Jump to content

Is America going back to Somalia?

DJ V Lawrence

By DJ V Lawrence
in Way Off Topic

Recommended Posts

ricco67

ricco67

Posted
Posted

yes, the warlords are the same ones that took out the boys.

Fact of the matter was, we should have have neither have gone in there without total backing and a clear objective, and we shouldn't have left once we got our noses bloodied. Period.

A number of the warlords are those that are secular with the islamic ones that currently took over the capital. It seems as though it's going to be a major crisis in there again.

I think what might happen is that we probably won't send in troops, but rather just lob a few Tomahawks now and again as soon as a reasonable gopher pops it's head up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon

Houston1stWordOnTheMoon

Posted
Posted
I never understand why President GHW Bush went ther in the first place. Any answers?

Yes, bowing down to false enlightenment with the 1000 points of light...... We "the UN" are going to go in and give humanitarian aid to the unfortunate. The new world order was just beginning to get catchy. I knew that mess was trouble the minute the Gulf War was started. The new world order began with the Gulf War and turned into policies that became policing actions. Bad news then and bad news now.

I firmly believe we should only have kill kill military policies! When that is the case, the leadership , elected leadership, is less likely to send our forces into harms way without the proper orders of engagement to protect themselves individually and or collectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJ V Lawrence

DJ V Lawrence

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yes, bowing down to false enlightenment with the 1000 points of light...... We "the UN" are going to go in and give humanitarian aid to the unfortunate. The new world order was just beginning to get catchy. I knew that mess was trouble the minute the Gulf War was started. The new world order began with the Gulf War and turned into policies that became policing actions. Bad news then and bad news now.

I firmly believe we should only have kill kill military policies! When that is the case, the leadership , elected leadership, is less likely to send our forces into harms way without the proper orders of engagement to protect themselves individually and or collectively.

Dude, chill with this kill-on-site stuff. The military rules of engagement are fine as are, and are there to keep some kind of control and order within America's finest. If you were a soilder today and sent to a warzone, would you feel comfortable with shooting an innocent woman or children on-site if the rules allowed it? And how many people would want to volunteer for an Army with no other job than to be a killer, yo?

Not sure what happened to the rest of my post, should have read

Nuclear option..........

The country seeking a nuke weapon is more of a danger than Somalia.

I think I misunderstood you the first time. My bad.

Iran is a country that the U.S. and U.N. would not like to see as a nuclear power. At the same time, Al-Qaida is an entity that the U.S. is attempting to dismantle. The exact opposite would be happening if they turned from terrorists into a government-influence as is the chance in Somalia. We see Iran as a nation that has a chance of ending all disputes diplomatically, which we're going for now. But Somalia? If Somalia's being run by warlords, what's the U.S's options for not having Somalia becoming a dangerous threat to America in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon

Houston1stWordOnTheMoon

Posted
Posted
Dude, chill with this kill-on-site stuff. The military rules of engagement are fine as are, and are there to keep some kind of control and order within America's finest. If you were a soilder today and sent to a warzone, would you feel comfortable with shooting an innocent woman or children on-site if the rules allowed it? And how many people would want to volunteer for an Army with no other job than to be a killer, yo?

Where have i ever said kill on site? I personally think war has been made too clean. TV cameras have cleaned up killing and made it more resemble a video game than a field of death. When people dont see the death and destruction and horrors of war, its far to easy to sign off on it. When all you are shown are the smart weapons doing thier jobs on cue, it builds a false sense of invisibilty. Makes the idea of police actions disguised as humanitarian aid that much more acceptable.I dont like police actions, they serve no purpose other than getting our fighting forces killed. Somalia ceased being important to the US interest when the USSR stopped its existence as a nation.

