Somalia: time to kick butt...

saram

Legend
I'm sorry, but the thugs and drug lords are at it again. Preying on vessels heavily for the last few months, cutting off needed supplies in the region, and taking aim as US flagged ships.

Time to take a stand.

Time to kick butt.

Time to re-write the movie Blackhawk Down....

I don't like thugs. I don't like bullies. I don't like Pirates.

It is time to go finish what we failed to finish many years ago--albeit a different ending and conclusion....
 

maverick66

Hall of Fame
why not just arm the ships with some deck cannons. they come up in there boats, deck cannon goes off, and problem solved.
 

saram

Legend
why not just arm the ships with some deck cannons. they come up in there boats, deck cannon goes off, and problem solved.
According to what I listened to on NPR a while back...companies are not willing to allow that for many reasons, unfortunately.

Plus, thugs and idiots need to be put in check, IMO.

It is time for a beat-down to be delivered....
 

lonestar

Semi-Pro
I think this once again is a shortsighted reaction of the western world.

I don't want to defend piracy or hijacking or whatever, but have you ever asked yourself why they became pirates and thughs down there?
Most of them once were fishermen, they lived off the sea.
Due to the extensive fishing of our fleets, we (the western world) once again dispossessed them of their livelihood. Only so we can eat cheap fish at the expense of some poor people far away from us.

Do your really believe that the hijacking will stop because we put them in place? This is just supression of symptoms. That's how we always react. Sad really.
 
Last edited:

edberg505

Legend
I think this once again is a shortsighted reaction of the western world.

I don't want to defend piracy or hijacking or whatever, but have you ever asked yourself why they became pirates and thughs down there?
Most of them once were fishermen, they lived off the sea.
Due to the extensive fishing of our fleets, we (the western world) once again dispossessed them of their livelihood. Only so we can eat cheap fish at the expense of some poor people far away from us.

Do your really believe that the hijacking will stop because we put them in place? This is just supression of symptoms. That's how we always react. Sad really.
Hold up, we go all the way to Somalia to catch fish? That seems a bit counter productive. I think there have been instances of Italians being caught fishing off the coast of Somalia and some other foreign vessels. You are almost making it sound like the US is the cause of the problem. Here's what I think. I don't buy for one single second that fisherman are incapable of getting fish from the coast. What I do think is that when some of those fishermen saw how much they could get from piracy instead of making a few measly bucks from fishing; they said the hell with this fishing thing. I can make some real bucks in a fraction of the time it takes for me to fish. The real problem is the lawlessness that exist in the country itself. Once they take care of that then the piracy will come to a halt slowly but surely.
 

lonestar

Semi-Pro
Hold up, we go all the way to Somalia to catch fish? That seems a bit counter productive. I think there have been instances of Italians being caught fishing off the coast of Somalia and some other foreign vessels. You are almost making it sound like the US is the cause of the problem. Here's what I think. I don't buy for one single second that fisherman are incapable of getting fish from the coast. What I do think is that when some of those fishermen saw how much they could get from piracy instead of making a few measly bucks from fishing; they said the hell with this fishing thing. I can make some real bucks in a fraction of the time it takes for me to fish. The real problem is the lawlessness that exist in the country itself. Once they take care of that then the piracy will come to a halt slowly but surely.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The western world also includes Europe (and some other well developed parts of the world too). It's clear that a country has to defend their ships, no problem there. But as I said, it's just supression of symptoms. Do you really think the pirates will be discouraged by this?

I see your point though. Still, the big problem here (and not only in Somalia) is that we continue to dispossess the people in Africa and other parts of the third world form their livelihood in order to fullfill our own greedy needs.

