What, if anything, should the West do about Somalia?

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:08 am

Aid agencies are struggling to get help to millions of people at risk of famine in Southern Somalia because the Islamist militia in control of large parts of the country has banned them from coming in. yet this is just one of many issues coming out of Somalia right now.

What should the West do about Somalia?

by Penderyn Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:46 am

Recognise the Government of ex-British-Somalia and send it all the aid - military and otherwise - that we possibly can. Oh - and keep the Yanks out, obviously.

by oftenwrong Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:44 pm

Somalia and Eritrea are an Italian concern. Mussolini mucked it up with his invasion, his successors should fix it.

by Penderyn Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:46 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Somalia and Eritrea are an Italian concern. Mussolini mucked it up with his invasion, his successors should fix it.

Ex-British Somalia is our concern - particularly those of us with Cardiff connections - and should take over the rest because it is well-governed.

by oftenwrong Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:56 pm

British Somaliland was administered from Aden in 1884. Each were coaling-stations for the enormous traffic passing between Britain and India through the Suez canal but had no other interest to Whitehall. Italy seized British Somaliland in 1940. That makes it their responsibility.

by Penderyn Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:51 pm

oftenwrong wrote:British Somaliland was administered from Aden in 1884. Each were coaling-stations for the enormous traffic passing between Britain and India through the Suez canal but had no other interest to Whitehall. Italy seized British Somaliland in 1940. That makes it their responsibility.

What has that got to do with it? We were asked what the West should do about Somalia.

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:32 pm

Whatever it is will probably not be governed by sentimental recollections of the Coal Industry.

by Penderyn Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:55 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Whatever it is will probably not be governed by sentimental recollections of the Coal Industry.

Eh? You been working on a history of breweries? Somaliland is a well-governed country the powers that be don't recognise because they are more interested in imposing a colonial government like ours. Heil Cameron.

by Guest Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:57 pm

Penderyn wrote:
Somaliland is a well-governed country the powers that be don't recognise because they are more interested in imposing a colonial government like ours. Heil Cameron.

Somalia has no government save warlords who perpetrate piracy upon civilization while Somalians starve.

by Charlatan Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:26 pm

This is another example of people wanting sharia law, and fighting for this 'right.' If they were fighting christians, which they are, they need to simply ammend the laws so that it is similar to sharia law, and that the christians can live with.

What they want ultimately is less liberty and freedom of rights for the people of somalia. In america this could be described as people wanting more family values for all the people to adhere to. Things lie adultery would become a crime instead of just getting the skew looks it does in the west.

How do you punish the people that commit adultery and the like? What are they suggesting? There is no need to fight, ths can be solved with logic and court hearings instead of seeing many people die.

So, when the christian government asks what on earth they are really fighting for, they are fighting for less liberty allowed to people and laws that sound more biblical. If the state wants to stop the fighting they should try to ammend the laws. It is not unheard of! In some places especially in asia, thee is less liberty - like singa pore where people get fined for littering.

This can come to a great resolution where the orthodox christians would glady accept these decrees, and some do even without knowing it.

How about the state calls for a cease fire so that they may surrender to the rebels, or at least hear them out? They could iron out the differences between what they have now and what they want it to look like, and then they can have the things that everybody wants. It is not just radicals that want these things, many people do.

by Charlatan Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:16 am

Sometimes people care about each other so much they kill them. These soldiers want to put this in place so much that they will not stop fighting for it until it is there. Let's look through what they are fighting for?

But first lets decide why it is not good? Why don't people want it? I would suggest they don't want it because it changes their lives. What changes? The law changes. The law always changes, but this is like changing it backwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Even with full sharia law, all that will change is economic practices and saying thankyou to god a lot more, and then adultery is a crime.

There is hardly anything worth fighting for! There is nothing worth fighting against! There should be no fight, nothing will change.

by Guest Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:55 am

“You can lead a horse to water, but you cannnot make him drink.”

You cannot lead a mule to water in the first place.

by Charlatan Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:26 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
“You can lead a horse to water, but you cannnot make him drink.”

You cannot lead a mule to water in the first place.

I don't understand...

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:47 pm

You're not alone in that, Charlatan.

Delphic utterances are not to be understood by we plebeians.

by Charlatan Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:51 pm

If we were to make adultery punishable by a fine, and raise moral standards, also punishable by a fine, then there would be somewhat sharia in these places.

