• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Team Mulls Aims Of Somali Extremists

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Senior Obama administration officials are debating how to address a potential terrorist threat to U.S. interests from a Somali extremist group, with some in the military advocating strikes against its training camps. But many officials maintain that uncertainty about the intentions of the al-Shabab organization dictates a more patient, nonmilitary approach.

Al-Shabab, whose fighters have battled Ethiopian occupiers and the tenuous Somali government, poses a dilemma for the administration, according to several senior national security officials who outlined the debate only on the condition of anonymity.
Click to expand...
washingtonpost.com

Told ya'll, "Negotiations" not force will be the word of the day.
 
Individual countries should be negotiated with, NOT bands of thugs and criminals. I say launch a cruse missile into the camps or if we want to be nice drop some leaflets to say we will bomb them and then launch the missile.
 
Well remember what happened last time the US intervened in Somali. They backed Ethiopian forces who toppled an albeit weak and far from perfect "gov't" that at least had some popular support and most importantly brought a little stability to some parts of the country, to be replaced by complete chaos again and a totally weak and nominal regime.
 
GarzaUK said:
Not every problem is a nail. Force can only do so much.
Click to expand...

200 years ago, another US President had basically the same problem. Note, it took 200 years for this to happen again. Obviously, force didn't work eh?
 
GarzaUK said:
Not every problem is a nail. Force can only do so much.
Click to expand...
When one wishes to negotiate, one must first speak your opponent's language.

Terrorists understand a language of violence and fear. Ergo, that is the proper language to use in "negotiating" with terrorists.

Thus, the way to "negotiate" with al-Shahab is to napalm their training camps and incinerate every living person within. Give them not the glorious death they crave but a most undignified and inglorious death, a most useless and purposeless death, and do so in a horrific and terrifying fashion.

That will speak to them in their own language. The message will be simple, succinct, and certainly understood: "go to hell".
 
MrVicchio said:
washingtonpost.com

Told ya'll, "Negotiations" not force will be the word of the day.
Click to expand...

What force do you want to use? An invasion of Somalia again? That worked wonderfully last time we tried it.

I'll tell you what...can you just provide a comprehensive list of all the countries you think we need to be invading and occupying right now? :doh
 
Kandahar said:
What force do you want to use? An invasion of Somalia again? That worked wonderfully last time we tried it.
Click to expand...
No, not an invasion....but what's wrong with the occasional overflight of Apache helicopter gunships to chew up the pirate bases with a good application of 20mm cannon fire?
 
celticlord said:
No, not an invasion....but what's wrong with the occasional overflight of Apache helicopter gunships to chew up the pirate bases with a good application of 20mm cannon fire?
Click to expand...

Nothing, sounds fine to me.
By the way, this thread is about Somali extremists, not Somali pirates. ;)
 
Kandahar said:
Nothing, sounds fine to me.
By the way, this thread is about Somali extremists, not Somali pirates. ;)
Click to expand...
There doesn't seem to be much difference or distinction. Extremist or pirate, the way to deal with them is to put them on the express elevator to Hell.
 
Kandahar said:
What force do you want to use? An invasion of Somalia again? That worked wonderfully last time we tried it.doh
Click to expand...

Yes it did work until weak American people like you and an even weaker president saw video of a dead soldier on CNN.

Hint, When you put US troops in harms way allow them to complete their ****ing job!
 
celticlord said:
There doesn't seem to be much difference or distinction. Extremist or pirate, the way to deal with them is to put them on the express elevator to Hell.
Click to expand...

One is politically motivated and is somewhat organized. The other only wants money and has no large-scale organization to speak of. There is a BIG difference.
 
Kandahar said:
One is politically motivated and is somewhat organized. The other only wants money and has no large-scale organization to speak of. There is a BIG difference.
Click to expand...
Not when viewed through a gun sight.
 
cherokee said:
Yes it did work until weak American people like you and an even weaker president saw video of a dead soldier on CNN.

Hint, When you put US troops in harms way allow them to complete their ****ing job!
Click to expand...

Actually, the original "job" was to distribute relief supplies. Clinton was the one who decided to change that to include shooting at warlords.
 