If we don't stop the exploitation of major parts of the third world, things like that wont stop in the near future.
 

cucio

Legend
Due to the extensive fishing of our fleets, we (the western world) once again dispossessed them of their livelihood. Only so we can eat cheap fish at the expense of some poor people far away from us.
Exactly. Typical imperialistic reaction. First we take their resources away. Then we make some more cash selling them weapons so they can exterminate each other. Then they turn those weapons on us. Then we bring them democracy in missiles. Or a travesti of democracy controlled by a corrupt elite pliable to our interests. See the pattern?
 

raiden031

Legend
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The western world also includes Europe (and some other well developed parts of the world too). It's clear that a country has to defend their ships, no problem there. But as I said, it's just supression of symptoms. Do you really think the pirates will be discouraged by this?

I see your point though. Still, the big problem here (and not only in Somalia) is that we continue to dispossess the people in Africa and other parts of the third world form their livelihood in order to fullfill our own greedy needs.

If we don't stop the exploitation of major parts of the third world, things like that wont stop in the near future.
I see...If we give them back their livelihood, they will no longer seek the big bucks they get as pirates and will go back to earning an honest living.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
I think this once again is a shortsighted reaction of the western world.

I don't want to defend piracy or hijacking or whatever, but have you ever asked yourself why they became pirates and thughs down there?
Most of them once were fishermen, they lived off the sea.
Due to the extensive fishing of our fleets, we (the western world) once again dispossessed them of their livelihood. Only so we can eat cheap fish at the expense of some poor people far away from us.

Do your really believe that the hijacking will stop because we put them in place? This is just supression of symptoms. That's how we always react. Sad really.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7650415.stm
Somali pirates living the high life





By Robyn Hunter
BBC News


"No information today. No comment," a Somali pirate shouts over the sound of breaking waves, before abruptly ending the satellite telephone call.

They wed the most beautiful girls; they are building big houses; they have new cars; new guns

Garowe resident Abdi Farah Juha


Life in Somalia's pirate town
Somali pirates face battles at sea

He sounds uptight - anxious to see if a multi-million dollar ransom demand will be met.

He is on board the hijacked Ukrainian vessel, MV Faina - the ship laden with 33 Russian battle tanks that has highlighted the problem of piracy off the Somali coast since it was captured almost a month ago.

But who are these modern-day pirates?

According to residents in the Somali region of Puntland where most of the pirates come from, they live a lavish life.

Fashionable

"They have money; they have power and they are getting stronger by the day," says Abdi Farah Juha who lives in the regional capital, Garowe.


The crew on MV Faina are reportedly being well-looked after

"They wed the most beautiful girls; they are building big houses; they have new cars; new guns," he says.

"Piracy in many ways is socially acceptable. They have become fashionable."

Most of them are aged between 20 and 35 years - in it for the money.

And the rewards they receive are rich in a country where almost half the population need food aid after 17 years of non-stop conflict.

Most vessels captured in the busy shipping lanes of the Gulf of Aden fetch on average a ransom of $2m.

This is why their hostages are well looked after.

The BBC's reporter in Puntland, Ahmed Mohamed Ali, says it also explains the tight operation the pirates run.

They are never seen fighting because the promise of money keeps them together.

Wounded pirates are seldom seen and our reporter says he has never heard of residents along Puntland's coast finding a body washed ashore.

Given Somalia's history of clan warfare, this is quite a feat.

It probably explains why a report of a deadly shoot-out amongst the pirates onboard the MV Faina was denied by the vessel's hijackers.

Pirate spokesman Sugule Ali told the BBC Somali Service at the time: "Everybody is happy. We were firing guns to celebrate Eid."

Brains, muscle and geeks

The MV Faina was initially attacked by a gang of 62 men.

BBC Somalia analyst Mohamed Mohamed says such pirate gangs are usually made up of three different types:



Ex-fishermen, who are considered the brains of the operation because they know the sea
Ex-militiamen, who are considered the muscle - having fought for various Somali clan warlords
The technical experts, who are the computer geeks and know how to operate the hi-tech equipment needed to operate as a pirate - satellite phones, GPS and military hardware.
The three groups share the ever-increasing illicit profits - ransoms paid in cash by the shipping companies.

