Harcourt: You are correct. Very correct. Rest assured, if I could figure out the fallacy, there were plenty much higher up who could as well. At the time, it seemed fairly obvious the George W. was hell bent on war, or maybe it was Cheney.

I don't really recall too much about the Somalia mission (I had no involvement in that area of the world at that time), but I think it was designed as a humanitarian mission. The military is really trained to fight and to kill and are poorly equipped for humanitarian work. They are often the only ones with the equipment and logistics to carry it out, however. As soon as they run into a problem, the military falls back on its default position, which is to shoot and fight.

Anybody who thinks wars are justified need only look at the aftermath. Even the most justifiable wars are pretty devastating on the people, the environment and the infrastructure. As long as there are young men who can be persuaded to fight, there will probably be wars. Wars are largely fueled by testosterone, I think.

Naam: I fail to see your point. In a combat situation, the basic premise is that the end justifies the means. In the short term the end was not accomplished in either Vietnam or Somalia. I think it's quite unfair to use the number of people killed as the 'win-lose' axis. In genocide it is, but other than that, it's not.

Is Vietnam better off now than if the war had not happened? I don't know. Maybe as a nation it ultimately benefited from the war. After all, it's likely most people wouldn't even know where the country is located had it not been for the war. On a personal level, I very much doubt that millions of people benefited from the destruction.

The US went into Somalia on a humanitarian missions to help stop the imminent starvation of hundreds of thousands of people.

It eventually turned over responsibility to the UN who eventually withdrew due to warlords grappling for power. The UN withdrew - as they often do when the going gets tough.

The US went into Somalia on a humanitarian missions to help stop the imminent starvation of hundreds of thousands of people.

It eventually turned over responsibility to the UN who eventually withdrew due to warlords grappling for power. The UN withdrew - as they often do when the going gets tough.

Many UN aid workers have died contributing to countries like Somalia.

Dying isn't something that is in their contract, they're not equipped to deal with hostile military forces and I really don't agree with you that they should have to.

Please all, this is not about who got licked or the accurate number of people that died.

This is how about we, the general public is fed wrong information by governments and the media.

Should we not be trying to investigate what the real reasons are behind those interventions, regime changes and occupations?

The Iraq war and occupation is based on lies, the invasion of Afghanistan is questionable.

Thousands of innocent people are dying in these conflicts, why do they have to die?

Ms. Albright said these wars were worth it. Worth it in terms of what? Do you ever ask yourself that question when knowing 90% of people killed are civilians including women and children?

What is it that is worth "It"

Alex

I guess it depends upon to "whom" is it worth it. 30+ years on the USA is Vietnams largest export partner. Large multinational companies have set up operations there to exploit labor and other resources. They'd probably say it was "worth it". Nations and corporations can take the long view, that's why we defer to their interests as opposed to our own.

The US went into Somalia on a humanitarian missions to help stop the imminent starvation of hundreds of thousands of people.

It eventually turned over responsibility to the UN who eventually withdrew due to warlords grappling for power. The UN withdrew - as they often do when the going gets tough.

Many UN aid workers have died contributing to countries like Somalia.

Dying isn't something that is in their contract, they're not equipped to deal with hostile military forces and I really don't agree with you that they should have to.

Where did I say that they should have to? Why would you agree with something that I did not even touch on - let alone say?

I think we are getting to the crux of the problem, at least with Somalia. The U.S. pulled out and cut it's losses. As I recall, Somalia was not in the sphere of US interest and the continued loss of life would have serious political repercussions.

The UN eventually failed in their mission as well. So Somalia was left to fester like a boil on the butt of humanity. Now, the country has farther reaching problems than it did at that time, namely piracy. Even the military of Thailand is trying to reign in those nasty Somali pirates.

Would a full scale military invasion have been better? Would fewer people have died than have died as a result of inaction? Will the situation finally reach the point with piracy that a full scale military invasion occurs anyway?

I have little love for the UN, but a begrudging respect for them, and I know a fair amount about UN operations, but one thing I will have to say, they can hang around and wear down even the most obnoxious governments and groups of people. They just spend a very large amount of money doing it.

