Somalia
- Thread starter sunybay
- Start date
It's hard to sustain concern for a country which has had no effective or cohesive government since 1991, suny! It is riddled with clan fiefdoms, all of whom are fighting one another for power and control, with no-one interested in sitting down and forming an inclusive government. There have been FOURTEEN attempts at forming a government since 2004, every effort falling apart due to the country's internal fights. There has been a rise in Islamist control in the south since earlier this year, but it's confined. Even the attempt at putting together a government had to take place in KENYA because Mogadishu was considered 'too unsafe'.
Somalia hasn't asked for help because there is NO ONE PERSON in overall control of the country. The Islamic section in the south is backed by a number of Arab and other Islamic factions, from Syria, Saudi Arabia (uh-oh, our friends in oil supply just got a mention there!) to Hezbollah. What do you think 'the Americans' would do about that? Arbitrarily charge into another country, without the slightest clue as to what to do when they got there?
There is no will among the different factions in Somalia to sit down at one table and to agree to put down their weapons, co-operate with each other (thus enabling Somalis to remain settled and not under constant flight status), and work for the good of their own country. You have an age-old problem of not just religious divisions, but infinitely historical divisions between clans (or small tribal groups, if you like). No-one sees themselves as just a part of a bigger picture - everyone wants the power and the glory for himself and his clan (rather like Afghans did).
What, exactly, would you have in mind as a solution?
Somalia hasn't asked for help because there is NO ONE PERSON in overall control of the country. The Islamic section in the south is backed by a number of Arab and other Islamic factions, from Syria, Saudi Arabia (uh-oh, our friends in oil supply just got a mention there!) to Hezbollah. What do you think 'the Americans' would do about that? Arbitrarily charge into another country, without the slightest clue as to what to do when they got there?
There is no will among the different factions in Somalia to sit down at one table and to agree to put down their weapons, co-operate with each other (thus enabling Somalis to remain settled and not under constant flight status), and work for the good of their own country. You have an age-old problem of not just religious divisions, but infinitely historical divisions between clans (or small tribal groups, if you like). No-one sees themselves as just a part of a bigger picture - everyone wants the power and the glory for himself and his clan (rather like Afghans did).
What, exactly, would you have in mind as a solution?
Colin Phillips
At the Start
One question, suny....................does Somalia have any oil reserves?
I read this week what I thought was a different slant on the invasion of Iraq and America's 'war on terror' in an article in Arab News online.
The author posits that it's nothing to do with oil, since America had always had access to it cheaply and easily. It was nothing to do with the 'war on terror', either. It was especially nothing to do with the proliferation of nuclear capability in the Middle East, since Israel has that already. It was, he said, everything to do with America trying to muzzle the growth in Islam and the conversion of so many of its own black Americans to the religion. If it could neutralize Islamic countries by one means or another (coercion, bribery, or force) and keep them onside, it would prevent the import of Islamic tendencies into the USA.
His thought was that the oil supply story was just a cover for actually conducting an anti-Islamic campaign, and that Iran might well be in the US's sights next if its hardline attitude (rather than its swanking about nuclear power) didn't tone down.
Somalia doesn't represent a great 'Islamic threat' as half of the country was previously in thrall to the USSR, the Great Unbeliever, and only a small - even if important - part of the country's taken over by fundamentalist Muslims. It also has no real military power to threaten anyone, so I doubt that the US would waste one tank on the place.
So, out of its never-ending library of paranoia, it is just possible that the US, with Communism now a dog-eared old book gathering dust, has spied a fresh new edition in Islam, and is sharpening its Christian sword in order to slay the evil dragon. (That's a horribly mixed metaphor, even by my standards.) As Merlin would say... 'just a thought'!
The author posits that it's nothing to do with oil, since America had always had access to it cheaply and easily. It was nothing to do with the 'war on terror', either. It was especially nothing to do with the proliferation of nuclear capability in the Middle East, since Israel has that already. It was, he said, everything to do with America trying to muzzle the growth in Islam and the conversion of so many of its own black Americans to the religion. If it could neutralize Islamic countries by one means or another (coercion, bribery, or force) and keep them onside, it would prevent the import of Islamic tendencies into the USA.