A report by UK think-tank Chatham House says piracy off the coast of Somalia has cost up to $30m (£17m) in ransoms so far this year.

The study also notes that the pirates are becoming more aggressive and assertive - something the initial $22m ransom demanded for MV Faina proves. The asking price has apparently since fallen to $8m.

Calling the shots

Yemen, across the Gulf of Aden, is reportedly where the pirates get most of their weapons from.

A significant number are also bought directly from the Somali capital, Mogadishu.




Enlarge Image


Observers say Mogadishu weapon dealers receive deposits for orders via a "hawala" company - an informal money transfer system based on honour.

Militiamen then drive the arms north to the pirates in Puntland, where they are paid the balance on delivery.

It has been reported in the past that wealthy businessmen in Dubai were financing the pirates.

But the BBC's Somali Service says these days it is the businessmen asking the pirates for loans.

Such success is a great attraction for Puntland's youngsters, who have little hope of alternative careers in the war-torn country.

Once a pirate makes his fortune, he tends to take on a second and third wife - often very young women from poor nomadic clans, who are renowned for their beauty.

But not everyone is smitten by Somalia's new elite.

"This piracy has a negative impact on several aspects of our life in Garowe," resident Mohamed Hassan laments.

He cites an escalating lack of security because "hundreds of armed men" are coming to join the pirates.


They don't call themselves pirates. They call themselves coastguards

Garowe resident Abdulkadil Mohamed

They have made life more expensive for ordinary people because they "pump huge amounts of US dollars" into the local economy which results in fluctuations in the exchange rate, he says.

Their lifestyle also makes some unhappy.

"They promote the use of drugs - chewing khat [a stimulant which keeps one alert] and smoking hashish - and alcohol," Mr Hassan says.

The trappings of success may be new, but piracy has been a problem in Somali waters for at least 10 years - when Somali fishermen began losing their livelihoods.

Their traditional fishing methods were no match for the illegal trawlers that were raiding their waters.

Piracy initially started along Somalia's southern coast but began shifting north in 2007 - and as a result, the pirate gangs in the Gulf of Aden are now multi-clan operations.

But Garowe resident Abdulkadil Mohamed says, they do not see themselves as pirates.

"Illegal fishing is the root cause of the piracy problem," he says.

"They call themselves coastguards."

 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
Merchant ships should be armed and able to kill any and all pirates who even think about pulling anything. Instill some discipine into that lawless dump of a country.

If they're too incompetent to have a basic government or infrastructure, they don't deserve the resources.
 

bluegrasser

Hall of Fame
I think this once again is a shortsighted reaction of the western world.

I don't want to defend piracy or hijacking or whatever, but have you ever asked yourself why they became pirates and thughs down there?
Most of them once were fishermen, they lived off the sea.
Due to the extensive fishing of our fleets, we (the western world) once again dispossessed them of their livelihood. Only so we can eat cheap fish at the expense of some poor people far away from us.

Do your really believe that the hijacking will stop because we put them in place? This is just supression of symptoms. That's how we always react. Sad really.
Oh, poor poor pirates, why with all that depravity(s?) why shouldn't they kidnapp some folks and kill some in the process - after all, this year i had to borrow some money to pay my taxes - shouldn't it be understood that robbing my local bank should be justified. Da$m the west for their over reaction, always getting upset at such trifling things.:confused:
 

mikeler

Moderator
So the pirates have a right to hijack ships that are non-fishing vessels hundreds of miles offshore to "protect" their fishing interests. These are evil people plain and simple. Bomb first and ask questions later.
 

vandre

Hall of Fame
actually, the time to kick butt in somalia was 92-93 when the u.s. was there the first time. unfortunately, that was just one of the numerous foreign policy failures of the clinton administration that we have to live with today.
 