Kandahar said:
One is politically motivated and is somewhat organized. The other only wants money and has no large-scale organization to speak of. There is a BIG difference.
Click to expand...
Not much difference if they are dead. ;)


.
 
celticlord said:
Actually, the original "job" was to distribute relief supplies. Clinton was the one who decided to change that to include shooting at warlords.
Click to expand...

I was referring to disarming the clans.
What outcome would you have there today if you allowed our troops to hunt down and disarm or kill them?

After seeing the video on CNN Clinton should have ordered the city to be leveled hunting down Aidid.
 
cherokee said:
I was referring to disarming the clans.
What outcome would you have there today if you allowed our troops to hunt down and disarm or kill them?
Click to expand...
I would never have gotten involved in clan conflicts. If clan chiefs interfered with relief efforts, then and only to that extent would I have troops attacking them.

Let the UN come in and take on the job of building a viable nation-state, or partition it properly so that viable states are the end result.

cherokee said:
After seeing the video on CNN Clinton should have ordered the city to be leveled hunting down Aidid.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Once Aidid had been eliminated, then US troops could have withdrawn honorably.
 
celticlord said:
Actually, the original "job" was to distribute relief supplies. Clinton was the one who decided to change that to include shooting at warlords.
Click to expand...

Again,

We don't get military to distribute supplies-- unless you are looking to put a few rounds into the brains of a few warlords.
 
Wessexman said:
Well remember what happened last time the US intervened in Somali. They backed Ethiopian forces who toppled an albeit weak and far from perfect "gov't" that at least had some popular support and most importantly brought a little stability to some parts of the country, to be replaced by complete chaos again and a totally weak and nominal regime.
Click to expand...

Lets not forget it was the Islamic Court Government that stopped pirating :lol:
 
Last edited:
Arch Enemy said:
Again,

We don't get military to distribute supplies-- unless you are looking to put a few rounds into the brains of a few warlords.
Click to expand...
We do get military to distribute supplies....do it all the time. What do you think the National Guard does when hurricanes and other natural disasters beat up communities here in the United States?
 
celticlord said:
We do get military to distribute supplies....do it all the time. What do you think the National Guard does when hurricanes and other natural disasters beat up communities here in the United States?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean "we don't get" in the sense of "it's not fact" or "it's not what happens" I meant it in the sense "it shouldn't happen because people are gonna-be-a-gunnin for whitey"
 
Arch Enemy said:
I didn't mean "we don't get" in the sense of "it's not fact" or "it's not what happens" I meant it in the sense "it shouldn't happen because people are gonna-be-a-gunnin for whitey"
Click to expand...
THe first phases of US involvement in Somalia, Operations Provide Relief and Restore Hope, were largely successful. Various clan factions did attempt to disrupt relief efforts (leading to the initiation of Operation Restore Hope, which was to secure and protect relief efforts), but, overall, those operations were a success.

It was only the transition to nation-building, and the failure of the UN to adequately comprehend Aidid's prominence in the constant internecine warfare among the clans, that went south.

Had Clinton drawn down US presence in Somalia immediately after Restore Hope, and only engaged Somali clans with clear and finite objectives, the Battle of Mogadishu would not have been fought, and the resultant humiliation of Delta Force would not have occurred.
 
celticlord said:
THe first phases of US involvement in Somalia, Operations Provide Relief and Restore Hope, were largely successful. Various clan factions did attempt to disrupt relief efforts (leading to the initiation of Operation Restore Hope, which was to secure and protect relief efforts), but, overall, those operations were a success.

It was only the transition to nation-building, and the failure of the UN to adequately comprehend Aidid's prominence in the constant internecine warfare among the clans, that went south.

Had Clinton drawn down US presence in Somalia immediately after Restore Hope, and only engaged Somali clans with clear and finite objectives, the Battle of Mogadishu would not have been fought, and the resultant humiliation of Delta Force would not have occurred.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
This whole concept of Nation-State is purely Euro-Centric. The Sudanese, for example, don't considered themselves "Sudanese" they consider themselves part of the different tribes and clans. We can try and provide a State, but that State will almost automatically convene in a disgusting display of pork-barreling-esque politics where the State will favor one clan or tribe over another.

and boom, Civil War.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom