somalia

I say we should attack!

Send troops. Not for the moral reasons, but because Bin Laden said we shouldn't.

who's with me?

Somalia is about as volatile an area as Iraq right now. I personally think that sending troops in will be like throwing a lit match into a powder keg. The middle east is already set to go off, why throw Africa into the mix as well. It's time now to draw a line in the sand. I say we let other countries figure it for themselves. I'm sick of us playing global watchdog for every country in the world. You don't see anyone rushing to help us.

...i agree with the above poster, but as an African myself, i see it from a different perspective.
getting western countries involved will only strengthen contempt for the west, and rebubble the resentment that most African countries have, due the the era of colonialism. let them sort it out among themselves, and just leave them alone...

ｗｈｙ　ｄｏｎｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｕｓ　ｊｕｓｔ　ｐｕｌｌ　ｏｕｔ　ａｎｄ　ｌｅｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｔｕｐｉｄ　ｉ ｒａｑｉｓ　ｆｉｇｈｔ　ｆｏｒ　ｔｈｅｍｓｅｌｖｅｓ　ｉｆ　ｔｈｅｙ　ｗａｎｔ　ｆｒｅｅｄｏｍ　ｔｈ ａｔ　ｂａｄｌｙ　ｌｅｔ　ｔｈｅｍ　ｆｉｇｈｔ　ｆｏｒ　ｉｔ

Yeah, Stupid Iraqi's shouldn't have even had our help in the first place...we should have left them in the hands of the evil saddam...I'd like to see them get out of that iron grip on their own...



[edit on 3-7-2006 by surrender_dorothy]

I read somewhere, around 2002, that they have really gotten sick of fighting down there. I do not know if the place is any better, but I read it on National Geographic and the Warlords are actually making deals with each other since they are just predecesors of the orignal warlords in the region, I might be getting this mixed up with something else.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by trIckz_R_fO_kIdz]

Why go there now.

America has been arming a corrupt buch of criminal warlords who everybody in Somalia hated becuase they where cause war.

The muslim groups the Islamic Courts groups then came and defeated the American funded/supported/armed warlords and the islamic courts groups created safty for Somalia and Infact are very popular with the Somalians becuase they have brought peace for the first time in something like a over decade.

Going in there now will be very bad the Islamic groups are stabalising the country and creating peace.

let's just leave them alone and see what they get upto instead of jumping to conclusions.

Look its as simple as this. First the west attacked afghanistan then Iraq then threathened Syria and now is pushing Iran if the also start a war with Somalia does any body also see the patteren here? All those countries are muslim. each and every single country had a muslim majority population. This will not go down well in the long run if america keeps on pushing and threatening muslims around the world especially at a time like this where muslims belive that America is trying to conquer them and there countries.

Originally posted by surrender_dorothy
Yeah, Stupid Iraqi's shouldn't have even had our help in the first place...we should have left them in the hands of the evil saddam...I'd like to see them get out of that iron grip on their own...



[edit on 3-7-2006 by surrender_dorothy]

well you made the Iraq worse then it was under Hussein even Hussein didnt kill that many civilians

What?!?

I didn't do anything. I've never even been to Iraq.

And, just out of curiosity, how do you know that the countries worse than it was before?
The way I hear it, things were pretty bad before.

Originally posted by iqonx

The muslim groups the Islamic Courts groups then came and defeated the American funded/supported/armed warlords and the islamic courts groups created safty for Somalia and Infact are very popular with the Somalians becuase they have brought peace for the first time in something like a over decade.

another ats thread has just brought this to my attention

www.breitbart.com...

I wonder how popular they are now.

Originally posted by surrender_dorothy
I say we should attack!

Send troops. Not for the moral reasons, but because Bin Laden said we shouldn't.

who's with me?

so if bin ladin said dont nuke astralia for the moral reason your goverment should nuke australia since bin ladin said not to

Originally posted by surrender_dorothy
Yeah, Stupid Iraqi's shouldn't have even had our help in the first place...we should have left them in the hands of the evil saddam...I'd like to see them get out of that iron grip on their own...

on the bright side atleast the militants wouldnt be running the show in Iraq
thousends of deaths would have been avoided
the best friends of the US the boogeymen alqaida wouldnt be there since saddam didnt like extremists in his mists

this would have been great if the US kept their nose out of Iraq

[edit on 5-7-2006 by bodrul]

Originally posted by bodrul
so if bin ladin said dont nuke astralia for the moral reason your goverment should nuke australia since bin ladin said not to

What?

pver all this would have been great if the US kept their nose out of Iraq

Pardon?

That part of Africa is a mess the West shouldnt touch it with a ten foot pole.

I personally dont want a single US tax dollar going to that whole continent , not when children in the US still go to sleep hungry, cant read, dont have medical insurance and numerous other problems and theres alot of that in the US.

Spend that money at home IMO

Originally posted by surrender_dorothy

What

read my reply again
and read urs

Pardon?
:

my bad
retype
if the US had kept their nose out of Iraqs affairs it wouldnt be in this state of cival war

[edit on 5-7-2006 by bodrul]

Originally posted by bodrul

if the US had kept their nose out of Iraqs affairs it wouldnt be in this state of cival war

Iraq has been in a state of civil war for decades its nothing new, these different groups have hated each other and been killing each other for a very long time much longer then the US has been there.

Saddam keep them in check with some brutal violence strongly backing his one side and quite frankly we never heard about much of the killings and in fighting that happened under his rule because Saddam had complete and utter control of all media in IRAQ at the time.

^can peeps on your ignore list read ur posts?

but still the amount of death and violance after the US launched the invasion
had complelty disabalized the country, under saddam as i said atleast extremests were kept under check,
he may not have been a saint atleast cuvilian deaths wearnt as high.

saddam may have blood on his hands but so does every single american
(as it goes voted by the people for the people
one man one voice for an entire nation)

[edit on 5-7-2006 by bodrul]

Originally posted by bodrul
^can peeps on your ignore list read ur posts?

Whos ignore list? I dont think I ever put anyone on Ignore

Originally posted by bodrul

but still the amount of death and violance after the US launched the invasion
had complelty disabalized the country, under saddam as i said atleast extremests were kept under check,
he may not have been a saint atleast cuvilian deaths wearnt as high.

saddam may have blood on his but so does every single american
(as it goes voted by the people for the people
one man one voice for an entire nation)

Though the US aint without blame they didnt create the sectarian violence in Iraq. That was there long before there even was a USA. With Saddam you had a major power in Iraq backing the Sunni minority group while dealing out his own state sponsered civil war against the other groups mainly the Kurds.

The Iraqi killing Iraqi violence was always there but back then Saddam backed one side over all others and was the major player.

BTW theres no way this blood is on every single american hands you have a poor understanding on how the goverment in the US works if you think that. A great deal of Americans were against this war 9protested the very thought of it) from the start and have never backed it.

my ignore list ur on it


i used the term the blood on american hands since its the taxes of americans that payies for all the weapons and amunation used to kill,
all the cuvilians that were killed by us forces by accident or in revenge attacks were done so by us tax payer money.#
maybe the blood is more on the hands of americans that voted bush

so forth the blood on the hands of american hands


on contery the US is to blame,
by invading the country the US had unleashed this violance,

true saddam backed one group over another atleast theree wernt explosions going off in police stations and school buses.

also didnt the US promise the shiites if they revolted against saddam they would back them up?
that help didnt help hence why so many #tes were killed by saddam they began the cival war thinking they would be helped (again US foreign policy shining through)

(in that statement i do not what so ever back what saddam did to the people)

over decades the united states has supported and created tyrents for its selfish needs at the costs of the population of those countries and when they have lost their use they are screwed over.

Originally posted by surrender_dorothy

another ats thread has just brought this to my attention

www.breitbart.com...

I wonder how popular they are now.

well if you read the article it says :

Radical Islamic militia fighters in Somalia shot and killed two people who were watching a banned World Cup soccer broadcast, a radio station reported Wednesday.

A local radio station reported. Thats there source but no solid evidence has emerged.

Secondly there is no proof that the Islamic courts orderd these shootings if they did occur becuase the ban was lifted by the Islamic courts and people where allowed to watch football.

Yay another black hawk down, thats all we need...