THE WAR IN SOMALIA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Somalia

Active member
What people need to do is mind their business, it frustrates me when people lecture others on how to run their country and behave like they are the world's police man. Imagine if you and your spouse had a dispute on how to run your home and raise your children, the man and the woman have arguments and bickering....the man feeling that he wears the pants in the house lets say abuses his wife and misbehaves. Now lets look at this scenario; we all know of that one neighbor that always is noosy and interferes in ppls business, so lets say that neighbor came to the family's house with a gun :m16shoot: :rambo: , forcefully evicts the husband :hide: and takes over running and managing the family :read: and starts to control everything:whip: , instead of reporting what ever happend to the appropriate authorites...........Get the Picture now:idea: ! That is the way America is acting when it interferes in other nations business whether its the ruler like the husband was abusing his wife abusing his subjects, or a country does not want to take orders :salute2: from America. America instead of letting the proper authorities deal with it (i.e. UN and other organizations) takes its army and deals with those countries like that neighbor took the gun into the family's house.


Now lets go back to Somalia, what has happend their is what has happend with so many countries, America either physically intervened (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Vietnam, Grenada, Korea, Libya, Sudan) or let its local allies :9mm: deal with it (i.e. Cuba, Nicaragua, Colombia, Lebanon, Palestine, Zimbabwe, Angola) and now in this case giving Ethiopia the go ahead to go into Somalia.

The questions I want to address now is:
1) Is it right to interfer in other nations internal affairs?
2) Why are we preaching do as we say not as we do?
3) And why does the U.S. act hypocritically when it comes to their interests?
For example we fought the 1st Gulf war b/c we said Iraq invaded a soverign nation Kuwait without the authority of the international community, but at the same time we supported it when it invaded a soverign nation Iran and even more blatantly we invaded iraq in the 2nd Gulf war without the authority of the UN or the international community, so we did exactly what we said the first time we was stopping the from doing
 
Who are you? Why not start with an introduction in the proper sub-forum... most people don't like talking to people they don't "know".
 
The questions I want to address now is:
1) Is it right to interfer in other nations internal affairs?
2) Why are we preaching do as we say not as we do?
3) And why does the U.S. act hypocritically when it comes to their interests?
For example we fought the 1st Gulf war b/c we said Iraq invaded a soverign nation Kuwait without the authority of the international community, but at the same time we supported it when it invaded a soverign nation Iran and even more blatantly we invaded iraq in the 2nd Gulf war without the authority of the UN or the international community, so we did exactly what we said the first time we was stopping the from doing

1. Difficult question on one hand you have some pretty brutal dictators out there who sorely need a few grams of lead to balance their views however there is also the argument that if a nations people are not prepared to do something about these people themselves then why should a another country do it for them. Perhaps the old maxim of not respecting things you are given as much things you earn applies in this case.

On a domestic/peaceful level well all countries meddle in each others affairs and have done since politics and nationalism got together.

2 & 3 Well that is the nature of politics, preaching and hypocracy are not solely American vices once again they are practiced by every country on earth.
 
MontyB as the voice of reason... hell hath frozen over.
:)

Somalia, I believe this is a topic I will NOT discuss with you because it is too close to home for you. You spoke of bias in your introduction and I would argue your bias being a Somali is too strong to be able to truly appreciate this from a third point of view. I wish you success in your studies and I hope for your homeland to develop a government of concensus that treats its own people with respect and can integrate itself into the world community.
 
I agree with you for the most part Somali. I don't get why America has to invade these countries. Ultimately, if we just minded our own business we'd be in a stronger position militarily and economically and the invaded/liberated country would have to solve its own damn problems. Pull itself up by the bootstraps, rather than rely on the generosity/arrogance of the first world countries.
 
We left Somlia, that was considered a victory for Al Qada, who helped train the Somli fighters to shoot down American Helicopters, (and did, days before the battle of Mogadishu, a 101st Airborne Black Hawk at night)

Al Qada wanted all Western (specificly U.S. ) forces out of Africa.

But thats a different story, a lot , I mean a lot has changed since then. When we pulled out, we tarnished our reputation. Spread the idea of, the United States being (afraid to die).

Which, frightening enough, we are.......

