hence the bit after the hyphen.

Reminds me of that story about the mini-tanker that crashed in Alaska in the 80's or something, spilling a grand total of about 10,000 gallons of oil, causing gas prices to go up ten cents or so.
I probably got the details wrong, of course. Its second-hand :P
Ah well :p
Hence the bit after the hyphen.
Well aye.

I thought the title was funny, though pretty tacky. Nothing much to say about this... happens often enough I guess.

A: No major country has interests in Mauritania.

B: As the Iraq situation shows, an interventon can only be quickly successful if the country is ready for democratic change (such as Panama was after Noriega was ousted). Mauritania shows no real sign of this.

So nobody's going to step in.

There doesn't seem to be much information to go on.

The international community doesn't seem to like it, but the locals seem to be ambivalent.

It seems relatively calm for everyone except the detained president.

A: No major country has interests in Mauritania.

B: As the Iraq situation shows, an interventon can only be quickly successful if the country is ready for democratic change (such as Panama was after Noriega was ousted). Mauritania shows no real sign of this.

So nobody's going to step in.

No one's going to step in because it only recently started producing oil and the coup didn't affect that at all. The only thing that Iraq and Panama teach us is that the US steps in when it's in their economic interests.

No one's going to step in because it only recently started producing oil and the coup didn't affect that at all.
Also because it's a lame country which nobody has any investment in, material or moral.
The only thing that Iraq and Panama teach us is that the US steps in when it's in their economic interests.
... uhu, what about the wars in Grenada, Somalia and their actions in the Balkans then?

No one's going to step in because it only recently started producing oil and the coup didn't affect that at all. The only thing that Iraq and Panama teach us is that the US steps in when it's in their economic interests.

Sure. Just like everybody else.

... uhu, what about the wars in Grenada, Somalia and their actions in the Balkans then?

The 1983 Invasion of Grenada was largely a political act to prevent further soviet encroachment into the Western hemisphere and was not touted as a humanitarian action. Somalia was undertaken as humanitarian action directed against a "socialist" regime which was violently falling apart at the seams (and which happened to theaten the large volume of shippig off the Horn of Africa). (I'm not here to say the US is ONLY a saint or a sinner, they had mixed interests in Somalia but i think it was fair to recognise that a significant motivation was humanitarianism -in other words i partially agree with you on this example). The intervention in the Balkans in the early 1990s was, yes, a humanitarian effort, nobody can deny the atrocity of what was happening but the initial situation was one encouraged and accelerated by American-led contrivance to topple the Yugoslavian government (check Wiki) - mission accomplished.

The 1983 Invasion of Grenada was largely a political act to prevent further soviet encroachment into the Western hemisphere and was not touted as a humanitarian action.
Not really. It was more a way to cheer up the US military.
Somalia was undertaken as humanitarian action directed against a "socialist" regime falling apart at the seams which theatened the large volume of shippig off the Horn of Africa. (I'm not here to say the US is ONLY a saint or a sinner they had mixed interests in Somalis but i think it was fair to recognise that a significant motivation was humanitarianism).
Quite.
The intervention in the Balkans in the early 1990s was, yes, a humanitarian effort, nobody can deny the atrocity of what was happening but initial situation was one encouraged and accelerated by American-led contrivance to topple the Yugoslavian government (check Wiki) - mission accomplished.
Uhu... and none of these are really about economic interests.

Also because it's a lame country which nobody has any investment in, material or moral.

... uhu, what about the wars in Grenada, Somalia and their actions in the Balkans then?

Can you think of any other reason to invade Grenada other than to reassert control over a Caribbean nation that was deciding to ally itself with another economic bloc?

You also realise that the Horn of Eritrea is currently being looked at as a place to extract oil?

Northern Kosovo has some of the richest mining in the area, which is important if you're going to be building pipelines through the region. It was also a useful pretext to dismantle the local economy and 'open up the market' to US economic interests.

The specific American actions involved in Grenada, the Balkans and Somalia weren't conducted as stand-alone ad hoc actions but part of a broader agenda in promoting America intersts in which "American interest" is defined not just as rudimentary political control but economic and cultural influence.

Can you think of any other reason to invade Grenada other than to reassert control over a Caribbean nation that was deciding to ally itself with another economic bloc?
Yes. Because the US needed to beat the crap out of someone to cheer the public up after the débâcle that was the Vietnam war. And Grenada was a very easy mark.
You also realise that the Horn of Eritrea is currently being looked at as a place to extract oil?
Yep... the war in Somalia was not actually about this, though, it was about vaguely propping up a government there so that the world had someone to talk to in the region. Don't really want to be talking to Eritrea, it's a military dictatorship, and we know how those are, and Ethiopia is always unstable.
Northern Kosovo has some of the richest mining in the area
Which it will not be allowed to exploit if the EU has anything to say about it, which it will.
which is important if you're going to be building pipelines through the region.
1) Uhu...

2) There is no pipeline planned through Kosovo, the EU does have one going through Turkey into Greece and up Europe that way, and we also have the Nordstream project going on. They are not going to change that, because it will be an excuse to bring the Turkish into the EU to guarantee that the project goes through.
It was also a useful pretext to dismantle the local economy and 'open up the market' to US economic interests.
Seeing as the collective governments of the Balkans have roughly £8 to spend when all is put together, I don't really see how US economic interests come into this, especially since they'd have known that every country in the Balkans is going to join the EU, and almost all of their trade will be with other EU states. And not the US.

Yes. Because the US needed to beat the crap out of someone to cheer the public up after the débâcle that was the Vietnam war. And Grenada was a very easy mark.

Yep... the war in Somalia was not actually about this, though, it was about vaguely propping up a government there so that the world had someone to talk to in the region. Don't really want to be talking to Eritrea, it's a military dictatorship, and we know how those are, and Ethiopia is always unstable.

Which it will not be allowed to exploit if the EU has anything to say about it, which it will.

1) Uhu...

2) There is no pipeline planned through Kosovo, the EU does have one going through Turkey into Greece and up Europe that way, and we also have the Nordstream project going on. They are not going to change that, because it will be an excuse to bring the Turkish into the EU to guarantee that the project goes through.

Seeing as the collective governments of the Balkans have roughly £8 to spend when all is put together, I don't really see how US economic interests come into this, especially since they'd have known that every country in the Balkans is going to join the EU, and almost all of their trade will be with other EU states. And not the US.

Your comment on Grenada does not mean that US economic interests weren't served by invading. And people only want to talk to the Somalians because they're sitting on oil. In Darfur,for example, there is a desperate need for international dialogue, but the west only makes diplomatic noise. Too bad those peope aren't sitting on oil.

What makes you think the US isn't already exploiting the mines? According to this (admittedly biased) website (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=STO20051229&articleId=1666), it's a done deal:

One month following the NATO intervention, the United Nations Mission in Kosovo [UNMIK] gave itself the authority to administer FRY and Serbian assets in Kosovo. A think-tank, the International Crisis Group [ICG], then published a report on Trepca stating that UNMIK should "take over the Trepca Mining Complex from the Serbs as quickly as possible and explained how this should be done."[25] The Trepca mines were occupied in 2000 by UN peacekeepers on the grounds that the mines posed an environmental hazard, and were turned over to the Washington Group, a large U.S. defense contractor with partners in France and Sweden.[26]

I think I'm hijacking the thread, so I will simply agree with Dodecapod and his/her assertion that all countries involve themselves with their own interests in mind.

What? Again??

Your comment on Grenada does not mean that US economic interests weren't served by invading.
Pray tell. Was there a nutmeg shortage in 1983?

And people only want to talk to the Somalians because they're sitting on oil.
Or allegedly harbouring Al Qaeda members...

Pray tell. Was there a nutmeg shortage in 1983?


Or allegedly harbouring Al Qaeda members...

Oh, right. Silly me. Your intelligent and well researched post was so clear and analytical that I must immediately concede defeat.

Grenada was only invaded because US students were in danger due to some Cubans and Canadians who were building an airport. That makes much more sense.

And the US government would never imply that a nation with oil has contacts with terrorist organisations as a pretext for invasion. That's unthinkable!

Mauriwho?

Oh, right. Silly me. Your intelligent and well researched post was so clear and analytical that I must immediately concede defeat.
If you must, but I'd rather you'd address the issue.