It will take a three pronged approach.
1.) Stop the pirates now with weapons on board the merchant ships, and an increased naval presense.
2.) Demonstrate a love for the people, not the government, of Somalia with food shipments. (All food has to be transferred to Somali ships out at sea.)
3.)Wait out the inevitable third world reaction to the imperialistic war-mongering West as it protects its sailors.
 

ryangoring

Professional
OK these so called pirates have been around a long time. From around the 80s or 90s. i'm talking about the somali pirates. They started to patrol the waters from people illegally fishing there waters. then went to straight up pirating.
they do need to be stopped at all cost. the U.N. should do more than what they are doing now.
We have seen the French and U.S. fight for their own. We need to have every nation involved with this.
The water ways there are a way of life for a lot of people and they need to be safe getting to and fro.

Bump this, kill the blasted pirates! how dare they, after they attacked and hijacked a vessel, kidnapped the captain of the ship, and dont forget the french yacht the also had, and then the pirates got killed for it from the French and US navy forces, and they are mad because their pirate buddies got killed. Now they say the next US or French vessel they get they killing all on board.
Fcuk'em
 

VivalaVida

Banned
Exactly. Typical imperialistic reaction. First we take their resources away. Then we make some more cash selling them weapons so they can exterminate each other. Then they turn those weapons on us. Then we bring them democracy in missiles. Or a travesti of democracy controlled by a corrupt elite pliable to our interests. See the pattern?
Great post and exactly what usually ends up happening.
 

ryangoring

Professional
Exactly. Typical imperialistic reaction. First we take their resources away. Then we make some more cash selling them weapons so they can exterminate each other. Then they turn those weapons on us. Then we bring them democracy in missiles. Or a travesti of democracy controlled by a corrupt elite pliable to our interests. See the pattern?
Who is the WE you speak about!?!
If WE is the US then you are wrong. Other people has been. They have, to me it seems, a lot of weapons but none are US. They had AK-47s.
 

Phil

Hall of Fame
I'm sorry, but the thugs and drug lords are at it again. Preying on vessels heavily for the last few months, cutting off needed supplies in the region, and taking aim as US flagged ships.

Time to take a stand.

Time to kick butt.

Time to re-write the movie Blackhawk Down....

I don't like thugs. I don't like bullies. I don't like Pirates.

It is time to go finish what we failed to finish many years ago--albeit a different ending and conclusion....
And how do you propose to do this? And what would you use for MONEY? Typical chickenhawk bluster.

Why don't you contact Sly Stallone's people. I'm sure he can, as Rambo, get the job done. Between film projects, of course.

What I DO think is that the Somali pirates make for a very juicy group of Hollywood bad guys. I predict at least one pirate movie coming out within the next 18 months. Arrgh!
 
Last edited:

Eph

Professional
“This poor country keeps taking one blow after another,” Peter Goossens observed two months ago: “Ultimately, it will break.” The country is Somalia, where Mr. Goossens is the director of the World Food Program. The population of this tragic and tortured land is “marching right up to the edge of a crisis,” he continued. “Any additional little thing, any little flood or drought, will push them over.”

Five months earlier, the UN's chief humanitarian officer, John Holmes, had called the Somali humanitarian and refugee crisis “the worst in the world.” Members of the African Union had promised to send peacekeepers if funding were made available. But they are unlikely to do so, says Richard Cornwell, a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa, “because there is no peace to keep [in Somalia] in the first place,.” Apart from catastrophe for Somalis, Cornwell continued, “what the dear old West has created is exactly what it feared: a fertile ground for Islamist extremism.”

By November, the UN regarded Somalia as the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa, with “higher malnutrition rates, more current bloodshed and fewer aid workers than Darfur,” Jeffrey Gettleman reported in the New York Times. The top UN official for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, describes its plight as “the worst on the continent.” The head of UN humanitarian operations in Somalia, Eric Laroche, reports that the UN lacks the capacity to reach people who are hungry, exposed, sick and dying, “If this were happening in Darfur,” he added, “there would be a big fuss. But Somalia has been a forgotten emergency for years.”