The only way I think would be truely effective in building new stronger nations, like we are trying to do in Iraq and Afhganistan. Is to stop biding all these laws and regulations of warfare we made in the years after WW l.
Stope trying to be nice to people , we have the advantage in almost every way, we are a super power, quit being politically just in our campgains, and kick down doors, and blow buildings to restore our image, bruatlity is what we are fighting, beheadings? Dead civilians? Sucide bombers?

Violence, brutality, its sad, and horrific I know, but, I am begining to think that the only way to achieve these goals in fighting the most current battles in the war on terror, is to fight fire with fire.

Its sad it has come to this, but, this will be our childerens childerens war...
 
The only way I think would be truely effective in building new stronger nations, like we are trying to do in Iraq and Afhganistan. Is to stop biding all these laws and regulations of warfare we made in the years after WW l.
Stope trying to be nice to people , we have the advantage in almost every way, we are a super power, quit being politically just in our campgains, and kick down doors, and blow buildings to restore our image, bruatlity is what we are fighting, beheadings? Dead civilians? Sucide bombers?

Well I can see that history has taught you nothing. Occupying armies throughout history have tried what you are suggesting and usually ended up finding themselves as occupied.

Afghanistan is a slightly scenario as it never had a unified administration but in Iraq you sailed into a country and removed its entire administration without having a replacement ready to step straight in and it has devolved into anarchy, Al Queda and various other terrorist groups have taken advantage of this and now you have a mess of epic proportions and your suggestion is to go in and start blowing things up I am sure that wont be a great recruiting campaign for the opposition.

Its sad it has come to this, but, this will be our childerens childerens war...

Indeed and a sizable chunk of the world was telling you this 5 years ago as well.
 
Brutality has worked in some cases, in medevil times, exterminating the population, meant that when you had no one able to hold a sword, then, you would have no problem holding that territory.

But, times change, and still you can see the rift between the West, and their way of thinking, and governing, and the Third World nations, and their way of thinking, and governing.

They, live in violence, they are desensitized. I dont think that some politians, the ones calling all the shots understand how they think, and fight, and how normal procedures for nation building (if there are any) can't be applied easly in third world countries.
 
Brutality has worked in some cases, in medevil times, exterminating the population, meant that when you had no one able to hold a sword, then, you would have no problem holding that territory.

But, times change, and still you can see the rift between the West, and their way of thinking, and governing, and the Third World nations, and their way of thinking, and governing.

They, live in violence, they are desensitized. I dont think that some politians, the ones calling all the shots understand how they think, and fight, and how normal procedures for nation building (if there are any) can't be applied easly in third world countries.

Sorry I must have missed a part of your argument there.
I certainly hope your suggestion isn`t that western soldiers should use the same tactics as the terrorists?
On what grounds should we then fight them?
We would become them....

Try that thought on for size.
 
Not terror tactics, just over agressive tactics that make them think twice before engaging in violence with a western power.

I mean , its like sitting on top of all our technology , and training, and saying,

(nope cant use these to scare and inspire fear into the heart of our terrorist enemies, causes its agiast the laws of warfare we set down of 7 decades ago. So we are going to let them kill us and exploit it to grow and expand to new areas, attack new targets and kill more civilians)

Soldiers airmen , sailors, and marines are working pretty hard all over the world. But, it seems many of them are trained and sometimes equipted to fight a uniformed international law biding military force, "army vs. army".
I think the western led coalition should be more aggressive , and hunt them down, not watch and know were the are and are going and stopping the chase, they know no borders, they will go to any limit, shatter any law, fight "unjustly". I think we should know that by now.

Think about it, if one of their fighters capture one of ours, heck doesnt even have to be a fighter, they torture, and possibly kill that captured person, if we capture one of them, we arrest them and send them to a prison with a stable food and water supply?

I think minds on both sides are set to different channels here... They are fighting us in most cases with pure, hatred.

And we are fighting it by global laws, which, they know none, and have none...

Which, I think if that continues, this will be a long struggle between two radically different ideals.

The problem comes when both sides call themselves "freedom fighters".
 
Last edited:
America is a Superpower but that does not give it the right to dictate the world, that plain and simple bullying, and we all know when a bully picks on to many ppl sooner or later a group of those ppl might confront it and end the bullying for good. What America needs to do is stop interfering in the internal affairs of other nations; look at Canada, Switzerland, New Zeland, Austria, Malaysia and such other nations that exist in this world that refrain away from building bases in other nations, telling coutries that we will do regime changes, invading nations and occupying them and you would find out why no one threatens those nations cuz they threaten no other nation.