Grenada was only invaded because US students were in danger due to some Cubans and Canadians who were building an airport. That makes much more sense.
Instead of actually coming up with a viable economic reason for the United State to invade a country of 110,000 with an average GDP per capita of $5,000 you decide to be obtuse. The lady doth protest too much methinks.

And I believe Yootopia gave a much more logical reason Yes. Because the US needed to beat the crap out of someone to cheer the public up after the débâcle that was the Vietnam war. And Grenada was a very easy mark.

And the US government would never imply that a nation with oil has contacts with terrorist organisations as a pretext for invasion. That's unthinkable!
Saudi Arabia (ally), Iraq (has pretty much sole control over the oil industry), Gulf kingdoms, (allies). All these alone dwarf whatever oil resources Somalia may or may not have at this current time. The oil argument doesn't work for Somalia.

Mauriwho?

Way to dispel the rumour that Americans just don't get that there are other countries in the world.

Yes. Because the US needed to beat the crap out of someone to cheer the public up after the débâcle that was the Vietnam war. And Grenada was a very easy mark.


Forget Vietnam, wasn't that right after we fucked up trying to save the hostages in Iran? That operation was one of the most embarassing moments in U.S. military history and was really what spurred the Army to institute the ridiculous number of reforms it went through in the 80's.

And also, why are people trashing the U.S. efforts in Somalia? We actually did a good thing there. You know, ending a famine (yes, we did), and setting up a council of leaders between warlords who had been killing each other off.
Admitably, it all fell apart shortly after the Marines left, but for once we can't be blamed for it. We had done what we came to do-end the famine and stop the fighting.
Besides, I think (not sure, about to check) that the invasion of Somalia was a UN sanctioned action.

As for the Balkans, that was NATO as a whole, not just the U.S. So lets blame everybody who was involved, and not just the U.S.

EDIT: Just checked, the U.S. invasion of Somalia WAS launched in accordance with UN resolution 794.

Forget Vietnam, wasn't that right after we fucked up trying to save the hostages in Iran? That operation was one of the most embarassing moments in U.S. military history and was really what spurred the Army to institute the ridiculous number of reforms it went through in the 80's.

And also, why are people trashing the U.S. efforts in Somalia? We actually did a good thing there. You know, ending a famine (yes, we did), and setting up a council of leaders between warlords who had been killing each other off.
Admitably, it all fell apart shortly after the Marines left, but for once we can't be blamed for it. We had done what we came to do-end the famine and stop the fighting.
Besides, I think (not sure, about to check) that the invasion of Somalia was a UN sanctioned action.

As for the Balkans, that was NATO as a whole, not just the U.S. So lets blame everybody who was involved, and not just the U.S.

EDIT: Just checked, the U.S. invasion of Somalia WAS launched in accordance with UN resolution 794.

And had the US sent heavy armor with its forces, not only would the Black Hawk Down debacle have happened but the UN forces might have actually restored some sembeleance of order to the place.

And had the US sent heavy armor with its forces, not only would the Black Hawk Down debacle have happened but the UN forces might have actually restored some sembeleance of order to the place.

The battle of Mogadishu (s?) occured after the Marines, with their heavy weapons, had already left. It still would have occured even if the marines were there, however, because the mission was not "kill everything that moves," which is what it turned into when everything went to hell, the mission was "capture a warlord who is causing everything we have done to fall apart." Heavy armor wouldn't have been practical in that situation anyway; ask a tanker how much they cherish the idea of driving an M1A2 through a city with narrow, twisty streets and a hostile population loaded for bear with RPG-7's.

The battle of Mogadishu (s?) occured after the Marines, with their heavy weapons, had already left. It still would have occured even if the marines were there, however, because the mission was not "kill everything that moves," which is what it turned into when everything went to hell, the mission was "capture a warlord who is causing everything we have done to fall apart." Heavy armor wouldn't have been practical in that situation anyway; ask a tanker how much they cherish the idea of driving an M1A2 through a city with narrow, twisty streets and a hostile population loaded for bear with RPG-7's.

The Iraqi troops defending Baghdad were much better armed and organized than Adid's thugs and they were absolutely raped by the 3rd Infantry Division during their operation to seize Baghdad International Airport and Saddam's Palace District. Google "Thunder Run" for more info on that.

