Bush's fault? Do you think the EU should take care of that one while we clean up in Iraq? Or do you think we should just poxy war the whole thing because I can't see us sending boots on the ground there.
2006-12-22 08:24:35 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
USA should send troops to liberate Somalia but not Iraq. See Somalia is the armpit of the world and is of no strategic interest to this country. Liberals would love to see Americans die for nothing, but don't you dare send Americans to fight in Iraq to stop terrorists!! That would be wrong!!!
2006-12-22 08:27:03 · answer #1 · answered by x 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I think that there are several problems with your question.
"While we clean up in Iraq" - that statement makes it sound as though we are not responsible for the mess in the first place. We invaded them not the other way around. The instability resulting from occupation is the occupiers fault. Hence without the occupier there would not be the instability.
I think that wars in Africa are a lot more complex than many people understand. We tried involvement in Somalia under Bush Sr. it didnt go too well- Black Hawk Down (which happened in '93 under Clinton I am aware, but our presence was a continuation of previous policy).
I do not think at this time America is in a position to police the world. However that is not an encouragement to support dictators (hes a sob but hes our sob mentality) which is wrong and immoral. I also think we should stop selling weapons of all kinds to others, that has only come back to hurt us and others.
The West is at a disadvantage in getting involved, it almost always seen as imperialistic and hegemonic, and in most cases it is indirectly.
There is no legitimacy for western power getting involved in that situation, thus there would be the same reaction and response that the US is seeing in Iraq. Getting involved when the people request armed help in the case of humanitarian intervention (Sudan, and earlier Rwanda) is another story. The forces' presence can be legitimated because of the request for help and military aid.
We didnt go into Iraq to stop terrorists, we went in under the pretenses of WMD that Saddam had, then for democracy.
These reasons didnt pan out either
.
And Saddam killed innocent people mainly during the late eighties when we were supporting him during the Iran-Iraq war. So why would that justify invading 15years later?
Clinton didnt screw it up, an unfortunate tragedy happened and under public pressure he left. Because people didnt know/want to know why we were there in the first place. Sounds familiar.
2006-12-22 16:35:36 · answer #2 · answered by sbcalif 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that more attention should have been paid to Africa than to southwest Asia. Sure there is turmoil in Southwest Asia, especially after Hamas and Hezbollah were elected, but many more people are losing there lives and there means of living n Africa. And it is not just a fight for power like Somalia, genocide also runs rampant through Africa.
2006-12-22 16:29:42 · answer #3 · answered by smartass 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Odd, I thought we had forces in Somalia and decided the UN (or was it the President?) made such a hash of it that we'd better leave.
Also I've noted a lot of misguided souls think we in the US need Iraqi oil. But China has real needs for their oil. Let them join the UN forces.
2006-12-22 17:51:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We got into Somolia courtesy Bush '41.
Clinton screwed it up, and cut and run. That cut and run emboldened our enemies, and has cost us dearly since.
If it was wrong to invade Iraq to end Saddam's rule, and end the massive killing of innocent people by Saddam, then why should it be right to do the same in Somalia or Darfur?
2006-12-22 16:32:37 · answer #5 · answered by geek49203 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Didn't we loose a war in Somalia already? (Remember Black Hawk Down?) Nobody is anxious to go there again.
2006-12-22 16:27:32 · answer #6 · answered by October 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Depends. What are Somalia's natural resources? And what major corporation is over there?
2006-12-22 16:30:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Al-Queda is in Somalia, so, that would make too much sense for the War on Terror, which is why bush hasn't invaded yet.
2006-12-22 16:28:25 · answer #8 · answered by The Twist 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes, Republicans, save the world for us, hahaha!
2006-12-22 16:26:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Boring.
2006-12-22 16:26:12 · answer #10 · answered by txwebber 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