I bet Obama will put troops in Somalia AND Darfur.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: I bet Obama will put troops in Somalia AND Darfur.

American troops, or Kenyan ?

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: I bet Obama will put troops in Somalia AND Darfur.

Where they should have been 5 years ago.

The good news is that global warming appears to no longer be an issue.

Aernis: Where they should have been 5 years ago.


You think Iraq was a cluster fark...just wait.

Aernis: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: I bet Obama will put troops in Somalia AND Darfur.

Where they should have been 5 years ago.

But but Somalia AND Darfur had nothing to do with 9/11!!!


//just playing devils advocate

I'll just be happy if Bush doesn't send troops to Russia as a parting gift for Obama.

Dancin_In_Anson: Aernis: Where they should have been 5 years ago.


You think Iraq was a cluster fark...just wait.

I don't think I could ever support military action that was not a direct result of an attack on Americans either at home or abroad. We are not the world's police force and it's time we stopped acting like we are.

However if someone did attack us, like oh I dunno the Saudis from September 11th, nothing should get in the way of us tracking them down and nuking the site from orbit.

FredaDeStilleto: I'll just be happy if Bush doesn't send troops to Russia as a parting gift for Obama.

I personally was thinking it would be Taiwan. Picking a fight with China seems more his style.

Aernis: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: I bet Obama will put troops in Somalia AND Darfur.

Where they should have been 5 years ago.

Are Somalia and Darfur a threat to our Constitution?

"...to the shores of Tripoli..."

US has been fighting pirates from the beginning.
Why should now be different?

For some reason I have a feeling we'll be "intervening" in Africa more.
No, not because Obama is part-black
but that's where most of the current large scale badness is going on.
Congo, Zimbabwe, etc...
And Obama seems to be a very compassionate idealist.
Curious to see if he sticks to his guns focusing on the domestic front.

I read a story the other day about American teenagers running off to fight a holy war in Somalia. This should turn out well.

mesohorny: Aernis: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: I bet Obama will put troops in Somalia AND Darfur.

Where they should have been 5 years ago.

But but Somalia AND Darfur had nothing to do with 9/11!!!


//just playing devils advocate

Yeah, but the difference this time is that no one is claiming so.

/Yellowcake mmmm...

Snarfangel: Aernis: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: I bet Obama will put troops in Somalia AND Darfur.

Where they should have been 5 years ago.

Are Somalia and Darfur a threat to our Constitution?

Not Darfur but the Somali Pirates are effecting trade at a critical juncture and have already attacked a US cruise Ship. Right now they are just talking about attacking the Pirates on land, not a full blown invasion.

I think the counterpoint of increasing security and stabilization is valid as well. We need to stop the current pirates cold but that area of the world needs some stability as well, otherwise more will spring from where these came.

/Oceanic Trade Routes are a matter of national security.

glutton: mesohorny: But but Somalia AND Darfur had nothing to do with 9/11!!!

Yeah, but the difference this time is that no one is claiming so.

Old policy: I read Playboy for the articles.
New policy: Hell yes, I look at the pictures!

CanisNoir: /Oceanic Trade Routes are a matter of national security.

True, but we should spend the least amount of American blood and treasure necessary to secure the routes. I doubt occupation would be cheap, and bombing the hell out of the country might be expensive if we feel the urge to rebuild it later on.

Aww not this shiat again.....

CanisNoir: Not Darfur but the Somali Pirates are effecting trade at a critical juncture and have already attacked a US cruise Ship. Right now they are just talking about attacking the Pirates on land, not a full blown invasion.

I think the counterpoint of increasing security and stabilization is valid as well. We need to stop the current pirates cold but that area of the world needs some stability as well, otherwise more will spring from where these came.

My understanding of international law is that a country's soverignty does not protect it if it allows people to use its teritory to launch attacks outside its borders.

Unfortunately that could be used by Bush to justify all sorts of crap.

Snarfangel: CanisNoir: /Oceanic Trade Routes are a matter of national security.

True, but we should spend the least amount of American blood and treasure necessary to secure the routes. I doubt occupation would be cheap, and bombing the hell out of the country might be expensive if we feel the urge to rebuild it later on.

Which is why I think Bush is floating the idea of attacking the Pirates on land. That's not as intrusive as an invasion or bombing campaign. It sounds more like surgical strikes within the Somali borders; not exactly a peaceful thang mind you but better than sweeping in and installing your own security measures.

The Democrats' answer to every problem is "raise taxes" and now that they have a large majority in D.C., they will get to do exactly that over the next few years.

And the Republican answer is to borrow. While neither are fiscally responsible, I would rather pay now than burden my son and his peers with a crushing debt. But I'm just not an asshole like that.

mesohorny: Aernis: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: I bet Obama will put troops in Somalia AND Darfur.

Where they should have been 5 years ago.

But but Somalia AND Darfur had nothing to do with 9/11!!!


//just playing devils advocate

won't matter. africa is a haven of poverty and criminal activity. that breeds terrorists like no tomorrow. they're just too busy fighting each other for now.

Mr Logo: Unfortunately that could be used by Bush to justify all sorts of crap.

Well, I'm going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt that many here probably wont. I'm sure he's aware that there is little political will in America for any kind of new long drawn out campaign. Nor do I think he would start something major just prior to leaving office. I'd wager anything he does will have broad UN Support.

These Pirates are effecting more than just the US and regardless of what you might think Bush isn't an idiot.

/yea that last will make me popular on here I just know...

CanisNoir: Which is why I think Bush is floating the idea of attacking the Pirates on land. That's not as intrusive as an invasion or bombing campaign. It sounds more like surgical strikes within the Somali borders; not exactly a peaceful thang mind you but better than sweeping in and installing your own security measures.

Surgical strikes aren't.

Or as the Vice Admiral said in the article: "...striking pirate camps presents problems because it is difficult to identify them and the potential for killing innocent civilians 'cannot be overestimated.'"

I should add that the possibility of civilian casualties is not enough to prevent the use of force in our interests, but it should be factored into the costs of doing so.

wingnut396: The Democrats' answer to every problem is "raise taxes" and now that they have a large majority in D.C., they will get to do exactly that over the next few years.

And the Republican answer is to borrow. While neither are fiscally responsible, I would rather pay now than burden my son and his peers with a crushing debt. But I'm just not an asshole like that.

You might not be an arsehole, but I'm fairly certain you're in the wrong thread. ;)

Snarfangel: I should add that the possibility of civilian casualties is not enough to prevent the use of force in our interests, but it should be factored into the costs of doing so.

I agree entirely with that. Surgical air strikes maybe, but a few covert groups going in... I'll be the first to admit I'm no military expert, but I'm thinking if you've got feet on the ground you're better able to minimize collateral damage than if you're droping guided munitions.

Let's see here:
Quarrel between savages? Check.
On the other side of the Planet? Check.
None of our farking business? Check.
Huuurrrr! Hold my beer and watch this!

CanisNoir: Well, I'm going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt that many here probably wont. I'm sure he's aware that there is little political will in America for any kind of new long drawn out campaign. Nor do I think he would start something major just prior to leaving office. I'd wager anything he does will have broad UN Support.

You're probably right. I can't bring myself to trust Bush though.

Just send him in alone.

Honestly, Bush's lame-duck period isn't turning out to be as awful as I feared it would. I mean, I was fearing that the big news item on Nov. 5 wouldn't be "Obama Wins", but "US Launches Strikes on Iran". He also seems to have refrained from the widespread junking of environmental regulations I kind of expected.

We'll see, though. There's still about a month to go in the Bush Administration, and I'm still expecting to hear about pardons for Rummy, Gonzalez, et. al. soon.

/thank God for the 20th amendment
//we could have about 3 months to go

MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) - ...



Doot DOOOOOO doo doo doo!

jake_lex: thank God for the 20th amendment


Right. I'm sure Bush wants to stay in office.

CanisNoir: Snarfangel: I should add that the possibility of civilian casualties is not enough to prevent the use of force in our interests, but it should be factored into the costs of doing so.

I agree entirely with that. Surgical air strikes maybe, but a few covert groups going in... I'll be the first to admit I'm no military expert, but I'm thinking if you've got feet on the ground you're better able to minimize collateral damage than if you're droping guided munitions.

This. we have SEALS for a reason.

Maybe this time, they'll be heavily armed/armored and not under restricted ROE, by a pussy President. Their job is to kill and break stuff, it's what they're good at. Let them do their job.

/Blackhawk down, never forget

CanisNoir:

True, but we should spend the least amount of American blood and treasure necessary to secure the routes. I doubt occupation would be cheap, and bombing the hell out of the country might be expensive if we feel the urge to rebuild it later on.

Which is why I think Bush is floating the idea of attacking the Pirates on land. That's not as intrusive as an invasion or bombing campaign. It sounds more like surgical strikes within the Somali borders; not exactly a peaceful thang mind you but better than sweeping in and installing your own security measures.

Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps they could send in teams of Rangers, Delta force, a few Navy Seals and others aboard Black Hawk helicopters into Somalia to take on these Somalian militia fighters doing the piracy. We may even get a book and film about it.

damitjim: /Blackhawk down, never forget


totally. Clinton sucked so bad at this stuff.

Gwendolyn: FredaDeStilleto: I'll just be happy if Bush doesn't send troops to Russia as a parting gift for Obama.

I personally was thinking it would be Taiwan. Picking a fight with China seems more his style.

He's going to miss hurting America, and screwing us like that would be a perfect way to close out his run.