Also, you fail to consider that the Ranger/Delta units pinned down in Mogadishu were rescued by Malayasian APCs with some support from Pakistani tanks. Note that the Malayasian Condor APCs were much less capable then US Bradleys or M113s and Pakistani M48s are a joke next to an Abrams. Finally, the Rangers/Delta were pinned down for hours because it took time to assemble the UN force to move into the city, if the US had an armored unit of their own they'd have been in and out much faster with much lighter casualties. Considering that a couple hundred Rangers with nothing more than small arms killed about 1,000 of Adid's best fighters, imagine what they'd have done with heavy weapons.

The Iraqi troops defending Baghdad were much better armed and organized than Adid's thugs and they were absolutely raped by the 3rd Infantry Division during their operation to seize Baghdad International Airport and Saddam's Palace District. Google "Thunder Run" for more info on that.

I know. Sergeant Paul Ray Smith, may his family take comfort in his memory, died there. The difference being, of course, that while yes, the Iraqis in Baghdad were much better led and trained and somewhat better armed than Adid's militia, they were also rumbling with an entire heavy division as compared to a hundred elite light troops.

Also, you fail to consider that the Ranger/Delta units pinned down in Mogadishu were rescued by Malayasian APCs with some support from Pakistani tanks. Note that the Malayasian Condor APCs were much less capable then US Bradleys or M113s and Pakistani M48s are a joke next to an Abrams. Finally, the Rangers/Delta were pinned down for hours because it took time to assemble the UN force to move into the city, if the US had an armored unit of their own they'd have been in and out much faster with much lighter casualties. Considering that a couple hundred Rangers with nothing more than small arms killed about 1,000 of Adid's best fighters, imagine what they'd have done with heavy weapons.


Certainly they were...but again, the operation was not to kill off Adid's militia (though they did do an admirable job :tongue:), it was to capture Adid. A massive tank column would have been a rather large give away.
The entire operation was a clusterfuck...the planning did not have any contingencies for what went wrong. I grudgingly concede the point that having U.S. (or any) armor ready to rock at the outset would have been beneficial and could have saved lives.

And I take issue with you saying that the M113 is a better tank than anything.

Don't knock the M48-just because first world countries have superior tanks does not change the fact that it is a solid piece of machinery and is more than capable of combat.

great name, terrible country.

Seriously, Mauritania. It rolls off the tongue.

Way to dispel the rumour that Americans just don't get that there are other countries in the world.

I try, I try.

Your comment on Grenada does not mean that US economic interests weren't served by invading.
And what economic interests would those be?
And people only want to talk to the Somalians because they're sitting on oil.
No they don't. People like to talk to other nations' leaders because it makes information gathering easy, and feels like the 'right thing' to do. That they are possibly sitting on or at least near a little oil that the Saudis are going to extract anyway makes little odds.
In Darfur,for example, there is a desperate need for international dialogue
Not really, the worst (ie 2005 bad) is over.
but the west only makes diplomatic noise. Too bad those peope aren't sitting on oil.
Also too bad their president has said that he doesn't want foreign intervention because he's a colossal fuckwit, and thinks that having the Janjaweed in charge of large areas of the country is better than having blue helmets running the country.
What makes you think the US isn't already exploiting the mines?
The fact that, despite any leeway we might give their new state, they still want to be in the EU, which isn't exactly pro-mining, see Romania.
According to this (admittedly biased) website (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=STO20051229&articleId=1666), it's a done deal:
Aye, I'd like something else to back that claim up, I'll be honest.
And had the US sent heavy armor with its forces, not only would the Black Hawk Down debacle have happened but the UN forces might have actually restored some sembeleance of order to the place.
People massively high on Khat and armed with RPG-7s probably wouldn't be fussed by an Abrams, and having the cannon open up on anything would require some seriously good string-pulling. There's little the media would splash over the papers and news channels more than M1A2s killing dozens of civilians with every shell. Because it would sell.

Mauriwho?
I can't honestly say I blame you :tongue:

If you must, but I'd rather you'd address the issue.


Instead of actually coming up with a viable economic reason for the United State to invade a country of 110,000 with an average GDP per capita of $5,000 you decide to be obtuse. The lady doth protest too much methinks.

Saudi Arabia (ally), Iraq (has pretty much sole control over the oil industry), Gulf kingdoms, (allies). All these alone dwarf whatever oil resources Somalia may or may not have at this current time. The oil argument doesn't work for Somalia.

Your argument was about nutmeg. What exactly am I supposed to respond to? Would you like me to make your argument for you, and respond to that?

Is the essence of the rest of your argument the idea that because the western powers involved already have access to a whole bunch of oil that they won't want anymore? That's an odd argument. Do you also believe that companies won't try to maximise their profits once they make a little bit of money?

And what economic interests would those be?

You mean, other than controlling Grenada's whole economy and ensuring that other Caribbean nations don't try to exercise anything resembling socialism?

No they don't. People like to talk to other nations' leaders because it makes information gathering easy, and feels like the 'right thing' to do. That they are possibly sitting on or at least near a little oil that the Saudis are going to extract anyway makes little odds.

Right. Foreign policy of the US and other similar nations is based on altruism and not self-interest. Sure. :rolleyes:

Not really, the worst (ie 2005 bad) is over.

And no one did anything back then. What a surprise.

Also too bad their president has said that he doesn't want foreign intervention because he's a colossal fuckwit, and thinks that having the Janjaweed in charge of large areas of the country is better than having blue helmets running the country.

I'm sure Hussein had similar complaints. Why didn't the US respect Iraq's sovereignty? 'll give you a hint. It has something that Darfur doesn't.

The fact that, despite any leeway we might give their new state, they still want to be in the EU, which isn't exactly pro-mining, see Romania.

Aye, I'd like something else to back that claim up, I'll be honest.

And I would like something to back up your claim that nothing will happen. I mean, other than your opinion as to what the EU might do if it hasn't already been privatised and running, which you don't know either. The richness of the mining complex is common knowledge ( http://www.alb-net.com/kcc/041599e.htm#3 ). It was already running before. I doubt icky feelings about mining will matter when billions of dollars are at stake.

So, just to clarify...everybody knows that the Sudan has huge oil potential, right?

Just, you know, making sure everybody saying that we went to Iraq for the oil and not Sudan cus they don't have any knows that.

Way to dispel the rumour that Americans just don't get that there are other countries in the world.

Woah, wait a minute! Ithought all of this was from that one fiction book... Uh... ATLAS! That was it, Atlas, and all of this so called "War" and "Immigrants" Were people who went on vacation coming back, and huge conspiracies to get more of our moneys!!!!!:p

I know. Sergeant Paul Ray Smith, may his family take comfort in his memory, died there. The difference being, of course, that while yes, the Iraqis in Baghdad were much better led and trained and somewhat better armed than Adid's militia, they were also rumbling with an entire heavy division as compared to a hundred elite light troops.

Actually the Iraqis never engaged more than a brigade of 3rd ID at any one time. A mech division can't bring its full weight to bear during an opposed road march. They simply engage along the route of their advance.

Certainly they were...but again, the operation was not to kill off Adid's militia (though they did do an admirable job :tongue:), it was to capture Adid. A massive tank column would have been a rather large give away.
The entire operation was a clusterfuck...the planning did not have any contingencies for what went wrong. I grudgingly concede the point that having U.S. (or any) armor ready to rock at the outset would have been beneficial and could have saved lives.

The problem with the raid was they'd already done something similar before, on more than one occasion, as undisciplined as Adid's thugs were they weren't that stupid. No one ever considered that they might use RPGs to bring down a UH-60.

And I take issue with you saying that the M113 is a better tank than anything.

I take issue with you using the word "tank" in the same sentence as M113, it's an APC.

Then you obviously don't know anything about the Condor, it's a four wheel death trap with even less armor than the M113. The M113 is a reliable workhorse but it's markedly inferior to any decent IFV or even the Stryker (despite the rantings of some people).

Don't knock the M48-just because first world countries have superior tanks does not change the fact that it is a solid piece of machinery and is more than capable of combat.

Said the M48 vastly inferior to the Abrams, again that's a fact. It may be prefectly servicable for smaller nations but it's less capable. If the Pakastanis could successfully use M48s during the extraction of the Ranger/Delta units, don't you think US M1A1s would have been even more successful?

