|
|
| Author |
Message |
tnt
|
|
Somalia Discussion Item
| 
Oct 5 23:20 UTC 1993 |
Please use this item to discuss the UN/U.S. efforts in Somalia.
|
| 44 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 1 of 44:
|
Oct 6 00:48 UTC 1993 |
(I notice that you entered a separate "voting" item to poll on this issue.
Would you like me to set up the "vote" program to let people vote on it
instead?)
|
steve
|
|
response 2 of 44:
|
Oct 6 01:38 UTC 1993 |
(thats an interesting idea.)
I don't see why we're there now. Its clear to me that we can't
possibly control the situation, and that we could easily develop
another Vietnam here.
How many US troops have died there, now?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 44:
|
Oct 6 01:44 UTC 1993 |
If we stay, more people - including Americans - will die, and we will
end up being hated by Somalians of any persuasion. If we leave, more
people, but not Americans, will, die, and we will end up being hated
by Somalians of any persuasion. I vote for the Third Option.
|
tnt
|
|
response 4 of 44:
|
Oct 6 05:19 UTC 1993 |
Third Option -- Drop the Big One!
I'm all for tryingto help people, but not at the great expense of
U.S. citizens, regardless of whether they are civillians or military.
On Nightline last night, someone said that the problem with withdrawing
our people is that it sends a message to other little political hoodlums
that the U.S. might move in, but as soon as it gets dirty, we will retreat.
That may be true, but the solution to that is to NOT send our troops
in in the first place. It will also send a message that shows that we're
willing to spend all sorts of $$ to help a nation that we have no obligation to
help, but if certain groups --minority or majority-- fight our efforts to
help, we will cease & desist from all humanitarian efforts.
We have stopped the Somalis from dying of starvation, but there is
nothing that we can do to stop them from trauma such as bullet wounds.
We need to practice better 'political triage' when it comes to our
'humanitarian' efforts. I'd rather see my money spent in & on my country and
our national interests. Somalia isn't one of them.
When it comes down to it, I care more about 'us' than I do about the
Somalis. If they're stupid enough to think that Aidid can feed &
protect them, so be it.
I wonder how many troops sent to Haiti for 'humanitarian reasons'
will die before they're pulled out in 6 months. The 6 month deadline is
more like a pre-planned retreat, because government officials are expecting
more trouble similar to what ended up happening in Somalia.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 44:
|
Oct 6 12:23 UTC 1993 |
The Third Option is to apply intelligence. I don't have all the information
about the social infrastructure of Somalia, but someone does. It should
be possible to found a responsible democratic government that would serve
its citizens, rather than playing into the hands of the clan rivalries.
If one isn't being successful, then not enough intelligence is being
applied. We are already getting stories of UN and US stupidity in both
strategy and tactics, probably because they have a too narrow view of
the internal structure and struggles. However, I don't have the answers:
I just remain convinced that it could be done peaceably.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 6 of 44:
|
Oct 6 14:12 UTC 1993 |
I agree with Tim.
|
srw
|
|
response 7 of 44:
|
Oct 6 14:14 UTC 1993 |
I don't believe it can be done peacably. There are too many power-hungry
maniacs with guns. Nevertheless, only a fraction of the Somalis wish
to attack and kill US soldiers. I think leaving is a worse option than
staying, for the reasons Hoolie related in #4 (from Nightline).
Not sending them in in the first place is not an option, so forget
that.
I agree with rcurl that intelligence needs to be applied. I also
think we need to disarm the maniacs, and that is no easy task. The
idea (we had once) of pacifying the country without disarming them
was a ludicrous one.
I am (for now) in favor of sending in reinforcements, as they are
doing. We need to apply force along with inteligence.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 8 of 44:
|
Oct 6 14:16 UTC 1993 |
Except the part about "the big one". Mostly we should set
realistic goals on what we can accomplish and stop sending
in American boys and girls because that's what the world
expects a super power to do.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 9 of 44:
|
Oct 6 14:18 UTC 1993 |
srw slipped in.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 10 of 44:
|
Oct 6 14:22 UTC 1993 |
Who armed Somalia in the first place? Is Somalia making their
own weapons?
|
steve
|
|
response 11 of 44:
|
Oct 6 15:17 UTC 1993 |
The world armed Somalia. For years many, many different organizations,
including private Americans sold arms. All over Africa, really. I believe
I know someone who engaged in this during the mid to late 70's, but he
was always cagey about what it was, exactly that he did over there. Up
untill recently, if you had the money it was possible to get all sorts
of small-to-medium fire power. The open-air arms market in Belgum was
a good example of that.
|
rogue
|
|
response 12 of 44:
|
Oct 6 18:22 UTC 1993 |
|
rcurl
|
|
response 13 of 44:
|
Oct 6 22:44 UTC 1993 |
It should be added to #11 that the world nearly *forcibly* armed
Somalia. The country is located at the strategic "horn" of Agrica, so
the former Soviet Union, and the US, vied for influence in the area.
