# Somalia: The World's Responsibilty



## Kylepl (May 31, 2012)

Since the fall of the government in Somalia in 1991, Somalia's situation has been going down hill ever since.  With different factions fighting daily in Somalia, its a no brainer that civilians and non-combatants are caught in the cross-fire.  After the withdrawal of peacekeeping forces (Mostly of which were American) in 1995, Somalia has in fact become a rogue state, with different territories owned by different factions fighting against each other for the past 15 or so years. 

Today's Somalia is mostly owned by the al-Shabaab, a terrorist organisation affiliated with al-Qaeda, who owns all most all the south and the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu.
​ 
Now here's for my personal opinion...
Since Somalia has been an utter shit hole for the past years and countless non-combatants have been dying in Somalia (500,00+ up to date) and also because there's a huge terrorist organisation hanging out in the south, I believe it is the countries that are part of the UN to intervene again in Somalia to protect the civilians and eliminate the al-Shabaab.  It is the world's responsibility to protect civilian lives not only in their own country but also in countries where the civilians are at risk of being killed.  There have been countless human rights infringements by the al-Shabaab and without intervention by a super power, people will continue to be opressed. 

*I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this topic as well to further expand my opinion.*


----------



## Marauder06 (May 31, 2012)

You titled this thread "Somalia:  The World's Responsibility."  Did you come up with that yourself, or did you pull it from something you read online?

The title of your thread is the first issue I have.  Explain to me, in your own words not something you read or were told in a class, why it is the world's responsibility to intervene militarily everywhere in the world where there is a problem.  Surely you realize that "UN intervention" almost always means "US intervention," right?  What US national interests are at stake in Somalia that justify risking the lives and health of our servicemembers, and the enormous cost that it would entail to conquer, occupy, and stabilize a country like Somalia.  Ever study Machiavelli?  You should read the part where he talks about ruling people who are not used to be governed.

What is your estimation as to what would be necessary for the kind of intervention you entail, how long would it take, and how much would it cost?  And more importantly, would it be worth the effort?


----------



## AWP (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl, I think you're trolling us.


----------



## Kylepl (May 31, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> You titled this thread "Somalia: The World's Responsibility." Did you come up with that yourself, or did you pull it from something you read online?
> 
> The title of your thread is the first issue I have. Explain to me, in your own words not something you read or were told in a class, why it is the world's responsibility to intervene militarily everywhere in the world where there is a problem. Surely you realize that "UN intervention" almost always means "US intervention," right? What US national interests are at stake in Somalia that justify risking the lives and health of our servicemembers, and the enormous cost that it would entail to conquer, occupy, and stabilize a country like Somalia. Ever study Machiavelli? You should read the part where he talks about ruling people who are not used to be governed.
> 
> What is your estimation as to what would be necessary for the kind of intervention you entail, how long would it take, and how much would it cost? And more importantly, would it be worth the effort?


First off I'd just like to state that this thread is to hear other people's opinions on what must be done in Somalia.

Now, all most all countries are part of the United Nations and therefore have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)  which states, shortly, that all persons worldwide have the right to life, security and liberty.  Because all the countries in the UN have signed this, that means all the countries agree with it.  Therefore if they agree with it, doesn't that mean they should uphold it?  Yes.

UN intervention does not mean US intervention.  There are many UN peacekeeping missions worldwide that actually don't have any US involvement in them.  If you actually look at the UN website, you'll see that the US is not a large contributor. (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml) Once again, it's not that other countries citizens are at risk, it's that super powers today, being super powers, have a responsibility to stop bad things that are happening in the world.  This includes the killing of innocent people WORLDWIDE.  Would it be worth the effort you ask? Saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives of children, women and men is worth any materialistic object in today's world if you ask me.


----------



## TH15 (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> UN intervention does not mean US intervention. There are many UN peacekeeping missions worldwide that actually don't have any US involvement in them. If you actually look at the UN website, you'll see that the US is not a large contributor.


Contributor of personnel? Okay. How about the billions of dollars we give them every year? The US gave the UN more than $6 billion in 2009.
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...g-of-the-united-nations-reaches-all-time-high

Who says that super powers have the responsibility to "stop bad things that are happening in the world?" I don't see a law mandating that.

I have a problem with your logic that probably makes me look like an asshole, but whatever. 

There are starving people in the United States that we can't take care of. We're running $15 trillion dollar deficit or whatever the number is now-a-days. We have a situation in Afghanistan that isn't necessarily the best. America will ALWAYS come first in my eyes and until we are able to successfully take care of ourselves, the endless situations throughout the world that hippies want to get involved in will have to wait.

