What exactly did the Somalis win? We're still rich and powerful and they are still dirt-poor and dying. We never wanted or needed Somalia. If they are too fuggin' stupid to accept the help we were trying to bring their sorry asses, then we can just leave it to them. And we did. We won by flippin' them off. Adios, Abdul, enjoy your grasshopper soup. Not cost-effective. They were dying by the thousands anyway. We killed more Somalis cheaply and without further casualties by just leaving and taking the aid workers with us. And they died slowly by starvation while wondering if maybe they had screwed up by shooting at the Americans. Sure . . . if you can find them, kill them, and go home. If it turns into a guerrilla insurgency, we re-evaluate our best interests. Somalia is not vital to us in any way. The whole damn place ain't worth one American life. It has no value to us, we were only there to help the starving Somalis and they didn't want it. So we didn't waste lives and treasure fighting about something we really didn't give a chit about. We redeploy our military and let it get ready for the next crisis, not squander it on some Swartzenegger action film "kill them all" fantasy. Besides it's a violation of the Ferringhi Rules of Acquistion . . there is just no profit in it.
Just a reminder about this story: I saw an interview by the agent involved in this case. It was totally a stroke of luck that this was stopped. The agent suspected drugs were being smuggled across the border and they found explosives instead. Some of you people are UNREAL, its like Clinton was tough on terror because they were able to stop the millenium bombings from happening. The rewriting of the history books is underway. :dis: Just UNREAL... :dis: What a Joke!
Well, in keeping with your logic and techniques, I'm just going to disregard this agent as a source with zero credibility. :hihi: You're awfully quick to discredit Richard Clarke (who worked under Bush), and equally quick to give credit to this fella (who worked under Clinton). I'm sensing some inconsistency.
the warlord aidid wins because he gets to continue to control things. because we are wimps and we give up when things dont go right. and when terrorists know this, they kill us until we quit. if they knew we never quit, they would have no reason to keep fighting. they are not all too stupid, they have warlords that crush them and starve them to death. the same warlords that sent us packing, showing the world you can defeat americans just by killing a few of them. what i am repeating over and over is that when america has a goal, they must accomplish it, and never be stopped by a couple skinnies with guns. also i have repeated a zillion times we should never get involved, even if the people dying are white (like in bosnia). but if we do get involved, we should always win, because we are bigger and stronger than anyone. if everyone knows we never stop until we win, they realize resistance is futile.
Richard Clark only wanted to sell a book, if I remember right he got caught in a lie, or didn't exactly tell the whole truth. I don't remember because this happened when his book came out. Not to quick to judge really, I haven't said a word about him until now. Please explain to me why he was so critical of the Bush Administration and was not of the Clinton Administration. Everyone knows the Bush Administration has done more to fight terrorism. That seems a bit inconsistant to mr. If you want to ignore the truth about the Millenium bombings thats your inconsistancy not mine. :cry:
Only after the fact, SDMan. Bush & Co. were attacked on a phenomenally larger scale, so they had no choice. They didn't do a damn thing prior to it.
Adid is dead. Died in a "mysterious" plane crash a year later. Funny how those things work out. Ya' want to know how to solve a warlord problem in Somalia cheaply and without getting Americans killed? You give every warlord in town 3 truckloads of AK-47's and 3 truckloads of whiskey . . . and the problem will take care of itself. :yelwink2:
I've often wondered why don't settle all sort of disputes this way. Just pay for the arms for both sides, divvy 'em up equally, and let them have a good ole war. This would have worked in Bosnia, just about every South American squabble, and would be HIGHLY effective in the Israel/PLO argument. They could also do more a tournament style. For example, Round 1 would be Israel (#1 seed) v. PLO (8 seed), Iran (2) v. Lebanon and Syria (7) and so on and so forth. Eventually, Israel and Iran would match up in a great battle, and the whole thing would be settled. My talents for diplomacy are wasted by not being in D.C.