His thought was that the oil supply story was just a cover for actually conducting an anti-Islamic campaign, and that Iran might well be in the US's sights next if its hardline attitude (rather than its swanking about nuclear power) didn't tone down.
Somalia doesn't represent a great 'Islamic threat' as half of the country was previously in thrall to the USSR, the Great Unbeliever, and only a small - even if important - part of the country's taken over by fundamentalist Muslims. It also has no real military power to threaten anyone, so I doubt that the US would waste one tank on the place.
So, out of its never-ending library of paranoia, it is just possible that the US, with Communism now a dog-eared old book gathering dust, has spied a fresh new edition in Islam, and is sharpening its Christian sword in order to slay the evil dragon. (That's a horribly mixed metaphor, even by my standards.) As Merlin would say... 'just a thought'!
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
I thought the Ethiopians were "helping"?
I'd be surprised if there were greater numbers converting now than there was when the Nation of Islam were at their height in the late 60s/early 70s.
As for Somalia having oil reserves - the US went in there before, so it's obviously not a pre-requisite. As it was such a disaster, they'll probably want to leave it up to someone else.
Of all the theories put forward, thats about the most far fetched... And paranoid frankly. Spending billions and wasting lives to somehow (god knows how) prevent a few black americans converting to islam? America has a large muslim popualtion anyway...peaceable too in the main
Gareth is right. Nation of islam had far higher profile back then
Should have been "wouldn't want to waste one black hawk helicopter" kriz rather than a tank. 
They might have gone there before, but there was a slight sub plot to that particular adventure. Protocol dictates that out going Presidents play a straight bat for the President elect to inherit. George Herbert Bush didn't though, his last foreign policy decision taken a few weeks before he left office, was to bowl the incoming Clinton this particular googley. The Clinto administration weren't quite so devilish, they just elected to remove the letter W from the White House keyboards apparently? Not sure if that's an urban myth, but I can live with it.
If Dubya is determind to take his fathers work that little bit further, then perhaps he might be marching off to Tehran for the incoming President Hillary to inherit yet :brows: . In fairness I've got a much more open mind on Iran, where I beleive a genuine threat does exist, rather than the imaginary one in Iraq that has proven so mis-guided and wasteful of resources and focus.
I'm sure I'm not exactly passing on any great insight when I suggest that arms industries need enemies to sustain them, and the peace dividend brought about by Communism meant the search was on for a new one. I'd find this a more comfortable explanation, then some kind of attempt to stifle the spread of Islam, although I can see how both could be portrayed as a creeping cancer and a threat we need to arm and guard against etc and one does begat the other quite conveniently
They might have gone there before, but there was a slight sub plot to that particular adventure. Protocol dictates that out going Presidents play a straight bat for the President elect to inherit. George Herbert Bush didn't though, his last foreign policy decision taken a few weeks before he left office, was to bowl the incoming Clinton this particular googley. The Clinto administration weren't quite so devilish, they just elected to remove the letter W from the White House keyboards apparently? Not sure if that's an urban myth, but I can live with it.
If Dubya is determind to take his fathers work that little bit further, then perhaps he might be marching off to Tehran for the incoming President Hillary to inherit yet :brows: . In fairness I've got a much more open mind on Iran, where I beleive a genuine threat does exist, rather than the imaginary one in Iraq that has proven so mis-guided and wasteful of resources and focus.
I'm sure I'm not exactly passing on any great insight when I suggest that arms industries need enemies to sustain them, and the peace dividend brought about by Communism meant the search was on for a new one. I'd find this a more comfortable explanation, then some kind of attempt to stifle the spread of Islam, although I can see how both could be portrayed as a creeping cancer and a threat we need to arm and guard against etc and one does begat the other quite conveniently
I'm not endorsing the article, just reporting an alternative, Arab viewpoint of America's fascination with (or against) all things Islamic at the moment. I do think that Islam is being raised as the alternative spectre to creeping Communism corrupting American (or indeed the world's) youth, though. Warbler, that seems like a reasonably sound scenario to me. If there's a general outbreak of peace, that's really bad news for the trillions of dollars, pounds, Euros, spent on weapons of aggression. There's not much to be made out of pretty banners and flags, even whole marching bands, as there is out of the latest super-smart tools of annihilation.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,012
It's an interesting theory, this supposition that the war is about keeping the lid on Islam in the US, but I can't have it myself.
