U.S. Strike Targets al Qaida in Somalia

[jallman]

Story Here

 

[CurrentAffairs]

awsome news!

 

[cherokee]

Story Here

Nothing says loving like a rotary cannon....:2wave:


Reminds me of a song... "Puff the Magic Dragon"........:lol:

 

[Stinger]

Nothing says loving like a rotary cannon....:2wave:


Reminds me of a song... "Puff the Magic Dragon"........:lol:

Except Puff didn't have a howitzer pointing out his arse..............good job boys!

 

[Cold Dirt]

U.S. Strikes Al Qaeda In Somalia

(CBS/AP) Two U.S. airstrikes in Somalia killed large numbers of Islamic extremists, government officials and witnesses said Tuesday. The targets were suspects in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998.

A U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunship conducted the strikes against suspected members of al Qaeda, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.

The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, Martin reports. Those terror attacks killed more than 200 people.

The attacks came after the terror suspects were spotted hiding on a remote island on the southern tip of Somalia, close to the Kenyan border, Somali officials said. The island and a site 155 miles north were hit.

It was the first overt military action by the U.S. in Somalia since the 1990s and the legacy of a botched intervention — known as "Black Hawk Down" — that left 18 U.S. servicemen dead.

The U.S. military said Tuesday it had sent an aircraft carrier to join three other U.S. warships conducting anti-terror operations off the Somali coast.

The AC-130 is capable of firing thousands of rounds per second, and sources say a lot of bodies were seen on the ground after the strike, but there is as yet, no confirmation of the identities.

The gunship flew from its base in Dijibouti down to the southern tip of Somalia, Martin reports, where the al Qaeda operatives had fled after being chased out of the capital of Mogadishu by Ethiopian troops backed by the United States.

Once they started moving, the al Qaeda operatives became easier to track, and the U.S. military started preparing for an air strike, using unmanned aerial drones to keep them under surveillance and moving the aircraft carrier Eisenhower out of the Persian Gulf toward Somalia. But when the order was given, the mission was assigned to the AC-130 gunship operated by the U.S. Special Operations command.

If the attack got the operatives it was aimed at, reports Martin, it would deal a major blow to al Qaeda in East Africa.

Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf told journalists in the capital, Mogadishu, that the U.S. "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."

Monday, Yusuf had entered the restive capital for the first time since his election.

Deputy Prime Minister Hussein Aideed told The Associated Press the U.S. had "our full support for the attacks."

But others in the capital said the attacks would only increase anti-American sentiment in the largely Muslim country.

Continued
U.S. Strikes Al Qaeda In Somalia, CBS News Learns Air Strikes Were Aimed At Alleged Al Qaeda Members Linked To 1998 Embassy Bombings - CBS News


We were told this would be a global war..........about time we started attacking safe havens of the murdering bastards.........

 

[cherokee]

Except Puff didn't have a howitzer pointing out his arse..............good job boys!

"Puff the magic dragon" is a term going back to Vietnam talking about a rotary cannon. At night it looks like a fire breathing dragon.

 

[Stinger]

"Puff the magic dragon" is a term going back to Vietnam talking about a rotary cannon. At night it looks like a fire breathing dragon.

And now they have howitzers sticking out their arse's. Try lighting that one up!!!!

Computer controlled too, when it fires and knocks the tail askew the computer automatically corrects the course for the next shot. These things are amazing.

 

[The face of Jacob]

Story Here

Good news and I wish them luck!

 

[Goobieman]

"Puff the magic dragon" is a term going back to Vietnam talking about a rotary cannon. At night it looks like a fire breathing dragon.

Yes. Puff was an AC-47 gunship, a C-47 of WW2 fame with 4 miniguns.

Today's AC-130s have an assortment of weapons, all computer controlled, including 105mm howitzers.

Its good to be us, and it sucks to be them.

 

[MSgt]

There's a lot more of this to come. In the wake of the retreated colonial powers from the world and the absence of the Soviet influence all the man made unnatural borders that forced people to live together and others to live apart are becoming volcanic. We have been seeing this since the end of the Cold War. Every conflict in every location where our troops have given their blood since the Cold War's end is a legacy of Europe's determination to draw the world's borders to its own benefit and damn the consequences. We have fallen into this trap and we have insisted that those old imperial borders were sacred and we have defended them. Think about it....