We must remember also going back to 1922 the muslim world was friendly with America, they considered it an impartial entity and which would set a lot of things right that the European nations have done to the world. But after the creation of Israel and the blatant and biased backing of Israel for years, the backing of regime changes amongst the Arab world has angered and tarnished the American image of impartial nation.

We must remember that for decades one American regime after another has backed the Shah of Iran and the Americans and British intelligence orchastrated as we know today the overthrowing of the democratically elected government of Massadeq of Iran after the first removal of the Shah by the Iranian population and the election of Mossadeq. The Americans and British re-installed the Shah.

The Americans and the West have backed Saddam against Iran, and it was fully know who Saddam was back then but we turned a blind eye b/c we used him as an ally in order to remove the Islamic regime of Iran. We cant claim we didnt know what he was doing b/c the Americans and the West knew exactly what Saddam was up to, the French were helping him build nuclear reactor, the Germans, Italian, British, and Americans wer providing the equipment and technology to make chemical and biological weapons. We only started calling him a dictator after he no longer was taking his order from Washington. Rumsfeld even stated that we knew he was a bastard then but he was our bastard then; he used these exact terms, their is a picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld hugging and kissing each other in the cheek.

We invaded Iraq not b/c we cared about democracy, cuz we were the ones that empowered him to begin with but that seemed an easy excuses after the world found out that they were dubed by the American and British claims of WMD, we turned to the democracy card b/c our first choice of excuse the WMDs were found to be false, and we did not want others to know our true intentions were to have a puppet regime their and the control of the Iraqi oil by America.

We are disliked across the world today b/c of our double standards and hyporcracy. If we really cared about democracy we wouldnt be supporting other dictatorships such as Mubarak of Egypt who has been their for 25 years, Jordans Hussein, Saudi Arabian regime and the likes and subverting such democratically elected governments as Hamas which came to power after and EU supervised elections and Iran which gives its ppl more democracy then Egypt or Saudi Arabia. We subvert those countries b/c even though they are democratically elected they fail to adhere to our policies and our commands, unlike Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Which goes to prove that we dont really support democracy, but what we really want is puppet regimes that bow to American dictations, and we only used democracy in the Iraq cases b/c our other excuses failed to pan out.

If a nation wants peace, it must give peace and threaten no one like Canada and Switzerland for best example. Some of you might say they arent a Superpower like us, but you must remember the same logic applies Superpower or not, but even works more if you are a superpower b/c you would not be threatening nations but you would still have the power to deter those that dont reciprocate the peace you offer.

If we go crazy with the logic that we are a Superpower therefore the world must kneel before us,we must remember that sooner or later we would be disliked so much across the world and that their would be growing number of nations that would be willing to stand up to our bullying that we would be doomed to to lose our power and decline just like all Superpowers before us that angered the world with their arrogance and bullying. Such Superpowers as Rome, Persia, Byzantine, the Egyptians, the Ottomans, The Germans, the British, The French, the Japanese, and most recently the Soviet Union.

We gain security though giving security to other by not threatening them b/c if we threaten ppl they will try their hardest to make sure that we lose and dont invade them, by subverting our interests anyway possible.

We need to attain security by a mutually giving others security as well.
 
We must remember that for decades one American regime after another has backed the Shah of Iran and the Americans and British intelligence orchastrated as we know today the overthrowing of the democratically elected government of Massadeq of Iran after the first removal of the Shah by the Iranian population and the election of Mossadeq. The Americans and British re-installed the Shah.

Dude, PM Mossadegh was NOT elected at all. He was appointed by His Majesty the late Shah of Iran and when asked to resign, he didnt and threaten the royal family so he got what he deserved. Please get your facts straight before commenting on things you have no clue about

Thnx

The Americans and the West have backed Saddam against Iran, and it was fully know who Saddam was back then but we turned a blind eye b/c we used him as an ally in order to remove the Islamic regime of Iran. We cant claim we didnt know what he was doing b/c the Americans and the West knew exactly what Saddam was up to, the French were helping him build nuclear reactor, the Germans, Italian, British, and Americans wer providing the equipment and technology to make chemical and biological weapons. We only started calling him a dictator after he no longer was taking his order from Washington. Rumsfeld even stated that we knew he was a bastard then but he was our bastard then; he used these exact terms, their is a picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld hugging and kissing each other in the cheek.

As much as soviets, chinese, french and Dutch supported Saddam in his war against Iran, US didn't do any support. Indeed US supported Iran partially by supplying spare parts for American made weapons Iranians possessed. Iranian people owe the US gratitude for that.

Americans really didnt help Saddam as much as Soviets and French did. Again, I think you have no detailed info about the historical facts and all you offer is leftists' rhetoric.

We need to attain security by a mutually giving others security as well.

Would you have given mutual security to Hitler, too, if you were in charge of policy making? or would you have given the Japanese mutual respect and security? How about Al-Qaeda? You think they deserve being respected?

Look, Iranian regime has been waging war against the USA since 1979 and they have got NO RESPONSE for their hostilities. They hopefully will get one soon.
 
Last edited:
phoenix80, yes Mossadeq was appointed at first but after he began to criticize the Shah's regime, The Shah started to coerce him to resign, the Shah did not want to publicly remove him b/c the public was already angry with him and he knew the public wouldnt support that so he was attempting to coerce him to resign. After word got out and Mossadeq was being forced to resign the he was elected and the anger and demonstrations of the public made the Shah flee.

As for your statement that we gave Iran weapons in its war with Iraq that was only b/c we wanted to win to win the release of another group of hostages that were being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Iranians agreed to win the release of those hostages if America offered something in return and that is why we gave them supplies and that was limited no were near the weapons we gave Saddam, and how we were even supplying him with satellite images of the battle field.

The U.S. was the main reason the west looked the other way when Iraq began to use chemical weapons on Iranian troops and some of those Iranians were flowen to Europe for treatment, the UN began to voice concern and the Americans silenced it and had the world look the other way.

What you need to do Phoenix80 is get your facts and info together before you try to challenge me of something I studied far more then you probably have.

My point still stands that America doesnt really care about democracy b/c the democracy card in Iraq today like i have explaind before is a convenient excuse. And we still back dictators like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan while we sabatoge democratically elected governments like Hamas of Palestine and Iran which give more freedom and democracy to their ppl then do the Egyptian, Saudi, and Jordanian regimes....funny now aint that hypocracy at its best.

Hitler yes was a monster but that was a different time and their is no one in this world today that comes close to the evil things Hitler did. Hitler was a threat to the world he wanted world domination but all Iran, Iraq, Palestine want is freedom to control their own affairs, and freedom from foreign occupation. If anyone threatens any nation today, we have the UN, NATO and such organizations that can deal with, America does not need to act unilaterally.

If we give other mutual security and they fail to reciprocate it and live in peace with the world then yes America and the world have the right to eliminate that threat. But If Iran, Iraq, and Palestine keep saying we want peace and the removal of foreign occupation and bases then why dont we give them peace and leave them alone. Because Hitler was occupying countries not being occuppied like Palestine, Iraq and now Iran is being threaten to be invaded and occupied so what resemblance do you draw between these. None of these nations are no were anything like Nazi Germany so you are WRONG PHOENIX80.
 
My point still stands that America doesnt really care about democracy b/c the democracy card in Iraq today like i have explaind before is a convenient excuse. And we still back dictators like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan while we sabatoge democratically elected governments like Hamas of Palestine and Iran which give more freedom and democracy to their ppl then do the Egyptian, Saudi, and Jordanian regimes....funny now aint that hypocracy at its best.

not being the most knowledgeable about the issues discussed in the earlier posts, i cant comment on the accuracy of your facts and arguments. but what i DO know is that most sensible, thinking people can clearly see that words like "freedom", "democracy" etc are just propoganda and moral justfication given by governments. anybody who believes in these holier than thou lies, is quite frankly, deluded, to put it mildly.
 
Do tell

phoenix80, yes Mossadeq was appointed at first but after he began to criticize the Shah's regime, The Shah started to coerce him to resign, the Shah did not want to publicly remove him b/c the public was already angry with him and he knew the public wouldnt support that so he was attempting to coerce him to resign. After word got out and Mossadeq was being forced to resign the he was elected and the anger and demonstrations of the public made the Shah flee.

As for your statement that we gave Iran weapons in its war with Iraq that was only b/c we wanted to win to win the release of another group of hostages that were being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Iranians agreed to win the release of those hostages if America offered something in return and that is why we gave them supplies and that was limited no were near the weapons we gave Saddam, and how we were even supplying him with satellite images of the battle field.

The U.S. was the main reason the west looked the other way when Iraq began to use chemical weapons on Iranian troops and some of those Iranians were flowen to Europe for treatment, the UN began to voice concern and the Americans silenced it and had the world look the other way.

What you need to do Phoenix80 is get your facts and info together before you try to challenge me of something I studied far more then you probably have.

My point still stands that America doesnt really care about democracy b/c the democracy card in Iraq today like i have explaind before is a convenient excuse. And we still back dictators like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan while we sabatoge democratically elected governments like Hamas of Palestine and Iran which give more freedom and democracy to their ppl then do the Egyptian, Saudi, and Jordanian regimes....funny now aint that hypocracy at its best.

Hitler yes was a monster but that was a different time and their is no one in this world today that comes close to the evil things Hitler did. Hitler was a threat to the world he wanted world domination but all Iran, Iraq, Palestine want is freedom to control their own affairs, and freedom from foreign occupation. If anyone threatens any nation today, we have the UN, NATO and such organizations that can deal with, America does not need to act unilaterally.

If we give other mutual security and they fail to reciprocate it and live in peace with the world then yes America and the world have the right to eliminate that threat. But If Iran, Iraq, and Palestine keep saying we want peace and the removal of foreign occupation and bases then why dont we give them peace and leave them alone. Because Hitler was occupying countries not being occuppied like Palestine, Iraq and now Iran is being threaten to be invaded and occupied so what resemblance do you draw between these. None of these nations are no were anything like Nazi Germany so you are WRONG PHOENIX80.

So Somalia how do you feel about al-fatah or hezzbolah? Do they have your support and empathy? Do tell. Me thinks I smell the stench of extremist islam in your words. But I will wait for your clarification rather than assuming...
 
phoenix80, yes Mossadeq was appointed at first but after he began to criticize the Shah's regime, The Shah started to coerce him to resign, the Shah did not want to publicly remove him b/c the public was already angry with him and he knew the public wouldnt support that so he was attempting to coerce him to resign. After word got out and Mossadeq was being forced to resign the he was elected and the anger and demonstrations of the public made the Shah flee.

As for your statement that we gave Iran weapons in its war with Iraq that was only b/c we wanted to win to win the release of another group of hostages that were being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Iranians agreed to win the release of those hostages if America offered something in return and that is why we gave them supplies and that was limited no were near the weapons we gave Saddam, and how we were even supplying him with satellite images of the battle field.

The U.S. was the main reason the west looked the other way when Iraq began to use chemical weapons on Iranian troops and some of those Iranians were flowen to Europe for treatment, the UN began to voice concern and the Americans silenced it and had the world look the other way.

What you need to do Phoenix80 is get your facts and info together before you try to challenge me of something I studied far more then you probably have.

My point still stands that America doesnt really care about democracy b/c the democracy card in Iraq today like i have explaind before is a convenient excuse. And we still back dictators like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan while we sabatoge democratically elected governments like Hamas of Palestine and Iran which give more freedom and democracy to their ppl then do the Egyptian, Saudi, and Jordanian regimes....funny now aint that hypocracy at its best.

Hitler yes was a monster but that was a different time and their is no one in this world today that comes close to the evil things Hitler did. Hitler was a threat to the world he wanted world domination but all Iran, Iraq, Palestine want is freedom to control their own affairs, and freedom from foreign occupation. If anyone threatens any nation today, we have the UN, NATO and such organizations that can deal with, America does not need to act unilaterally.

If we give other mutual security and they fail to reciprocate it and live in peace with the world then yes America and the world have the right to eliminate that threat. But If Iran, Iraq, and Palestine keep saying we want peace and the removal of foreign occupation and bases then why dont we give them peace and leave them alone. Because Hitler was occupying countries not being occuppied like Palestine, Iraq and now Iran is being threaten to be invaded and occupied so what resemblance do you draw between these. None of these nations are no were anything like Nazi Germany so you are WRONG PHOENIX80.

Look, I really don't have the time and energy to argue with people like you and I dont know where you live. But if you are an American living in comfortable and Free America and you hate America this much, I suggest you go to Iran so that an Iranian can come and live in the states.

Agreed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top