One distinction, hard to miss, is that the tragedy of Darfur can be blamed on someone else, in fact an official enemy, while responsibility for the current catastrophe in Somalia, like others that preceded it, lies substantially in our own hands.

In October 1993, US troops withdrew from Somalia after a “rescue mission” that ended after two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down by Somalia militiamen, leaving 18 US rangers dead, along with perhaps 1000 Somalis. The departing Marines left “behind a hail of gunfire – a ratio of about 100 to 1,” Los Angeles Times correspondent John Balzar reported. Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the operation, informed the press that “I'm not counting bodies...I'm not interested.” CIA officials privately conceded that US forces may have killed from 7,000 to 10,000 Somalis while losing 34 soldiers, Charles William Maynes reported in Foreign Policy. The “rescue mission,” which may have killed about as many Somalis as it saved, left the country in the hands of brutal warlords.

“After that, the United States - and much of the rest of the world - basically turned its back on Somalia,” Gettleman reports. “But in the summer of 2006, the world started paying attention again after a grass-roots Islamist movement emerged from the clan chaos and seized control of much of the country,” leaving only an enclave adjoining Ethiopia in the hands of the Western-recognized Transitional Federal Government. The Islamists “didn’t cause us any problems,” Laroche reports. Ould-Abdallah called the six months of their rule Somalia's “golden era.,” the only period of peace in Somalia for years. Other UN officials concur, observing that “the country was in better shape during the brief reign of Somalia's Islamist movement last year” than it has been since Ethiopia invaded in December 2006 to impose the rule of the TFG.

The Ethiopian invasion, with US backing and direct participation, took place immediately after the UN Security Council, at US initiative, passed Resolution 1725, which called upon all states “to refrain from action that could provoke or perpetuate violence and violations of human rights, contribute to unnecessary tension and mistrust, endanger the ceasefire and political process, or further damage the humanitarian situation.” The invasion by Somalia’s historical enemy, Christian Ethiopia, soon elicited a bitter resistance, leading to the current crisis.

The official reason for US participation in Ethiopia’s overthrow of the Islamist regime is the “war on terror” – which has engendered terror, quite apart from its own atrocities. Furthermore, the roots of the harsh Islamist regime trace back to earlier stages of the “war on terror.” One of its earliest acts was the closing of the Islamic charity Al-Barakaat on grounds that it was financing terror. This was hailed by government and media as one of the great successes of the “war on terror,” though Washington’s later withdrawal of its charges as without merit aroused little interest.

The greatest impact of the closing of Al-Barakaat was in Somalia. According to the UN, in 2001 the charity was responsible for about half the $500 million remittances to Somalia, “more than it earns from any other economic sector and ten times the amount of foreign aid [Somalia] receives.” The company also played a major role in the economy, Ibrahim Warde observes in his devastating study of Bush’s “financial war on terror,” The Price of Fear. This frivolous attack on a very fragile society “may have played a role in the rise…of Islamic fundamentalists,” Warde concludes – another familiar consequence of the “war on terror.”

The renewed torture of Somalia falls within the context of US efforts to gain firm control over the Horn of Africa, where the US is launching a new Africa command and extending naval operations in crucial shipping lanes, part of the broader campaign to ensure its domination of the world’s primary energy resources in the Gulf region and of Africa as well.

In the early postwar period, when State Department planners were assigning each part of the world its “function” within the overall system of US domination, Africa was considered unimportant. George Kennan, head of the Policy Planning Staff of the State Department, advised that Africa should be handed over to Europe to “exploit” for its reconstruction. No longer. The resources of Africa are too valuable to be left to others to exploit, particularly with China extending its commercial reach.

If poor Somalia collapses in starvation and misery, that is merely a sideshow of grand geopolitical designs, of little moment.