- Our obsession for intact borders and "stability" no matter the flaws of origin, is such that a Republican Secretary of State tried to persuade the splintering Soviet Union to remain whole-after we had finally cracked it apart.

- Then his Democrat successor insisted that Yugolsavia must remain intact.

- In Somalia we pretended a shifting constellation of tribes was a country.

- In the Balkans, even now, we pretend that Kosovo might again be a happy extension of Serbia (and that Kosovo itself is a unity, despite its insurmountable internal divisions).

And just look at other places where Imperial Europe divided the world and broke it in the long run - the Phillipines, Afghanistan, the Caribbean, Rwanda, and numerous countries in West Africa. In Iraq we are squandering an opportunity to do justice to the Kurds, to free the shia, and to contain the Sunni Arabs by not dividing the state along its natural fault lines. Instead, American soldiers and Marines are dying for the sake of bounderies agreed to by a Frenchman and an Englishman a century before. If the will of the people is to break apart Iraq, then we should do our best to fulfill their wishes. We are in an unfortunate situation today where the hatred between the Radical elements within the sects are unable to behave without the brutalities of their former dictator.

This is an age of devolution, of breakdown, of the last dismantling of empires. The great imperial orders are all gone now that the Soviet incarnation of the empire of the czars is in recession. At this stage we are witnessing the miniempires slowly cracking up: Pakistan, Nigeria, Congo, Ukraine, Russia, Indonesia, etc. Yugolsavia is already gone. And much of this breakdown includes a surmountable and exponentially growing Radical base. Most of what is to come will involve peaceful diplomacy and influence, but some of it will involve a smoking gun and a troop's sweat and blood.

For our futures and our military action we can be assurred that we will see:

1) Strategic Raids - The capability to dispatch a small but potent force anywhere in the world on short notice. This is a fundamental requirement for postmodern security. We have to be prepared to violate traditional concepts of "soveriegnty" in order to prevent avoidable tragedies or to simply stop a small threat before it becomes a great one. Speaking of soveriegnty, I wonder why the Global Left hasn't erupted in that soveriegnty scam with regards to Somalia as it did for Iraq. According to the rules of Europe, I guess a dictator earns it while feuding tribes don't have it.

2) Punitive Expeditions - Not every country or culture can be redeemed, reformed, and remodeled. In this age of terror (and considering the shape the world is in it will be that) we may find it increasingly necessary to enter a terroritory to conduct operations more extensive and of greater duration than raids, but without the intent to remain any longer than necessary to accomplish the mission. Should we need to deploy to Somalia to destroy terrorist bases, for example, we would be foolish to imagine that a static presence thereafter would be of any benefit to us. Many of the cultures we are going to face will have the capacity to bring themselves together eventually and our presence may hinder it (not all unlike people hate each other with the passions that we see in Iraq amongst the Sunni and the Shi'ite).

3) Major Deployment - When the time comes again to deploy a massive amount of troop strength into another country, we have to rid ourselves of this notion that we can win with the bare minimum and without shedding our enemies blood (a lesson Washington hopefully learned with their rediculous "shock and awe" tactics). We have to hit the enemy with an overwhelming force and not let up until our enemy is convinced of his defeat. With these type of deployments, we will need to occupy in massive numbers, because the damage will be too great and our absence would leave a void that would be occupied by our next enemy and we need to create a presence on every corner. We have to dedicate our treasure to the local people and not to the American companies that don't have the experience with their systems.

I hope Americans can get over their petty partisan slaveries and start examining their world with greater attention. Our future Presidents have to be men of wisdom. We can't make this effort harder by refusing to vote for the best man and instead opting to vote for "our guy." This is precisely why the Middle East and civilizations that cling to the "extended" family have difficulty in their leadership.

