Next target in the war aginst terror: Somalia ?

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

well ,there are worldwide rumor's that the next target in the war against terrorism will be Somalia.Knowing the source of that information it's highly likely that America will stage some operation's in that area.Knowing that Somalia itself is no real gouverned country but rather a mix of tribe's or group's ruled by local warlord's.(Somalia not being the only country in such a civil state)
Some of those Warlord's are alleged to harbour terrorist's ,who would be connected to the al-Quaida network. (Boy al-quaida sure has a lot of connection's)
And so the alliance against terrorism must hunt down these terrorists in somalia.They can do this millitary ,or with the participation of a Warlord not connected with these terrorists ,Or with an alliance of a group of those warlord's.

My main question here:

How can the alliance against terrorism achieve in making it impossible for a country like Somalia to ever harbour terrorists again ,after that it has exterminated the terrorists there?
Somalia being a country of Countless warlord clan's how can we push a democracy in that country?
Like for Example the democratization proces in afhanistan.

About Afhanistan ,i have fait in Hamid karzai ,but Another pre-Taliban warlord ,Döstrum i do not trust a bit.And the fact that he is appointed as Millitary Minister for the moment ,and the fact that Afhanistan is still a social torn country devided in many group's ,leave's me to fear for a coup again (estimate? about 3 years? after Un participation). Hey ,even the Northern Alliance is falling apart already.

But my main question is still:
How can we prevent that ,after operations in Somalia ,the country
will never harbour any terrorists again?

 

[Apollo]

From what I've heard the next target is the terrorist groups in the Philippines. There are terrorist groups there that are against the Philippine government and have links with Al-Qaida. This was probably chosen as the next target because if these terrorists are defeated, there is a well-established government to come in and take control.

 

[Ohwell]

Who says the war on terrorism is going to continue? Might the US just stop its alleged war on terrorism after Afhganistan is dealt with? But if they do continue, yes maybe the Philipenes. As you said Apollo, they already have a working government to help, so the US and British(And everyone else) don't have to eliminate a government.

My personal thoughts on Somalia- I think they should've just be tooken control of earlier, so we wouldn't have to deal with them again. If we have to deal with them again, the US better do something desicive about them, because their former campain against them failed.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

I really doubt we go into Somalia. Our past military history is a little too sore about that place...

I agree totally with Apollo on this one... The Phillipines have been screaming for help for awhile now...

Also look in the future for a crushing war on drugs/terrorism...

 

[amadeus]

Somalia isn't the only country we'd have to go after.

Yemen, Indonesia, and the Phillipines are also targets, but not in a militaristic sense, more of an intelligence-gathering and working with the governments of the aforementioned nations (exception: Somalia, of course.)

Sadly, I'm upset that we are not targeting Iraq. The official stance of the Arab Leauge, of course, is "don't hurt our friend", but I'm sure that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are as afraid as hell of what 'So-damn Insane' (Saddam Hussein) can do to them.

 

[scorch]

howabout france?


They are holding a few terrorists that blew up a boat in NZ a few years back.

 

[knowltok3]

I don't think America's past in Somolia will stop the US from going in, if it is decided that that is needed. Also, if the US goes back, expect it to be with a large, fully supported, military presence. There won't be a repeat of the Black Hawk Down incident.

Duck, you highlight one of the key problems in dealing with these people: They aren't ready for democracy and the notion that everyone is equal. They are convinced that their tribe is the best and should be in control.

The other question raised is whether the world is going to have the commitment needed to turn these countries around. We have to realize that we can't turn around an anarchy ridden nation of warlords in a few months or even a few years. It is going to take a long term effort of guaranteeing peace and stability, along with human rights and education. The process also can't fall apart if US troops leave. The other nations of the world are going to have to step up and be able to get the job done on their own basis. If these efforts fall apart when US troops leave and there is (For example) a German, Belgian, and Turkish force left to keep the peace, they have to be able to keep it just as effectively. This is not to insinuate that there is any reason that they can't, but group efforts can't fall apart just because the US doesn't have an active presence.

Note: While I picked those nations somewhat based on the posters, it could be any nation that is commiting troops to peace keeping. I am not in any way indicating any lack of faith in the abilities of these nation's troops.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Somalia isn't the only country we'd have to go after.

Yemen, Indonesia, and the Phillipines are also targets, but not in a militaristic sense, more of an intelligence-gathering and working with the governments of the aforementioned nations (exception: Somalia, of course.)

Sadly, I'm upset that we are not targeting Iraq. The official stance of the Arab Leauge, of course, is "don't hurt our friend", but I'm sure that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are as afraid as hell of what 'So-damn Insane' (Saddam Hussein) can do to them.

I have heard that McCain and another Senator have sent a letter to Prez Busch suggesting, strongly, that Iraq should be the next target and that we should not stop until we get Mr. Insane.

Yes, I know the names are msipleed.

 

[Gruntboy]

Surely all those countries harbouring terrorists, many mentioned here, will be on the list. This protracted campaign against terror will get them one at a time. Only question is, who's next.

Just think of the poor sods who have to wait for their turn.

 

[DancesWithGoats]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Only question is, who's next.

Greece.

 

[Suppersalmon]

were on earth is Somalia

 

[ComradeDavo]

I too have heard Somalia is next on the list, I also heard the USA had sent a few spies over there to sort out what and what not to target.

Parsonal thoughts: don't know a great deal about Somalia but know enough to understand it would be quite messy for the Americans to launch a campaign there. As always I am against millitary action

As for Iraq, there is a campaign there already (regualar bombing by US and UK planes in case you forgot).

 

[atawa]

Originally posted by scorch
howabout france?


They are holding a few terrorists that blew up a boat in NZ a few years back.

How do you imagine the that? US planes bombing Paris?

 

[animepornstar]

imaging usa attacking indonesia, what a great irony. usa have been supporting the terror using government of indonesia for a long time and now when indonesia seems to geting a bit more civilized they´re going to bomb them...

about iraq. the older bush didn´t want to dismiss saddam, so i don´t think the younger wants to. he will problary continue the bombings and sanctions that all ready have cost the lives of 500000 iraqian children.

 

[amadeus]

The U.S. wouldn't bomb Indonesia.

Second, don't blame Iraq's problems on the U.S. -- "oh, the sanctions against Iraq are killing innocent people!"

You know who's really killing the innocent people?

Saddam Hussein, NOT -- NOT George Bush.

 

[andyo]

i agree with sharpe - it is not the united states who are killing iraqi children - it is sadam - and to a lesser extent the iraqi people who support him. if they want the sanctions to end, they know what they have to do - be a civilized country - thats all - stop trying to take over your neighbors, killing your own citizens, and the sanctions will stop.
On a somewhat related note, I am getting pissed off by the world expecting that it is the united state's job to get rid of world-wide terrorists. This is a problem that effects us all - yet people think it is the duty of the US and the UK to go out and stop it - we have people from all over the world posting on this thread alone - Germany, Sweden - all over - why don't ou guys feel that you have to help out too? how many terrorist cells have they found in munich? in paris? all over the place - this is a worldwide problem - and it distresses me to see that sooooo many countries are too chicksh*t to do anything about it - I grew up in new york city - I work there - people I knew and loved died in the world trade center buildings - this isn't some abstract attack - and if it isn't stopped, it is going to be repeated - it is a problem we are all going to have to face -
I am impressed as hell with the British - they have always stood up for what is right - and I am proud to say I stand aside them in this task - but I am scared by the rest of world - if this isn't worth standing up for, what is? And if you arn't willing to stand up against it, what does that say about you?

 

[SunTzu]

Well i've heard that we have special ops troops in Somolia getting information and we're going to send marines to Yemen to get Terrorists, and this is with support from the Yemen g'ment.
Everyone knows that we're getting ready to go into the Phillipines.
And i think that with the Indonesia governments support we should go into indonesia and get rid of the Al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups there.
And WE need to take out So-Damn Insane(Sadaam Hussein?spelling?)
And i completely agree with RMsharpe and Andyo

 

[animepornstar]

well, i´m blaming u.s. and uk for preventing necessities to reach iraq. the list of forbidden items that iraq can´t buy is 20 pages long. there are 18 bans about medical equipment like heart- and lung machines. medicine for leukaemia, that is widely spread in iraq, the ammo u.s. used in the war is suspected to cause it, is also ban because it can be used to create bombs with a bunch of other things like ambulances and wheelbarrows.

 

[SunTzu]

Simple solution, get rid of So-damn Insane, Sadaam Hussein.
Get rid of him and the bans will be lifted.

 

[andyo]

are you kidding me? well, if they really need ambulances and medicine and other things, why don't they build those, instead of tanks and chemical weapons? it must be much easier to build an ambulance than an armored personel carrier, and they have no problem making those, right?
and to claim that the depleted uranium rounds that the us used is causeing health problems is rediculous - what about the chemical weapons sadam is using on his own people - do you think they are healthing their health? or all the oil wells they set on fire - do you think there are any cancer causing agents in them? besides, the only way the depleted uranium rounds would cause health problems is if you are eating them - and if that is the case, cancer is the least of your problems -
and anyway - what caused the rounds to be shot? did we randomly start shooting up the country? oh no, thats right - they invaded their neighbors, and starting pillaging kuwait - so they brought it on themselves -
Listen - sweden wants to stay neutral, or even help iraq - thats your problem - i think it is pathetic, but your choice - that is the great thing about democracy - i don't have to agree with you - and if more people in Sweden want to stay out of this than want to get in - hey thats your problem - just don't come running to us next time you are overrun and need our help liberating your country