Like Marauder said, Somalia bears zero US interest. This is just like the Kony thing in my point of view. If you (not you personally) care so much about the situation, you can book a flight and head over there to do what you can. I don't know why it always falls on the responsibility of someone else to do the dirty work in these situations.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> First off I'd just like to state that this thread is to hear other people's opinions on what must be done in Somalia.
> 
> Now, all most all countries are part of the United Nations and therefore have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) which states, shortly, that all persons worldwide have the right to life, security and liberty. *Because all the countries in the UN have signed this, that means all the countries agree with it.* Therefore if they agree with it, doesn't that mean they should uphold it? Yes.
> 
> UN intervention does not mean US intervention. There are many UN peacekeeping missions worldwide that actually don't have any US involvement in them. If you actually look at the UN website, you'll see that the US is not a large contributor. (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml) Once again, it's not that other countries citizens are at risk, it's that super powers today, being super powers, have a responsibility to stop bad things that are happening in the world. This includes the killing of innocent people WORLDWIDE. Would it be worth the effort you ask? Saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives of children, women and men is worth any materialistic object in today's world if you ask me.


 
As to the bold, do you seriously believe that?



Marauder06 said:


> ~snip
> What US national interests are at stake in Somalia that justify risking the lives and health of our servicemembers, and the enormous cost that it would entail to conquer, occupy, and stabilize a country like Somalia.
> ~snip
> What is your estimation as to what would be necessary for the kind of intervention you entail, how long would it take, and how much would it cost? And more importantly, would it be worth the effort?


 
And I'm pretty sure you conveniently left out your thoughts on the above questions.

If the US is not a big contributor, as you state, why get involved with Somalia again? Or did someone already ask that...
Just a hot tip, you might also want to read the profiles of the members to whom you're responding. We call that SA around here.


----------



## Kylepl (May 31, 2012)

TH15 said:


> Contributor of personnel? Okay. How about the billions of dollars we give them every year? The US gave the UN more than $6 billion in 2009.
> http://www.heritage.org/research/re...g-of-the-united-nations-reaches-all-time-high


 
The only reason I stated that US does not contribute a lot of personnel was because Marauder06 said that 


> Surely you realize that "UN intervention" almost always means "US intervention," right?


 


TH15 said:


> There are starving people in the United States that we can't take care of. We're running $15 trillion dollar deficit or whatever the number is now-a-days. We have a situation in Afghanistan that isn't necessarily the best. America will ALWAYS come first in my eyes and until we are able to successfully take care of ourselves, the endless situations throughout the world that hippies want to get involved in will have to wait.
> 
> Like Marauder said, Somalia bears zero US interest. This is just like the Kony thing in my point of view. If you (not you personally) care so much about the situation, you can book a flight and head over there to do what you can. I don't know why it always falls on the responsibility of someone else to do the dirty work in these situations.


 
Once again, the United States doesn't have to do anything to Somalia if they don't want to.  They like to go into Iraq to find WMD's and into Afghanistan for the Taliban and al-Qaeda but they won't go into Somalia to save people's lives? I really can't see the logic in that.  But besides that, it doesn't have to be the USA going into all the countries in the world.  There are other super powers besides it, such as the UK, France, China etc. that have enough funding and fire power to help a country such as Somalia and help innocent people.  Somalia probably bears zero interest for the entire world, but it morally should.  



SkrewzLoose said:


> We call that SA around here.


 
What's SA stand for?


----------



## SkrewzLoose (May 31, 2012)

Holy shit, kid...


----------



## Kylepl (May 31, 2012)

Hate Fest 2012


----------



## DA SWO (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> Since the fall of the government in Somalia in 1991, Somalia's situation has been going down hill ever since. With different factions fighting daily in Somalia, its a no brainer that civilians and non-combatants are caught in the cross-fire. After the withdrawal of peacekeeping forces (Mostly of which were American) in 1995, Somalia has in fact become a rogue state, with different territories owned by different factions fighting against each other for the past 15 or so years.
> 
> Today's Somalia is mostly owned by the al-Shabaab, a terrorist organisation affiliated with al-Qaeda, who owns all most all the south and the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu.
> 
> ...


Just gve us your fucking opinon, don't piecemeal it out (this  'aint some sort of fucking case study).  

My opinion is your are idealistic and clueless, a dangerous combination for someone who envisions himself as a future leader.  Those countries that you want to intervene will not do it without a UN resolution, and considering the last time the UN asked; well that resolution won't have a lot of support.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> ...
> 
> UN intervention does not mean US intervention. There are many UN peacekeeping missions worldwide that actually don't have any US involvement in them.


 
Great. Problem solved. Call one of them and ask them to do it, I hear the African Union troops are particularly effective at peace operations in the African continent, and since they are already familiar with Somalia, I'm sure they are up to the task, with no military or financial assistance from the US.



Kylepl said:


> Once again, it's not that other countries citizens are at risk, it's that super powers today, being super powers, have a responsibility to stop bad things that are happening in the world. This includes the killing of innocent people WORLDWIDE. Would it be worth the effort you ask?