As far as what I have seen, our actions with Somalia have thus far been very wise. With the Ethiopian military aiding the Somali military to fight radicalism and its bases, our subtle involvement in their efforts will offer them the edge and allow them their pride in their victories and endear us to them (Nothing fills the heart of a soldier with adrenaline more than to see the cavalry rushing over the mountain tops to make your job easier). Our base in Djibouti offers them security from the north, which is a Radical target. We do have friends out there in the third world. After all, it wasn't the American flag they saw as they were forced to band together for external benefit a century ago. The third world hold perhaps our strongest friends despite their inabilities to back us up (which our "friends" do not). They believe in what we believe in and they are fighting our (and their) enemies on their lands. We have to be able to assess the situations and determine how best to support them without taking away their pride.

 

[jallman]

There's a lot more of this to come. In the wake of the retreated colonial powers from the world and the absence of the Soviet influence all the man made unnatural borders that forced people to live together and others to live apart are becoming volcanic. We have been seeing this since the end of the Cold War. Every conflict in every location where our troops have given their blood since the Cold War's end is a legacy of Europe's determination to draw the world's borders to its own benefit and damn the consequences. We have fallen into this trap and we have insisted that those old imperial borders were sacred and we have defended them. Think about it....

- Our obsession for intact borders and "stability" no matter the flaws of origin, is such that a Republican Secretary of State tried to persuade the splintering Soviet Union to remain whole-after we had finally cracked it apart.

- Then his Democrat successor insisted that Yugolsavia must remain intact.

- In Somalia we pretended a shifting constellation of tribes was a country.

- In the Balkans, even now, we pretend that Kosovo might again be a happy extension of Serbia (and that Kosovo itself is a unity, despite its insurmountable internal divisions).

And just look at other places where Imperial Europe divided the world and broke it in the long run - the Phillipines, Afghanistan, the Caribbean, Rwanda, and numerous countries in West Africa. In Iraq we are squandering an opportunity to do justice to the Kurds, to free the shia, and to contain the Sunni Arabs by not dividing the state along its natural fault lines. Instead, American soldiers and Marines are dying for the sake of bounderies agreed to by a Frenchman and an Englishman a century before. If the will of the people is to break apart Iraq, then we should do our best to fulfill their wishes. We are in an unfortunate situation today where the hatred between the Radical elements within the sects are unable to behave without the brutalities of their former dictator.

This is an age of devolution, of breakdown, of the last dismantling of empires. The great imperial orders are all gone now that the Soviet incarnation of the empire of the czars is in recession. At this stage we are witnessing the miniempires slowly cracking up: Pakistan, Nigeria, Congo, Ukraine, Russia, Indonesia, etc. Yugolsavia is already gone. And much of this breakdown includes a surmountable and exponentially growing Radical base. Most of what is to come will involve peaceful diplomacy and influence, but some of it will involve a smoking gun and a troop's sweat and blood.

For our futures and our military action we can be assurred that we will see:

1) Strategic Raids - The capability to dispatch a small but potent force anywhere in the world on short notice. This is a fundamental requirement for postmodern security. We have to be prepared to violate traditional concepts of "soveriegnty" in order to prevent avoidable tragedies or to simply stop a small threat before it becomes a great one. Speaking of soveriegnty, I wonder why the Global Left hasn't erupted in that soveriegnty scam with regards to Somalia as it did for Iraq. According to the rules of Europe, I guess a dictator earns it while feuding tribes don't have it.

2) Punitive Expeditions - Not every country or culture can be redeemed, reformed, and remodeled. In this age of terror (and considering the shape the world is in it will be that) we may find it increasingly necessary to enter a terroritory to conduct operations more extensive and of greater duration than raids, but without the intent to remain any longer than necessary to accomplish the mission. Should we need to deploy to Somalia to destroy terrorist bases, for example, we would be foolish to imagine that a static presence thereafter would be of any benefit to us. Many of the cultures we are going to face will have the capacity to bring themselves together eventually and our presence may hinder it (not all unlike people hate each other with the passions that we see in Iraq amongst the Sunni and the Shi'ite).

3) Major Deployment - When the time comes again to deploy a massive amount of troop strength into another country, we have to rid ourselves of this notion that we can win with the bare minimum and without shedding our enemies blood (a lesson Washington hopefully learned with their rediculous "shock and awe" tactics). We have to hit the enemy with an overwhelming force and not let up until our enemy is convinced of his defeat. With these type of deployments, we will need to occupy in massive numbers, because the damage will be too great and our absence would leave a void that would be occupied by our next enemy and we need to create a presence on every corner. We have to dedicate our treasure to the local people and not to the American companies that don't have the experience with their systems.

I hope Americans can get over their petty partisan slaveries and start examining their world with greater attention. Our future Presidents have to be men of wisdom. We can't make this effort harder by refusing to vote for the best man and instead opting to vote for "our guy." This is precisely why the Middle East and civilizations that cling to the "extended" family have difficulty in their leadership.

As far as what I have seen, our actions with Somalia have thus far been very wise. With the Ethiopian military aiding the Somali military to fight radicalism and its bases, our subtle involvement in their efforts will offer them the edge and allow them their pride in their victories and endear us to them (Nothing fills the heart of a soldier with adrenaline more than to see the cavalry rushing over the mountain tops to make your job easier). Our base in Djibouti offers them security from the north, which is a Radical target. We do have friends out there in the third world. After all, it wasn't the American flag they saw as they were forced to band together for external benefit a century ago. The third world hold perhaps our strongest friends despite their inabilities to back us up (which our "friends" do not). They believe in what we believe in and they are fighting our (and their) enemies on their lands. We have to be able to assess the situations and determine how best to support them without taking away their pride.

Gunny, sometimes you just make way too much sense...:doh

 

[PeteEU]

There's a lot more of this to come. In the wake of the retreated colonial powers from the world and the absence of the Soviet influence all the man made unnatural borders that forced people to live together and others to live apart are becoming volcanic.

So far we agree somewhat but then the usual cherrypicking of history and world bashing starts with the usual US knows best. Its sad, because you actually come with some valid points, but its all drowned out in your usual "US is great, the rest are terrorists" speak.

But this cracks me up.....

And just look at other places where Imperial Europe divided the world and broke it in the long run - the Phillipines

! err you do know the last colonial power of the Phillipines was the USA right? Why did the US not "redivide" the Phillipines up then?

 

[MSgt]

So far we agree somewhat but then the usual cherrypicking of history and world bashing starts with the usual US knows best. Its sad, because you actually come with some valid points, but its all drowned out in your usual "US is great, the rest are terrorists" speak.

But this cracks me up.....

Say's a member from the region which is the source of the largest problems throughout history and most in denial. I love how you always attempt to exhonerate the general truth of your continent by claiming that facts are "cherry picked." Of course, when the cherries are in a barrel, there's nothing but cherries to pick aren't there?

One can't understand his world if he is determined to refuse all of the truth.

! err you do know the last colonial power of the Phillipines was the USA right? Why did the US not "redivide" the Phillipines up then?

"Colonial power?" Funny how the definition is always losened by Europeans who feel the need to drag America into their play ground. But, here's a general for you.....

The Spanish-American War began in Cuba in 1895 and soon reached the Philippines in 1898 when Commodore George Dewey defeated the Spanish squadron at Manila Bay. Aguinaldo declared the independence of the Philippines on June 12, 1898, and was proclaimed head of state. As a result of its defeat in the War, Spain ceded the Philippines, together with Cuba, Guam and Puerto Rico to the United States. By 1899, the Philippine-American War ensued between the United States and the Philippine revolutionaries, which continued the violence of the previous years. The US proclaimed the war ended when Aguinaldo was captured by American troops on March 23, 1901, but the struggle continued until 1913. The country's status as a colony changed when it became the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935, which provided for more self-governance. Plans for increasing independence over the next decade were interrupted during World War II when Japan invaded and occupied the islands. After the Japanese were defeated in 1945 by the Americans, the Philippines achieved independence from the United States on July 4, 1946.[4]
Philippines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the Phillipines achieving independance, it was and is up to them to divide their country, which is not what they want and certainly not an option.

While we're at it, let's produce this Imperial European mess I described earlier.........
List of former European colonies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are free to read all about it here....
History of colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[oldreliable67]

Say's a member from the region which is the source of the largest problems throughout history and most in denial. I love how you always attempt to exhonerate the general truth of your continent by claiming that facts are "cherry picked." Of course, when the cherries are in a barrel, there's nothing but cherries to pick aren't there?

Ah, once again, Gunny at the top of his game. Awesome!

For more on the topics on which Gunny posted above, read "Imperial Grunts" by Robert Kagan. Really interesting and illuminating as to the extent of the anti-terror roles in which the U.S. military is now engaged, worldwide.

 

[MSgt]

"Imperial Grunts" by Robert Kagan.

Outstanding book.

 

[PeteEU]

Say's a member from the region which is the source of the largest problems throughout history and most in denial. I love how you always attempt to exhonerate the general truth of your continent by claiming that facts are "cherry picked." Of course, when the cherries are in a barrel, there's nothing but cherries to pick aren't there?

One can't understand his world if he is determined to refuse all of the truth.

Again you cherry pick history to prove your anti world views. Lets see, Europe the source of the largest problems.. I see, 2000 plus years of history in Europe, 250 years in the US... come back in say 1500 years and see what legacy the US has left behind. Can already name a few failures that will go down in history. And the fact you deny the US's role in colonial history and "partioning" of certain areas that are today in dispute.

"Colonial power?" Funny how the definition is always losened by Europeans who feel the need to drag America into their play ground. But, here's a general for you.....

HAHA, you even try to avoid the fact that the US was a colonial power and STILL IS! Hello, a small island in the carribean, or how about those in the pacific ocean? Let me guess, you gonna claim that one has self rule, and the other is a UN mandated thing?

With the Phillipines achieving independance, it was and is up to them to divide their country, which is not what they want and certainly not an option.

Again cherry picking history.

Lets see for the same "source"

History of the Philippines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the world colony.. means the US had colonies, hence were colonial.

Secondly, note the following quote

Filipinos initially saw their relationship with the United States as that of two nations joined in a common struggle against Spain.[11] As allies, Filipinos had provided the American forces with valuable intelligence and military support.[12] However, the United States later distanced itself from the interests of the Filipino insurgents. Aguinaldo was unhappy that the United States would not commit to paper a statement of support for Philippine independence.[12] Relations deteriorated and tensions heightened as it became clear that the Americans were in the islands to stay

Ups, kinda missed that out of your quote. Seems the insurgents was on the US side against Spain, but when the US turned on the insurgents and did not want to give the island independance.... tsk. And further down.

The United States defined its colonial mission as one of tutelage, preparing the Philippines for eventual independence.[15] Civil government was established by the United States in 1901, with William Howard Taft as the first American Governor-General of the Philippines, replacing the military governor, Arthur MacArthur, Jr. The governor-general acted as head of the Philippine Commission, a body appointed by the U.S. president with legislative and limited executive powers. The commission passed laws to set up the fundamentals of the new government, including a judicial system, civil service, and local government. A Philippine Constabulary was organized to deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement and gradually assume the responsibilities of the United States Army. The elected Philippine Assembly was inaugurated in 1907, becoming a lower house of a bicameral legislature, with the appointed Philippine Commission as upper house.

Sounds nice so far..but that word again.. colonial

United States policies towards the Philippines shifted with changing administrations.[5] During the early years of colonial rule, the Americans were reluctant to delegate authority to the Filipinos.

Ups sounds like typical colonial rule to. Classic colonial rule, and the main problem for many former states, was in fact that the colonial masters did not delegate or educate the locals. The French did it, the British, the greeks, the romans and many other civilizations across the planet.

However, when Woodrow Wilson became U.S. President in 1913, a new policy was adopted to put into motion a process that would gradually lead to Philippine independence. The Jones Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1916 to serve as the new organic law in the Philippines, promised eventual independence and instituted an elected Philippine senate.

About time would you not say? Almost 20 years after thier "liberation" and so called independance? Tell me is Woodro Wilson one of the neo con right wingers hate presidents or one of the "good guys"?

The 1920s saw alternating periods of cooperation and confrontation with American governors-general, depending on how intent the incumbent was on exercising his powers vis-à-vis the Philippine legislature. Members to the elected legislature lobbied for immediate and complete independence from the United States.

They wanted independance and the US did not give it.. sounds like colonialism to me. Algeria wanted independance, and the French did not give it at first. Many more countries out there to mention.

But this is the best part,

However, sporadic insurgent resistance continued in various parts of the Philippines, especially in the Muslim south, until 1913

Aint that the exact same problem you are pointing out today.. the false borders... odd that the US did not do anything about it back then.. oh I forgot they were a colonial power so what do they care. Naw today you blame the people of the Phillipines instead, which is lame considering who "helped" them in drawing up thier constitution, legal system and civil service and when that dont work, you blame the European, but are carefull not to mention Spain (an ally in Iraq at one point) by name..

While we're at it, let's produce this Imperial European mess I described earlier.........
List of former European colonies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are free to read all about it here....
History of colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And? Europe has 2000 plus years of history, filled with lots of ups and lots of downs. We conquered the known world before the american continent was even discovered and when that was discovered, we colonized that too. News flash, you are most likely part European also, part of that colonial history.

Colonial rule was good and bad, there is no doubt about that. And we Europeans aint proud of the bad stuff, believe me.. only the biggest moron would defend slavery and the ransacking of colonial countries by parent countries.

The legacy it left, across Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Americas are seen today, both on borders and laws. There is no doubt that colonial rule made huge mistakes and I bet we could agree on quite a few, but also did some good in many areas (which I bet we could not agree on).

But all that blame for all the crap goes on all countries involved in colonial rule over the last 1000 years and that includes the US. But yes the huge majority of colonial rule was European... again.. it sucks to have 2000 years of history behind you, as there are plenty of skeletons in the closet. And this fact has never been denied.

As for Somalia.. sure divide the country up, but I dont see what that will accomplish as the local tribes have been fighting each other for generations and will continue to fight each other of the limited ressources, regardless if you call it Somalia or 120 other names of small countries. Unless the chiefs of the clans in Somalia can finally either wipe each other out, or make peace, that country or area will continue down the same path and calling it something else or dividing it up wount make damn bit of difference.

 

[Pen]

Gunny posts:

As far as what I have seen, our actions with Somalia have thus far been very wise. With the Ethiopian military aiding the Somali military to fight radicalism and its bases, our subtle involvement in their efforts will offer them the edge and allow them their pride in their victories and endear us to them (Nothing fills the heart of a soldier with adrenaline more than to see the cavalry rushing over the mountain tops to make your job easier).

Wise? Perhaps, but our reentrance into Somalia has no more to do with A'Q than it did in Iraq. We trained the Ethiopian military and it is more likely that they are there as our proxy. We are not there to win hearts and minds or to raise anyone's sense of pride, as Gunny suggests.

We are back into Somalia for the same reason that we went into Iraq. A very simple Google search of "Somalia Oil" provides numerous references.

US Interests in Somalia

Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside.

That land, in the opinion of geologists and industry sources, could yield significant amounts of oil and natural gas if the U.S.-led military mission can restore peace to the impoverished East African nation.

My first "clang" of cognitive dissonance was recently hearing that Bush had made a substantial increase in foreign aid in Africa. (A military slush fund?) The next data point in the "connect the dots" game was a report that there has been an oil find in Somalia. The third dot of our reentrance to the region creates the straight line to Oil.

 

[MSgt]

Again you cherry pick history to prove your anti world views. Lets see, Europe the source of the largest problems.. I see, 2000 plus years of history in Europe, 250 years in the US... come back in say 1500 years and see what legacy the US has left behind. Can already name a few failures that will go down in history. And the fact you deny the US's role in colonial history and "partioning" of certain areas that are today in dispute.



HAHA, you even try to avoid the fact that the US was a colonial power and STILL IS! Hello, a small island in the carribean, or how about those in the pacific ocean? Let me guess, you gonna claim that one has self rule, and the other is a UN mandated thing?



Again cherry picking history.

Lets see for the same "source"

History of the Philippines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the world colony.. means the US had colonies, hence were colonial.

Secondly, note the following quote



Ups, kinda missed that out of your quote. Seems the insurgents was on the US side against Spain, but when the US turned on the insurgents and did not want to give the island independance.... tsk. And further down.



Sounds nice so far..but that word again.. colonial



Ups sounds like typical colonial rule to. Classic colonial rule, and the main problem for many former states, was in fact that the colonial masters did not delegate or educate the locals. The French did it, the British, the greeks, the romans and many other civilizations across the planet.



About time would you not say? Almost 20 years after thier "liberation" and so called independance? Tell me is Woodro Wilson one of the neo con right wingers hate presidents or one of the "good guys"?



They wanted independance and the US did not give it.. sounds like colonialism to me. Algeria wanted independance, and the French did not give it at first. Many more countries out there to mention.

But this is the best part,



Aint that the exact same problem you are pointing out today.. the false borders... odd that the US did not do anything about it back then.. oh I forgot they were a colonial power so what do they care. Naw today you blame the people of the Phillipines instead, which is lame considering who "helped" them in drawing up thier constitution, legal system and civil service and when that dont work, you blame the European, but are carefull not to mention Spain (an ally in Iraq at one point) by name..



And? Europe has 2000 plus years of history, filled with lots of ups and lots of downs. We conquered the known world before the american continent was even discovered and when that was discovered, we colonized that too. News flash, you are most likely part European also, part of that colonial history.

Colonial rule was good and bad, there is no doubt about that. And we Europeans aint proud of the bad stuff, believe me.. only the biggest moron would defend slavery and the ransacking of colonial countries by parent countries.

The legacy it left, across Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Americas are seen today, both on borders and laws. There is no doubt that colonial rule made huge mistakes and I bet we could agree on quite a few, but also did some good in many areas (which I bet we could not agree on).

But all that blame for all the crap goes on all countries involved in colonial rule over the last 1000 years and that includes the US. But yes the huge majority of colonial rule was European... again.. it sucks to have 2000 years of history behind you, as there are plenty of skeletons in the closet. And this fact has never been denied.

As for Somalia.. sure divide the country up, but I dont see what that will accomplish as the local tribes have been fighting each other for generations and will continue to fight each other of the limited ressources, regardless if you call it Somalia or 120 other names of small countries. Unless the chiefs of the clans in Somalia can finally either wipe each other out, or make peace, that country or area will continue down the same path and calling it something else or dividing it up wount make damn bit of difference.

Why do you insist on proving my points? I have written on common knowledge and remarked on how Europeans deny their histories, dismiss their histories, or simply strive to exhonerate their behaviors and you always reply with denials, dismissals, or exhonerations. It doesn't seem to matter how many links I produce with European studies by European authors or links that show every day common fact. Despite the facts produced by credible sources, you still find strength in twisting and plain lying? Why is this? And why do you strive in vain to forgive the general truths of your region by whining about insignificant exceptions in American history?

Is the Phillipines a sewer of cancerous rage and death today? Has not America been present to help them nurse their way forward from colonial rule and then gave them thier independance after freeing them from the Japanese? Has America been there for them during their volcano eruptions? Is Britian in Iraq dealing with their created mess not so many decades ago? You see here is the grave difference. What ever minor stumbles America went through during the European scourge around the world, America has not withdrawn and washed its hands. Of course, the two times we did withdraw, we had to move out and change European diapers from temper tantrums during two world wars didn't we?

I love how the entire history of the European monster is considered "cherry picked." Seems to be your only defense. Well, that and "nu-uh."

 

[MSgt]

Wise? Perhaps, but our reentrance into Somalia has no more to do with A'Q than it did in Iraq. We trained the Ethiopian military and it is more likely that they are there as our proxy. We are not there to win hearts and minds or to raise anyone's sense of pride, as Gunny suggests.

We are back into Somalia for the same reason that we went into Iraq. A very simple Google search of "Somalia Oil" provides numerous references.

US Interests in Somalia

I didn't state or imply that "We are there to win hearts and minds and to raise their sense of pride." Using my knowledge of these people and this culture, I merely stated what is occuring by our actions. I would think that no one here was fooled by your attempted lie. I would appreciate it if you allowed this new emergence of yours to be one of more honesty. Let go of your partisan hate and step back from the narrow conspiracy table and look at all the picture.

But let's consider your never ending angle....

And? Have we "re-entered" Somalia or have we merely bombed some targets to give the Somali and Ethiopian military an advantage and to target our enemies? Are all the military intel (much released out to the public) false about the Radicalism and Al-Queda base and the tactical picture? And of course there's oil, because without it's presence you would have to find another reason for Amercian "evil." I guess the UN presence in Somalia, instigated by Clinton, was just a cover up for oil in 1993. I guess we turned our backs for over a decade and simply forgot about the oil. How dare America do something against our enemies and profit in the mean time. How dare American invest in weapons companies that make the weapons for our troops. How dare American companies not ignore opportunity. And how dare war profiteers (something Bush invented, right?) make money.

Proxy? What common sense tree did you fall out of? Of course they are a proxy. They are fighting for their region with our encouragement and our over due fire support. Or would you prefer another excuse to complain by America not using the local military-who already detest their Radicals-and sending in American troops (a "re-entrance")?

It's been a long time since you've graced us with your negativity and conspiracy. Perhaps you shouldn't suggest certain aspects of truth while dismissing all the other aspects of truth.

My first "clang" of cognitive dissonance was recently hearing that Bush had made a substantial increase in foreign aid in Africa. (A military slush fund?) The next data point in the "connect the dots" game was a report that there has been an oil find in Somalia. The third dot of our reentrance to the region creates the straight line to Oil.

And now even foreign aid to Africa is "evil?" Or perhaps it's simply because it's Bush? Will it be OK when he gets out of office or should the next President take the funds back? American Marines have been in Chad and in Djibouti for a couple years. We have been in the region for some time. This region is ripe for Radical Islam that threatens the friendly governments that are trying to progress forward. But, throw the tactical situation and what is really important aside and focus on insignificant American gain during war.

And what of the oil in Somalia? Is it not to be taken advantage of to help the region, which is the opposite of what the Sauds have done in theirs? Is America, after spilling blood and treasure not entitled to a kick back?

The best that could come from this effort is a stable Radical free Somalia and Ethiopia that is able to maintain a democracy amongst the tribes while pumping oil (that gold that geoligists say could yield significant amounts of oil and natural gas) to the benefit of the people and the region. And when Americans benefit from it, hopefully some Americans won't be so quick to just complain about "American greed" as they trip off to their local gas stations to complain about the price of gas.

 

[Pen]

This is what passes for civility from a mod? It certainly can't be called debate. :roll:

 

[cherokee]

This is what passes for civility from a mod? It certainly can't be called debate. :roll:

Pen, if Oil is the only thing the US is after in Iraq and Somalia then why don’t we just kill every single one of these people in both countries and take it?
How could they stop us?
Why remove Saddam then have the Iraqi people vote for a government? Why bother trying to rebuild anything but the oil rigs?
Why leave Somalia then come back many years later?
Why take all the crap from pissants like Chavez when we could exterminate them in record time and take their oil?

 

[Iriemon]

This is what passes for civility from a mod? It certainly can't be called debate. :roll:

Agree.

And it is somewhat amusing to me to see GySgt ragging on the Euros about their colonial history given his neocon nationbulding proposals for dealing with the ME with force and his allusion to how the Romans dealt with Carthage for how we will ulitmately have to handle it.

The US came too late to world power status to be a big player in the colonial game. Same thing happened with Germany. But to paint the US as some kind of model of goodness when it came to relations with other nations is not accurate either. Look at the history of US relations in Latin America for a picture of how US businesses dominated Latin American contries and how the marines were sent in when things got out of control.

You can criticize the Euros for their colonialism. But they seemed to have figured out that it is not worth it in the long run, and often the hard way. The US is learning that lesson. Again.

 

[Iriemon]

Pen, if Oil is the only thing the US is after in Iraq and Somalia then why don’t we just kill every single one of these people in both countries and take it?
How could they stop us?
Why remove Saddam then have the Iraqi people vote for a government? Why bother trying to rebuild anything but the oil rigs?
Why leave Somalia then come back many years later?
Why take all the crap from pissants like Chavez when we could exterminate them in record time and take their oil?

Because America has a big weakness of being full of liberals who just won't stand for mass murder/genocide.

 

[jallman]

Because America has a big weakness of being full of liberals who just won't stand for mass murder/genocide.

Nor will they stand for getting their hands dirty to do the right thing...

 

[Iriemon]

Nor will they stand for getting their hands dirty to do the right thing...

Could be. A lot of us see "ends justify the means" type arguments as inherently suspect.