Somalia next

[Flasch186]

Somali Islamists kill 2 at World Cup broadcast

Wednesday, July 5, 2006; Posted: 11:37 a.m. EDT (15:37 GMT)


MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- Radical Islamic militia fighters in central Somalia shot and killed two people at the screening of a banned World Cup soccer broadcast while dispersing the crowd of teenagers watching it, an independent radio station reported Wednesday.

The Islamic fighters, who have banned such entertainment, opened fire after the teenagers defied their orders to leave the cinema that was screening the Germany-Italy match, Shabelle Radio reported. It said the dead were a girl and the cinema owner.

Islamic fighters who wrested control of the Somali capital from warlords in June forbade movies and television entertainment in line with their strict interpretation of Islam. The Supreme Islamic Courts Council, originally called the Islamic Courts Union, has expanded its control to other parts of southern Somalia.

Its leader, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, has spent the past weeks in central Somalia recruiting fighters in his clan's native region.

Somalia has been without an effective central government since the warlords turned on each other, carving much of the country into armed camps ruled by violence and clan law. Islamic fundamentalists have stepped into the vacuum, projecting themselves as an alternative military and political power.

They set up a militia force to enforce their interpretation of Islam and formed a court system that helped desperate Somalis settle disputes.

[Cringer]

next?

[Flasch186]

we're going to have to go there next. We meaning the free world.

[AlexB]

Haven't the US & the UN tried this one already? Didn't go too well if I remember correctly - see the above story: no govt since 1992

[Cringer]

we're going to have to go there next. We meaning the free world.

Thanks for clearing that up. Wasn't sure if you meant that, or if you just meant the next Islamic state, or something I wasn't catching at all.....:)

[st.cronin]

This must be Israel's fault somehow.

[Desnudo]

I don't think we'll be back there anytime soon. Unless capturing a few pick-up trucks with machine gun mounts is considered a matter of national security.

[flere-imsaho]

we're going to have to go there next. We meaning the free world.

Why? And why there, as opposed to anywhere else?

[BrianD]

It amazes me that in this day and age, people can seriously entertain the idea of banning TV and movies...or a broadcast soccer match.

[vex]

Why? And why there, as opposed to anywhere else?

Well, naturally, the killing of two people just started WWIII.

[Glengoyne]

Why? And why there, as opposed to anywhere else?

Because we abandoned them to the warlords some fourteen(?) years ago.

[Franklinnoble]

This must be Israel's fault somehow.

:D

Actually, I would LOVE to see the USA move into Somalia, if for no other reason than to see what the conspiracy theorists come up with, since there's no oil, and no Jewish interest.

[Flasch186]

...because a slippery slope has started in Somalia that will culminate with a return of a Taliban-esque style gov't. wherein the seeds of terrorism will be allowed to prosper and grow.

No one denied that Afghanistan was a justified "war" and for the same reasons, somewhere down the line, we'll have to go to Somalia (again, we being the free world not just the U.S.)

EDIT: the fact that there is no oil and no jews there (maybe a few) should play no role in why we should or shouldn't go.

[sachmo71]

the best part is that we need the warlords to fight the radical muslims. foreign policy makes for strange bedfellows.

[flere-imsaho]

One day, Flasch, I'd like a list from you of all the countries the free world should be liberating, just for the sake of context.

[Glengoyne]

One day, Flasch, I'd like a list from you of all the countries the free world should be liberating, just for the sake of context.

Sudan and Somalia so far, and that is just the "S"s.

Note I'm not Flasch, but I do think we agree on this point. I firmly believe that it is the responsibility/duty of those who are capable to intercede on the behalf of innocents around the world. Our self interest shouldn't be a consideration.

[Flasch186]

off the top of my head, quickly, any that commit genocide....then the rest Ill have to research.

After WWII we said we would never allow it to happen again and I still subscribe to that desire and if we have the means we should do all we can to prevent it and nip it in the bud. One day late is one day too many...

EDIT to add: it should not be only the US but the entire free world with the means to participate.

[Poli]

Flasch and Glen are smart fellas.

Signed,

CJTF-HOA

[Flasch186]

CJTF-HOA


???

[Poli]

www.google.com

[Flasch186]

very cool

[Poli]

AKA: Where I'm at.

[flere-imsaho]

Note I'm not Flasch, but I do think we agree on this point. I firmly believe that it is the responsibility/duty of those who are capable to intercede on the behalf of innocents around the world. Our self interest shouldn't be a consideration.

Consider a list of everywhere in the world where innocents are being harmed by others. Most of Africa, definitely large chunks of the Middle East, some parts of South America, and a fair bit of Asia.

Next, consider the manpower already invested in various peacekeeping or otherwise missions around the world. Look at Iraq only, and how many troops have accomplished only partial security. Look at the troops near Sudan that have only succeeded in setting up a refugee camp.

Put these together for me and estimate exactly how much manpower you'd need to do this.

Then, ask yourself, is it our (i.e. those who can intercede) duty to intercede on the behalf of innocents until, basically, either their tormenters are subdued or we are?

Given the manpower involved, are you willing to back that up with your own blood?

[Blade6119]

Remember Kingdom of Heaven, when they say why wont you do a bit of bad to do a greater good...i kind of wonder if thats not the case here. We wouldnt be able to help if we hadnt royally screwed the indians...odd opinion i know, but i felt it was worth noting

[Flasch186]

Consider a list of everywhere in the world where innocents are being harmed by others. Most of Africa, definitely large chunks of the Middle East, some parts of South America, and a fair bit of Asia.

Next, consider the manpower already invested in various peacekeeping or otherwise missions around the world. Look at Iraq only, and how many troops have accomplished only partial security. Look at the troops near Sudan that have only succeeded in setting up a refugee camp.

Put these together for me and estimate exactly how much manpower you'd need to do this.

Then, ask yourself, is it our (i.e. those who can intercede) duty to intercede on the behalf of innocents until, basically, either their tormenters are subdued or we are?

Given the manpower involved, are you willing to back that up with your own blood?

If all good in the world (I use good losely but you know what I mean) banded together to fight all of the evil in the world (I understand its subjective but this is my opinion...NOT YOURS!!) good would win, and all those acting on behalf of the good side should "fight" if able. Fight is in quotes becuase I dont believe ALL those on the good side would need to physically fight (there are many many supporting but equally as important roles)

Good and evil have nothing to do with religion or faith, at all. More so relying on subjection, genocide, torture, mass starvation, etc.

[Flasch186]

Remember Kingdom of Heaven, when they say why wont you do a bit of bad to do a greater good...i kind of wonder if thats not the case here. We wouldnt be able to help if we hadnt royally screwed the indians...odd opinion i know, but i felt it was worth noting


true

[flere-imsaho]

If all good in the world (I use good losely but you know what I mean) banded together to fight all of the evil in the world (I understand its subjective but this is my opinion...NOT YOURS!!) good would win, and all those acting on behalf of the good side should "fight" if able. Fight is in quotes becuase I dont believe ALL those on the good side would need to physically fight (there are many many supporting but equally as important roles)

Sorry, I'm trying to be more concrete than that.

What you're advocating is a strongly interventionist policy by many (perhaps most, but certainly not all) of the world's nations. Given our experiences in Iraq & Afghanistan (most recently), and the U.N.'s various experiences around the world, what you're talking about are multiple intervention operations requiring truly sizeable manpower.

So, given that, do it anyway?

Let's say it requires such manpower that it proves a considerable drain on the world economy. Still do it?

What if it requires such manpower that you, personally, have to be given a gun and told to keep order in rural Colombia, or East Timor, or Congo, or Somalia. Still do it?

If you answer no to any of those questions, then where do you draw the line?

If you answer "well, not all concurrently" to those questions, then how could you possibly prioritize?

[flere-imsaho]

Remember Kingdom of Heaven, when they say why wont you do a bit of bad to do a greater good...i kind of wonder if thats not the case here. We wouldnt be able to help if we hadnt royally screwed the indians...odd opinion i know, but i felt it was worth noting

Are you referring specifically to Somalia here, or are you being more general?

[Blade6119]

Are you referring specifically to Somalia here, or are you being more general?
here now, but it applies elsewhere i suppose...i just find it funny that we killed off almost an entire ethnic group to get where we are today to go and prevent other groups from doing it. I dont support genocide, but i am somewhat a believer in let people handle their own business. Survival of the fittest and all that

[Flasch186]

Sorry, I'm trying to be more concrete than that.

What you're advocating is a strongly interventionist policy by many (perhaps most, but certainly not all) of the world's nations. Given our experiences in Iraq & Afghanistan (most recently), and the U.N.'s various experiences around the world, what you're talking about are multiple intervention operations requiring truly sizeable manpower.

So, given that, do it anyway?

Let's say it requires such manpower that it proves a considerable drain on the world economy. Still do it?

What if it requires such manpower that you, personally, have to be given a gun and told to keep order in rural Colombia, or East Timor, or Congo, or Somalia. Still do it?

If you answer no to any of those questions, then where do you draw the line?