By Noam Chomsky
 

Lee James

Rookie
And yet another reason we need to stabilize the region surrounding Somalia:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090419/ap_on_re_af/af_somalia_kidnapping
Stabilizing the region is a huge undertaking given how thinly the U.S. has stretched itself between Iraq & Afghanistan. I'm not that familiar with the politics behind this situation. Is there a general consensus between countries the world over that something needs to be done? Including African countries? If this turns into the U.S. single handedly trying to save the day, I fear it would only get worse.
 

saram

Legend
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_re_us/piracy_suspect

if obama pardons him i will have lost all confidence in him doing anything good for the next 4 years.
They discussed this in NPR today. I'll be very curious as to how this unfolds. Show softness and the pirates will attack heavily.

I am not versed on the rules of open seas and how NATO plays into it all. I hope our ships that took the pirate in and captured him were not under a NATO flag nor security force. I cannot imagine Obama will set a standar/principal that this kind of behavior is tolerated.

Time will tell, and I agree with you...
 

random guy

Professional

saram

Legend
Yes, please, come quickly USA, the leader of all that is pure, just and free (except when they're not waterboarding people in clandestine prisons, bringing down government in the third world at will and bankrupting the entire world in Wall Street).

Liberty and justice for all my ass
You obviously know absolutely nothing about Somalia, the 'Mog' and what is going on in that country.

Have a nice sleep in dreamland!
 

maverick66

Hall of Fame
were you in the army during somalia saram? i love black hawk down. it kinda gets me mad that they were put in that situation to begin with but the courage those men showed being in that situation is nothing but amazing.
 

saram

Legend
were you in the army during somalia saram? i love black hawk down. it kinda gets me mad that they were put in that situation to begin with but the courage those men showed being in that situation is nothing but amazing.
I was not in Somalia. But I have met and was friends with one of the pilots that survived. He was the one spared in the movie. I was there on the day he was handed/awarded and 'retired' his 9mm that he was able to hold onto and keep during the battle.
 

random guy

Professional
You obviously know absolutely nothing about Somalia, the 'Mog' and what is going on in that country.

Have a nice sleep in dreamland!
I know my share of world history. Enough to know that USA playing world police hasn't bring anything good. And Africa hasn't become what it is just by accident. Five hundred year of exploitation by the western world doesn't make for prosperous, stable and pacific societies. So is laughable that the ones that make the harm are the ones that are so scandalized by the consequences. USA of all countries hasn't any higher moral stand to take that kind of action in the name of anything valuable like freedom, justice or peace. If USA want to wage war just for the sake of its own economic and military interest, be my guest, but don't go around call in it any pretty names. USA military actions and political actions regarding the third world doesn't fall too far from piracy. So if anyone is sleeping in the dreamland that's for sure is not me.
 

mikeler

Moderator
I know my share of world history. Enough to know that USA playing world police hasn't bring anything good. And Africa hasn't become what it is just by accident. Five hundred year of exploitation by the western world doesn't make for prosperous, stable and pacific societies. So is laughable that the ones that make the harm are the ones that are so scandalized by the consequences. USA of all countries hasn't any higher moral stand to take that kind of action in the name of anything valuable like freedom, justice or peace. If USA want to wage war just for the sake of its own economic and military interest, be my guest, but don't go around call in it any pretty names. USA military actions and political actions regarding the third world doesn't fall too far from piracy. So if anyone is sleeping in the dreamland that's for sure is not me.

