IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> US funding of Somali warlords, To fight "Islamists"
necrolyte
post May 17 2006, 08:33 PM
Post #1


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4760775.stm

OK, the Islamists are clearly a detrimental force in Mogadishu and Somalia, and a possible threat. However, furthering the empowerment of the warlords is far worse for Somalia, and I think that this policy is a return to the "our ends first, moral policy second" of the Cold War.

An Islamist government would be bad for Somalia, but empowered warlords and continued Civil War could be far worse. There is also an interim government that can be armed, that the US is conveniently ignoring.

Why is the US flouting a weapons ban to Somalia just to drive a few possible al-Quaeda allies out of a city that has already seen years of war? Especially when the men they are funding our experience in the early 90s showed were as bad if not worse, especially when they struggled amoungst themselves for power?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bayesian methodo...
post May 17 2006, 08:57 PM
Post #2


Alexander Hamilton
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,124
Joined: 28-May 05
From: THE Ohio State University
Member No.: 859



You are assuming that 'our ends' and 'moral policy' are contradictory. This is rarely the case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thor of the Oran...
post May 18 2006, 08:30 AM
Post #3


God
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,273
Joined: 17-August 02
From: The Old Line State
Member No.: 110



QUOTE
I think that this policy is a return to the "our ends first, moral policy second" of the Cold War.


This looks like moral policy to me. Our needs come first. Our policies to that end are moral.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nalvaros
post May 18 2006, 11:34 AM
Post #4


Adrift
********

Group: Harab Serapel
Posts: 5,317
Joined: 20-August 02
Member No.: 147



QUOTE
You are assuming that 'our ends' and 'moral policy' are contradictory. This is rarely the case.


QUOTE
This looks like moral policy to me. Our needs come first. Our policies to that end are moral.


Well, It all makes sense now. No wonder you can so blindly support Bush. No matter what he does, you simply redefine right and wrong to ensure that what he does is the "moral" thing to do.

Tell me, is there any concievable action the Bush administration could do short of sending soldiers to rape each and every one of you in a physical sense, (or anything else simarly dramatic that affects you in a direct fashion) - that you could not justify with that line of thought?

I make that exception because I anticipate direct self interest as one of the few remaining factors that has the ability to overrule the blind loyalty the right-wingers are exhibiting here.

It wasn't all too long ago when claims about how Saddam was evil because he tortured people and therefore should be deposed were being bandied around. And of course, those same people were the first to defend the Bush administration - some going as far as to support torture and claim it was necessary when the torture incidents surfaced.

Does anyone else see something wrong with this? In particular, we now have explicit statements tantamount to a declaration by the right side of this board that Bush cannot do any wrong because anything he does is right and moral!

A more outrageous proposal I cannot remember hearing. Communist brainwashers and propagandists could only dream of generating that degree of fanatical devotion. Islamist terrorists can generate fanatical loyalty of that degree only by virtue of the fact they have an enemy they can paint as the "great Satan" and widespread existing hatred of the US.

And here we see the same, resulting from what? Ignorance? US culture? I am at a loss to account for it.

I see the right lament about the wrongs done against them by "the terrorists" and how they should be exterminated, but truly the difference between the far-right and the terrorists diminishes on a daily basis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
necrolyte
post May 18 2006, 01:34 PM
Post #5


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



QUOTE(Thor of the Orange Hammer @ May 18 2006, 08:30 AM)
This looks like moral policy to me. Our needs come first. Our policies to that end are moral.
[right][snapback]393135[/snapback][/right]


Good to know that the Soviet repression of Eastern Europe was moral. Oh wait nevermind, its only OUR policies that are always moral under all circumstances. The US could drop nerve gas on Indian orphanages and you'd defend it, but Bolivia nationalizes a few industries? And somehow they're an evil entity threatening property rights.

