From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: u.s. in somalia
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:51:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

zedaker@next12pg2.wam.umd.edu (PMW "MAP") writes:
>>I DON'T LIKE IT!  I DON'T LIKE IT AT ALL!!!!
>>
>> AMERICAN INVASION, HERE WE GO AGAIN.....
>>
>>WHY CAN'T WE CONCERN OURSELVES WITH OUT OWN COUNTRY AND ITS PROBLEMS
>>BEFORE WE GO OFF AND ATTEMPT TO SOLVE OTHER COUNTRIES' PROBLEMS?
 
speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:

>In regard to U.S.A military assistance, I agree that the U.S.A. seems to be
>taking total control of Somalia. The U.S.A. is seen once again to be running
>the U.N. Whenever IT FEELS the need, it goes to the U.N. and gets agreement
>and then goes in "boots and all". Yes, you don't see 30,000 troops heading
>off to Bosnia. Why? Perhaps it isn't as important or perhaps the Somalians
>would be an easier opponent to stop. Who knows.

I think the problem is that the rest of the member countries have been
sitting on their asses, waiting on the US.  Eventually, if we hadn't
done anything, they might have asked us to help out in Iraq and
Somalia.  They'll probably ask us to help in Bosnia, when they get
around to it.

It's rather obvious as to why we're not in Bosnia right now.  There's
a significantly higher risk to our own troops' lives, and it's really
the responsibility of the European countries (just as Somalia is more
the responsibility of the African countiries -- but they didn't do
anything to help).  If people start dying on the scale that they are
in Somalia and Europe continues to look the other way then we'll
probably go.

I would support the US enforcing the no-fly zone right now, as well as
escorting relief flights.  I'd even support them taking out the missle
and artillery batteries using air-launched weapons.  However, I don't
think we should send _any_ land forces there.  If it's deemed
necessary, then the European countries should send them.  Why should
we have to come from halfway around the world and incur the kind of
heavy casualties that can be expected in a European land war?

In other words, we should help the victims in Bosnia, but other than
that I'd let them fight their little wars.  How do we expect to stop
them from hating eachother?  We can only beat up on them and make more
enemies for ourselves.

>I don't denounce the need for troops but surely out of all the member
>countries of the U.N., enough troops could be obtained to do the job. Then
>the U.S.A would not be seen as the "instigators" (perhaps not the best word
>in this instance), but rather as just part of the overall contingent.

This is just my personal opinion, but it seems like most of the rest
of the member countries look to the USA to do this sort of work,
practically expecting us to take care of the world for them.  Well,
most police forces and security guards get _paid_ for their work.
Relative to other countries we may be rich, but that doesn't mean we
don't have our own money problems.

Look at what the UN Secretary General is saying now: That US forces
should do much more than just provide airlift and defense for the
relief operation.  He wants us to disarm he Somalis, among other
things.  I disagree that we should be disarming them at all (other
than the confiscations that are currently being done for the security
of our own forces), and I certainly don't think it's a job for the US
military.

>>WHY IS IT ALWAYS UP TO US?  I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COUNTRIES COMING TO AID
>>OUR STARVING PEOPLE, DO YOU?
> 
>Surely your country is RICH ENOUGH to feed its own people. This is not the
>case in Somalia.

We're trying to re-arrange our finances to help feed our own people
right now.  Part of that is going to come in military cuts, including
the pulling out of forces in Europe and the rest of the world.
Remember, we fought the Cold War while everyone else sat nervously by.
That was extremely expensive.

>The U.S.A is big enough and old enough to look after itself. But in the event
>that some terrible tragedy should befall the U.S.A then I would
>guarantee you that aid would be given.

By whom?  We're the major provider of financial aid to the rest of the
world.

>If there are millions of people starving in the U.S.A then why haven't we
>heard of it???

I think that many people are still confusing being homeless and hungry
with starvation.  The homeless here rarely die of starvation, as they
can at least get a few good meals from soup kitchens and the like.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.activism.progressive