 
Exactly how many superpowers do you think there are in the world right now? And of those, (if you believe there are actually more than one), how many of them do you think would be willing to get involved on the ground in Somalia, to the degree you are advocating in your initial post?



Kylepl said:


> Saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives of children, women and men is worth any materialistic object in today's world if you ask me.


 
You very much remind me of me when I was young. Before I understood how the world works, before I understood "realism" and the concept of unintended consequences. Before I actually had to start going to some of these places to "help" people. Look, your question may be ill-phrased, but it's not illegitimate. What should we do in Somalia? We should make sure that it is not used to threaten our people, our allies, or our national interests. And that's all. We have our own problems to deal with at the moment.



Kylepl said:


> What's SA stand for?


"Situational Awareness."




> Situational Awareness is the ability to identify, process,
> and comprehend the critical elements of information about
> what is happening to the team with regards to the mission.
> More simply, it’s knowing what is going on around you


----------



## JBS (May 31, 2012)

In my opinion, you should probably read a bit more and post a bit less. Even then, post things you have researched. It would also be helpful if you take a position on a topic- for or against- before soliciting the opinions of others, unless your post is something done for the purpose of sharing information you believe would be relevant.

When you come out of the hopper claiming the U.S. does not contribute to the United Nations, you are demonstrating either that you are attempting to agitate, or else you possess a gross degree of ignorance on the topic.

The United States contributes more than* 27%* of the U.N. budget.

This is followed by the very next highest contributor, Japan, which makes a contribution *less than half* the size of ours.

This in turn is followed by Germany, the U.K., and France, each of which contribute an amount equal to about_* 1/4* th _of the contribution of the United States.

In 6th place is Canada, contributing about 3% of the U.N. budget.
In addition to our U.N. contributions, the United States spends about *$30* billion in direct aid to other nations, and an estimated *$400 billion *in American international charitable contributions through organizations like the Red Cross- donations straight from U.S. citizens.


_*updated to more recent numbers*_


----------



## Kylepl (May 31, 2012)

JBS said:


> When you come out of the hopper claiming the U.S. does not contribute to the United Nations, you are demonstrating either that you are attempting to agitate, or else you possess a gross degree of ignorance on the topic.
> 
> The United States contributes more than* 27%* of the U.N. budget.
> 
> ...


 
All i said was the UN intervention and US intervention is not the same and that the US does not contribute with bodies as much as it used to. I know that the United States contributes a lot monetarily, but thanks for the stats.


----------



## JBS (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> All i said was the UN intervention and US intervention is not the same and that the US does not contribute with bodies as much as it used to. I know that the United States contributes a lot monetarily, but thanks for the stats.


 
That's not what you said. You said there are many UN missions that actually don't have any US involvement in them.



> There are many UN peacekeeping missions worldwide that actually don't have any US involvement in them. If you actually look at the UN website, you'll see that the US is not a large contributor. (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml)


 
If we contribute monetarily almost a third of the money, then we are involved in 100% of all U.N. interventions, even in cases where not a single American is present. Another way of looking at it is *1-in-3*, or maybe *1-in-4* sets of body armor was paid for by the U.S., and the rest of the world split the bill for other 3 sets.


----------



## Kylepl (May 31, 2012)

When I said US involvement I meant physical involvement, thats why I gave the link to that page after that says what countries give the most soldiers to the UN for peacekeeping duty.  I do agree that the USA technically is in 100% of missions, but they aren't there physically.


----------



## TH15 (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> Once again, the United States doesn't have to do anything to Somalia if they don't want to. They like to go into Iraq to find WMD's and into Afghanistan for the Taliban and al-Qaeda but they won't go into Somalia to save people's lives? I really can't see the logic in that. But besides that, it doesn't have to be the USA going into all the countries in the world. There are other super powers besides it, such as the UK, France, China etc. that have enough funding and fire power to help a country such as Somalia and help innocent people. Somalia probably bears zero interest for the entire world, but it morally should.


Look dude, I don't want to nit-pick, but I find it pretty disrespectful to state this how you did. We went into Afghanistan to kill the fucking people who just killed 3000 of our own. Don't expect me to apologize if Africa goes hungry for a while as we are taking care of a legitimate national security concern. I'm not going to talk about Iraq because frankly I don't know much about it. The way you worded that whole paragraph was ridiculous IMO.

I think we get too caught up in the "morals" of things. If it were a perfect world, then we would be able to kill every terrorist on the planet and feed the hungry at the same time. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world and we have to do what's best for us.


----------



## JBS (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> I do agree that the USA technically is in 100% of missions, but they aren't there physically.


Finding a place we can agree is a great starting point.