I think the US threatens people's right to life, far more serious than nationalizing an industry founded upon the bones of so many innocents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bayesian methodo...
post May 18 2006, 02:43 PM
Post #6


Alexander Hamilton
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,124
Joined: 28-May 05
From: THE Ohio State University
Member No.: 859



QUOTE(Nalvaros @ May 18 2006, 07:34 AM)
Tell me, is there any concievable action the Bush administration could do short of sending soldiers to rape each and every one of you in a physical sense,  (or anything else simarly dramatic that affects you in a direct fashion) - that you could not justify with that line of thought?


I didn't support the steel tariffs. I also think Bush should have vetoed some spending bills and pushed for significant budget cuts.

QUOTE
It wasn't all too long ago when claims about how Saddam was evil because he tortured people and therefore should be deposed were being bandied around. And of course, those same people were the first to defend the Bush administration - some going as far as to support torture and claim it was necessary when the torture incidents surfaced.


There is a difference between torturing terrorists for information and raping/torturing/mutilating innocents for amusement and to send a message. But Bush had nothing to do with the naked pyramid stuff anyway.

QUOTE
Does anyone else see something wrong with this? In particular, we now have explicit statements tantamount to a declaration by the right side of this board that Bush cannot do any wrong because anything he does is right and moral!


I don't think that's what myself or Thor has said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakyron
post May 18 2006, 09:12 PM
Post #7


Internet Badass
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 12,551
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Phoenix
Member No.: 739



For once, I dont see a problem. Somalia was slowly being controlled by an Islamist organization imposing Islamic law similar to the Taliban. There are only a small number of options left here, and arming the warlords to combat the Islamic government is not the worst among them.

The interim government is weak. It is useless to give them money. We could send in troops to help, but I think that the US public's sympathy with Somalia is near to none. Thus, we have to defend ourselves somehow as attacks on East African US interests have originated in Somalia.

Necrolyte, you are way too naive. An oppressive Taliban like government is not going to be better than a city controlled by warlords.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
necrolyte
post May 18 2006, 09:18 PM
Post #8


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



QUOTE(Dakyron @ May 18 2006, 09:12 PM)
For once, I dont see a problem. Somalia was slowly being controlled by an Islamist organization imposing Islamic law similar to the Taliban. There are only a small number of options left here, and arming the warlords to combat the Islamic government is not the worst among them.

The interim government is weak. It is useless to give them money. We could send in troops to help, but I think that the US public's sympathy with Somalia is near to none. Thus, we have to defend ourselves somehow as attacks on East African US interests have originated in Somalia.

Necrolyte, you are way too naive. An oppressive Taliban like government is not going to be better than a city controlled by warlords.
[right][snapback]393239[/snapback][/right]


How is it naive to think an Islamist government-(note-the Taliban is the worst possible scenario, the Iranian regime, while horrible, I would rather have to feuding warlords any day of the week)-is better than feuding warlords? Islamic governments have harsh law, the warlords have a relative lack of law. Harsh law means a reduction of theft and murder, even if it means the constraining of important civil liberties.

Now, why is arming the warlords better than arming the interim government? The reason the interim government is weak is because it lacks arms and soldiers. Arming the warlords merely perpetuates the civil war.

What you have to realize is that even if the Islamists fall (which would be after a LOT of bloody fighting), the warlords will merely turn on each other and further tear apart a country currently facing famine, total infrastructure decline, and total loss of law and order. At least if one party controls Mogadishu, there is only one party to negotiate with for the sending of food aid.

This post has been edited by necrolyte: May 18 2006, 09:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryan_Liam
post May 18 2006, 10:39 PM
Post #9


Elite Spammer
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,008
Joined: 27-August 04
Member No.: 768



QUOTE(necrolyte @ May 18 2006, 01:34 PM)
Good to know that the Soviet repression of Eastern Europe was moral. Oh wait nevermind, its only OUR policies that are always moral under all circumstances. The US could drop nerve gas on Indian orphanages and you'd defend it, but Bolivia nationalizes a few industries? And somehow they're an evil entity threatening property rights.