But let's say why there shouldn't be sharia? The un is oblivious to it, if it means peace they let people have it. There is no sanctions or anything in the sharia world, so, without the support of the united nations, there is no case against it.

Okay, the peaceful way out of this is to have all the statesmen replaced by clerics of sharia that are well versed in these matters pertaining to them. These people will see the introduction of sharia law and then carry out their duties. This is like a coup, for now. When the people complain they will not pick up arms and fight, so it will be bloodless 'suffering.' This is the value of human life, to preserve it even if it is someone of a different religion to you - i mean these animals and feinds also need food and bleed, yes?

Now, to arry out this coup they need to strike at the armies of the state. If they were to convince these soldiers to defect to their side, then there would be no problem with this 'coup.' If they were to get the civilians onto their side, then there would be hopeless amounts of people fighting for sharia in somalia... and why not? These people are unhappy to the point of killing the people they live with, but lets say that they should go to jail?!

In that case, they should use tear gas a lot, so as to take advantage of the lack of these coverings of the other side. Tear gas and handcuffs - that is the way to do it.

I just want to see this war end, bloodlessly. It doesn't matter who the president is, they will be leaned on by their neighbours into doing the right thing, they will have a cabinet full of people to help them. All there needs to be is peace at this time. This will bring in a gdp and stop the loss of life.

So, it is simple... the militants need more support and the state needs tear gas. It is one or the other.

by Charlatan Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:59 pm

Maybe the people could stop the war? If they were to all wear white, then run up to the militants and soldiers and mob them, by disarming them, would they open fire? They could disarm them and then they would have to get by without their weapons...

This would see people fighting for a cease fire. Once that is reached, they will be able to hear each other and make the changes to their arguments as need be.

by Charlatan Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:05 pm

Why don't the citizens get involved anyway? They could ask for weapons to fight the side they take on to fight the other... This means there will be an insurmountable show of force in mogadishu, and there will be peace one way or the other...

by Charlatan Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:27 pm

None of these people like fighting, in fact they hate it. Both sides should look for a cease fire. I am sure that one side is holding back from the other, but eventually the rebels will run out of funding. What will that prove to anybody? Then this will all be in vain! Where do the rebels get their munitions from anyway?

The leaders of these factions do not have the same agenda as the rebels themselves - they have political motivations. They will be shouting sharia louder than anybody else, but, they would rather have the power these people give them. I am sure they love their soldiers, but they love themselves a lot more. This is because they do not cease fire to work it out! They just want it all...

If it were up to the leaders to explain to the soldiers what they are fighting for, maybe they will tell them. If you ask a soldier, they will say sharia, but they all have forgotten a life without fighting. The soldiers should al dress up in civilian clothing someday and then go out and feel about for what they can find out in the capital - maybe the soldiers will tell them that they can have ammendments to the law anyways, but nobody was listening?

It might be quite easy to expose the leaders! They should all ask them, as they are charged with being bad bad people, as to whether they would take the changes in law without the taking of power? If that is the case then they need to petition the courts, not fight for power! That is what this is now, not an ammendment...

I bet nobody knows what they are fighting for anymore. They should all ask the people if they want these things they propose - that is where the issue lies.

In any case, they should not be fighting in the capital. That is where they take power, not convince people that they can have a better life. If you were to take the fighting to the roads of the capital, you strangle the income of the city, if you take the fight to the sattelite towns outisde the capital on the main routes into the city, then you strangle the electorate.

To get to the leaders you need to influence the voters. They have an outstanding election to take place, and they are in no hurry for that, as that means they remain in power! Of course for the militants to push for elections would mean that there could be more support for them... oh yes! If they could show how corrupt the country of somalia is at the moment, the people will want change, and join them. Then there will be fresh feet on the floor and then there will be a greater force fighting for sharia.

Of course with the elections, the people will vote for an end to the war, inevitably. The best way to end the war is to vote sharia in, and what will change for the christians living there? There will be more stringent moral codes - that is all! Then there will be pecae between muslims and christians in that country.

Of course, what is wrong with going to a country with sharia law already in place? The state could offer to buy them homes there and then they can have sharia until then end of time, or their lives or whatever. The cost of buying ten thousand houses versus the prospect of never having a gdp?

by Charlatan Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:35 pm

What if the electorate and the christians moved to another country? What do they have to lose? They can take all their money from the coffers - whatever is left, and move to a neighbouring country. Buying homes there shouldn't cost that much, and, there are lives to save. Leave somalia to the rebels and the muslims... just leave it!