If you answer "well, not all concurrently" to those questions, then how could you possibly prioritize?

Considering that it would be impossible to do concurrently, no to that one. It has to be planned so as the end results, we hope, are the most successful outcomes.

Yes, war doesn't automatically hurt an economy...

Yes...if need be, then I, the most untrained person to do so, at the point when needed, would have to go help "save the world" (and that is how it can be framed for each individual involved). It is no delusion of grandeur to think that if they actually did need those like me to hold a gun, as opposed to raising money, or sales (what Im good at) we probably have been failing royally up to that point....



Now, I gotta ask....havnt we had this conversation before, dont I already know how you and that of the same ilk feel? You're never going to think of the greater world's good, right, whatever that means....it doesnt equate to myview of that good, right? So what can one do other than smack you upside the head with pictures from the victims of the world's evils (holocaust, bosnia, N. Korea, Taliban, etc.) before you say, with a shrug, "tough titty." no offense.

[yabanci]

If all good in the world (I use good losely but you know what I mean) banded together to fight all of the evil in the world (I understand its subjective but this is my opinion...NOT YOURS!!) good would win, and all those acting on behalf of the good side should "fight" if able. Fight is in quotes becuase I dont believe ALL those on the good side would need to physically fight (there are many many supporting but equally as important roles)

Good and evil have nothing to do with religion or faith, at all. More so relying on subjection, genocide, torture, mass starvation, etc.

ooooh, the final showdown between good and evil. I've been waiting for this.

Which side are we on?

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6148/popcorn4jj.gif

[Flasch186]

I dont support genocide, but i am somewhat a believer in let people handle their own business. Survival of the fittest and all that


tolerance of Genocide is the same as supporting it, IMO. We must stop it, just like WWII....we need to learn from that history and never let it be repeated.

[Flasch186]

ooooh, the final showdown between good and evil. I've been waiting for this.

Which side are we on?

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6148/popcorn4jj.gif


who is we?

[Blade6119]

tolerance of Genocide is the same as supporting it, IMO. We must stop it, just like WWII....we need to learn from that history and never let it be repeated.
I agree learning from history is smart, and to counter that point and take it a different direction, the downfall of every great nation has been trying to over-extend its powers...influence too many areas...i love the US, and dont want to see her fall like every other nation in history has. No empire has stood, no nation remained the biggest power out there. So i say we take care of our own problems before we take care of theirs. Secure our borders before we police someone elses.

Dont get me wrong, i was 100% for iraq and afghan...still am...i also worry that these issues are taking focus over our own

[Flasch186]

I agree learning from history is smart, and to counter that point and take it a different direction, the downfall of every great nation has been trying to over-extend its powers...influence too many areas...i love the US, and dont want to see her fall like every other nation in history has. No empire has stood, no nation remained the biggest power out there. So i say we take care of our own problems before we take care of theirs. Secure our borders before we police someone elses.

Dont get me wrong, i was 100% for iraq and afghan...still am...i also worry that these issues are taking focus over our own


Keep in mind, Glen and I are not saying the US should do this....the entire free world should be involved. Two totally different lines of thought there.

[Blade6119]

Keep in mind, Glen and I are not saying the US should do this....the entire free world should be involved. Two totally different lines of thought there.
Your talking in the hypothetical to me...i forget the stat but even now the majority of peacekeeping forces in the world are US. In a perfect world every country helps and all that...but in the world scene i see today, i dont find that terribly likely. Sorry to be blunt there

[Flasch186]

Your talking in the hypothetical to me...i forget the stat but even now the majority of peacekeeping forces in the world are US. In a perfect world every country helps and all that...but in the world scene i see today, i dont find that terribly likely. Sorry to be blunt there

then the world needs to wake up. Not everyone has to be on the front lines, there are tons of supporting roles, but I feel that if we dont snuff out things like Somalia in their infancy, we will have to go there anyways, and the hundreds of thousands to millions killed, waiting for someone to come "save" them will be lost in the same vain as those lost in the holocaust and the like.

All my opinion.

[Flasch186]

i understand that it may be unrealistic assumptions to think that everyone "good" will help in the fight, but to aim for anything less, IMO is accepting the unacceptable.

[yabanci]

who is we?

Excellent question. Can you get me tickets to the meeting where it's determined who is good and who is evil?

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6148/popcorn4jj.gif

[duckman]

Excellent question. Can you get me tickets to the meeting where it's determined who is good and who is evil?

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6148/popcorn4jj.gif

LOL!

[Flasch186]

Excellent question. Can you get me tickets to the meeting where it's determined who is good and who is evil?

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6148/popcorn4jj.gif

We just ask Duckman. He is good at determining it.

Or

We could roll a 20 sided die and figure it out by fighting in the forest using Lightning Bolts.

[Blade6119]

We just ask Duckman. He is good at determining it.

Or

We could roll a 20 sided die and figure it out by fighting in the forest using Lightning Bolts.
Didnt Hell Atlantic make a list just for this today? :)

[Klinglerware]

Excellent question. Can you get me tickets to the meeting where it's determined who is good and who is evil?

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6148/popcorn4jj.gif

Yes, an interesting question that raises a few hypotheticals. What if intervention in Somalia does not come from the liberal democracies of the west? For instance (not that they have the actual capability to do so), what if China or Russia were to take the lead in an intervention? I could see reasons other than pure humanitarianism for that policy choice.

So, can a state that isn't free be considered "good" if it intervenes in Somalia (presumably against the islamists) or in any other humanitarian crises? Can a humanitarian intervention in Somalia be considered "good" if humanitarian goals play only a minor role in the intervener's policy intentions, even if those humanitarian goals are attained? Also, what of the warlords? Wouldn't support of the warlords be just as odious as allowing the islamists free reign over Somalia?

[ISiddiqui]

Wouldn't support of the warlords be just as odious as allowing the islamists free reign over Somalia?

A very good question, actually. The warlords are just as bad murdering fucks as the Islamists have been. Probably the best situation would be take every power broker out... but that raises its own questions (who are we killing in order to bring a better government to the people... what if the people would rather stick to their tribal groups?).

[aran]

This "war of good vs. evil" seems to be an extremely naive viewpoint to hold, especially for an adult who pays any attention to the world around them. Everyone has good and evil in them and expresses both frequently. There must be good for there to be evil. Neither side can ever win--there's always a vile act occuring because there are always heroic acts occuring. You cannot destroy evil entirely without becoming part evil yourself. Cycles of fighting, victory, fracturing, fighting will continue until everyone is dead. One must constantly ask "Am I evil?" and if they are evil, what should they do? Commiting suicide would make them good again, but they'd be dead. Such paradoxes occur constantly because the world isn't black and white--good vs. evil is just an illusion created by one power to influence its people to be proud and fight even more faithfully for self-preservation.

Things aren't going to change on this most basic and most idealistic level.

[Groundhog]

Good and evil is all a matter of perspective. No one would really consider themselves evil, unless they were mentally unbalanced, and certainly no society considers themselves evil. Hitler felt he was doing what was right, as do the North Koreans now. Japan gets painted as evil for what they did in WWII, but at that time the Japanese considered the USA evil too for cutting of it's supplies and, in their opinion (back then, anyway) forcing their hand in to war.

You speak to an Islamic terrorist and they'll tell you that all the Islamics need to band together and destroy the "evil West". They consider themselves good and us evil in the exact same way that we do vice versa. And if you try and look at things from their perspective you can see why that might be; just as you can easily see it from your own as to why you are the opposite.

The war against good and evil is never going to end, because as long as you have different cultures, religions, countries, leaders, etc. people are going to get painted as good and evil in order to advance one nation over another.

In 400 years time there will still be the same violence, because in order for a culture to thrive, they need to take advantage of others, which causes anger. That's just unfortunately how the world has always worked, and how it always will.

[Abe Sargent]

Good and evil is all a matter of perspective.


No, good and evil are facts. Just because there is dispute as to what those facts are does not deny the existance of said facts.

The number of grains of sand in my sandbox is either odd or even. If you and I debate and discuss which is which and disagree, you thinking odd while I think even, thereis a dispute to the matter and it is unprovable. It is still a fact, just currently unknowable with the current technology available to us.

The same is true of good and evil. Arguments do not change facts.

-Anxiety

[thealmighty]

Perspective doesn't change the fact that something is, in fact, a fact. He wasn't saying good and evil are not facts, I don't think.

If I hate Bush, some call me evil, some call me good. Facts remain, irregardless.

[Flasch186]

correct but, as Ive stated time and again, that my opinion or naivete is from my view. You have yours, Osama has his, Hitler had his, but I believe in mine...I would venture to guess that a great deal of the majority of people in the free world would fall somewhere on the same side of the spectrum as my view (or portions of it) while the other side, lets call it "evil", would fall somewhere on the other side of the spectrum but certainly farther away from my view than those that share some of my same ideals. I'm not saying share mine exactly but some more facets than they share with the other side. When I saw 9/11 the views of the world were very polarized, it wasn't a whole lot of gray but much more black and white.