Why do you feel U.S. soldiers should be deployed to Somalia rather than African soldiers- especially since there are other factors such as language and culture to consider when we throw around that funny little term, "peacekeeping"?


----------



## Kylepl (May 31, 2012)

JBS said:


> Finding a place we can agree is a great starting point.
> 
> Why do you feel U.S. soldiers should be deployed to Somalia rather than African soldiers- especially since there are other factors such as language and culture to consider when we throw around that funny little term, "peacekeeping"?


 
I don't feel that the United States needs to deploy to Somalia since there are other countries out there that have the capabilities to do so, like I've stated before.  The Kenyans are currently in Somalia trying to fight off the al-Shabaab because they continue to kidnap and torture their people.  Unfortunately the Kenyans aren't making much progress.  I would propose a joint operation with African Union forces and European Union forces to go into Somalia and get rid of a branded terrorist organisation.  Once they've been tossed is when the country will finally have a chance at elections, civil rights and a chance of becoming a better place to live in general.


----------



## JBS (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> ... Unfortunately the Kenyans aren't making much progress... _(against Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen)_


And you base this statement on what, exactly?

And aren't you calling - quite disrespectfully- for the U.S. to re-prioritize it's global projection of power in this statement here:


> They _(the Americans)_ like to go into Iraq to find WMD's and into Afghanistan for the Taliban and al-Qaeda but they won't go into Somalia to save people's lives?


----------



## Kylepl (May 31, 2012)

Sorry, just did a bit of research on the current situation in Somalia and it seems as if the Kenyans and Somalian forces are making progress against the al-Shabaab but that they are still requesting for international assistance.\

And yes I am.  I think the world should start helping countries that are in need of help such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia instead of countries with resources that these larger countries desire.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 31, 2012)

This whole thread gave me a case of the lol's! What does Somalia have to offer anyone apart from uncontrolled population growth, and the diseases associated with that. Sometimes problems need to be resolved, but we tried already and I don't think that worked out for ANYONE involved. I personally don't give two thoughts to Somalia, and I pray that none of my brothers get sent there.


----------



## Kylepl (May 31, 2012)

cback0220 said:


> This whole thread gave me a case of the lol's! What does Somalia have to offer anyone apart from uncontrolled population growth, and the diseases associated with that. Sometimes problems need to be resolved, but we tried already and I don't think that worked out for ANYONE involved. I personally don't give two thoughts to Somalia, and I pray that none of my brothers get sent there.


Wow... That's maybe one of the most selfish things I've ever heard


----------



## JBS (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> Sorry, just did a bit of research on the current situation in Somalia and it seems as if the Kenyans and Somalian forces are making progress against the al-Shabaab but that they are still requesting for international assistance.\


So your initial post was based on a position which was not properly undergirded with any research which, when coupled with your disrespectful tone, made you seem to lack any credibility. This of course is what prompted others to say you should get some SA, meaning you have no idea what you are talking about.



> And yes I am. I think the world should start helping countries that are in need of help such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia instead of countries with resources that these larger countries desire.


Just like your opening post, would you care to state what resources you think Afghanistan has that will compensate for the many *billions* spent there already? Please say "lithium".

You've already agreed that the United States is ALREADY involved in 100% of UN missions around the world, and you've already agreed that we contribute a great deal. You also agreed _(after finally researching the topic)_ that African troops already on the ground are making great progress, so what is the basis for your otherwise unsupported charge that the U.S. (and the U.N.) are not_ already_ directly engaged in making the rest of the world a better place with vast amounts of American taxpayer resources (not to mention technical expertise, training and with equipment)?


----------



## Brill (May 31, 2012)

cback0220 said:


> This whole thread gave me a case of the lol's! What does Somalia have to offer anyone...


 
Free khat that isn't on any whiz quiz!


----------



## Poccington (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> Wow... That's maybe one of the most selfish things I've ever heard


 
Doesn't mean it's wrong.

Some places are beyond help, no matter how much people may try help. IMO, Somalia is one of those places.

As for US involvement in terms of personnel with the UN... I think the US has just realised how fucking gay the UN is and are taking the route of, "If we think something needs to be done somewhere, we'll do it on our own terms" and tbh, they're not wrong.


----------



## Kylepl (May 31, 2012)

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1125-06.htm

"Simply put, the answer is that one of the primary subtexts for the Bush Administration's war in Afghanistan has been to guarantee control over the oil flow and reserves in Central Asia."


----------



## TLDR20 (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> Wow... That's maybe one of the most selfish things I've ever heard



I may be selfish but I will tell you right now that you may be one of the most ignorant people I have ever interacted with... Let me break it down for you, I unlike you have been to some shithole places in this world, places that your 17 year old brain doesn't even understand exist yet. You think I want my buddies to go to Somalia to help make it so some five year old can grow up to be an adult rapist who fathers 20+ kids? No is the answer there. How about this, why doesn't canada shell out the 100's of millions of dollars, the young lives and the political ass-pain? They don't want the trouble either? Surprise! Nobody wnts to get involved on that mess unless it is to make money shooting pirates in the face. Idealism is for the young and NON-experienced.


