Tweet
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
"Oh yes, a "feudal society"...how good for the people of Somalia?
"
It would be much better for them if they had say, a parlimentary state, with a fully developed social welfare system, and an established democratic political culture. But, miracles being a rare thing, they have to rebuild the way they can. And again, the natural path out of anarchy is often warlordism. Im really not sure of your point.
In Somaliland and Puntland, they did put together states, which unfortunately dont conform to the boundaries of the Somali "state" and due to the agreement that borders in Africa mustnt change (or the whole continent wide house of cards falls down) they havent been recognized. They did put together a Transitional Nat Govt in 2004. Which the wonderful heros of the Islamic Courts refused to negotiate with.
"The transitional government did not have enough force to project any authority which was the problem, and you are a strange person to be talking about state borders in a dismissive manner."
The UN was in the process of trying to negotiate a path forward for the TNG. The Islamic Courts, once they took Mogadishu, could have negotiated with the TNG, and gotten a much better solution for the people of Somalia. They chose not to. Meanwhile the TNG is STILL reaching out to moderate, somali elements in the TNG.
Im not sure what your last statement is supposed to refer to. Westphalian respect for existing boundaries is generally a good thing, but its not supposed to override th proper de jure recognition of de facto changes. In this case the de facto changes represent a pathway out of anarchy, and the Int communities resistance to recognizing them is based on particular circumstances in Africa. Whether the particular concern for retaining the post-colonial boundaries in africa is warranted is at least debatable.
Not all Islamists, but certainly those Islamist who shelter the folks who bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Oops, sorry, that was just mechanized warfare gone bad, we dont have the right to demonize them just cause they commit acts of terrorism. We should lie down and take it with pleasure. And cause they declare Jihad against the govt of Ethiopia. No, we should always sympathize with Islamist terrorists, otherwise wed be conceding legitimacy to the socalled "War on terror"
"You are not very good at sarcasm, too heavy handed, not enough cynicism. "
While I may be short on cynicism, I think you fail to see your own heavy handedness, and the repetitive and inward looking quality of your own cynicism, which causes you to neglect the day to day news coming out of Somalia. While the current quiet in Mogadishu may yet fade, the cynicism that continues to assert the return of anarchy at a time of quiet in Mogadishu, would seem extreme.
"Maybe you forget the part about Ethiopia being a poor state. What the US can do is quite different from what Ethiopia can do."
Or, because Ethiopia is poor, they are less likely to overreach than we were.
"Oh yes, a "feudal society"...how good for the people of Somalia?
"It would be much better for them if they had say, a parlimentary state, with a fully developed social welfare system, and an established democratic political culture. But, miracles being a rare thing, they have to rebuild the way they can. And again, the natural path out of anarchy is often warlordism. Im really not sure of your point.
In Somaliland and Puntland, they did put together states, which unfortunately dont conform to the boundaries of the Somali "state" and due to the agreement that borders in Africa mustnt change (or the whole continent wide house of cards falls down) they havent been recognized. They did put together a Transitional Nat Govt in 2004. Which the wonderful heros of the Islamic Courts refused to negotiate with.
"The transitional government did not have enough force to project any authority which was the problem, and you are a strange person to be talking about state borders in a dismissive manner."
The UN was in the process of trying to negotiate a path forward for the TNG. The Islamic Courts, once they took Mogadishu, could have negotiated with the TNG, and gotten a much better solution for the people of Somalia. They chose not to. Meanwhile the TNG is STILL reaching out to moderate, somali elements in the TNG.
Im not sure what your last statement is supposed to refer to. Westphalian respect for existing boundaries is generally a good thing, but its not supposed to override th proper de jure recognition of de facto changes. In this case the de facto changes represent a pathway out of anarchy, and the Int communities resistance to recognizing them is based on particular circumstances in Africa. Whether the particular concern for retaining the post-colonial boundaries in africa is warranted is at least debatable.
Not all Islamists, but certainly those Islamist who shelter the folks who bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Oops, sorry, that was just mechanized warfare gone bad, we dont have the right to demonize them just cause they commit acts of terrorism. We should lie down and take it with pleasure. And cause they declare Jihad against the govt of Ethiopia. No, we should always sympathize with Islamist terrorists, otherwise wed be conceding legitimacy to the socalled "War on terror"
"You are not very good at sarcasm, too heavy handed, not enough cynicism. "
While I may be short on cynicism, I think you fail to see your own heavy handedness, and the repetitive and inward looking quality of your own cynicism, which causes you to neglect the day to day news coming out of Somalia. While the current quiet in Mogadishu may yet fade, the cynicism that continues to assert the return of anarchy at a time of quiet in Mogadishu, would seem extreme.
"Maybe you forget the part about Ethiopia being a poor state. What the US can do is quite different from what Ethiopia can do."
Or, because Ethiopia is poor, they are less likely to overreach than we were.
Comment