^^ (reply to UG) My apologies, I thought you were being critical of what you perceived to be a UN tendency to withdraw when the going got tough.

Sorry if it appeared that way. My point was that it was not a US controlled mission at that point. :jap:

I guess it depends upon to "whom" is it worth it. 30+ years on the USA is Vietnams largest export partner. Large multinational companies have set up operations there to exploit labor and other resources.

"Exploit labor and other resources"? You mean like the USA exploits China in the same way?

The US gov't certainly should have known how this worked, but actively chose to believe information which was not verifiable and most likely was questionable given the sources providing the information. The lie came in a very, very shaky link between Al-Queda and Saddam.

It sounds like you are the victim of a misinformation campaign yourself. We didn't go to war over any connection to 9/11. Saddam was perceived as only a regional threat, one that could be contained with sanctions and a no-fly zone. Before 9/11, terror attacks against the US were limited to far away places like Africa, Yemen or Saudi Arabia. 9/11 showed that our enemies were willing and capable of attacking on American soil and in a VERY BIG way. In addition, leading up to the war there was a big push by countries benefiting from payoffs (France, Russia, maybe Germany) to end the sanctions on Iraq. Ignoring even the potential threat posed by Saddam and his pursuit of WMDs would have been a MUCH bigger mistake than going to war.

Naam: I fail to see your point. In a combat situation, the basic premise is that the end justifies the means. In the short term the end was not accomplished in either Vietnam or Somalia. I think it's quite unfair to use the number of people killed as the 'win-lose' axis. In genocide it is, but other than that, it's not.

Is Vietnam better off now than if the war had not happened? I don't know. Maybe as a nation it ultimately benefited from the war. After all, it's likely most people wouldn't even know where the country is located had it not been for the war. On a personal level, I very much doubt that millions of people benefited from the destruction.

Since this is Thai Visa, perhaps a better question would be “Is Thailand better off for the American involvement in Vietnam?”

Scenario number one. America could have won the Vietnam war in a couple of weeks with no other foreign intervention. Then we would have rebuilt the country much like Japan and both Thailand and Vietnam would be happy now.

Scenario number two. China and Russia would have intervened if it the US had started carpet bombing of Hanoi and might have started WW III.

Note, I didn't want to go back to the French scenario because Eisenhower wanted to nuke North Vietnam to prevent the French from losing their war with North Vietnam but the Brits vetoed the idea. Although that would have been my choice.

Scenario number three. Americans not involved in SEA at all. No troops to Vietnam or Thailand. I assume the Brits and Aussies would have followed suit. Don't forget that the Brits also sent military to defend Thailand in the early 60's because of treaty obligations. With no Western involvement China would have taken over SEA including Thailand. No Pattaya, clone countries of Burma. Thailand would not have a King only ruling military.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Press+Conferences/003POF05Pressconference8_03231961.htm

News conference JFK

And now next, in December of 1960, three months ago, the red area having expanded -- and now from December 20 now to the present date, near the end of March, the Communists control a much wider section of the country.

In this military advance, the local Communist forces, known as the Pathet Lao, have had increasing support and direction from outside. Soviet planes, I regret to say, have been conspicuous in a large-scale airlift into the battle area -- over one thousand sorties since last December 13th, plus a whole supporting set of combat specialists, mainly from Communist North Viet Nam, and heavier weapons have been provided from outside, all with the clear object of destroying by military action the agreed neutrality of Laos.

It is this new dimension of externally supported warfare that creates the present grave problem.

We strongly support the present British proposal of a prompt end of hostilities and prompt negotiation. We are always conscious of the obligation which rests upon all members of the United Nations to seek peaceful solutions to problems of this sort. We hope that others may be equally aware of this responsibility.

Unless you understand the SEATO treaty you don't understand the Vietnam war.

In September of 1954, the United States, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan formed the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, or SEATO. The purpose of the organization was to prevent communism from gaining ground in the region. Although called the "Southeast Asia Treaty Organization," only two Southeast Asian countries became members. The Philippines joined in part because of its close ties with the United States and in part out of concern over the nascent communist insurgency threatening its own government. Thailand, similarly, joined after learning of a newly established "Thai Autonomous Region" in Yunnan Province in South China, expressing concern about the potential for Chinese communist subversion on its own soil.

The rest of the region was far less concerned about the threat of communism to internal stability. Burma and Indonesia both preferred to maintain their neutrality rather than join the organization. Malaya (including Singapore) found it politically difficult to give formal support to the organization, though through its ties with Great Britain it learned of key developments. Finally, the terms of the Geneva Agreements of 1954 signed after the fall of French Indochina prevented Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos from joining any international military alliance, though these countries were ultimately included in the area protected under SEATO and granted "observers" status.

I guess it depends upon to "whom" is it worth it. 30+ years on the USA is Vietnams largest export partner. Large multinational companies have set up operations there to exploit labor and other resources.

"Exploit labor and other resources"? You mean like the USA exploits China in the same way?

Not quite the same way. Vietnam is aquiring a net national debt along the way which I don't believe China is. Also Vietnam tends to have only local interests while China has international interests.

The US gov't certainly should have known how this worked, but actively chose to believe information which was not verifiable and most likely was questionable given the sources providing the information. The lie came in a very, very shaky link between Al-Queda and Saddam.

It sounds like you are the victim of a misinformation campaign yourself. We didn't go to war over any connection to 9/11. Saddam was perceived as only a regional threat, one that could be contained with sanctions and a no-fly zone. Before 9/11, terror attacks against the US were limited to far away places like Africa, Yemen or Saudi Arabia. 9/11 showed that our enemies were willing and capable of attacking on American soil and in a VERY BIG way. In addition, leading up to the war there was a big push by countries benefiting from payoffs (France, Russia, maybe Germany) to end the sanctions on Iraq. Ignoring even the potential threat posed by Saddam and his pursuit of WMDs would have been a MUCH bigger mistake than going to war.

So how have I been misinformed? I said nothing about a connection to 9/11. I simply pointed out some very shaky information about Saddam's link to Al-Queda. I think they had to dig pretty deep to find where Al-Queda had contacted the Iraqi regime and what they came up with seems to be a communication between rather low ranking persons in Saddam's government.

I am not arguing the right/wrong of this or any other war. Just discussing the consequences of the war. So are the Iraqi people better off because of the war? Is the rest of the world better off without Saddam (and his sons) around?

Naam: I fail to see your point. In a combat situation, the basic premise is that the end justifies the means. In the short term the end was not accomplished in either Vietnam or Somalia. I think it's quite unfair to use the number of people killed as the 'win-lose' axis. In genocide it is, but other than that, it's not.

i used irony referring to General Ulysses G.who:

" Posted Yesterday, 18:05

19 US soldiers were killed in the battle and over 1,000 Somali's. Thanks for the usual BS boys.

Naam: I fail to see your point. In a combat situation, the basic premise is that the end justifies the means. In the short term the end was not accomplished in either Vietnam or Somalia. I think it's quite unfair to use the number of people killed as the 'win-lose' axis. In genocide it is, but other than that, it's not.

Is Vietnam better off now than if the war had not happened? I don't know. Maybe as a nation it ultimately benefited from the war. After all, it's likely most people wouldn't even know where the country is located had it not been for the war. On a personal level, I very much doubt that millions of people benefited from the destruction.

Since this is Thai Visa, perhaps a better question would be "Is Thailand better off for the American involvement in Vietnam?"

Scenario number one. America could have won the Vietnam war in a couple of weeks with no other foreign intervention. Then we would have rebuilt the country much like Japan and both Thailand and Vietnam would be happy now.

Scenario number two. China and Russia would have intervened if it the US had started carpet bombing of Hanoi and might have started WW III.

Note, I didn't want to go back to the French scenario because Eisenhower wanted to nuke North Vietnam to prevent the French from losing their war with North Vietnam but the Brits vetoed the idea. Although that would have been my choice.

Scenario number three. Americans not involved in SEA at all. No troops to Vietnam or Thailand. I assume the Brits and Aussies would have followed suit. Don't forget that the Brits also sent military to defend Thailand in the early 60's because of treaty obligations. With no Western involvement China would have taken over SEA including Thailand. No Pattaya, clone countries of Burma. Thailand would not have a King only ruling military.

http://www.jfklibrar...e8_03231961.htm

News conference JFK

And now next, in December of 1960, three months ago, the red area having expanded -- and now from December 20 now to the present date, near the end of March, the Communists control a much wider section of the country.

In this military advance, the local Communist forces, known as the Pathet Lao, have had increasing support and direction from outside. Soviet planes, I regret to say, have been conspicuous in a large-scale airlift into the battle area -- over one thousand sorties since last December 13th, plus a whole supporting set of combat specialists, mainly from Communist North Viet Nam, and heavier weapons have been provided from outside, all with the clear object of destroying by military action the agreed neutrality of Laos.

It is this new dimension of externally supported warfare that creates the present grave problem.

We strongly support the present British proposal of a prompt end of hostilities and prompt negotiation. We are always conscious of the obligation which rests upon all members of the United Nations to seek peaceful solutions to problems of this sort. We hope that others may be equally aware of this responsibility.

Unless you understand the SEATO treaty you don't understand the Vietnam war.

In September of 1954, the United States, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan formed the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, or SEATO. The purpose of the organization was to prevent communism from gaining ground in the region. Although called the "Southeast Asia Treaty Organization," only two Southeast Asian countries became members. The Philippines joined in part because of its close ties with the United States and in part out of concern over the nascent communist insurgency threatening its own government. Thailand, similarly, joined after learning of a newly established "Thai Autonomous Region" in Yunnan Province in South China, expressing concern about the potential for Chinese communist subversion on its own soil.

The rest of the region was far less concerned about the threat of communism to internal stability. Burma and Indonesia both preferred to maintain their neutrality rather than join the organization. Malaya (including Singapore) found it politically difficult to give formal support to the organization, though through its ties with Great Britain it learned of key developments. Finally, the terms of the Geneva Agreements of 1954 signed after the fall of French Indochina prevented Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos from joining any international military alliance, though these countries were ultimately included in the area protected under SEATO and granted "observers" status.

At least with scenario 3 there would be no Pattaya.

Let's avoid quoting full articles. The policy is the first three sentences and then a link to the article itself. And for sure let's not re-quote it.

And no Pattaya--why they would be like Christmas without Santa Claus, Easter without the Bunny!

What I was suggesting is looking backwards and see what might have been.

The reasons America got involved in Vietnam are complicated and have to do with treaty obligations, Laos, Thailand as well as the French and South Vietnamese. Could Thailand now be a country much like Burma without the US intervention? I think so.

Saddam invaded Kuwait and killed a lot of people, America and the Allies stepped in and stopped that. But they stopped short. Too bad. Who knows who Saddam would have invaded next. Now he is not going to invade anyone.

Of course there is not a shortages of loonies to take his place. Iran and North Korea come to mind. South Korea looks like it is fed up with North Korean saber rattling as does China.

Afghanistan was providing a safe haven for terrorist training as are some countries in Africa and Pakistan.

Perhaps the reason they remain understated in their support for extremists is the fact that they think the US is a loose cannon. Who knows who those crazy Americans will invade next. It is for sure that the US is not threatened by some fool boasting, “it will be the mother of all battles.”

I have often thought that much of the worlds problems stem from sexual frustration of its leaders. There are a lot of Americans, Chinese and Russians now in Pattaya.

Perhaps all three countries could get together on Soi Six and solve some of the real problems once frustration was no longer an issue. I can't think of any world problems that would remain if China, Russia and the US agreed on everything in a British Pub in Pattaya. Leave the wives and newsmen at home and lock the delegates up on Soi Six. Don't let them leave till all the issues were solved.

Please all, this is not about who got licked or the accurate number of people that died.

This is how about we, the general public is fed wrong information by governments and the media.

Should we not be trying to investigate what the real reasons are behind those interventions, regime changes and occupations?

The Iraq war and occupation is based on lies, the invasion of Afghanistan is questionable.

Thousands of innocent people are dying in these conflicts, why do they have to die?

Ms. Albright said these wars were worth it. Worth it in terms of what? Do you ever ask yourself that question when knowing 90% of people killed are civilians including women and children?

What is it that is worth "It"

Alex

I guess it depends upon to "whom" is it worth it. 30+ years on the USA is Vietnams largest export partner. Large multinational companies have set up operations there to exploit labor and other resources. They'd probably say it was "worth it". Nations and corporations can take the long view, that's why we defer to their interests as opposed to our own.

I guess that is where we should be looking at. Most if not all of the Iraq state controlled companies have been privatized and now owned or controlled by US or other foreign companies.

Iraq was a socialized welfare country ruled by a dictator wearing a tie supported previously by the greatest nation on Earth.

Iraq started to sell oil in Euro' under Saddam in two thousand something. This threatened US hegemony using USD as the preferred currency to trade this commodity.

This move could likely have caused a "domino" effect, having other countries to stop using the USD as the preferred trading currency for oil.

Therefore eliminating the USD as the world reserve currency.

And causing a collapse of the USD currency and their empire?

Please all, this is not about who got licked or the accurate number of people that died.

This is how about we, the general public is fed wrong information by governments and the media.

Should we not be trying to investigate what the real reasons are behind those interventions, regime changes and occupations?

The Iraq war and occupation is based on lies, the invasion of Afghanistan is questionable.

Thousands of innocent people are dying in these conflicts, why do they have to die?

Ms. Albright said these wars were worth it. Worth it in terms of what? Do you ever ask yourself that question when knowing 90% of people killed are civilians including women and children?

What is it that is worth "It"

Alex

I guess it depends upon to "whom" is it worth it. 30+ years on the USA is Vietnams largest export partner. Large multinational companies have set up operations there to exploit labor and other resources. They'd probably say it was "worth it". Nations and corporations can take the long view, that's why we defer to their interests as opposed to our own.

I guess that is where we should be looking at. Most if not all of the Iraq state controlled companies have been privatized and now owned or controlled by US or other foreign companies.

Iraq was a socialized welfare country ruled by a dictator wearing a tie supported previously by the greatest nation on Earth.

Iraq started to sell oil in Euro' under Saddam in two thousand something. This threatened US hegemony using USD as the preferred currency to trade this commodity.

This move could likely have caused a "domino" effect, having other countries to stop using the USD as the preferred trading currency for oil.

Therefore eliminating the USD as the world reserve currency.

And causing a collapse of the USD currency and their empire?

And Iran has it's borse......guess what? Iran is a WOMD threat too!!!!

Sorry if it appeared that way. My point was that it was not a US controlled mission at that point. :jap:

There is no oil or economic or stragegic advantage in Somalia.

Indeed, Somalia is of little interest to the US. US foreign policy generally focuses on US interests. Continued piracy may bring it into the area of concern.

With regard to Iran. As they go nuclear, let's hope they also start to grow up. If they want to play with the big boys, they are going to have to play like a big boy.

You can always count on certain posters to completely ignore the facts.

Here is an interesting collection of reports from Somalia Watch which describe why Somalia could be the next major oil producer in the world. Based upon UN reports and early oil exploration activities Somalia could be the next Uganda which recently found oil. Somalia is a largely unexplored area due to ongoing civil wars and political chaos. But times have changed, especially in the Northern Region called Puntland which is a self-governing area independent of the central government. This is where Somalia's two major basins are located and where previous exploration activities were carried out by major oil companies before the beginning of the civil war. When it comes to current investment opportunities there is a company called Africa Oil Corp, which owns the largest land package in Somalia and is scheduled to drill its first exploratory well in the 4th quarter of 2010. I have an article about Africa Oil Corp Here. When it comes to oil exploration Somalia is currently under the radar to investors, but that may soon change in the next 9 months.

http://www.straightstocks.com/market-commentary/oil-prospects-in-somalia/

Somalia has untapped reserves of numerous natural resources, including uranium, iron ore, tin, gypsum, bauxite, copper, salt and natural gas. Due to its proximity to the oil-rich Gulf Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the nation is also believed to contain substantial unexploited reserves of oil. A survey of Northeast Africa by the World Bank and U.N. ranked Somalia second only to Sudan as the top prospective producer. American, Australian and Chinese oil companies, in particular, are excited about the prospect of finding petroleum and other natural resources in the country. An oil group listed in Sydney, Range Resources, anticipates that the Puntland province in the north has the potential to produce 5 billion barrels (790×10^6 m3) to 10 billion barrels (1.6×10^9 m3) of oil. As a result of these developments, the Somali Petroleum Company was created by the federal government.

Wiki

Hang on, Wiki's a farago of liberal lies isn't it?

what to believe, what to believe...

Somalia has untapped reserves of numerous natural resources, including uranium, iron ore, tin, gypsum, bauxite, copper, salt and natural gas. Due to its proximity to the oil-rich Gulf Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the nation is also believed to contain substantial unexploited reserves of oil. A survey of Northeast Africa by the World Bank and U.N. ranked Somalia second only to Sudan as the top prospective producer. American, Australian and Chinese oil companies, in particular, are excited about the prospect of finding petroleum and other natural resources in the country. An oil group listed in Sydney, Range Resources, anticipates that the Puntland province in the north has the potential to produce 5 billion barrels (790×10^6 m3) to 10 billion barrels (1.6×10^9 m3) of oil. As a result of these developments, the Somali Petroleum Company was created by the federal government.

Wiki

Hang on, Wiki's a farago of liberal lies isn't it?

what to believe, what to believe...

Wiki is full of lies! Somalia and natural resources? my àrse! the coalition of the willing sent soldiers only for humanitarian reasons, such as distributing burgers, pizza, coke and chewing gum among the starving population and Mohamed Aidid was neither a warlord nor the main "humanitarian" target the White House wanted dead.

You can always count on certain posters to completely ignore the facts.

Here is an interesting collection of reports from Somalia Watch which describe why Somalia could be the next major oil producer in the world. Based upon UN reports and early oil exploration activities Somalia could be the next Uganda which recently found oil. Somalia is a largely unexplored area due to ongoing civil wars and political chaos. But times have changed, especially in the Northern Region called Puntland which is a self-governing area independent of the central government. This is where Somalia's two major basins are located and where previous exploration activities were carried out by major oil companies before the beginning of the civil war. When it comes to current investment opportunities there is a company called Africa Oil Corp, which owns the largest land package in Somalia and is scheduled to drill its first exploratory well in the 4th quarter of 2010. I have an article about Africa Oil Corp Here. When it comes to oil exploration Somalia is currently under the radar to investors, but that may soon change in the next 9 months.

http://www.straights...cts-in-somalia/

Ahhhh...so THAT'S why they were there.

Something tells me that the US will suddenly find fault with Somalia IF the speculation of mineral wealth proves to be true......will it be WOMD? I doubt it.....more probably there will be a hightened interest in piracy and Somalia will be invaded "to keep the seas free of the scourge.... once again we have commited troops and money as the world's police to save the rest of the civilised world....you're welcome."

Well, that was a hasty retreat. However, if oil and such is why they went in the first place, why did the US leave then? I'm sure that you boys can make up some kind of senseless conspiracy theory for that one too. Don't let any facts get in the way.

Well, that was a hasty retreat. However, if oil and such is why they went in the first place, why did the US leave then? I'm sure that you boys can make up some kind of senseless conspiracy theory for that one too. Don't let any facts get in the way.

Are you talking about the US out of Somalia?

There is no oil or economic or stragegic advantage in Somalia.

Nope. I'm talking about this one. Yet another retreat from one more claim with absolutely no facts to back it up.

Snip:

Nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration's decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-01-18/news/mn-1337_1_oil-reserves

Well that failed as the Americans did and do not understand tribe and clan culture and their politics and ended up supporting the wrong people.