While I know that this view I hold has ingredients including naivete, much like the standards I hold politicians to, I dont think that you or I, should say, "Well that's unrealistic or unattainable so we shouldn't feel that way. Just accept X, Y, and Z because its more realistic." To me that is tantamount to "giving up".

[John Galt]

If genocide is the touchstone for invasion, why is Somalia next? :confused:

[flere-imsaho]

Considering that it would be impossible to do concurrently, no to that one. It has to be planned so as the end results, we hope, are the most successful outcomes.

OK, then how do you prioritize? Why Somalia over Sudan? Why Sudan over Congo? Why Congo over Zimbabwe? Why Zimbabwe over East Timor? (All examples hypothetical)

How do you prioritize, Flasch? Give your argument some structure and backing.

Yes...if need be, then I, the most untrained person to do so, at the point when needed, would have to go help "save the world" (and that is how it can be framed for each individual involved). It is no delusion of grandeur to think that if they actually did need those like me to hold a gun, as opposed to raising money, or sales (what Im good at) we probably have been failing royally up to that point....

Now, I gotta ask....havnt we had this conversation before, dont I already know how you and that of the same ilk feel? You're never going to think of the greater world's good, right, whatever that means....it doesnt equate to myview of that good, right? So what can one do other than smack you upside the head with pictures from the victims of the world's evils (holocaust, bosnia, N. Korea, Taliban, etc.) before you say, with a shrug, "tough titty." no offense.

Yes, we've had this conversation before and yet again you misunderstand me. I especially enjoy your personal attacks in the second paragraph. "No offense"? Fuck off.

The thing is, I used to think like you. I was quick to suggest that the U.S. military be used to solve all the world's problems (or the U.N. peacekeepers do the same). But then my brother got sent to Iraq, and I learned, secondhand, exactly what these young men and women are up against. These young men and women you so blithely wish to send into harm's way.


You may call me selfish, or even worse, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to lay down my life, or those of my loved ones, to stop ethnic groups from slaughtering each other in the far corners of the world. And since I'm not willing to make that sacrifice, I don't see why I should ask others to do so.

Frankly, I don't think you're ready to make that sacrifice either. Sure, you talk big about helping the war effort with "sales" and making contributions here and there, but your defense of intervention does not appear to be matched by your material support of it. To be honest, I find it a bit stomach turning to read one post for you about how we need to send troops into Country X, and then read another post from you about American Idol or Hot or Not.

These are serious issues. Aggressive interventionist foreign policy demands serious sacrifices of those who are put in harm's way. It should also demand sacrifices of those who call for it, be those material or otherwise. It shouldn't be something one calls for between episodes of the latest reality TV show. But you are certainly not alone in acting this way, Flasch. Most of America shares your disconnect.

[flere-imsaho]

We must stop it, just like WWII....we need to learn from that history and never let it be repeated.

A large part of the Allies' success in WWII was predicated upon the collective decision of an entire generation (regardless of the country) to make extreme sacrifices (life, livelihood, family, comfort) for the greater good.

No majority (heck, not even a significant minority) of any country's population is willing to make a similar sacrifice today.

Complete victory comes from complete commitment.

[Flasch186]

If genocide is the touchstone for invasion, why is Somalia next? :confused:


there are seemingly more ingredients to the pie there, and expected to be coming. So you could say it's climbing the powerpoll fast.

[Flasch186]

if that was a personal attack I'd say youre being a little too sensitive.

[flere-imsaho]

Keep in mind, Glen and I are not saying the US should do this....the entire free world should be involved. Two totally different lines of thought there.

That's a cop out. The entire free world has decided that they're more comfortable if they don't get involved, and both of you know it.

Want to change that? Change people's opinions. How much work would that be? A lot. Tell me, Flasch, how many hours out of each day do you spend working to change people's opinions on this? I'm not being facetious. There are hundreds of organizations to which you could donate your time and/or money who are working to raise awareness about genocide and get the world's governments to do something about it. How strongly do you believe in this cause? How much work are you willing to put into this cause?

Actions speak louder than words, Flasch, and right now I only see words.

[John Galt]

there are seemingly more ingredients to the pie there, and expected to be coming. So you could say it's climbing the powerpoll fast.

:confused: I think I'm more confused now.

[Flasch186]

OK, then how do you prioritize? Why Somalia over Sudan? Why Sudan over Congo? Why Congo over Zimbabwe? Why Zimbabwe over East Timor? (All examples hypothetical)

How do you prioritize, Flasch? Give your argument some structure and backing.



Yes, we've had this conversation before and yet again you misunderstand me. I especially enjoy your personal attacks in the second paragraph. "No offense"? Fuck off.

not a personal attack at all



The thing is, I used to think like you. I was quick to suggest that the U.S. military be used to solve all the world's problems (or the U.N. peacekeepers do the same). But then my brother got sent to Iraq, and I learned, secondhand, exactly what these young men and women are up against. These young men and women you so blithely wish to send into harm's way.


You may call me selfish, or even worse, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to lay down my life, or those of my loved ones, to stop ethnic groups from slaughtering each other in the far corners of the world. And since I'm not willing to make that sacrifice, I don't see why I should ask others to do so.

Frankly, I don't think you're ready to make that sacrifice either. Sure, you talk big about helping the war effort with "sales" and making contributions here and there, but your defense of intervention does not appear to be matched by your material support of it.



to not use people in their specialty or put them in positions to succeed is the equivalent to shitty planning. I wouldnt ask the best sniper in the world to do accounting.


To be honest, I find it a bit stomach turning to read one post for you about how we need to send troops into Country X, and then read another post from you about American Idol or Hot or Not.

These are serious issues. Aggressive interventionist foreign policy demands serious sacrifices of those who are put in harm's way. It should also demand sacrifices of those who call for it, be those material or otherwise. It shouldn't be something one calls for between episodes of the latest reality TV show. But you are certainly not alone in acting this way, Flasch. Most of America shares your disconnect.

So I can never ever ever think about or watch anything on TV or have a life other than the heavy? Stupid statement, no offense. I should hole myself up in a cabin in the woods and drown myself in News magazines, and CNN/FOX....I shouldnt think a girl can be HOT or NOT? Stupid statement.

[flere-imsaho]

if that was a personal attack I'd say youre being a little too sensitive.

You accuse me of being indifferent to any and all of the world's trials and tribulations, including genocide. How exactly am I supposed to take that?

[Flasch186]

That's a cop out. The entire free world has decided that they're more comfortable if they don't get involved, and both of you know it.

Want to change that? Change people's opinions. How much work would that be? A lot. Tell me, Flasch, how many hours out of each day do you spend working to change people's opinions on this? I'm not being facetious. There are hundreds of organizations to which you could donate your time and/or money who are working to raise awareness about genocide and get the world's governments to do something about it. How strongly do you believe in this cause? How much work are you willing to put into this cause?

Actions speak louder than words, Flasch, and right now I only see words.


its a message board

[Flasch186]

You accuse me of being indifferent to any and all of the world's trials and tribulations, including genocide. How exactly am I supposed to take that?

I did not...I said I wouldnt be able to change your mind and neither you to me, that we've been here before. When saying we cant do something so oh well, that is the same as saying tough titty.

[Flasch186]

:confused: I think I'm more confused now.

there are quickly becoming more reasons to go there, including opportunity for success (if planned well - In my opinion), and a chance to nip it in the bud.

[flere-imsaho]

You're not answering the questions, Flasch.

to not use people in their specialty or put them in positions to succeed is the equivalent to shitty planning. I wouldnt ask the best sniper in the world to do accounting.

So WWII was shitty planning? As I said on the first page, the scope of work you're suggesting will involve significant amounts of manpower. Likely more manpower than we (or other countries) currently have in deployable form. In fact, it's quite similar to the manpower requirements of WWII, and I'll remind you that for that war a lot of people who wouldn't normally go into harm's way, were sent into harm's way, regardless of their other talents. That's where the need was, so that's where they went.

So I can never ever ever think about or watch anything on TV or have a life other than the heavy? Stupid statement, no offense. I should hole myself up in a cabin in the woods and drown myself in News magazines, and CNN/FOX....I shouldnt think a girl can be HOT or NOT? Stupid statement.

Go back and read this, and all the other questions. I'm trying to get you to explain, in concrete terms, your personal committment to this cause.

[Flasch186]

That's a cop out. The entire free world has decided that they're more comfortable if they don't get involved, and both of you know it.


that's my point, that doesnt make it right...which you agree with by saying...



Want to change that? Change people's opinions. How much work would that be? A lot. Tell me, Flasch, how many hours out of each day do you spend working to change people's opinions on this? I'm not being facetious. There are hundreds of organizations to which you could donate your time and/or money who are working to raise awareness about genocide and get the world's governments to do something about it. How strongly do you believe in this cause? How much work are you willing to put into this cause?

Do I do enough? no. Do I try to contribute? yes. Do I need to list my resume? no.



Actions speak louder than words, Flasch, and right now I only see words.

[flere-imsaho]

its a message board

I see, so you're not actually serious about any of this, it's just a way to pass the time. Gotcha, my bad.

