Since the fall of the government in Somalia in 1991, Somalia's situation has been going down hill ever since. With different factions fighting daily in Somalia, its a no brainer that civilians and non-combatants are caught in the cross-fire. After the withdrawal of peacekeeping forces (Mostly of which were American) in 1995, Somalia has in fact become a rogue state, with different territories owned by different factions fighting against each other for the past 15 or so years. Today's Somalia is mostly owned by the al-Shabaab, a terrorist organisation affiliated with al-Qaeda, who owns all most all the south and the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu. Now here's for my personal opinion... Since Somalia has been an utter shit hole for the past years and countless non-combatants have been dying in Somalia (500,00+ up to date) and also because there's a huge terrorist organisation hanging out in the south, I believe it is the countries that are part of the UN to intervene again in Somalia to protect the civilians and eliminate the al-Shabaab. It is the world's responsibility to protect civilian lives not only in their own country but also in countries where the civilians are at risk of being killed. There have been countless human rights infringements by the al-Shabaab and without intervention by a super power, people will continue to be opressed. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this topic as well to further expand my opinion.
You titled this thread "Somalia: The World's Responsibility." Did you come up with that yourself, or did you pull it from something you read online? The title of your thread is the first issue I have. Explain to me, in your own words not something you read or were told in a class, why it is the world's responsibility to intervene militarily everywhere in the world where there is a problem. Surely you realize that "UN intervention" almost always means "US intervention," right? What US national interests are at stake in Somalia that justify risking the lives and health of our servicemembers, and the enormous cost that it would entail to conquer, occupy, and stabilize a country like Somalia. Ever study Machiavelli? You should read the part where he talks about ruling people who are not used to be governed. What is your estimation as to what would be necessary for the kind of intervention you entail, how long would it take, and how much would it cost? And more importantly, would it be worth the effort?
First off I'd just like to state that this thread is to hear other people's opinions on what must be done in Somalia. Now, all most all countries are part of the United Nations and therefore have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) which states, shortly, that all persons worldwide have the right to life, security and liberty. Because all the countries in the UN have signed this, that means all the countries agree with it. Therefore if they agree with it, doesn't that mean they should uphold it? Yes. UN intervention does not mean US intervention. There are many UN peacekeeping missions worldwide that actually don't have any US involvement in them. If you actually look at the UN website, you'll see that the US is not a large contributor. (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml) Once again, it's not that other countries citizens are at risk, it's that super powers today, being super powers, have a responsibility to stop bad things that are happening in the world. This includes the killing of innocent people WORLDWIDE. Would it be worth the effort you ask? Saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives of children, women and men is worth any materialistic object in today's world if you ask me.
Contributor of personnel? Okay. How about the billions of dollars we give them every year? The US gave the UN more than $6 billion in 2009. http://www.heritage.org/research/re...g-of-the-united-nations-reaches-all-time-high Who says that super powers have the responsibility to "stop bad things that are happening in the world?" I don't see a law mandating that. I have a problem with your logic that probably makes me look like an asshole, but whatever. There are starving people in the United States that we can't take care of. We're running $15 trillion dollar deficit or whatever the number is now-a-days. We have a situation in Afghanistan that isn't necessarily the best. America will ALWAYS come first in my eyes and until we are able to successfully take care of ourselves, the endless situations throughout the world that hippies want to get involved in will have to wait. Like Marauder said, Somalia bears zero US interest. This is just like the Kony thing in my point of view. If you (not you personally) care so much about the situation, you can book a flight and head over there to do what you can. I don't know why it always falls on the responsibility of someone else to do the dirty work in these situations.
As to the bold, do you seriously believe that? And I'm pretty sure you conveniently left out your thoughts on the above questions. If the US is not a big contributor, as you state, why get involved with Somalia again? Or did someone already ask that... Just a hot tip, you might also want to read the profiles of the members to whom you're responding. We call that SA around here.
The only reason I stated that US does not contribute a lot of personnel was because Marauder06 said that Once again, the United States doesn't have to do anything to Somalia if they don't want to. They like to go into Iraq to find WMD's and into Afghanistan for the Taliban and al-Qaeda but they won't go into Somalia to save people's lives? I really can't see the logic in that. But besides that, it doesn't have to be the USA going into all the countries in the world. There are other super powers besides it, such as the UK, France, China etc. that have enough funding and fire power to help a country such as Somalia and help innocent people. Somalia probably bears zero interest for the entire world, but it morally should. What's SA stand for?