We Americans should not have played the role of world police and let Hitler take over Europe. Better to stay out of everyone's business and allow millions of innocent people to die.
 

random guy

Professional
We Americans should not have played the role of world police and let Hitler take over Europe. Better to stay out of everyone's business and allow millions of innocent people to die.
And how about supporting Sadam Hussein for twenty years, or Pinochet in Chile, or the military junta in Argentina and countless other. Do you have and idea of how many innocent people died in those countries on account of the illegal repression? (I'm Argentinean so I can tell you if you want). USA didn't lift a finger. Actually quite the contrary they supported those killers because they were handy to its interest. When an american president takes some action in the name of "democracy" people in the third world better run for cover.
 

mikeler

Moderator
And how about supporting Sadam Hussein for twenty years, or Pinochet in Chile, or the military junta in Argentina and countless other. Do you have and idea of how many innocent people died in those countries on account of the illegal repression? (I'm Argentinean so I can tell you if you want). USA didn't lift a finger. Actually quite the contrary they supported those killers because they were handy to its interest. When an american president takes some action in the name of "democracy" people in the third world better run for cover.

I don't always agree with every decision our government makes, but we have to take of business because the rest of the world won't lift a finger unless we lead the way.
 

maverick66

Hall of Fame
And how about supporting Sadam Hussein for twenty years, or Pinochet in Chile, or the military junta in Argentina and countless other. Do you have and idea of how many innocent people died in those countries on account of the illegal repression? (I'm Argentinean so I can tell you if you want). USA didn't lift a finger. Actually quite the contrary they supported those killers because they were handy to its interest. When an american president takes some action in the name of "democracy" people in the third world better run for cover.
how about all those countries take care of there own problems? is that making to much sense?
 

random guy

Professional
how about all those countries take care of there own problems? is that making to much sense?
You're certainly naive about your country foreign policy (or any country foreign policy in history). USA through Kissinger were behind the military coup in Chile just because the democratic elected president, Salvador Allende, was a socialist (or how paranoids americans said back then, a "commie"). He was a decent guy, that's still remembered for his honesty. So please, enough with the paternalistic crap. USA doesn't get involved in other countries bussiness if not because of its own economic and military interest.
When Saddam Hussein was useful to the United States against Iran they supported him with money and guns even tough he was the same killer that he always was. I don't blame people in United States for that because the common people want what they want everywhere that is to live their life with peace and a decent lifestyle but the crooks that pull the strings there are the same *******s as everywhere only with bigger guns.
 

maverick66

Hall of Fame
not sure why your trying to give me a history lesson here. im all for letting other countries deal with there own crap. they have a brutal dictator let them deal with him. if we help were jerks for going where we dont belong. we do nothing were jerks that dont help. we cant win. no matter what happens people will hate america.
 

random guy

Professional
not sure why your trying to give me a history lesson here. im all for letting other countries deal with there own crap. they have a brutal dictator let them deal with him. if we help were jerks for going where we dont belong. we do nothing were jerks that dont help. we cant win. no matter what happens people will hate america.
I'm trying to teach no one. The point is that USA foreign policy throughout history (at least concerning the third world) doesn't have to be with "help" as you're saying. They actually helped the dictators (like Pinochet, Hussein, Videla in Argentina). If they've removed them later (as in Hussein case) is because he was no longer useful and has become a threat.
 
Last edited:

cucio

Legend
if we help were jerks for going where we dont belong. we do nothing were jerks that dont help. we cant win. no matter what happens people will hate america.
If the only way you know of "helping" is, as the OP eloquently puts, "kicking butt", yes, no matter what happens it will generate resentment. And I am not chalking it up to the USA exclusively, any economic and military powerful nation is suspect.

Instead of unilaterally go butt kicking just friggin' cooperate with another rich countries and spend the obscene military budget in schools, hospitals, transport infrastructures... Transfer technology... Give Somalia people other choices than pauper peasant or gangsta pirate.

Only problem with that is we may get a sovereign independent nation instead of a cheap resource pool controlled by a puppet corrupt class, but who knows, perhaps it turns out for the best, and what a high moral ground could we stand on then.

Then again, intelligent bombs and air fighters are so cool...
 

mikeler

Moderator
It is a complicated situation. These people are dirt poor. A life of piracy changes all that. That doesn't mean it is acceptable though.
 
Top