Mordant: He's going to miss hurting America, and screwing us like that would be a perfect way to close out his run.


You people are messed up.

The pirates have WMD's! We know, we have pictures of them.

Snarfangel: CanisNoir: /Oceanic Trade Routes are a matter of national security.

True, but we should spend the least amount of American blood and treasure necessary to secure the routes. I doubt occupation would be cheap, and bombing the hell out of the country might be expensive if we feel the urge to rebuild it later on.

Why the hell would we rebuild that hole? Even if we do hit civilians, we're just helping to prevent the spread of aids.

Well, we could always pay them tribute to leave us alone. That worked well in the past.

Go idiot george. as long as his mice don't have to deal with the fighting, its all good.

Jebus Christ, how many land wars does Bush want to get us into?

Phil Herup: Mordant: He's going to miss hurting America, and screwing us like that would be a perfect way to close out his run.


You people are messed up.

Think of all the cheering you could do as more people died.

Phil Herup: jake_lex: thank God for the 20th amendment


Right. I'm sure Bush wants to stay in office.

He has been in contact with God to make all his decisions. I'm sure he'd love a 3rd term, in order to fix things; him and God leading us into the rapture.

Too bad Somalia was on the mend until we turned over control to the UN. Guess what happened? Less than 30 days later, those Pakistani soldiers got slaughtered and we sent in the Rangers and Delta.

Aernis: Where they should have been 5 years ago.

Fark that. At most I can agree that they can enjoy the fruits of our high explosives dropshipped directly to their homes over the horizon. All the people living in those regions deserve exactly what befalls them, whatever horrors that may be, and they have for the past couple thousand years. Such are the perils of avoiding civilization.

Tickle Mittens: Aernis: Where they should have been 5 years ago.

Fark that. At most I can agree that they can enjoy the fruits of our high explosives dropshipped directly to their homes over the horizon. All the people living in those regions deserve exactly what befalls them, whatever horrors that may be, and they have for the past couple thousand years. Such are the perils of avoiding civilization.

I'm not sure they would understand. These are people that haven't even figured out how to build a house without using mud and sticks. Their 'medicine' consists of chicken blood and voodoo.
This is their judicial system

CanisNoir: Snarfangel: Aernis: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: I bet Obama will put troops in Somalia AND Darfur.

Where they should have been 5 years ago.

Are Somalia and Darfur a threat to our Constitution?

Not Darfur but the Somali Pirates are effecting trade at a critical juncture and have already attacked a US cruise Ship. Right now they are just talking about attacking the Pirates on land, not a full blown invasion.

I think the counterpoint of increasing security and stabilization is valid as well. We need to stop the current pirates cold but that area of the world needs some stability as well, otherwise more will spring from where these came.

/Oceanic Trade Routes are a matter of national security.

Ordinarily, I am emphatically NOT a supporter of "gunboat diplomacy," which is usually only a form of international bullying -- but I wonder if, at this time and in that place, that might not be exactly what we need, on the model of the British Royal Navy in the 18th & 19th centuries.

Send in the Fifth Fleet and shell/bomb the pirates' hideouts and bases into heaps of smoking slag. No ground troops; there's no reason to risk our military personnel unnecessarily. And there are no "innocent bystanders" in Somalia; anyone present in a pirate base is either a pirate or a pirate-sympathizer.

I gather that western warships have recently been capturing small raiding vessels, taking off and disarming the crews, and then dumping their weapons over the side and sinking the boats. And then they're turning the captured pirates loose because they don't know what to do with them or how to try them! Since when has dealing with pirates been a matter of concern to the UN? There are many centuries of precedent regarding what one does with pirates, wherever found. The simplest solution in this case is to not remove the crews before the boats are sunk.

There are, of course, the hostages from captured ships, and I'm not entirely sure what to do about them -- but they seem to be largely sympathetic to their captors, who have been feeding them well, etc. Regretfully (as they say), they may have to be ignored/sacrificed in order to solve the problem for the rest of the world.

No one is going to claim that the Somali pirates are just poor, downtrodden peasants trying to survive. (I'm not, anyway.) These are not Palestinians or Afghans or Iraqis, caught up in a war not of their making. Nor is this Captain Jack Sparrow we're faced with. Pirates have always been Bad Guys, by definition. They're vermin, and should be exterminated. The Somali pirates, in particular, appear to have no friends among other nations, not even Islamic countries in that part of the world. Killing them en mass is not going to upset very many people, and no one that matters.

Mordant: Think of all the cheering you could do as more people died.

Like I said. You are messed up.

Aernis: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: I bet Obama will put troops in Somalia AND Darfur.

Where they should have been 5 years ago.

I'm willing to bet there's a recruiting station not too far from your house if you are that excited about spreading democracy.

I'm also willing to bet that Saudi Arabia has a perfectly good air force capable of defending their oil tankers. Maybe they should use it.