Just gve us your fucking opinon, don't piecemeal it out (this 'aint some sort of fucking case study). My opinion is your are idealistic and clueless, a dangerous combination for someone who envisions himself as a future leader. Those countries that you want to intervene will not do it without a UN resolution, and considering the last time the UN asked; well that resolution won't have a lot of support.
Great. Problem solved. Call one of them and ask them to do it, I hear the African Union troops are particularly effective at peace operations in the African continent, and since they are already familiar with Somalia, I'm sure they are up to the task, with no military or financial assistance from the US. Exactly how many superpowers do you think there are in the world right now? And of those, (if you believe there are actually more than one), how many of them do you think would be willing to get involved on the ground in Somalia, to the degree you are advocating in your initial post? You very much remind me of me when I was young. Before I understood how the world works, before I understood "realism" and the concept of unintended consequences. Before I actually had to start going to some of these places to "help" people. Look, your question may be ill-phrased, but it's not illegitimate. What should we do in Somalia? We should make sure that it is not used to threaten our people, our allies, or our national interests. And that's all. We have our own problems to deal with at the moment. "Situational Awareness."
In my opinion, you should probably read a bit more and post a bit less. Even then, post things you have researched. It would also be helpful if you take a position on a topic- for or against- before soliciting the opinions of others, unless your post is something done for the purpose of sharing information you believe would be relevant. When you come out of the hopper claiming the U.S. does not contribute to the United Nations, you are demonstrating either that you are attempting to agitate, or else you possess a gross degree of ignorance on the topic. The United States contributes more than 27% of the U.N. budget. This is followed by the very next highest contributor, Japan, which makes a contribution less than half the size of ours. This in turn is followed by Germany, the U.K., and France, each of which contribute an amount equal to about 1/4 th of the contribution of the United States. In 6th place is Canada, contributing about 3% of the U.N. budget. In addition to our U.N. contributions, the United States spends about $30 billion in direct aid to other nations, and an estimated $400 billion in American international charitable contributions through organizations like the Red Cross- donations straight from U.S. citizens. *updated to more recent numbers*
All i said was the UN intervention and US intervention is not the same and that the US does not contribute with bodies as much as it used to. I know that the United States contributes a lot monetarily, but thanks for the stats.
That's not what you said. You said there are many UN missions that actually don't have any US involvement in them. If we contribute monetarily almost a third of the money, then we are involved in 100% of all U.N. interventions, even in cases where not a single American is present. Another way of looking at it is 1-in-3, or maybe 1-in-4 sets of body armor was paid for by the U.S., and the rest of the world split the bill for other 3 sets.
When I said US involvement I meant physical involvement, thats why I gave the link to that page after that says what countries give the most soldiers to the UN for peacekeeping duty. I do agree that the USA technically is in 100% of missions, but they aren't there physically.
Look dude, I don't want to nit-pick, but I find it pretty disrespectful to state this how you did. We went into Afghanistan to kill the fucking people who just killed 3000 of our own. Don't expect me to apologize if Africa goes hungry for a while as we are taking care of a legitimate national security concern. I'm not going to talk about Iraq because frankly I don't know much about it. The way you worded that whole paragraph was ridiculous IMO. I think we get too caught up in the "morals" of things. If it were a perfect world, then we would be able to kill every terrorist on the planet and feed the hungry at the same time. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world and we have to do what's best for us.
Finding a place we can agree is a great starting point. Why do you feel U.S. soldiers should be deployed to Somalia rather than African soldiers- especially since there are other factors such as language and culture to consider when we throw around that funny little term, "peacekeeping"?
I don't feel that the United States needs to deploy to Somalia since there are other countries out there that have the capabilities to do so, like I've stated before. The Kenyans are currently in Somalia trying to fight off the al-Shabaab because they continue to kidnap and torture their people. Unfortunately the Kenyans aren't making much progress. I would propose a joint operation with African Union forces and European Union forces to go into Somalia and get rid of a branded terrorist organisation. Once they've been tossed is when the country will finally have a chance at elections, civil rights and a chance of becoming a better place to live in general.
And you base this statement on what, exactly? And aren't you calling - quite disrespectfully- for the U.S. to re-prioritize it's global projection of power in this statement here:
Sorry, just did a bit of research on the current situation in Somalia and it seems as if the Kenyans and Somalian forces are making progress against the al-Shabaab but that they are still requesting for international assistance.\ And yes I am. I think the world should start helping countries that are in need of help such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia instead of countries with resources that these larger countries desire.