[John Galt]

there are quickly becoming more reasons to go there, including opportunity for success (if planned well - In my opinion), and a chance to nip it in the bud.

You sound like you believe Somalia is a site for future genocide (as though you had your own little collection of pre-cogs in your basement). Is there any basis for this conclusion? And how do you define "success?"

[flere-imsaho]

You sound like you believe Somalia is a site for future genocide (as though you had your own little collection of pre-cogs in your basement). Is there any basis for this conclusion? And how do you define "success?"

Plus, there's actual, real, genocide happening right now in Sudan. Why not go there first? Am I missing something? As I previously asked:

OK, then how do you prioritize? Why Somalia over Sudan? Why Sudan over Congo? Why Congo over Zimbabwe? Why Zimbabwe over East Timor? (All examples hypothetical)

[st.cronin]

OK, then how do you prioritize? Why Somalia over Sudan? Why Sudan over Congo? Why Congo over Zimbabwe? Why Zimbabwe over East Timor? (All examples hypothetical)

How do you prioritize, Flasch? Give your argument some structure and backing.



Yes, we've had this conversation before and yet again you misunderstand me. I especially enjoy your personal attacks in the second paragraph. "No offense"? Fuck off.

The thing is, I used to think like you. I was quick to suggest that the U.S. military be used to solve all the world's problems (or the U.N. peacekeepers do the same). But then my brother got sent to Iraq, and I learned, secondhand, exactly what these young men and women are up against. These young men and women you so blithely wish to send into harm's way.


You may call me selfish, or even worse, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to lay down my life, or those of my loved ones, to stop ethnic groups from slaughtering each other in the far corners of the world. And since I'm not willing to make that sacrifice, I don't see why I should ask others to do so.

Frankly, I don't think you're ready to make that sacrifice either. Sure, you talk big about helping the war effort with "sales" and making contributions here and there, but your defense of intervention does not appear to be matched by your material support of it. To be honest, I find it a bit stomach turning to read one post for you about how we need to send troops into Country X, and then read another post from you about American Idol or Hot or Not.

These are serious issues. Aggressive interventionist foreign policy demands serious sacrifices of those who are put in harm's way. It should also demand sacrifices of those who call for it, be those material or otherwise. It shouldn't be something one calls for between episodes of the latest reality TV show. But you are certainly not alone in acting this way, Flasch. Most of America shares your disconnect.

One could conceive of foreign policy, and particularly the use of the military, has having two poles - on the one hand, the empire-building Alexander the Great model, and on the other hand, the Fortress USA model. I don't think you believe that our power should be used only to protect our borders, and I don't think Flasch is arguing that the US should emulate the Roman Empire. Neither of your positions is really radical; Flasch argues that we have this military (the finest in the world), and it is in our interest to project our power worldwide (which is a point I think you concede), so why not use that power for humanitarian purposes instead of merely pragmatic ones? I don't think that's an outlandish position to take.

[Flasch186]

You're not answering the questions, Flasch.



So WWII was shitty planning? As I said on the first page, the scope of work you're suggesting will involve significant amounts of manpower. Likely more manpower than we (or other countries) currently have in deployable form. In fact, it's quite similar to the manpower requirements of WWII, and I'll remind you that for that war a lot of people who wouldn't normally go into harm's way, were sent into harm's way, regardless of their other talents. That's where the need was, so that's where they went.



Go back and read this, and all the other questions. I'm trying to get you to explain, in concrete terms, your personal committment to this cause.

Perfect planning. My grandpa, an accountant, did accounting....etc. this is easy to understand, I dont have to cow tow to try and boil it out in exhausted language.

If youre asking my plan to do all of this thinking I have in regards to Genocide, countries where Terror will be allowed to grow in protection over the next 5 years, etc. I dont know.

I donate to all sorts of causes, time and money from building homes for affordable housing, to fixing up homes for the elderly, for walking the heartwalk, for donating money to darfur and handing out bracelets, for trying to get my company to get into more causes, etc. And Im sure you do stuff, and a lot of people on here do stuff too, so Im not saying Im better than anyone else here....you pressed. Should we do more, absolutely.

[Flasch186]

I see, so you're not actually serious about any of this, it's just a way to pass the time. Gotcha, my bad.

straw man *pow*

Im able to have a sense of humor though, in life.

[Flasch186]

Plus, there's actual, real, genocide happening right now in Sudan. Why not go there first? Am I missing something? As I previously asked:

Ive said that for years on here...and totally agree.

[Flasch186]

One could conceive of foreign policy, and particularly the use of the military, has having two poles - on the one hand, the empire-building Alexander the Great model, and on the other hand, the Fortress USA model. I don't think you believe that our power should be used only to protect our borders, and I don't think Flasch is arguing that the US should emulate the Roman Empire. Neither of your positions is really radical; Flasch argues that we have this military (the finest in the world), and it is in our interest to project our power worldwide (which is a point I think you concede), so why not use that power for humanitarian purposes instead of merely pragmatic ones? I don't think that's an outlandish position to take.

perfect, thank you. Now should I plan this global movement? No, Ill leave it to the experts.

[flere-imsaho]

One could conceive of foreign policy, and particularly the use of the military, has having two poles - on the one hand, the empire-building Alexander the Great model, and on the other hand, the Fortress USA model. I don't think you believe that our power should be used only to protect our borders, and I don't think Flasch is arguing that the US should emulate the Roman Empire. Neither of your positions is really radical; Flasch argues that we have this military (the finest in the world), and it is in our interest to project our power worldwide (which is a point I think you concede), so why not use that power for humanitarian purposes instead of merely pragmatic ones? I don't think that's an outlandish position to take.

While this is a good summation, I think my position is more nuanced than that. Flasch suggests (by his choice of conflicts, not just in this thread but others) that the U.S. military (and others) be projected specifically into conflicts which will have the character of protracted occupations (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, for recent examples). Such actions will be, by definition, costly both in dollars and lives, and will also be extremely manpower-intensive. In this series of protracted engagements he is asking a considerable number of servicemen and women to give their lives or limbs to a greater cause.

Against this, I am arguing the following:

He's putting the cart before the horse. Unlike WWII (the best possible counter-example) there exists no widespread true committment amongst the populaces of "free world" countries to make these sacrifices. I argue that until there is that true committment, engaging in these protracted engagements will largely be self-defeating. I believe an even casual look at 20th century history supports this.

Edit: Furthermore, a policy of "sending the troops in" is the easy solution (easy obviously from a conceptual standpoint, not an execution standpoint). I guess I take umbrage at the clarion call from comfortable couch-sitting Americans to "send the troops in" to the cause du jour when any of these issues is actually far more complex and "sending the troops in" is not, in itself, the solution.

You want to stop genocide? Convince the world it's worth it to make the sacrifices necessary to nip genocide in the bud wherever it happens. Want to stop terrorism? Convince the world it's worth it to make the sacrifices necessary to root out terrorism wherever it grow.

Ah, but what are those sacrifices? There's the rub. Like the Great War, these too are great wars. These too are weighty considerations requiring equivalent (or more) manpower and commitment. Difficult, expensive, demoralizing, protracted. Is the free world ready to sacrifice for these goals as it did from 1939 to 1945?

I argue "No". And as a result, any policy of aggressive intervention will only lead us down the path of a million little Vietnams. A million little Somalias (circa Blackhawk Down). Not, as some would hope, the glorious path of future D-Days and marches through Paris and Berlin.

[ISiddiqui]

Why is Somalia next instead of all the hotspots mentioned above? Hell, why aren't we doing anything in Burma?

[Flasch186]

While this is a good summation, I think my position is more nuanced than that. Flasch suggests (by his choice of conflicts, not just in this thread but others) that the U.S. military (and others) be projected specifically into conflicts which will have the character of protracted occupations (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, for recent examples). Such actions will be, by definition, costly both in dollars and lives, and will also be extremely manpower-intensive. In this series of protracted engagements he is asking a considerable number of servicemen and women to give their lives or limbs to a greater cause.

Against this, I am arguing the following:

He's putting the cart before the horse. Unlike WWII (the best possible counter-example) there exists no widespread true committment amongst the populaces of "free world" countries to make these sacrifices. I argue that until there is that true committment, engaging in these protracted engagements will largely be self-defeating. I believe an even casual look at 20th century history supports this.

Edit: Furthermore, a policy of "sending the troops in" is the easy solution (easy obviously from a conceptual standpoint, not an execution standpoint). I guess I take umbrage at the clarion call from comfortable couch-sitting Americans to "send the troops in" to the cause du jour when any of these issues is actually far more complex and "sending the troops in" is not, in itself, the solution.

You want to stop genocide? Convince the world it's worth it to make the sacrifices necessary to nip genocide in the bud wherever it happens. Want to stop terrorism? Convince the world it's worth it to make the sacrifices necessary to root out terrorism wherever it grow.

Ah, but what are those sacrifices? There's the rub. Like the Great War, these too are great wars. These too are weighty considerations requiring equivalent (or more) manpower and commitment. Difficult, expensive, demoralizing, protracted. Is the free world ready to sacrifice for these goals as it did from 1939 to 1945?

I argue "No". And as a result, any policy of aggressive intervention will only lead us down the path of a million little Vietnams. A million little Somalias (circa Blackhawk Down). Not, as some would hope, the glorious path of future D-Days and marches through Paris and Berlin.


even better summation and capsule.

[Flasch186]

Why is Somalia next instead of all the hotspots mentioned above? Hell, why aren't we doing anything in Burma?

For us not to admit that Islamic extremism (Wahabi-ism) is the main ingredient (im trying to think of a better word for ingredient) to the Global war on terror (not localized terror wherein a minority is fighting for independence, etc.) is lying. It is, and the new group in Somalia (and the group in Sudan) ARE Islamic extremism members and IMO will only be some time before they are a launching pad for terrorist acts in their attempt to create an Islamic world...one where freedom doesn't exist.

[John Galt]

For us not to admit that Islamic extremism (Wahabi-ism) is the main ingredient (im trying to think of a better word for ingredient) to the Global war on terror (not localized terror wherein a minority is fighting for independence, etc.) is lying. It is, and the new group in Somalia (and the group in Sudan) ARE Islamic extremism members and IMO will only be some time before they are a launching pad for terrorist acts in their attempt to create an Islamic world...one where freedom doesn't exist.

You seem to have abandoned genocide entirely as the touchstone for military invasion. Islamic nations aren't uniquely connected to perpetuating genocide (in fact, a decent argument can be made that they are less likely to engage in genocidal policies). You seem to just be regurgitating the policies of this administration or am I missing something?

I believe we should use military force in extreme situations like genocide (Bosnia, Sudan) and completely failed states (Afghanistan was a close call, Somalia made sense before, but doesn't make as much sense now). With lesser human rights concerns, however, I tend to believe intervention does more harm than good over the long run. And I really think it is a bad idea to intervene in hostile nations in order to rebuild them in a way we would find preferable (this pretty much never works).

[ISiddiqui]

For us not to admit that Islamic extremism (Wahabi-ism) is the main ingredient (im trying to think of a better word for ingredient) to the Global war on terror (not localized terror wherein a minority is fighting for independence, etc.) is lying. It is, and the new group in Somalia (and the group in Sudan) ARE Islamic extremism members and IMO will only be some time before they are a launching pad for terrorist acts in their attempt to create an Islamic world...one where freedom doesn't exist.

Wait a second! What in the Hell happened to fighting genocide?

[st.cronin]

For us not to admit that Islamic extremism (Wahabi-ism) is the main ingredient (im trying to think of a better word for ingredient) to the Global war on terror (not localized terror wherein a minority is fighting for independence, etc.) is lying. It is, and the new group in Somalia (and the group in Sudan) ARE Islamic extremism members and IMO will only be some time before they are a launching pad for terrorist acts in their attempt to create an Islamic world...one where freedom doesn't exist.

15% of british muslims, and 16% of french and spanish, think it's ok to kill innocent people

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253

[Flasch186]

You seem to have abandoned genocide entirely as the touchstone for military invasion. Islamic nations aren't uniquely connected to perpetuating genocide (in fact, a decent argument can be made that they are less likely to engage in genocidal policies). You seem to just be regurgitating the policies of this administration or am I missing something?

I believe we should use military force in extreme situations like genocide (Bosnia, Sudan) and completely failed states (Afghanistan was a close call, Somalia made sense before, but doesn't make as much sense now). With lesser human rights concerns, however, I tend to believe intervention does more harm than good over the long run. And I really think it is a bad idea to intervene in hostile nations in order to rebuild them in a way we would find preferable (this pretty much never works).

You, I think, mentioned touchstones before....there isnt one rule of thumb. It can be more than one thing. If an area has more than one of the ingredients, than it should be a higher priority (i use the term priority for shame). IF there is Genocide in Sudan and Somalia, than we should go to both. If in the planning stage we also find that Sudan is affiliated with Al Qaeda and Somalia is not, and our planning finds that we would have a higher rate of "success" in Sudan, than we should go there, first.

Look, Im Jewish, so Im ultra-sensitized to Genocide and perhaps I project that on others as if they should too, but I think that, if the free world can stop Genocide from occurring, or at least try to stop it early, than great, I think we should....but I also see that we are in a war on Terror (unfortunately it will be going on for a long long time - which is why I dont like the current administration using it to gain more executive powers as I dont believe it would be a temporary power grab) so if going to Sudan helps stop Genocide AND helps in the war on terror, great.

Edit to add: Puh-lease stop trying to say I'm not trying to stop Genocide, its ridiculous. There are MANY reasons to go to war, Genocide is just one of them. Add in, governmental support and facilitation to commit terror, add in use of Nuclear weopans, add in attacking a defenseless neighbor, etc........

don't be silly, keep the debate bright.

[John Galt]

Edit to add: Puh-lease stop trying to say I'm not trying to stop Genocide, its ridiculous. There are MANY reasons to go to war, Genocide is just one of them. Add in, governmental support and facilitation to commit terror, add in use of Nuclear weopans, add in attacking a defenseless neighbor.......

don't be silly, keep the debate bright.

You seem to be misinterpreting what EVERYONE is saying. No one is saying you are "not trying to stop genocide." Instead, people are confused as to your shifting priorities and arguments. You say Somalia is next. You then say we must do everything to stop genocide first. Then people point out that Somalia doesn't really have anything to do with stopping genocide. Then you say the war on terror is the reason for going into Somalia (which I think everyone would have understood if you had said so in the first place instead of talking about genocide).

Your foreign policy (like this administration's) seems to be like an elephant in a china shop. It will make a big mess of the world and has no clear purpose. It seems like "neat ideas" and worthwhile goals, but very little thought about what it would actually mean in the real world. If you want to defend something more realistic, yet idealistic, read up on just war theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war). But for now, IMO, you just aren't making any sense.

edit: actually, this wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Just_War_tradition)is better for just war - I linked to the wrong one.

[ISiddiqui]

You seem to be misinterpreting what EVERYONE is saying. No one is saying you are "not trying to stop genocide." Instead, people are confused as to your shifting priorities and arguments. You say Somalia is next. You then say we must do everything to stop genocide first. Then people point out that Somalia doesn't really have anything to do with stopping genocide. Then you say the war on terror is the reason for going into Somalia (which I think everyone would have understood if you had said so in the first place instead of talking about genocide).

Your foreign policy (like this administration's) seems to be like an elephant in a china shop. It will make a big mess of the world and has no clear purpose. It seems like "neat ideas" and worthwhile goals, but very little thought about what it would actually mean in the real world. If you want to defend something more realistic, yet idealistic, read up on just war theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war). But for now, IMO, you just aren't making any sense.

Ditto. We just have absolutely no idea why Somalia should be 'next'. The first explination was genocide, but when pointing out places where actual genocide may be going on, suddenly, it's not about genocide anymore? :confused:

[Klinglerware]

I know I've pimped it before, but Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars" is a great introduction to Just War theory...

[duckman]

Flasch, if this "vision" of yours was be even possible, would you make the necessary sacrifices to see this through? What I mean, would go down to the local Army recruiting station and sign up to fight? If not, would you be willing sacrifice the lost of income because people can't buy homes when they are fighting battles overseas? Would you cancel that trip to Vegas because the fighters need that fuel? What about a roadtrip? Would you cancel it to save the gas for the tanks that are on the ground somewhere? Would you substantially lower your standard of living to give resources to those troops?

[Klinglerware]

If someone can articulate how a successful intervention in Somalia will work, I would love to hear it. If we are going to boil it down to "good" and "bad", at a simplistic level, it seems that "bad guys" (warlords) overthrew other "bad guys" (a military dictatorship, albeit US-sponsored). These new "bad guys" fought amongst themselves to the point that even newer "bad guys" (the islamists) have emerged to fill in the vacuum created by the lack of recognized state authority.

To be a little less facetious, will this be an exercise in long-term state-building? As we have found, this is not easy. As we are seeing in East Timor right now, even if we have a tabula rasa to mold a society, and the resources to see it through (made easier in East Timor since it is such a small country), it can still fall apart very quickly. In Somalia, as my "everybody is a bad guy" joke points to, there are probably not enough qualified Somalis on the ground right now to effectively administer the country--it will take some time for a critical mass to come available.

As st.cronin mentions, there is absolutely nothing wrong in expending resources for humanitarian interventions abroad. One must be cautious though, in considering what can actually be accomplished, and at what cost.

[Flasch186]

Ditto. We just have absolutely no idea why Somalia should be 'next'. The first explination was genocide, but when pointing out places where actual genocide may be going on, suddenly, it's not about genocide anymore? :confused:

John & Isidd. - the scope was changed during the debate, what I said about Somalia is in quotes at the bottom. when people started bringing in other areas and which do you go to first and why then the debate opened up to more stuff. With all due respect, I think you should re-read this thread and see what was said when and about what....youre applying some things to the wrong areas.