I guess things have really changed from the time i was in service. I trained and retrained frequently on killing people and inflicting the greatest possible amount of damage and destruction on any enemy or perceived enemy of the United States. Nothing was sugar coated or put into a prom dress and disguised as anything other than mega-death.It was my job to know how to kill any adversary to the USA, and to practice the execution of that training often in order to improve efficiency. Everyone knew what the outcome of such actions would be if ever ordered to under take them. Unlike today, most people are not aware or dont really care i think. It seems almost too easy, war that is. Advocating a kill kill policy gives the leaders a moment of pause. Makes the actions of undertaking war or police actions, more human, and close to home by taking away the sugar coating and the prom dress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJ V Lawrence

DJ V Lawrence

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I personally think war has been made too clean. TV cameras have cleaned up killing and made it more resemble a video game than a field of death. When people dont see the death and destruction and horrors of war, its far to easy to sign off on it. When all you are shown are the smart weapons doing thier jobs on cue, it builds a false sense of invisibilty.

I couldn't agree with you more there. You're absolutely right that war (ESPECIALLY the Iraq war) is sugar-coated and glamorized as if Iraq were just one huge weather report or Hollywood set. It's so gruesome, that if we were to see what the soilders saw there, it'd piss a lot of us off to the point where we'd probably get mad at the government and the media for showing it. But regular people deserve the right to see it, ESPECIALLY people that debate if military action is needed in an area or not.

Makes the idea of police actions disguised as humanitarian aid that much more acceptable.I dont like police actions, they serve no purpose other than getting our fighting forces killed. Somalia ceased being important to the US interest when the USSR stopped its existence as a nation.

I guess things have really changed from the time i was in service. I trained and retrained frequently on killing people and inflicting the greatest possible amount of damage and destruction on any enemy or perceived enemy of the United States. Nothing was sugar coated or put into a prom dress and disguised as anything other than mega-death.It was my job to know how to kill any adversary to the USA, and to practice the execution of that training often in order to improve efficiency. Everyone knew what the outcome of such actions would be if ever ordered to under take them. Unlike today, most people are not aware or dont really care i think. It seems almost too easy, war that is. Advocating a kill kill policy gives the leaders a moment of pause. Makes the actions of undertaking war or police actions, more human, and close to home by taking away the sugar coating and the prom dress.

Yo, what was your MOS/job in the military?

I think people are aware that lives can and probably will be lost in a police action, but I don't think people ever stop to realize what death is. And I think police actions can occasionally save lives when it prevents a bigger conflict from blowing up. But I agree with you 100% that people shouldn't be lied to as to what war or ANY military action really is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nmm

nmm

Posted
Posted

I think its good that the Islamist Somalian Government took over Mogadishu and finally subdued the US-backed rebels. Somalia has been a war-torn country for a while now. There are still remnants of whats left of the militias under the war lords - but as far as i know they live off in the country.

for those interested:

----------------------------------------------------------------

The Union of Islamic Courts in Mogadishu break the silence

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

To: United Nations Political Office in Somalia, UNDP Resident Representative, The League of Arab Nations, African Union, Organization of Islamic Countries, IGAD, European Union, Department of State, United States Government, United States Embassy in Nairobi, Italian Embassy, French Embassy, British Embassy, German Embassy, Djibouti Embassy, Norwegian Embassy, Swedish Embassy, South African Embassy, Egyptian Embassy, Nigerian Embassy, Saudi Embassy, Yemen Embassy, Sudan Embassy.

Date: June 5, 2006

The Union of Islamic Courts in Mogadishu, have decided to break the silence between us and the international community. We made this decision in order to clarify the situation in Mogadishu and to bring the true picture of the conflict in the city and present it to the international community.

Background:

The Islamic courts have been established in Mogadishu in mid 1998 and are clan-based that serve their particular communities. For example Polytechnic(for Shabelle sub clan), Ifka Halane (for the Eary Sub-Clan), Yaqshid (for the Harti-Abgal sub clan), Circole (for the Saleban Sub-clan), Milk Factory (Duduble sub-clan), Al-Furqan (Sa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...