Osama Bin Laden did all that was required in that space, when his dupes flew their aeroplanes into the Twin Towers. Minister Farrakhan has rarely been sighted or heard from since.
I'm rather with Krizon on this one. The US needs an enemy to keep the wheels of their military-industrial complex turning, and they conveniently found two in the space of two years: in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One enemy was undoubtedly real, and the other was undoubtedly a fabrication, but these are mere details to the shareholders of Halliburton and the Carlyle Group.
Osama Bin Laden did all that was required in that space, when his dupes flew their aeroplanes into the Twin Towers. Minister Farrakhan has rarely been sighted or heard from since.
I'm rather with Krizon on this one. The US needs an enemy to keep the wheels of their military-industrial complex turning, and they conveniently found two in the space of two years: in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One enemy was undoubtedly real, and the other was undoubtedly a fabrication, but these are mere details to the shareholders of Halliburton and the Carlyle Group.
Aha, Grasshopper - while it's a theory I'm quite comfortable to always assume about big military-industrial countries , it was actually Warbler who raised it, and I agreed with him. (Credit where credit is due, etc.) But as for old Osama's dupes flying the planes into the WTC - Warbler's got very different ideas about that!
h34r:Oh no...not a sixth form conspiracy theory
Please
I find these theories a bit offensive a lot of the time. Main objective is to desperately pin blame on the perceived "enemy" rather than accept the truth that, yes, some people that have been pidgeonholed (in the desperate way teh left wing do these things) as "goodies" may do horrble things
And no im not able to prove that Elvis and Bush didnt radio control the planes into the towers
Or whatever
Please
I find these theories a bit offensive a lot of the time. Main objective is to desperately pin blame on the perceived "enemy" rather than accept the truth that, yes, some people that have been pidgeonholed (in the desperate way teh left wing do these things) as "goodies" may do horrble things
And no im not able to prove that Elvis and Bush didnt radio control the planes into the towers
Or whatever
The administrations links with Halliburton etc are not particularly healthy, but to sacrifice thousands of lives and risk the whole credibility of your administration and your position in history (any war is extremely risky of course) to keep one sector of US industry in good shape is stretching it a bit far for me.
Afganistan was not a "convenient" war. It was essential.... for very obvious reasons
For me, Iraq, was a combination of revenge and naivity. True, a genuine forward looking liberal democracy established in this desperately unhappy part of the, could have been a beacon, but the groundwork was hopeless...
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,012
On what basis was the War in Iraq mandated then, clivex?
Al Qaeda presence/co-operation from Saddam? No.
Weapons of Mass Destruction? No.
Iraqi military threat to neighbouring countries? No.
What was the real reason for going in there?
I don't know for certain, but I am fairly convinced that the US military/industrial complex needed something to replace the Commies, in order to justify it's existence, and the no-bid contracts awarded to the likes of Halliburton.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you are trying to say that the US wouldn't start a war on a whim, when it appears they have done exactly that.
In five years, I haven't been able to find any real, altruistic (for want of a better expression) justification for the US going into Iraq. Have you? Oh, and by the way, I don't buy the line that it was to spread democracy - it insults my intelligence, so please don't use it.
Maybe it's just mere coincidence that the people responsible for planning the invasion, are also those whose pockets have been lined the most. Who knows.
Wrong on quite a few points there i believe
1. If not at the very least controlled, Iraq was definately a threat to neighbouring countries. As we had seen. And it was fair to say, why not just get rid of him rather than tediously monitor his every move...
2. WMD. Well was anyone certain either way? he had used them, that was for sure
Like a lot of wars, it was probably a combination of factors.
Was the development of a liberal foward looking democracy a (naive ) aim? I believe so. Certainly the USA would be happy enough to see a another Turkey in the area rather than a Syria.
The idea that the war was solely to boost the share price of a small sector of the US economy insults my inteliigence...now that you are on that subject. Its ridiculous...