----------



## JBS (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1125-06.htm
> 
> "Simply put, the answer is that one of the primary subtexts for the Bush Administration's war in Afghanistan has been to guarantee control over the oil flow and reserves in Central Asia."


So your quotation comes from a Progressive website?  I love it.

Just to be clear, do you have any other justification for your views, or solely a Central Asia worldview based upon this 2001 article from Fran Shor?  Because if this bit of journalism is what you base your views on, I think you're going to have a hard time here.

Look at this nugget, obviously gleaned from actual US Special Operations tactics:



> ...a US Special Forces operation aimed at interdicting and destroying Iranian oil shipments to Afghan cities. According to the report, the trucks carrying the oil were destroyed by the camouflaged and goggled-eyed soldiers. Shouting "terrorists" at the frightened Iranian truck-drivers, the Special Forces handcuffed the drivers and led them away from where the trucks were then blown to bits.


Special Forces tactics - I think it is safe to say- do not include US forces running around pointing at trucks and yelling "terrorists!@"


----------



## Poccington (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1125-06.htm
> 
> "Simply put, the answer is that one of the primary subtexts for the Bush Administration's war in Afghanistan has been to guarantee control over the oil flow and reserves in Central Asia."


 
Don't start with the fucking oil shit.


----------



## TH15 (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1125-06.htm
> 
> "Simply put, the answer is that one of the primary subtexts for the Bush Administration's war in Afghanistan has been to guarantee control over the oil flow and reserves in Central Asia."


When you first started disrespecting US involvement in Afghanistan I thought you were just naive, but now I know you're just full of shit. That whole quote is so fucking retarded that Gary Busey just quit his life. And you didn't even provide any commentary to boot.

Why don't you explain that oil bullshit to the families of 9/11 and any Gold-star mother who has lost a child in this conflict. If you even had the courage to say that to her face I would hope that she show no mercy.


----------



## CDG (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> Wow... That's maybe one of the most selfish things I've ever heard


 
 When you grow up and actually do some of the shit and deploy to some of the places people here have, then your opinions will matter.  At that point, you also will be able to look back and see how ignorant and ridiculous you sound right now.  Do us and yourself a favor and just shut the fuck up for awhile.  Or better yet, since you're so worried about Somalia, why don't you pick yourself up an M-4 and hop on a flight over there?  Then you can come back here and report on how much good it did.


----------



## fox1371 (May 31, 2012)

Here we go...

This entire thread is hilarious! 

Do you have any idea what it is like on the ground when you're "helping" these countries???  No.  You have no concept of what it is like and therefor have no understanding of why many here have those "selfish" views.  Picture your best friend in your mind, now imagine picking up the pieces of him to put into a bag.  Now I want you to think of what you would say to his pregnant wife.  Explain how the lives of some people another world away, were worth it.  If it is in a legitimate defense against your own country then yes, by all means it can be worth it.  But for Somalia?  The US has been there and done that...So don't say that the US hasn't been involved with that country before.  Do some research and you'll see that we have. 

What makes Somalia any different from the other jacked up countries around the world?  What about the thousands that are killed in Myanmar?  What about the rest of Africa?  What about the civil war in Libya?  The oppression in China?  North Korea?  Thailand?  Philippines?  Literately the majority of the world is in shambles.  So why Somalia?  Why bury the U.S. even further into the hole we're in, for a bunch of people that are beyond help? 

If you feel so bad about the things occurring in Somalia, save your pennies, jump on a plane and go see what you can do.  You're under the impression that the rest of the world thinks like we do.  You don't seem to understand the concept that people there are different.  The culture in countries such as these is primal at best.  In order to change that, we would have to dedicate resources to develop an entire generation of people.  That's the only way.  So yeah, fuck that.  They'll either figure it out on their own or die in the process.  It's nature, let it take its' course.


----------



## JBS (May 31, 2012)

There's also the element of a population rising up and fighting for their own country.


----------



## RackMaster (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl this thread makes me want to drive to TO and kick you in the junk.  I highly suggest you research a lot more on both the topic and your opinions before you post again.


----------



## AWP (May 31, 2012)

The UN? They are SERIOUS about stopping human rights issues so they will totally get on this Somalia problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gabe-UNs-envoy-tourism.html?ito=feeds-newsxml



> DURING his three decades in power, Robert Mugabe has dragged once-wealthy Zimbabwe into the gutter.
> His forced seizure of white-owned farms precipitated the collapse of the economy, leading to devastating poverty.
> He has the blood of tens of  thousands of his people on his hands and is banned from travelling to most parts of the world because of his regime’s human  rights abuses.
> Strange then that the United Nations has honoured the tyrant as a tourism ‘ambassador’.


