I was watching some National Geographic channel thing on Black Hawk Down yesterday that was very thought provoking. As in the book, they talked about how the United States pulled out after the incident, which sent a message of weakness to those against the country. Apparently, Osama himself called the US a "paper tiger" which wouldn't commit to anything if you kill a few of their soldiers. This mindset could be responsible for emboldening those who wish to attack this country. Say that the mission was completed, I believe that would have actually sent the message that we wanted which might have even discouraged the attack on the World Trade Center if Al-Qaeda knew they would be found.
If the US took on Somalia it would just be an indentical situation to Iraq. Perpetual bloodshed with no end in sight. It would neither encourage or discourage anyone. Well - I tell a lie - it might encourage militants from all over the middle east to do battle with 'the Great Satan'. Osama was having a cheap shot at the US. The US public would never really have gotten behind an ultimately pointless and benefit-less war in Somalia.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-23 05:13:22)
There's no way the US could win there. Perhaps, a nuke. But in a conventional war, that would have been a massacre. Iraq is a piece of cake compared to Somalia. Clinton did the right thing pulling the troops out. And linking this incident with WTC is wrong. If the US would have continued that war, who knows what the terrorists would have done?
No he's right.
These people do not respect weakness.
We pulled out, they say us as weak, and proceeded to attack.
He's right.....+1
These people do not respect weakness.
We pulled out, they say us as weak, and proceeded to attack.
He's right.....+1
How many US soliders were saved by pulling out? Those are Americans too.ATG wrote:
No he's right.
These people do not respect weakness.
We pulled out, they say us as weak, and proceeded to attack.
He's right.....+1
The mission that originally sent the special forces there was not completed and sent the "kill a few and they go away" message.sergeriver wrote:
How many US soliders were saved by pulling out? Those are Americans too.ATG wrote:
No he's right.
These people do not respect weakness.
We pulled out, they say us as weak, and proceeded to attack.
There's really nothing to "win" as it really wasn't a war. The mission was to capture Aidid for interfering with the UN peacekeeping efforts. It's not as similar to Iraq either; a couple hundred soldiers occupying the airport on the outskirts-ish area of the city compared to those attempting to set up a central government. The program mentioned that Clinton, and also his Secretary of Defense are at most responsible for the lack of equipment that the soldiers complained about. The Clintonites denied requests for armor which would have been immensly helpful to breaking through the barricades on October 3. They weren't terrorists, either. Those people were seeking to control the city in more of a dictatorship led by the clan and a large portion were citizens as well. The propagandists within the Habr Gedir clan told the informationally-challenged people that the Americans were there to convert them to Christianity and the like, so misinformation played a part in making them fight.sergeriver wrote:
There's no way the US could win there. Perhaps, a nuke. But in a conventional war, that would have been a massacre. Iraq is a piece of cake compared to Somalia. Clinton did the right thing pulling the troops out. And linking this incident with WTC is wrong. If the US would have continued that war, who knows what the terrorists would have done?
1993 Somalia, not really "taking them on" since it was really only a mission and limited mostly to the area around Mogadishu.CameronPoe wrote:
If the US took on Somalia it would just be an indentical situation to Iraq. Perpetual bloodshed with no end in sight. It would neither encourage or discourage anyone. Well - I tell a lie - it might encourage militants from all over the middle east to do battle with 'the Great Satan'. Osama was having a cheap shot at the US. The US public would never really have gotten behind an ultimately pointless and benefit-less war in Somalia.
hey at least BLACK HAWK DOWN came out of it!!!!
Right, the world should have stood by and not attempted to protect Somalians people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. The US was there on a food mission as well.
April 30, 1994 The U.N. Security Council spends eight hours discussing the Rwandan crisis. The resolution condemning the killing omits the word "genocide." Had the term been used, the U.N. would have been legally obliged to act to "prevent and punish" the perpetrators
They damn sure don't respect compassion.ATG wrote:
No he's right.
These people do not respect weakness.
We pulled out, they say us as weak, and proceeded to attack.
He's right.....+1
April 30, 1994 The U.N. Security Council spends eight hours discussing the Rwandan crisis. The resolution condemning the killing omits the word "genocide." Had the term been used, the U.N. would have been legally obliged to act to "prevent and punish" the perpetrators
We know exactly what happened. Remember, And That's Why We Should Not Allow Genocide Denialsergeriver wrote:
If the US would have continued that war, who knows what the terrorists would have done?
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-23 15:48:28)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Welcome to Earth! That's one thing mankind can accomplish without any help from the US whatsoever.CameronPoe wrote:
Perpetual bloodshed with no end in sight.
You make a very good point.Kmarion wrote:
Right, the world should have stood by and not attempted to protect Somalians people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. The US was there on a food mission as well.They damn sure don't respect compassion.ATG wrote:
No he's right.
These people do not respect weakness.
We pulled out, they say us as weak, and proceeded to attack.
He's right.....+1
April 30, 1994 The U.N. Security Council spends eight hours discussing the Rwandan crisis. The resolution condemning the killing omits the word "genocide." Had the term been used, the U.N. would have been legally obliged to act to "prevent and punish" the perpetratorsWe know exactly what happened. Remember, And That's Why We Should Not Allow Genocide Denialsergeriver wrote:
If the US would have continued that war, who knows what the terrorists would have done?