One objective that has been overlooked is Saudi arabia
the world had been overdependent on Saudi oil ( a horrible state with a far too many followers of a disgusting strand of islam) and a counterbalance to that would be Iraq producing to potential...which it clearly wasnt. Not only good for world economy but also alleviates the medium term risk of saudi oil falling into the hands of fundamentalist anti west regime
none of this says the decision was correct
1. If not at the very least controlled, Iraq was definately a threat to neighbouring countries. As we had seen. And it was fair to say, why not just get rid of him rather than tediously monitor his every move...
2. WMD. Well was anyone certain either way? he had used them, that was for sure
Like a lot of wars, it was probably a combination of factors.
Was the development of a liberal foward looking democracy a (naive ) aim? I believe so. Certainly the USA would be happy enough to see a another Turkey in the area rather than a Syria.
The idea that the war was solely to boost the share price of a small sector of the US economy insults my inteliigence...now that you are on that subject. Its ridiculous...
One objective that has been overlooked is Saudi arabia
the world had been overdependent on Saudi oil ( a horrible state with a far too many followers of a disgusting strand of islam) and a counterbalance to that would be Iraq producing to potential...which it clearly wasnt. Not only good for world economy but also alleviates the medium term risk of saudi oil falling into the hands of fundamentalist anti west regime
none of this says the decision was correct
"Would they sacrifice thousands of lives?" [for corporate gain] simple is answer is - Yes.
I really wouldn't harbour any romantic delusions Clive, that the hegenomy of the American establishment is some kind of highly principled collective that won't involve itself with anything remotely immoral. In truth they just about the coldest, and most calculating, and absolutelty ruthless in terms of what they're prepared to do. Shooting down their own civil aircraft (carrying American school children on vacation) is just one example of something that had to be vetoed by a President at the 11th hour when he discovered what was being planned. The reason incidentally was to frame Cuba!!! Strangely enough it has echoes of a more recent event, when another innocent country was framed for reasons of political expediency.
And don't lose sight of the fact that it's the likes of Lockhead Martin that put Bush in the job in the first place, they dictate to a large extent what he does, and the link between power and the corporate dollar is the most unhealthy of the lot
I can assure you by the way Grassy, that it wasn't a whim, and had been planned long before 43 got into the White House (indeed there's a Panorama programme using a pre 9/11 Blair interview that makes a terrible admission to it) the implications of what Blair said re-counting his first meeting with Bush wouldn't have been relevant then, its only with hindsight that the full gavity of this slip now becomes apparent. It was very much on his agenda, the excuse he invoked was frankly nothing short of pathetic.
Clive, just use you judgement, if ever you wanted evidence that Bush isn't bothered about his regimes alledged credibility and place in history as you naively suggest he would be, then I suggest you look no further than Iraq for the evidence that so long as he and his corporate pimps get their contracts and dollars they frankly don't give a hoot.
And just fro the record (having deleted previous post on reflection for having said more than wa shealthy to do so). There's a world of difference between a conspiracy theory and a personal experience
I really wouldn't harbour any romantic delusions Clive, that the hegenomy of the American establishment is some kind of highly principled collective that won't involve itself with anything remotely immoral. In truth they just about the coldest, and most calculating, and absolutelty ruthless in terms of what they're prepared to do. Shooting down their own civil aircraft (carrying American school children on vacation) is just one example of something that had to be vetoed by a President at the 11th hour when he discovered what was being planned. The reason incidentally was to frame Cuba!!! Strangely enough it has echoes of a more recent event, when another innocent country was framed for reasons of political expediency.
And don't lose sight of the fact that it's the likes of Lockhead Martin that put Bush in the job in the first place, they dictate to a large extent what he does, and the link between power and the corporate dollar is the most unhealthy of the lot
I can assure you by the way Grassy, that it wasn't a whim, and had been planned long before 43 got into the White House (indeed there's a Panorama programme using a pre 9/11 Blair interview that makes a terrible admission to it) the implications of what Blair said re-counting his first meeting with Bush wouldn't have been relevant then, its only with hindsight that the full gavity of this slip now becomes apparent. It was very much on his agenda, the excuse he invoked was frankly nothing short of pathetic.
Clive, just use you judgement, if ever you wanted evidence that Bush isn't bothered about his regimes alledged credibility and place in history as you naively suggest he would be, then I suggest you look no further than Iraq for the evidence that so long as he and his corporate pimps get their contracts and dollars they frankly don't give a hoot.