This will mean that they won't have power anymore. Boo hoo. They will have decent life away from all the 'sufferings' of sharia and war. They want to cling to power just as badly as these rebel leaders want to get it. Pathetic.

by astra Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:14 pm

What do they have to lose? They can take all their money from the coffers

When Idi #Amin kicked the Asians out of Uganda, ALL they could leave with was the cotton on their backs.
Do you think that the Somalian Authorities/disprate malitia groups are going to let people leave with their wealth?

by Penderyn Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:19 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Somaliland is a well-governed country the powers that be don't recognise because they are more interested in imposing a colonial government like ours. Heil Cameron.

Somalia has no government save warlords who perpetrate piracy upon civilization while Somalians starve.

The bit that used to be British Somaliland has a perfectly good government they don't tell you about. The rest is showing the signs of an earlier USA attack.

by Charlatan Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:40 pm

To get the cease fire they need to offer them medical attention. If they were to offer the rebels medical attention, then they could get the cease fire they need and then they won't want to go back to fighting.

The rebels are knee deep in the wounded, and this must be demoralising. They should welcome a cease fire, and if the leaders do not accept this, it puts them on show as the bad people they might be.

by Charlatan Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:29 pm

For a lasting peace treaty between the rebels and the state, they could negotiate between the medical personnel. That would be a safe way. maybe through letters?

I don't think that marching in there will be anything other than a trap for either side. I suggest a cell phone communications, or, military radio.

Maybe after they caompare what will change with what they already have, they will see it is so similar. I can imagine the scary prospect of having something you are not familiar with threatening to be jammed down your throat. Maybe the people could phone in over the radio to ask what will change? This could be a great step forwards, what with rebels, citizens and the electorate exchanging ideas...

by Charlatan Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:47 pm

These conflicts never were supposed to come to a head. I bet they started as a few guys with guns just showing force for their community to have sharia, and then they all pushed back...

I doubt it ever was supposed to be like this. A couple of guys on the border, showing force, then somone pulled the trigger. People get nervous you see, and they, being men, have a lot of testosterone that women won't understand. They were fighting for their families and community, then someone threw a fly in the ointment...

by Guest Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:52 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Somalia has no government save warlords who perpetrate piracy upon civilization while Somalians starve.

Penderyn wrote:
The bit that used to be British Somaliland has a perfectly good government they don't tell you about. The rest is showing the signs of an earlier USA attack.

“Read my lips”: Somalia has no government save warlords who perpetrate piracy upon civilization while Somalians starve. If you wish it to be otherwise, that you wish it so does not alter this fact.

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:08 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
Somalia has no government save warlords who perpetrate piracy upon civilization while Somalians starve.
Penderyn wrote:
The bit that used to be British Somaliland has a perfectly good government they don't tell you about. The rest is showing the signs of an earlier USA attack.

“Read my lips”: Somalia has no government save warlords who perpetrate piracy upon civilization while Somalians starve. If you wish it to be otherwise, that you wish it so does not alter this fact.

Rock
Have this feeling your saying it all a bit of a mess. Well I agree. but what is the answer too it all?

by Penderyn Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:27 pm

Stox 16 wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
Somalia has no government save warlords who perpetrate piracy upon civilization while Somalians starve.
Penderyn wrote:
The bit that used to be British Somaliland has a perfectly good government they don't tell you about. The rest is showing the signs of an earlier USA attack.

“Read my lips”: Somalia has no government save warlords who perpetrate piracy upon civilization while Somalians starve. If you wish it to be otherwise, that you wish it so does not alter this fact.

Rock
Have this feeling your saying it all a bit of a mess. Well I agree. but what is the answer too it all?

As I said before, the bit that is ex-British is quite well governed, and so is the bit next to it, the name of which has fallen out of my ear. One good trick is totally to ignore that fact and concentrate on the mess down south the Americans caused, but I don't think you get any prizes.

by Guest Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:47 pm

Penderyn wrote:
As I said before, the bit that is ex-British is quite well governed

No, it is not.

Penderyn wrote:
… and so is the bit next to it, the name of which has fallen out of my ear.

No, it is not.

Penderyn wrote:
… concentrate on the mess down south the Americans caused…

It’s impossible to concentrate on “the mess down south the Americans caused” in a place where “the Americans caused” no “the mess down south.”

by Penderyn Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:53 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
As I said before, the bit that is ex-British is quite well governed

No, it is not.

Penderyn wrote:
… and so is the bit next to it, the name of which has fallen out of my ear.

No, it is not.

Penderyn wrote:
… concentrate on the mess down south the Americans caused…

It’s impossible to concentrate on “the mess down south the Americans caused” in a place where “the Americans caused” no “the mess down south.”

Dearie me - stick to beer, lad. That is NOT a useful communication. Look it up tomorrow, do!

by Guest Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:03 pm

Penderyn wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
As I said before, the bit that is ex-British is quite well governed
No, it is not.
Penderyn wrote:
… and so is the bit next to it, the name of which has fallen out of my ear.
No, it is not.
Penderyn wrote:
… concentrate on the mess down south the Americans caused…
It’s impossible to concentrate on “the mess down south the Americans caused” in a place where “the Americans caused” no “the mess down south.”
Dearie me

Stress?

Penderyn wrote:
… stick to beer, lad.

Impossible. One cannot “stick to” that which one “doesn’t do.” I don’t “do” beer.

Penderyn wrote:
That is NOT a useful communication.

It is to me.

Penderyn wrote:
Look it up tomorrow, do!

No.

by Penderyn Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:24 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
As I said before, the bit that is ex-British is quite well governed
No, it is not.
Penderyn wrote:
… and so is the bit next to it, the name of which has fallen out of my ear.
No, it is not.
Penderyn wrote:
… concentrate on the mess down south the Americans caused…
It’s impossible to concentrate on “the mess down south the Americans caused” in a place where “the Americans caused” no “the mess down south.”
Dearie me

Stress?

Penderyn wrote:
… stick to beer, lad.

Impossible. One cannot “stick to” that which one “doesn’t do.” I don’t “do” beer.

Penderyn wrote:
That is NOT a useful communication.

It is to me.

Penderyn wrote:
Look it up tomorrow, do!

No.

Beer is better that whatever it is, and communication is meant for others. Keep it in mind.

by Guest Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:30 pm

Penderyn wrote:
Beer is better that whatever it is

Not for me.

Penderyn wrote:
and communication is meant for others.

Thank you.

Penderyn wrote:
Keep it in mind.

Keep what in mind?

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:50 pm

Keep what in what mind?

Is there any way of ending this dialogue of the deaf?

by Penderyn Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:18 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Keep what in what mind?

Is there any way of ending this dialogue of the deaf?

Silence is golden, so they say. Smile

by Stox 16 Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:57 am

Penderyn wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:Keep what in what mind?

Is there any way of ending this dialogue of the deaf?

Silence is golden, so they say.

Penderyn
its my view that this war will only end by dialogue once more. as Armies cannot kill an idea within people. only debate and dialogue can change people

by tlttf Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:28 am

When somebody with power wants everybody else to adhere to living a life as described by an ancient religious system. If that person then has access to modern day weapons, then conflict and death is pretty much guaranteed.

by Guest Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:49 pm

What, if anything, should the West do about Somalia?

This.

SEAL Team 6 rescue in Somalia frees two from pirates' lair
SEAL Team 6 members raided a compound in Somalia early Wednesday to free two hostages held by pirates since October. The raid signals that US 'will not tolerate' abductions of Americans, Obama said.
By Anna Mulrine, Staff writer / January 25, 2012

Washington

In the early morning hours Wednesday, US Special Operations forces raided a Somali compound and rescued an American and a Dane who had been held hostage by pirates since October.

The hostages had been abducted at gunpoint near the semiautonomous region of Galcayo, Somalia.

More: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0125/SEAL-Team-6-rescue-in-Somalia-frees-two-from-pirates-lair-video

by oftenwrong Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:24 pm

I saw a movie like that, starring John Wayne.

by astra Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:50 pm

saw a movie like that, starring John Wayne.

Not Audie Murphy? Embarassed

Why would anyone of a "right mind" want to visit those places, when they know ultimate danger is always lurking nearby?

When "Missionarys and Medical aid folk turn down military escorts (if that is what this lot did) then they should be considered to be on their self righteous own!

by bobby Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:06 pm

Audie Murphy, a man from the same mould as Margaret Thatcher.

He wouldnt turn either, even when a great big mountain got in his way, and look at where it got him.

by Sponsored content