 
The UN: A Global Force for....Meh.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (May 31, 2012)

Haven't pardus and Freefalling already warned him about the same thing here?


----------



## QC (May 31, 2012)

Neg reps 22...record?
You need to get straight with your facts before you go into a debate here.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 31, 2012)

OK, I think we're done here.  I was willing to give Kyle the benefit of the doubt at first, but I think it's clear from the comments in this thread

and from his profile posts 


> Kylepl Me against the Americans=CLASSIC


 
that he's trolling.  Thread closed, further action potentially pending.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 31, 2012)

The clown who started this thread has been banned.  I'm re-opening it because there are some very good points being made, and I think we can have an effective discussion about intervention now that only the grownups are left.

Thread re-opened.


----------



## pardus (May 31, 2012)

I have been reminded of why I hate cadets and their play rank. Good riddance.


----------



## fox1371 (Jun 1, 2012)

pardus said:


> I have been reminded of why I hate cadets and their play rank. Good riddance.


Maybe I should take the kid out on rotation and then he can decide what he thinks of Somalis.  I'm sure they'd give him a ride on one of their boats.


----------



## pardus (Jun 1, 2012)

fox1371 said:


> Maybe I should take the kid out on rotation and then he can decide what he thinks of Somalis. I'm sure they'd give him a ride on one of their boats.


 
HOLY FUCK! That would be hilarious!!!!!

"How's that ego now ya little prick!?"


----------



## fox1371 (Jun 1, 2012)

pardus said:


> HOLY FUCK! That would be hilarious!!!!!
> 
> "How's that ego now ya little prick!?"


I thought you might like that hahaha.


----------



## CDG (Jun 1, 2012)

To get back to his original statement about how shitholes like Somalia are the world's responsibility.  Progressive Liberals just love the idea of the world being one big, happy place where all the countries help each other out when they need it, there's no crime, poverty, or government corruption, and we all just sit around and talk about our feelings all day.  The reality is that being a citizen of a shithole like Somalia is a bad draw.  Sorry Charlie, but you're just gonna have to figure it out.  Life ain't fair.  You form a country and you take your chances.  Natural Selection on a national scale.  Not to mention the fact that, as mentioned before, generally when someone starts bitching and moaning about how the "world" has a responsibility to Somalia, Kony 2012, Syria, or whatever/whoever else, it is not the world they want help from, it is the US.  Being top dog means we just can't win.  If we don't help, then it's because we don't care and we're assholes and blah, blah, blah.  If we do help, but only with financial aid then we aren't doing enough.  What, we can't send some of our citizens over there to clean everything up and put a nice bow on it?  If we do send troops over to wreck shop, kill the bad guys, and attempt to give the country a fresh start then we're just after their oil.  We really need to stop trying to curry favor with the international community and just worry about our own shit.  We have enough problems in this country to keep us busy for a LONG time.


----------



## AWP (Jun 1, 2012)

TH15 said:


> That whole quote is so fucking retarded that Gary Busey just quit his life.


 
Nicely done.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jun 1, 2012)

CDG said:


> ~snip
> If we do send troops over to wreck shop, kill the bad guys, and attempt to give the country a fresh start then we're just after their oil.


Don't forget all the "innocent" women and children we kill while we're at it...


----------



## AWP (Jun 1, 2012)

Fuck oil! As an Amoral War Profiteer I've found Orphan Blood to be a valued commodity and if we could put the world on the Orphan Blood Standard (I piss on your gold) then financial freedom would follow.

(And failing that, killing babies is just fun)


----------



## Brill (Jun 1, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18293101

*Somalia government money 'goes missing'*

Large sums of money received by Somalia's interim UN-backed government have not been accounted for, a World Bank report says.
The report, seen by the BBC, is being circulated at talks in Turkey on how to end Somalia's decades of anarchy.
It alleges a discrepancy of about $130m (£85m) in the accounts over two years.
UK foreign minister William Hague told the BBC that an international board to oversee the distribution of aid funds needed to be established urgently.
Somalia's transitional government mandate expires in August when it is due to hand over to an elected president.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 1, 2012)

OMG a shithole country that gets 'free' money is defrauding the system!  This has never happened before, what shall we do...  LOL  Stupid UN.


----------



## pardus (Jun 2, 2012)




----------



## Centermass (Jun 3, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> The clown who started this thread has been banned. I'm re-opening it because there are some very good points being made, and I think we can have an effective discussion about intervention now that only the grownups are left.
> 
> Thread re-opened.


 


Thanks man!


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 3, 2012)

Centermass said:


> Thanks man!


 

lol  ;)


----------



## 03cpl (Jun 4, 2012)

CDG said:


> ...We really need to stop trying to curry favor with the international community and just worry about our own shit.


 
I'm going to disagree with this part... but only a little. Sending guys to Uganda to track down Joseph Kony is a great opening move to build better relations with Uganda and Africa in general. That and it's good PR with the rest of the world. I think the relations we have with other countries are pretty important. I don't think anyone wants to work in a denied/hostile environment everywhere outside the US. Acting unilaterally has its place, but I don't think it's always the best way to accomplish things.

Maybe we could just parcel Somalia up between it's neighbors and get them to do all the work.


----------



## fox1371 (Jun 4, 2012)

03cpl said:


> I'm going to disagree with this part... but only a little. Sending guys to Uganda to track down Joseph Kony is a great opening move to build better relations with Uganda and Africa in general. That and it's good PR with the rest of the world. I think the relations we have with other countries are pretty important. I don't think anyone wants to work in a denied/hostile environment everywhere outside the US. Acting unilaterally has its place, but I don't think it's always the best way to accomplish things.
> 
> Maybe we could just parcel Somalia up between it's neighbors and get them to do all the work.


 
Why do we need to improve relations with Uganda and Africa?  I think that between the Red Cross, GATA (Global Anti-Terrorism Assistance) programs, and the multitude of civilian missionaries, we've been doing quite a bit.


----------



## Brill (Jun 4, 2012)

fox1371 said:


> Why do we need to improve relations with Uganda and Africa?


 
Base of operations to counter the Chinese takeover/raping of the natural resources of Africa.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 4, 2012)

fox1371 said:


> Why do we need to improve relations with Uganda and Africa? I think that between the Red Cross, GATA (Global Anti-Terrorism Assistance) programs, and the multitude of civilian missionaries, we've been doing quite a bit.


 
Because they have stuff we want now, namely natural resources and strategic positioning.

I think the Kony thing is OK, it has limited involvement (with the right kinds of troops) and a definitive endstate.  As long as it doesn't balloon into a massive commitment, I think it's a good thing.


----------



## CDG (Jun 4, 2012)

03cpl said:


> I'm going to disagree with this part... but only a little. Sending guys to Uganda to track down Joseph Kony is a great opening move to build better relations with Uganda and Africa in general. That and it's good PR with the rest of the world. I think the relations we have with other countries are pretty important. I don't think anyone wants to work in a denied/hostile environment everywhere outside the US. Acting unilaterally has its place, but I don't think it's always the best way to accomplish things.
> 
> Maybe we could just parcel Somalia up between it's neighbors and get them to do all the work.


 
I'm not advocating an isolationist policy.  Perhaps I should have said it as: We really need to stop fucking our own country up because we're trying to bend over backwards to look good to the international community.


----------



## 0699 (Jun 4, 2012)

lindy said:


> Base of operations to counter the Chinese takeover/raping of the natural resources of Africa.


 
Because our minimal involvement in places like Afghanistan and Iraq has shown that works?  Until we're willing to do what the Chinese do to secure resources (bribe the shit out of the locals in power) they will keep winning the battle for third-world resources.


----------



## Etype (Jun 4, 2012)

What we need to do is to commit to covert and clandestine operations. The last four administrations have been too transparent with the aforementioned types of work. There's should be no such thing as transparency in this field. You can't talk about how successful your clandestine and covert ops are- it's just ridiculous.

Anyone who's witnessed a Hellfire fired from high altitude knows- it's pretty hard to tell what just happened. It's relatively small, and flies at super sonic speed. Why are we so willing to tell people what is happening? This is just one facet, there are plenty more examples.


----------



## QC (Jun 4, 2012)

0699 said:


> Because our minimal involvement in places like Afghanistan and Iraq has shown that works?  Until we're willing to do what the Chinese do to secure resources (bribe the shit out of the locals in power) they will keep winning the battle for third-world resources.


Valid point, we've stopped foreigners buying up tracts of land here.


----------



## fox1371 (Jun 4, 2012)

lindy said:


> Base of operations to counter the Chinese takeover/raping of the natural resources of Africa.





Marauder06 said:


> Because they have stuff we want now, namely natural resources and strategic positioning.
> 
> I think the Kony thing is OK, it has limited involvement (with the right kinds of troops) and a definitive endstate. As long as it doesn't balloon into a massive commitment, I think it's a good thing.


I don't quite see how us having a strong presence there will dictate the recipient of their natural resources.  As far as I know resources normally go to the highest bidder correct?  I understand there is a high interest in the oil and gas industry, as well as the continent being fairly rich in Uranium.  However shouldn't that be left for primarily private companies to be exploiting? 