Why would the US attack, other than controlling Grenada's whole economy
All sixpence of it...
and ensuring that other Caribbean nations don't try to exercise anything resembling socialism?
Which would explain why socialists came to power a couple of years later in Haiti. Yes.
Right. Foreign policy of the US and other similar nations is based on altruism and not self-interest. Sure. :rolleyes:
That's not actually what I said, though. The 'right thing' in this context is "what is easiest and best practice", not "what is morally right".
And no one did anything back then. What a surprise.
Aye, what a surprise indeed. Iraq was also pretty much at its worst then, too. The US and British were (still are, really) tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The French aren't going to get involved because it's not one of their own ex-colonies, and the Germans don't like to get involved in anything at all which isn't on their territory.
I'm sure Hussein had similar complaints. Why didn't the US respect Iraq's sovereignty? 'll give you a hint. It has something that Darfur doesn't.
Aye, and as well as oil, Hussein was disliked on a more personal level by the old hawks such as Rummy. Also, as previously said, Iraq was a complete PR nightmare. Take another leader out of power, but in Africa, and you start getting extra bullshit about imperialism, and the whole continent turns once more towards China.
And I would like something to back up your claim that nothing will happen. I mean, other than your opinion as to what the EU might do if it hasn't already been privatised and running, which you don't know either.
Aye well sadly Javier Solana is about to go on holiday, like the rest of the EU, so ringing him is off the cards.

As to whether it hasn't already been privatised and running, aye, I have no idea, but what is essentially a leftist blog page with a very high opinion of itself but little in terms of reliable sources is not particularly reliable in my eyes.
The richness of the mining complex is common knowledge ( http://www.alb-net.com/kcc/041599e.htm#3 ).
Of course, because what is basically a KLA propaganda website is a reliable source.
It was already running before.
Aye. Been a regime change on, though, and I have no idea what Thaci's government are doing regarding the mines.
I doubt icky feelings about mining will matter when billions of dollars are at stake.
A shame.

I take issue with you using the word "tank" in the same sentence as M113, it's an APC.

Then you obviously don't know anything about the Condor, it's a four wheel death trap with even less armor than the M113. The M113 is a reliable workhorse but it's markedly inferior to any decent IFV or even the Stryker (despite the rantings of some people).


I take issue with your naming the M113 an APC. It's an unarmoured deathtrap on treads. And it is NOT reliable.

I fucking hate those pieces of crap.

I take issue with your naming the M113 an APC. It's an unarmoured deathtrap on treads. And it is NOT reliable.

I fucking hate those pieces of crap.

yeah,it's really bad but still an APC.

I take issue with your naming the M113 an APC. It's an unarmoured deathtrap on treads. And it is NOT reliable.

I fucking hate those pieces of crap.

I don't particularly care what you want to call it, it is armored (albeit lightly) and carries personel, thus it's an Armored Personnel Carrier. It's widely used because it's cheap and it's easy to maintain. Plus there are tons of after market upgrade kits available, while they don't bring it on par with the Stryker or a Bradley, it's servicable for what the US uses it for (ambulances, command track, carrying engineers around, etc.)

A properly kitted US reation force in Somalia would have had Bradleys and Abrams, proably no more than a few M113s. If the Marines were there they'd have AAVs (not much better than the M113), LAVs, and tanks (I think the Corps still had some units with M60s around this time but I'm not certain).

P.S. It's still better than the Condor, Google that death trap.

Your argument was about nutmeg. What exactly am I supposed to respond to? Would you like me to make your argument for you, and respond to that?

You said 'economic reason'. Take a guess at what Grenada's biggest natural economic resource is. *drumroll*

So in other words, no - you can't come up with a viable economic reason for the invasion of Grenada.

Is the essence of the rest of your argument the idea that because the western powers involved already have access to a whole bunch of oil that they won't want anymore? That's an odd argument. Do you also believe that companies won't try to maximise their profits once they make a little bit of money?
If it costs $10 to get $5 worth of oil, then, well, yes. They wouldn't bother.


You mean, other than controlling Grenada's whole economy and ensuring that other Caribbean nations don't try to exercise anything resembling socialism?
You're either A) taking the piss, or B) have no knowledge of Grenada's economy - size, GDP, or what it's main exports and resources are.

Reminds me of that story about the mini-tanker that crashed in Alaska in the 80's or something, spilling a grand total of about 10,000 gallons of oil, causing gas prices to go up ten cents or so.
I probably got the details wrong, of course. Its second-hand :P
It's on the internets now so it must be true.