I never said it wasn't about Genocide anymore, I said that there are more than one reason to go to war. This thread got off the small facet I started it with a long time ago and became globalized but now, youve thrown it back on the small facet to discuss or say "EWWWWW, what about Genocide!!!". You cant do that, change scope and then go back to the smalest facet.

When the discussion became about what determines when to go where, the scope changed and the reasons for each become more verbose.

when it was on the proper scale this is what I said:


..because a slippery slope has started in Somalia that will culminate with a return of a Taliban-esque style gov't. wherein the seeds of terrorism will be allowed to prosper and grow.

No one denied that Afghanistan was a justified "war" and for the same reasons, somewhere down the line, we'll have to go to Somalia (again, we being the free world not just the U.S.)

EDIT: the fact that there is no oil and no jews there (maybe a few) should play no role in why we should or shouldn't go.

[Flasch186]

If someone can articulate how a successful intervention in Somalia will work, I would love to hear it. If we are going to boil it down to "good" and "bad", at a simplistic level, it seems that "bad guys" (warlords) overthrew other "bad guys" (a military dictatorship, albeit US-sponsored). These new "bad guys" fought amongst themselves to the point that even newer "bad guys" (the islamists) have emerged to fill in the vacuum created by the lack of recognized state authority.

To be a little less facetious, will this be an exercise in long-term state-building? As we have found, this is not easy. As we are seeing in East Timor right now, even if we have a tabula rasa to mold a society, and the resources to see it through (made easier in East Timor since it is such a small country), it can still fall apart very quickly. In Somalia, as my "everybody is a bad guy" joke points to, there are probably not enough qualified Somalis on the ground right now to effectively administer the country--it will take some time for a critical mass to come available.

As st.cronin mentions, there is absolutely nothing wrong in expending resources for humanitarian interventions abroad. One must be cautious though, in considering what can actually be accomplished, and at what cost.

Agreed and I dont know...I have to bank on the experts to plan this out.

duckman - if it came down to it and thefree world was on board and would agree that these things are imperative to save humanity, then the answer to your questions are of course. If the experts say, Howard, while we understand what you're good at, we feel you'd be best served as a grenadier, than I'd have to although I'd think my talents are different than that of someone who is a grenadier.

Keep in mind, this is when we can get the whole free world on board. I am not for the US going out and doing everything for everyone AND Im not going to join a group of militia men in the woods, but when the world's concensus is the equal opposite of the "evil" on the other side (wherein the evil declares war on our way of life, then on the same scale we "good" should fight back and win) we'll mostly all be in agreement. Dont you think we all wouldve sacrificed if we were alive during WWII? Of course.

[Flasch186]

Flasch, if this "vision" of yours was be even possible, would you make the necessary sacrifices to see this through? What I mean, would go down to the local Army recruiting station and sign up to fight? If not, would you be willing sacrifice the lost of income because people can't buy homes when they are fighting battles overseas? Would you cancel that trip to Vegas because the fighters need that fuel? What about a roadtrip? Would you cancel it to save the gas for the tanks that are on the ground somewhere? Would you substantially lower your standard of living to give resources to those troops?

I would think that we all would when it comes to that point where the entire free world is on the same page.

i think i answered this twice...sorry.

[ISiddiqui]

when it was on the proper scale this is what I said:

So then why is Somalia 'next' when there are far worse abuses in other countries than a 'potential' Taliban style government, which really, there is no evidence will arise because the people in favor may not be able to take down the warlords?

Genocide is bigger than a 'potential' terrorist haven.

Btw, when asked which countries to liberate, you said, first, all countries that are committing genocide, then you'll have to research. When people questioned about Somalia, then you backed away... if anyone is guilty of going from the small case to the big case and then retreating to the small case, it is yourself. We aren't the ones that said Somalia is 'next' (nor should it be).

[st.cronin]

So then why is Somalia 'next' when there are far worse abuses in other countries than a 'potential' Taliban style government, which really, there is no evidence will arise because the people in favor may not be able to take down the warlords?

Genocide is bigger than a 'potential' terrorist haven.

Btw, when asked which countries to liberate, you said, first, all countries that are committing genocide, then you'll have to research. When people questioned about Somalia, then you backed away... if anyone is guilty of going from the small case to the big case and then retreating to the small case, it is yourself. We aren't the ones that said Somalia is 'next' (nor should it be).

Speaking only in the abstract, I think that what Flasch is getting at is that there are places where humanitarian concerns and US national interests coincide. Genocide is worse than terrorism - but genocide, by itself, doesn't threaten the US, whereas terrorism does. I completely agree with this line of thinking, although not neccesarily his conclusion about Somalia.

[Flasch186]

So then why is Somalia 'next' when there are far worse abuses in other countries than a 'potential' Taliban style government, which really, there is no evidence will arise because the people in favor may not be able to take down the warlords?


Like I said its my opinion and speculation based on news and information, ie. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/771763 , http://www.cfr.org/publication/9366/ and more



Genocide is bigger than a 'potential' terrorist haven.



agreed, the two are not mutually exclusive



Btw, when asked which countries to liberate, you said, first, all countries that are committing genocide, then you'll have to research. When people questioned about Somalia, then you backed away... if anyone is guilty of going from the small case to the big case and then retreating to the small case, it is yourself. We aren't the ones that said Somalia is 'next' (nor should it be).

Somalia is next because we can win IMO and prevent what I speculate is coming. We shouldve been in the Sudan years ago which Nomyths and I, and others talked about in threads dating back over a year, and nothing has changed regarding my opinion on this....

but I think that we the entire free world should be in Somalia next, and on a larger scale should attack Genocide wherever it is occurring and will occur....but that doesnt mean that the war on terror doesnt exist too....both are going on.

[ISiddiqui]

Speaking only in the abstract, I think that what Flasch is getting at is that there are places where humanitarian concerns and US national interests coincide. Genocide is worse than terrorism - but genocide, by itself, doesn't threaten the US, whereas terrorism does. I completely agree with this line of thinking, although not neccesarily his conclusion about Somalia.

I don't think that's what he is saying at all. He isn't saying anything about national interest in the slightest.

[Flasch186]

I don't think that's what he is saying at all. He isn't saying anything about national interest in the slightest.

Free world interests which we are the leader of. Cronin is right, you just disagree with me...which is ok.

there is no hard and fast rule that Genocide doesnt occur where bastions of terror exist and vice versa.

[aran]

Flasch - You seem to be blinded by nationalism. All of your pro-"free world" pontificating is absolutely meaningless. There is no "free world". There are several countries that have adopted democratic governmental structures. Are they "free"? Well, that's highly subjective. Even in a country with a highly democratisized (is that a word?) government, social pressures can exist which wreak havoc on this "freedom" that you hold so dear, even though they aren't obvious or externally visible. There will always be status quos that will limit freedoms of certain groups of people. Government isn't all. Look at what Iraq has turned into. It's supposed to be a member of the "free world" now, but is it raelly free? I think you're ignoring that just so you can point to yourself and your nation as the "good guy".

Nations fight because they see the good in themselves and the evil in their enemies. Have you ever heard of a war where both sides considered themselves and their enemies as "good"? Of course the US is going to view themselves as the "good guys" and the islamic millitants as "bad guys"! Why else would the government send us to war? Just because we are the de facto "good guys" doesn't mean we are the "good guys".

Do you really think that we can just march in to other countries and say "We're the good guys! We're going to help you out!" and not be shunned or spit upon or paid off by the highest bidder? Who are the good guys in these nations that we should support? As you can see, "good vs. evil" is a slippery slope.

If we're going to work to get rid of islamic fundamentalists, we should also work to get rid of christian fundamentalists. At this juncture in history, the Islamic fundamentalists seem like they're the biggest threat abroad to national security/defense, but we have quite a dangerous and relatively accepted sect of christian fundamentalists as well... This is for a completely different thread, though.

[ISiddiqui]

Like I said its my opinion and speculation based on news and information, ie. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/771763 and more

Is it not out of the realm of possibility that bin Laden is trying to 'play' us? You know, like Al Queda did in Iraq? The US invading Iraq was exactly what bin Laden wanted from us. I think its about time we stop looking at these video tapes and say, "we'll foil his plans this time" while walking right into them.

Somalia is next because we can win IMO and prevent what I speculate is coming. We shouldve been in the Sudan years ago which Nomyths and I, and others talked about in threads dating back over a year, and nothing has changed regarding my opinion on this....

but I think that we the entire free world should be in Somalia next, and on a larger scale should attack Genocide wherever it is occurring and will occur.

Go into Somalia and push genocide to the back pages? I mean what is going in Burma is far more dangerous than what is going on in Somalia. Somalia has warlords who have shown themselves to be very powerful (as the US is first hand aware). In Burma, the assholes control the government!

And the reservations by many are correct. Who is sent to deal with this? I'd imagine army volunteer rates the world over fall the world over. Will we have to institute the draft for this? Hell, many European countries have universal draft for kids who are 18 years old for a couple years... are they going to be sent over in humanitarian wars (and must do so to become a full citizen - it'd be like Starship Troopers on some level)? And this war will go on forever... unless we have a world government that can deal with threats like that, and in the end that's what your proposal asserts, a world wide police force, which I'd imagine would lead to greater attempts an Earth government.