And just fro the record (having deleted previous post on reflection for having said more than wa shealthy to do so). There's a world of difference between a conspiracy theory and a personal experience
As bad as Bush's administration is, that is a poor assertion
Cheney is the obvious candidate here, but he is absolutely minted anyway, and like him or not, a long way from being so stupid to simply set out policy on the basis of his bank balance
Oh FFS. Since when?
Every leader is concerned about their place in history. Every single one. It is naive to suggest otherwise
The rest of your assertion there is just hot air.
So boringly left wing to blame "big business" for all the ills of the world....
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,012
Like Warbler, I ain't got this quote thing sussed as yet, so your responses are italicised:
Wrong on quite a few points there i believe
1. If not at the very least controlled, Iraq was definately a threat to neighbouring countries. As we had seen. And it was fair to say, why not just get rid of him rather than tediously monitor his every move...
You are kidding, right?
"As we had seen". Are we now getting into the shelf-life debate? What I had seen was that Saddam was totally neutered in terms of his military capability following the first Iraq War.
So let's start a war, rather than carry on with the "tedious" task of having weapons inspectors out there?? Unreal.
2. WMD. Well was anyone certain either way? he had used them, that was for sure.
More shelf-life nonsense. Regardless, Hans Blix (Chief UN Weapons Inspector - perhaps best placed to make the call??) seemed just about as certain as was possible. Either way, Saddam was totally contained, and certainly not capable of launching a WMD strike in 45 minutes as was claimed as part of the rationale for going to war.
Like a lot of wars, it was probably a combination of factors.
Was the development of a liberal foward looking democracy a (naive ) aim? I believe so. Certainly the USA would be happy enough to see a another Turkey in the area rather than a Syria.
My point, clivex, is that development of a 'liberal democracy' wasn't an 'aim' of the war at all. At least, not until the three or four other reasons offered-up first were found to be a swiss-cheese.
The idea that the war was solely to boost the share price of a small sector of the US economy insults my inteliigence...now that you are on that subject. Its ridiculous...
Not a small sector of the US economy, clivex.....a HUGE sector of the US economy.
One objective that has been overlooked is Saudi arabia
the world had been overdependent on Saudi oil ( a horrible state with a far too many followers of a disgusting strand of islam) and a counterbalance to that would be Iraq producing to potential...which it clearly wasnt. Not only good for world economy but also alleviates the medium term risk of saudi oil falling into the hands of fundamentalist anti west regime
Not at all relevant, imo.
Wrong on quite a few points there i believe
1. If not at the very least controlled, Iraq was definately a threat to neighbouring countries. As we had seen. And it was fair to say, why not just get rid of him rather than tediously monitor his every move...
You are kidding, right?
"As we had seen". Are we now getting into the shelf-life debate? What I had seen was that Saddam was totally neutered in terms of his military capability following the first Iraq War.
So let's start a war, rather than carry on with the "tedious" task of having weapons inspectors out there?? Unreal.
2. WMD. Well was anyone certain either way? he had used them, that was for sure.
More shelf-life nonsense. Regardless, Hans Blix (Chief UN Weapons Inspector - perhaps best placed to make the call??) seemed just about as certain as was possible. Either way, Saddam was totally contained, and certainly not capable of launching a WMD strike in 45 minutes as was claimed as part of the rationale for going to war.
Like a lot of wars, it was probably a combination of factors.
Was the development of a liberal foward looking democracy a (naive ) aim? I believe so. Certainly the USA would be happy enough to see a another Turkey in the area rather than a Syria.
My point, clivex, is that development of a 'liberal democracy' wasn't an 'aim' of the war at all. At least, not until the three or four other reasons offered-up first were found to be a swiss-cheese.
The idea that the war was solely to boost the share price of a small sector of the US economy insults my inteliigence...now that you are on that subject. Its ridiculous...
Not a small sector of the US economy, clivex.....a HUGE sector of the US economy.
One objective that has been overlooked is Saudi arabia
the world had been overdependent on Saudi oil ( a horrible state with a far too many followers of a disgusting strand of islam) and a counterbalance to that would be Iraq producing to potential...which it clearly wasnt. Not only good for world economy but also alleviates the medium term risk of saudi oil falling into the hands of fundamentalist anti west regime
Not at all relevant, imo.