Marauder06
When you refer to strategic positioning, are you referring to us having a strong presence in Africa for our interests there?  Or are you referring to strategic positioning in relation to the prevention/mitigation of global conflict?  If you're referring to global conflict, don't our bases in Saudi Arabia, Japan, and all across Europe etc suffice?  Especially with technology these days, distance isn't AS much of an issue as it used to be.


----------



## Scotth (Jun 5, 2012)

fox1371 said:


> I don't quite see how us having a strong presence there will dictate the recipient of their natural resources.


 
Look at what companies have oil based contracts in Iraq.  While the oil companies that bought rights to oil field weren't primarily American the contract work drilling and building the infrastructure is dominated by American companies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17oil.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## Brill (Jun 5, 2012)

Etype said:


> What we need to do is to commit to covert and clandestine operations. The last four administrations have been too transparent with the aforementioned types of work. There's should be no such thing as transparency in this field. You can't talk about how successful your clandestine and covert ops are- it's just ridiculous.
> 
> Why are we so willing to tell people what is happening?


 
$$$$$$$$$$ for votes/backers.


----------



## 0699 (Jun 5, 2012)

Scotth said:


> Look at what companies have oil based contracts in Iraq. While the oil companies that bought rights to oil field weren't primarily American the contract work drilling and building the infrastructure is dominated by American companies.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17oil.html?pagewanted=all


 
Hmmm.  That's like letting the Chinese buy gold mines here in the US, but giving them credit for hiring American workers.  At the end of the day (or bottom of the mine ) the Americans are still employees and the profits are all going to China.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 1, 2012)

fox1371 said:


> I don't quite see how us having a strong presence there will dictate the recipient of their natural resources. As far as I know resources normally go to the highest bidder correct? I understand there is a high interest in the oil and gas industry, as well as the continent being fairly rich in Uranium. However shouldn't that be left for primarily private companies to be exploiting?
> 
> Marauder06
> When you refer to strategic positioning, are you referring to us having a strong presence in Africa for our interests there? Or are you referring to strategic positioning in relation to the prevention/mitigation of global conflict? If you're referring to global conflict, don't our bases in Saudi Arabia, Japan, and all across Europe etc suffice? Especially with technology these days, distance isn't AS much of an issue as it used to be.


 
Kind of all of the above.  Closer proximity = greater influence.  Why is the HQ of AFRICOM in Germany and not say... Kenya?  <rhetorical question, I know why it's in Germany>  Also, if we really are gearing up for a conflict or a new cold war with China, and China is securing a grip on Africa, it might be good for us to start getting meaningfully involved there as well.  And if we're going to go around de-Konying the continent, it might be good to have a big, secure, permanent base there.


----------



## Brill (Jul 1, 2012)

Why not move AFRICOM to Botswana?

"Botswana, one of Africa's most stable countries, is the continent's longest continuous multi-party democracy. It is relatively free of corruption and has a good human rights record."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13040376


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jul 1, 2012)

After watching Blackhawk Down today, I've determined that Somalia can handle their own issues for the foreseeable future.  
I liked one of the lines from General Atto (Somali war lord higher up guy) that went something along the lines of, "We're not going to throw down our guns and welcome American democracy just because you kill/capture General whateverhisnamewas".  I guess that goes back to the theory of cutting off one head will produce two in its place.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 1, 2012)

Damn, I wish I would have remembered that I had this clipart about three pages ago.


----------



## pardus (Jul 1, 2012)

lindy said:


> Why not move AFRICOM to Botswana?
> 
> "Botswana, one of Africa's most stable countries, is the continent's longest continuous multi-party democracy. It is relatively free of corruption and has a good human rights record."
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13040376


 
Ha, I was just going to say one major problem with an African base is finding a stable enough country, then that Botswana is the most stable country on the continent. However it doesnt have a port.


----------



## AWP (Jul 1, 2012)

pardus said:


> However it doesnt have a port.


 
Let me tell you about being in a country without a port...


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 1, 2012)

Botswana is also in the south of the continent, a lot of what we're interested in is happening in the north.  Germany might actually be closer.


----------



## JBS (Jul 2, 2012)

Morocco.  Partners in the GWOT, and close to Spain- which is good for ... em... many reasons.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 2, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Let me tell you about being in a country without a port...


 
Let me tell you about a neighbouring country who dictates things that has a port


----------



## AWP (Jul 2, 2012)

That hurts more than Lindy's comments about my weight...


----------



## pardus (Jul 3, 2012)

Are there any questions that "Fuck Pakistan" isn't the answer to?


----------



## Brill (Jul 3, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> That hurts more than Lindy's comments about my weight...


 
Weight and mass are two different measurements...Sir. 




Marauder06 said:


> Botswana is also in the *south of the continent*, a lot of what we're interested in is happening in the north. Germany might actually be closer.


 
South of Europe?   Perhaps stability is what we need.  The FLINTLOCKs haven't really paid off very well have they?


----------