[Flasch186]

Is it not out of the realm of possibility that bin Laden is trying to 'play' us? You know, like Al Queda did in Iraq? The US invading Iraq was exactly what bin Laden wanted from us. I think its about time we stop looking at these video tapes and say, "we'll foil his plans this time" while walking right into them.



Go into Somalia and push genocide to the back pages? I mean what is going in Burma is far more dangerous than what is going on in Somalia. Somalia has warlords who have shown themselves to be very powerful (as the US is first hand aware). In Burma, the assholes control the government!

And the reservations by many are correct. Who is sent to deal with this? I'd imagine army volunteer rates the world over fall the world over. Will we have to institute the draft for this? Hell, many European countries have universal draft for kids who are 18 years old for a couple years... are they going to be sent over in humanitarian wars (and must do so to become a full citizen - it'd be like Starship Troopers on some level)? And this war will go on forever... unless we have a world government that can deal with threats like that, and in the end that's what your proposal asserts, a world wide police force, which I'd imagine would lead to greater attempts an Earth government.


The "venus Fly trap" theory says our drawing Al Qaeda to Iraq to fight was our plan...I dont know if it was the official plan but it seems to be the other half of the debate of that point.

[st.cronin]

If we're going to work to get rid of islamic fundamentalists, we should also work to get rid of christian fundamentalists. At this juncture in history, the Islamic fundamentalists seem like they're the biggest threat abroad to national security/defense, but we have quite a dangerous and relatively accepted sect of christian fundamentalists as well... This is for a completely different thread, though.

15% of british muslims think suicide bombing is justified.

[aran]

15% of british muslims think suicide bombing is justified.

OK. I said they were most dangerous. I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

[ISiddiqui]

Free world interests which we are the leader of. Cronin is right, you just disagree with me...which is ok.

WTF is "free world interests" supposed to mean?! US interests are far different from German interests which are different than Japanese interests. Free world interests are making sure places don't engage in humanitarian violations. I mean just because the US is threatened from terrorism doesn't mean all the countries in the free world are.

And cronin did say "US national interests"

there is no hard and fast rule that Genocide doesnt occur where bastions of terror exist and vice versa.

Usually, however, they tend to be seperate. Only Sudan seems to be where fundamentalist terrorism and genocide combine in the present day world. The reasons are clear. Terrorism is violence to get someone to change their policies. Genocide requires you have some control over the local governing body. A lot of times they are at odds with one another.

[Flasch186]

Flasch - You seem to be blinded by nationalism. All of your pro-"free world" pontificating is absolutely meaningless. There is no "free world". There are several countries that have adopted democratic governmental structures. Are they "free"? Well, that's highly subjective. Even in a country with a highly democratisized (is that a word?) government, social pressures can exist which wreak havoc on this "freedom" that you hold so dear, even though they aren't obvious or externally visible. There will always be status quos that will limit freedoms of certain groups of people. Government isn't all. Look at what Iraq has turned into. It's supposed to be a member of the "free world" now, but is it raelly free? I think you're ignoring that just so you can point to yourself and your nation as the "good guy".

Nations fight because they see the good in themselves and the evil in their enemies. Have you ever heard of a war where both sides considered themselves and their enemies as "good"? Of course the US is going to view themselves as the "good guys" and the islamic millitants as "bad guys"! Why else would the government send us to war? Just because we are the de facto "good guys" doesn't mean we are the "good guys".

Do you really think that we can just march in to other countries and say "We're the good guys! We're going to help you out!" and not be shunned or spit upon or paid off by the highest bidder? Who are the good guys in these nations that we should support? As you can see, "good vs. evil" is a slippery slope.



all valid opinions



If we're going to work to get rid of islamic fundamentalists, we should also work to get rid of christian fundamentalists. At this juncture in history, the Islamic fundamentalists seem like they're the biggest threat abroad to national security/defense, but we have quite a dangerous and relatively accepted sect of christian fundamentalists as well... This is for a completely different thread, though.

not on the same plane in my opinion

[ISiddiqui]

The "venus Fly trap" theory says our drawing Al Qaeda to Iraq to fight was our plan...I dont know if it was the official plan but it seems to be the other half of the debate of that point.

If that was our plan (or is now), it's a pretty stupid one. Americans are dying regardless... the difference being these are soldiers that WE have put in harm's way in a sojourn from the real War on Terror.

[Flasch186]

WTF is "free world interests" supposed to mean?! US interests are far different from German interests which are different than Japanese interests. Free world interests are making sure places don't engage in humanitarian violations. I mean just because the US is threatened from terrorism doesn't mean all the countries in the free world are.



I disagree. They may not have swallowed the threat yet but make no mistake, the enemy of the "free World" is against the entire free world. their goal is to eventually have the entire world under a Islamic state, so Spain, Germany, Japan, etc. are a part of this....like I said before, time and again, in this thread, eventhough ive been cherry picked, they just have to all get on the same page. My nationalism is for the entire Free World to get ready for this (Where is JiMGA? this is something we actually agree on I think.)

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/554




Usually, however, they tend to be seperate. Only Sudan seems to be where fundamentalist terrorism and genocide combine in the present day world. The reasons are clear. Terrorism is violence to get someone to change their policies. Genocide requires you have some control over the local governing body. A lot of times they are at odds with one another.

not always

http://www.google.com/search?q=terrorism+and+genocide&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

[aran]

all valid opinions

Sure, but I didn't post them so you could just call them "valid opinions". I want your response. Much of what I said is pretty close to "truth" and refutes your "good vs. evil" view of the world. I'd like to see you respond.

[CraigSca]

OK. I said they were most dangerous. I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

While it's politically correct to lump Christian fundamentalists with Islamic, until the Christians begin endorsing blowing up subways and killing innocents, please refrain from doing so.

[Flasch186]

Flasch - You seem to be blinded by nationalism. All of your pro-"free world" pontificating is absolutely meaningless. There is no "free world". There are several countries that have adopted democratic governmental structures. Are they "free"? Well, that's highly subjective. Even in a country with a highly democratisized (is that a word?) government, social pressures can exist which wreak havoc on this "freedom" that you hold so dear, even though they aren't obvious or externally visible. There will always be status quos that will limit freedoms of certain groups of people. Government isn't all. Look at what Iraq has turned into. It's supposed to be a member of the "free world" now, but is it raelly free? I think you're ignoring that just so you can point to yourself and your nation as the "good guy".

Iraq turned into the mess it is because of the horrible planning of the "day after". With better post-invasion planning we may not even have had to be there in the numbers we are, at this point today. My opinion is my opinion and has nothing to do with how you or anyone views me, it was formed from 25 years of environmental influences and information



Nations fight because they see the good in themselves and the evil in their enemies. Have you ever heard of a war where both sides considered themselves and their enemies as "good"? Of course the US is going to view themselves as the "good guys" and the islamic millitants as "bad guys"! Why else would the government send us to war? Just because we are the de facto "good guys" doesn't mean we are the "good guys".



in the examples and debates, I think that We the US and the free world are the good guys because its my opinion and I dont care if the enemy thinks that theyre their own good guys.



Do you really think that we can just march in to other countries and say "We're the good guys! We're going to help you out!" and not be shunned or spit upon or paid off by the highest bidder? Who are the good guys in these nations that we should support? As you can see, "good vs. evil" is a slippery slope.



in Sudan? yes (except for the foreign fighters and Al Qaeda and those we ousted.)



If we're going to work to get rid of islamic fundamentalists, we should also work to get rid of christian fundamentalists. At this juncture in history, the Islamic fundamentalists seem like they're the biggest threat abroad to national security/defense, but we have quite a dangerous and relatively accepted sect of christian fundamentalists as well... This is for a completely different thread, though.

I disagree entirely and while I cant stand Christian fundamentalism youre way off base comparing them to Al Qaeda and not concluding that they are unbelieveably different.

[ISiddiqui]

I disagree. They may not have swallowed the threat yet but make no mistake, the enemy of the "free World" is against the entire free world. their goal is to eventually have the entire world under a Islamic state, so Spain, Germany, Japan, etc. are a part of this....like I said before, time and again, in this thread, eventhough ive been cherry picked, they just have to all get on the same page. My nationalism is for the entire Free World to get ready for this (Where is JiMGA? this is something we actually agree on I think.)

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/554


What is in the 'national interest' is decided by every state individually. Not what you decide from your chair in the middle of the US. Sure western countries are potential targets and its a 'concern', but I'd imagine most of those countries may consider genocide to be far greater concerns. I'd imagine Japan would be worried about what is going on in Burma over what a group of Somali fundies is doing.

Basically, what you want is for everyone to get on board the 'US national interest' train even if they don't agree on the relative threat level or where it is on their national interest board.

not always

http://www.google.com/search?q=terrorism+and+genocide&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Does usually = always?