I think the US threatens people's right to life, far more serious than nationalizing an industry founded upon the bones of so many innocents.
[right][snapback]393151[/snapback][/right]


Hey asshole, the Somali warlords are just as bad as the Afghan warlords, and the latter group still came about and formed a government in the Bonn Agreement. No one can say that the same thing can't happen for this group.

QUOTE
Now, why is arming the warlords better than arming the interim government? The reason the interim government is weak is because it lacks arms and soldiers. Arming the warlords merely perpetuates the civil war.


The same reason why arming the Afghan interim government in 1992 was a bad idea, the Afghan government pretty much collapsed, and the Prime minister ousted. The Somalis would need an international force much like NATO to bring the country back to order.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
necrolyte
post May 18 2006, 10:43 PM
Post #10


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



Oh Im an asshole now, thanks. I'll remember to show you the same kind of respect.

Now why did the Afghan warlords agree on that? Because, maybe there were 15,000 US soldiers and thousands of airplanes and cruise missles down their necks, and the solid possibility of Taliban resurgency.

The Afghan interim government collapsed because everyone forgot about it, and because everyone else had more guns. Giving the warlords more guns won't prevent the interim government from being outgunned, in fact something tells me it will worsen the situation for the interim government.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thor of the Oran...
post May 19 2006, 09:18 AM
Post #11


God
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,273
Joined: 17-August 02
From: The Old Line State
Member No.: 110



Sometimes there are choices to be made. Work with those you can or not. The National intrest and the security of the US and I dare say Western Civilization may need us to work with people we may think are bastards but that are not a threat and will help us.

The moral thing to do.

The alternative may be too terrible to contemplate.


Nalvaros,

QUOTE
Well, It all makes sense now



I knew you were bright and could figure it out if you thought about it. :D

QUOTE
Does anyone else see something wrong with this?


What could be wrong with US policy being concerned with US needs and intrests first?

necrolyte,

QUOTE
Bolivia nationalizes a few industries? And somehow they're an evil entity threatening property rights.


Got that one right.

QUOTE
I think the US threatens people's right to life,


We know that. You hate the US. We understand that. That is as obvious as the Washington Monument in DC. You're wrong again but you like being wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nalvaros
post May 19 2006, 03:37 PM
Post #12


Adrift
********

Group: Harab Serapel
Posts: 5,317
Joined: 20-August 02
Member No.: 147



QUOTE
I didn't support the steel tariffs. I also think Bush should have vetoed some spending bills and pushed for significant budget cuts.


Yes, good for you. Note that I said it could be used to justify practically anything. Not that you actually did use it to justify everything (although given your fanatical devotion, I fail to see why you actually bother disagreeing with him).

QUOTE
I don't think that's what myself or Thor has said.

No?

You made a statement:
"You are assuming that 'our ends' and 'moral policy' are contradictory. This is rarely the case."

Ed then follows up by saying:
"This looks like moral policy to me. Our needs come first. Our policies to that end are moral."

They are quite similar, with some minor differences. Yours states the result. Ed's states the process leading to that result.

Lets start with the statement that you (the US) have needs, and as stated they come "first".

In order to achieve those needs, you enact policies towards those needs.

Then there is the statement that those policies are moral. It speaks for itself.

Now, I am going to add to this the unspoken assumption that you have demonstrated time and again with your actions and "patriotic" words - that is, the actions of Bush are in the interests of the US. Given your fanatical devotion, it is exceedingly rare to see objections of any note to his policies and for all intents and purposes you see nearly if not every action of Bush as "in the interests of the US".

In short, you've skipped any sort of rational thinking process that weights costs, benefits and consequences of Bush's actions - at least where ethics is concerned at any rate.

It seems that as long as Bush wants it, it must be in the interests of the US, and therefore must be moral. No thought required. Just blind fanatical devotion.