They vied with weapons. I think it was the USSR that had the best of
the last round of vying, until there was a revolution, and a clan took
over. They probably have more guns than trees in Somalia (I'm trying
to make a reasonable comparison - trees over 4" diameter).
|
aa8ij
|
|
response 14 of 44:
|
Oct 7 00:41 UTC 1993 |
I'll link this over to worldnews
|
steve
|
|
response 15 of 44:
|
Oct 7 03:53 UTC 1993 |
I'm curious for the rationale for the two new yes votes in the
Somolia voting item. Why absolutely yes? What are we going to
accomplish?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 16 of 44:
|
Oct 7 04:29 UTC 1993 |
What are we going to "accomplish" by withdrawing?
|
steve
|
|
response 17 of 44:
|
Oct 7 04:48 UTC 1993 |
The saving of American lives. That isn't much in the grand universal
scheme of things, but I don't see what will be gained by their deaths.
Unless we're prepared to attack the entire country, how are we going to
control it to the extent that we could create a government there that
supposedly is the will of the people?
I really hate saying this, but perhaps it was too early to attempt
the help. Perhaps a lot of people should have starved first, such
that people in technicals wouldn't have been allowed to roam the
countryside. Because as it stands now, we don't stand much of a
chance there with public opinion going the way it is, and the UN
will prove to be its usual emasculated self.
|
tnt
|
|
response 18 of 44:
|
Oct 7 04:49 UTC 1993 |
Saving (U.S.) lives & $$, & putting both to work on matters that are less
deadly & costly, & have a better chance of reaching an objective that will help
the United States of America.
|
tnt
|
|
response 19 of 44:
|
Oct 7 05:21 UTC 1993 |
FYI,
According to General Gordon R. Sullivan, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army
in an interview in the OCT 93 issue of _Armed Forces Journal International_,
the Army has already spent over $500,000,000.00 on the Somalia situation, in
less than a year.
Does anyone have any examples of how that half billion dollars spent
by the U.S. Army alone in a little less than a year has improved the
long-term quality of life for the Somali people?
I think we've learned a lesson, & the next $500,000,000 should be
spent on a safer, more deserving, ore beneficial (to the U.S.A.) cause,
such as American Indian nations.
|
aa8ij
|
|
response 20 of 44:
|
Oct 7 17:52 UTC 1993 |
The reason for the absolutly yes is that Somalia's people are in danger,
as well as the American soldiers. Lives are at stake here. It matters not
wheather they are somalian or american, we have the means to bring peace
by bringing down Idid. If I were Clinton I'd park the USS New Jersey or
similar heavy warship off the coast and start lobbing shells at Idid until
he gives up or dies. Once Idid is out of the way, then let the UN set up
a government that works for the people, instead of being a hinderance.
Like it or not, we are the only power on earth that is willing to come
to the aid of anyone in distress. Did we not just send 2 C-5's to India
to help the earthquake? Did Japan send anything? Did Kuwait? did Saudi
Arabia? All 3 of those countries have more means than the US does, but
they little care for the world that they live in.
Who sent aid to the US when Iowa was underwater?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 44:
|
Oct 7 21:40 UTC 1993 |
So, some of you are saying that American lives are more important, as
lives, than Somalian lives? What about: "We hold these Truths to be
self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalianable rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...."? I submit that, if we
withdraw, more equal lives will be lost, than if we remain to establish
a government. Therefore, the net saving of lives is fostered by our
remaining. What other issue is there of greater importance?
|
steve
|
|
response 22 of 44:
|
Oct 7 21:50 UTC 1993 |
If we can't do anything to ultimately help the Somolies, then
yes, I think wasting American lives simple isn't worth it. If we
*can* do some ultimate and lasting good, then I'd see it differently.
The problem is that far too many people there have guns, far too
many people there hate each other (tribal rivalries), and too many
people have simply lost hope that anything can be done for them.
It would take *major* military action there to clean the situation
up. There wasn't much of an infrastructure there in the first place,
and now even more of it is gone. More importantly, the knowledge on
how to rebuild things isn't there. To really help them we can't just
provide them food, a pat on the back and a little help to see them
start rebuilding the country. We'd have to take complete control,
and start *everything* over again. It's that bad.
Should we take over another country in the name of helping them?
It would be no less than a complete invasion. Should *we* do that?
Nothing less than that is going to help. Anything less than this
will result in the benefactors being shot at, and nothing of any
permenance will be accomplished.
I've gotten these views from people who have worked directly
there, in the trenches so to speak. There are wonderful organizations
who are trying to help, but every little bit of help vanishes after
direct contact with the people stops.
So do we spend $50 billion (at least) to do this? Why shouldn't
we spend that effort in Chicago, Detroit or any of the other large
rotting cities right here?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 44:
|
Oct 7 21:56 UTC 1993 |
So, we will sit, and be bombarded by CNN's sickening sights of people
starving to death, while we provide aid to Americans that are *vastly*
better off than are the Somalians, even if they live in Chicago or
Detroit. Now *that* is a sickening thought.
|
i
|
|
response 24 of 44:
|
Oct 7 23:00 UTC 1993 |
"To really help them...We'd have to take complete control.." is utter
bullshit. State Department Fascist attitudes like that are why most of
the 3rd world countries that Uncle Sam has screw around in are such
hell-holes. Great White Father Who Knows Best is a child molester who
claims to have good intentions.
|