Besides from the links on page 1 (at least), most of them have terrorism and genocide listed seperate. One has some people in Peshawar being forced to move by terrorists and one yells at the US's "terrorism and genocide" against the Vietnamese in the Vietnam War, but the rest appear to list them apart. As I said, USUALLY they are seperate things. And in Somalia, I don't see a genocide occuring. There wasn't one in Afghanistan after all. Just because one happened in Sudan, doesn't mean it'll happen everywhere there is a struggle involving fundamentalists.

[Flasch186]

Sure, but I didn't post them so you could just call them "valid opinions". I want your response. Much of what I said is pretty close to "truth" and refutes your "good vs. evil" view of the world. I'd like to see you respond.


BTW dont you make the same "mistake" youre throwing darts out by claiming "truth?"

[ISiddiqui]

in the examples and debates, I think that We the US and the free world are the good guys because its my opinion and I dont care if the enemy thinks that theyre their own good guys.

And you fail to notice that some of the "free world" considers the US to be the BAD guys (think of the democracies in South America for example, such as Brazil, Chile, and Argentina).

[Flasch186]

What is in the 'national interest' is decided by every state individually. Not what you decide from your chair in the middle of the US. Sure western countries are potential targets and its a 'concern', but I'd imagine most of those countries may consider genocide to be far greater concerns. I'd imagine Japan would be worried about what is going on in Burma over what a group of Somali fundies is doing.

Basically, what you want is for everyone to get on board the 'US national interest' train even if they don't agree on the relative threat level or where it is on their national interest board.



thats been my point, jeez, that someday they need to all get on the same page with the needs of the free world NOT our needs but a transcendent view.




Does usually = always?

Besides from the links on page 1 (at least), most of them have terrorism and genocide listed seperate. One has some people in Peshawar being forced to move by terrorists and one yells at the US's "terrorism and genocide" against the Vietnamese in the Vietnam War, but the rest appear to list them apart. As I said, USUALLY they are seperate things. And in Somalia, I don't see a genocide occuring. There wasn't one in Afghanistan after all. Just because one happened in Sudan, doesn't mean it'll happen everywhere there is a struggle involving fundamentalists.

are getting bigger now? If were looking at all the reasons to go to war Ive listed a few but there are bunches IMO.

[Franklinnoble]

While it's politically correct to lump Christian fundamentalists with Islamic, until the Christians begin endorsing blowing up subways and killing innocents, please refrain from doing so.

Agreed.

[Flasch186]

And you fail to notice that some of the "free world" considers the US to be the BAD guys (think of the democracies in South America for example, such as Brazil, Chile, and Argentina).

Oh I know that, and like i said, these are my opinions, not Chavez's.

Luckily, most countries seperate the US from its idiot administration and we'll have to spend years repairing our reputation.

[ISiddiqui]

thats been my point, jeez, that someday they need to all get on the same page with the needs of the free world NOT our needs but a transcendent view.

So you are expressing a utopian view? Because I doubt this will happen any time soon... especially when we start talking about countries like Chile, who the US has dicked over in the past.

[aran]

While it's politically correct to lump Christian fundamentalists with Islamic, until the Christians begin endorsing blowing up subways and killing innocents, please refrain from doing so.

They endorse killing off members of the Supreme Court, for starters.

Iraq turned into the mess it is because of the horrible planning of the "day after". With better post-invasion planning we may not even have had to be there in the numbers we are, at this point today. My opinion is my opinion and has nothing to do with how you or anyone views me, it was formed from 25 years of environmental influences and information


I brought up Iraq because it's supposed to be a member of the "free world" but it's far from being a free country.


in the examples and debates, I think that We the US and the free world are the good guys because its my opinion and I dont care if the enemy thinks that theyre their own good guys.

But... I just punched holes in your entire "We're the good guys!" rap. That's your reason for doing everything you're doing. I don't understand how you can just ignore that. You are getting yourself into a position where you fully endorse the US government just arbitrarily deciding who is evil and who you will fight and the only reason you are trusting them is because they are 'good'.

in Sudan? yes (except for the foreign fighters and Al Qaeda and those we ousted.)

Natives are not very happy about occupation forces. Almost never are they endorsed by the public.

I disagree entirely and while I cant stand Christian fundamentalism youre way off base comparing them to Al Qaeda and not concluding that they are unbelieveably different.
I never compared them to Al Qaeda directly. Christian fundamentalists do want genocide upon Islam, though. Dangerous, no?

[Flasch186]

my nephew just came over so im going to be out of commission for awhile....sorry

[Flasch186]

So you are expressing a utopian view? Because I doubt this will happen any time soon... especially when we start talking about countries like Chile, who the US has dicked over in the past.


sure...I aim high

[Flasch186]

I am FAR from a supporter of our admin.

[Franklinnoble]

And you fail to notice that some of the "free world" considers the US to be the BAD guys (think of the democracies in South America for example, such as Brazil, Chile, and Argentina).

Jealousy does that. But they'll be the first countries to take a handout the next time they have a natural or man-made disaster of some sort.

[ISiddiqui]

Jealousy does that. But they'll be the first countries to take a handout the next time they have a natural or man-made disaster of some sort.

Yeah, I'm sure Chile thinks of the US as the 'bad guy' because they are jealous... not because we helped overthrow a democratically elected leader and replaced him with brutal dictator... yeah.

[st.cronin]

They endorse killing off members of the Supreme Court, for starters.

I never compared them to Al Qaeda directly. Christian fundamentalists do want genocide upon Islam, though. Dangerous, no?

15% of british muslims endorse suicide bombing ... 57% of muslims in jorda endorse suicide bombing ... do even 1% of baptists in Kansas support either of those positions???????

[Franklinnoble]

Yeah, I'm sure Chile thinks of the US as the 'bad guy' because they are jealous... not because we helped overthrow a democratically elected leader and replaced him with brutal dictator... yeah.

I don't think we "placed" Pinochet there... he just took advantage of the situation.

We did, however, undermine the communist who was in charge at the time, so, yeah, I guess if they prefer Marxism, I suppose they'd be upset.

[CraigSca]

They endorse killing off members of the Supreme Court, for starters.

Really?! You know, I never got that memo. Odd.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think we "placed" Pinochet there... he just took advantage of the situation.

We did, however, undermine the communist who was in charge at the time, so, yeah, I guess if they prefer Marxism, I suppose they'd be upset.

Well, seeing how they democratically elected Allende and we decided to back someone who wasn't interested in elections (and in helping the overthrow, we did place Pinochet in power... he was the one leading the overthrow), I think they have justifiable reason to be upset. Hell, we've messed around so much in Latin America, most of those countries probably have a right to be upset at the US.

[Franklinnoble]

Well, seeing how they democratically elected Allende and we decided to back someone who wasn't interested in elections (and in helping the overthrow, we did place Pinochet in power... he was the one leading the overthrow), I think they have justifiable reason to be upset. Hell, we've messed around so much in Latin America, most of those countries probably have a right to be upset at the US.

Hey, I'm not saying it was anything to be proud of... but you have to keep it in context of the global political climate. This was in the late 60's - early 70's - the heart of the Cold War. Communism was enemy #1, and the only good commie was a dead commie.

[flere-imsaho]

The "venus Fly trap" theory says our drawing Al Qaeda to Iraq to fight was our plan...I dont know if it was the official plan but it seems to be the other half of the debate of that point.

This would be a more effective argument were it not for the recent arrest of Al-Qaeda plotters in Florida.

[Anthony]

HUH???

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/07/06/russia.putin.reut/index.html

[ISiddiqui]

Hey, I'm not saying it was anything to be proud of... but you have to keep it in context of the global political climate. This was in the late 60's - early 70's - the heart of the Cold War. Communism was enemy #1, and the only good commie was a dead commie.

What, this is supposed to make Chile feel better? I'm not sure that if the USSR actually did kill Kennedy (and we knew it) that them later on saying it was in the context of the Cold War would make us feel any better.

[flere-imsaho]

Jealousy does that. But they'll be the first countries to take a handout the next time they have a natural or man-made disaster of some sort.

Brazil, Argentina & Chile are the recipients of massive amounts of aid from the U.S.? That's news to me. Maybe you missed the news that Argentina, for example, recently paid off all of its loans?

[Franklinnoble]

What, this is supposed to make Chile feel better? I'm not sure that if the USSR actually did kill Kennedy (and we knew it) that them later on saying it was in the context of the Cold War would make us feel any better.

Funny... we still get along with Japan, even though they bombed Pearl Harbor and we nuked two of their cities.

[stevew]

HUH???

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/07/06/russia.putin.reut/index.html

Like a kitten. Nice.

[yabanci]

thats been my point, jeez, that someday they need to all get on the same page with the needs of the free world NOT our needs but a transcendent view.


I think if we can get Peter Pan on board, your plan should work brilliantly.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6148/popcorn4jj.gif

[duckman]

I think if we can get Peter Pan on board, your plan should work brilliantly.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6148/popcorn4jj.gif

LMAO

[John Galt]

LMAO

"

[Desnudo]

ooooh, the final showdown between good and evil. I've been waiting for this.

Which side are we on?

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6148/popcorn4jj.gif

Evil, because good is dumb.