Of course, every so often the process short circuits for God only knows why and you muster enough thought to recognise that some policies have consequences and are actually bad. Although as I said earlier, it happens so infrequently (or if it happens more frequently maybe you just hide it in shame) that it appears you do nothing but agree mindlessly to the actions of your own icon of worship.

This post has been edited by Nalvaros: May 19 2006, 03:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
necrolyte
post May 19 2006, 04:39 PM
Post #13


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



Edward, the US is not evil. I do not think that, dont think I have ever said that except in jest. But I do think some of the stuff it does is. And signing the death sentance for more residents of Mogadishu and those around it is "Evil". Too terrible to contemplate... we have already seen the evil of the Taliban and the Iranian fundamentalists.

But we have also seen the "Evil" that thugs like Aidid and other warlords can provide. By supporting them, you're only supporting more civil war in Somalia. A stable if dictatorial Iran is better for the Iranians than all out civil war and bloodshed, and it should be noted that many Afghans actually preferred the Taliban's law and order to the even nominally stable Afghan government. I would never suggest a return to the Taliban, but in Somalia we're not talking about an interim government thats not fully able to establish law and order taking over, we're talking about bandits and thugs taking over.

Let me put it this way, would you start arming the Bloods and Crips to protect you from some Islamists?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakyron
post May 19 2006, 08:57 PM
Post #14


Internet Badass
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 12,551
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Phoenix
Member No.: 739



QUOTE
A stable if dictatorial Iran is better for the Iranians than all out civil war and bloodshed


I disagree.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RightWing
post May 19 2006, 09:48 PM
Post #15


"May George Bush drink the blood of every single man, woman
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,831
Joined: 21-February 03
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Member No.: 269



QUOTE
QUOTE
A stable if dictatorial Iran is better for the Iranians than all out civil war and bloodshed


I disagree.


I completly agree, it's just not better for us
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
necrolyte
post May 20 2006, 12:16 AM
Post #16


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



QUOTE(Dakyron @ May 19 2006, 08:57 PM)
I disagree.
[right][snapback]393400[/snapback][/right]


Hmmm.

I see.

How? Absolutely no argument. You're just saying you disagree. The current government for all its faults, for all its brutal and bloody repression, provides basic services, provides law and order, ensures reasonable resource distribution, and provides safety from foreign threats. Political anarchy has no such things. In almost every case, the descent into anarchy as seen in African states (including Somalia), Afghanistan, Russia, and China, results in mass famine, results in the total breakdown in social services such as education which are nessicary for any democratic state to form, crime and drug distribution, and large scale, usually indiscriminate violence.

In Iran, Iranians get an education, criminals are brought to justice, there is a system of trade set up, food, health care, and clean water are distributed, and there are other factors present making life relatively straightforward.

Mogadishu is facing famine, a 16th year of straight civil war, and a lack of any services. There is no law and order of any kind outside of Shariah in a few parts of the city. To make the situation worse by arming the warlords responsible for this is boneheaded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thor of the Oran...
post May 20 2006, 09:44 AM
Post #17


God
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,273
Joined: 17-August 02
From: The Old Line State
Member No.: 110



necrolyte,

QUOTE
Edward, the US is not evil. I do not think that,


Then why did you say it in so many words that were not "in jest"?


But then again you and I probabely agree on more that you want to admit. While I never approved of all the actions of Pinochet's regime I at least understand the motovation. Pinochet was a son-of-a-bitch. Along with many others, but that doesn't negate certian undeniable truths.

This world is governed by the threat or the use of force.

One doesn't have to like the actions others take but if they do not harm your country or in fact other countries that are your allies and help hold the barbarians at bay then those actions while not liked can be swallowed.

The same holds true here. While some of the Somali Warlords are real first class sons-of-bitches they are not going to allow (at least that is the hope) groups like al-Queda to operate while the others have adopted the idology of al-Queda and would probably allow them to operate with impunity.

The fact of the matter is that the Somalies are going to kill each other until they sort themselves out. We don't have to like it but it is a fact. Our best intrest is to keep the al-Queda types from having a sfe haven to operate from.

The alternative is to invade.

QUOTE
A stable if dictatorial Iran is better for the Iranians than all out civil war and bloodshed


Call it a third in the I disagree. I keep thinking here that the same argument could be made about the Nazi regime in Germany and the Soviet Union.

Neither of those regimes turned out to be better for the Germans or the Russians than a bloody Civil War that resulted in a government that held to Lockean principles being elevated to power.

BM,

It is a fools errand to try to convince Nalvaros of anything that you disagree with the current Administration on. You see it doesn't matter to him. If you support one policy he thinks that you are a Bushbot.

I'd be willing to bet money that Nalvaros can't find anything he likes about US Policy present or past.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Beer
post May 20 2006, 10:21 AM
Post #18


A man of wit, refinement and beer.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,782
Joined: 16-August 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 101



Anyone who defends foreign policy solely on the basis that "it serves our interests" has no cause for complaint should other countries do something morally reprehensible for the purpose of benefitting their cause.

This post has been edited by Mr Beer: May 20 2006, 10:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thor of the Oran...
post May 20 2006, 12:11 PM
Post #19


God
********

Group: Members
Posts: 9,273
Joined: 17-August 02
From: The Old Line State
Member No.: 110



Beer,

Defence? No Sir a statement of fact.

At least we haven't passed a law that has non-muslim minorities being required to wear a badge.

So when the intrests of the US and the defence of Liberty and Western civilization become wrong or immoral then complain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
necrolyte
post May 20 2006, 06:02 PM
Post #20


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



Edward-Hitler and Stalin killed tens of millions of people. To compare them to the current Iranian regime is beyond stretching it. But its obvious that leaders like Lenin, despite being dictators (and yes, the killer of innocents), his dictatorship was nowhere near as bad as the horrible civil war that proceeded his reign. In Civil War, nobody is getting health care, trade breaks down, infrastructure falls into disrepair so nobody is getting clean water, and murderers go free. Thats one of the reasons why African nations have such incredibly low life expectancies.The truth for the Somali people is that law and order is preferable to civil war.

Now the thing is that the Somali Islamists have not actively threatened any US allies. They may have an ideology that we disapprove of, but so be it. And that is not a reason to support the slaughter of innocent people within a nation. Hell, the US supported the Contras-that doesn't mean that Nicuraguans who were victimized by the Contras would have a right to attack America.

Let me give another example. The Saudi regime is absolutely opressive, and for the most part is responsible for the rise of al Quaeda as one of the sole resistance groups against that government. Yet that does not justify the slaughter of innocent American civilians by that same organization.

Beer-I agree. Stalin's enslavement of Eastern Europe fell within the "Our interests" bubble, yet people condemn him for it who support US intervention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Beer
post May 21 2006, 01:42 AM
Post #21


A man of wit, refinement and beer.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,782
Joined: 16-August 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 101



QUOTE(Thor of the Orange Hammer @ May 20 2006, 12:11 PM)
Beer,

Defence? No Sir a statement of fact.

At least we haven't passed a law that has non-muslim minorities being required to wear a badge.

So when the intrests of the US and the defence of Liberty and Western civilization become wrong or immoral then complain.
[right][snapback]393490[/snapback][/right]


Iranian badge argument = totally irrelevent. We already know Western democracies are better places to live in than crappy Middle Eastern countries.

Arming warlords to keep a country unstable is a pretty shitty thing to do. Saying, "well, if they get back on their feet, they may be anti-US, so it's in our interests to stop that happening" is a cruel attitude to take to all the poor bastards there who'd just like to get on with their lives.

Somalia is no threat to liberty and Western civilisation, nice try in tying that in though.

No doubt you would approve of Iran arming various groups within the US that have a terrorist agenda. Since, you know, the US poses a clear danger to Iran's interests, certainly more so than Somalia does to the US.

This post has been edited by Mr Beer: May 21 2006, 01:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th September 2014 - 03:30 PM