U.S. Is Not Going to War in Somalia for any Good Reasons

Question:

It does NOT follow from this that sometimes when humanitarian motives are claimed they don’t actually exist. If Ms. Hauben has some reason to think that humanitarian issues are *not* the main motivating force for the US (and UN) action perhaps she would tell us why. Are all those starving Somalis just a fabrication, some propaganda ploy? We can debate the wisdom and risks of the US decision all day, but I think it’s ludicrous to suggest that a sincere desire to prevent further starvation is not the main reason for the decision. Also note that I do volunteer work for a local homeless shelter so I’m well aware of the problem the US faces in poverty and homelessness. And it’s *nothing* compared to the mass death going on right now in Somalia. —peter

Response:

## ## ##writes: ##I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, ##as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their ##own country. ## ##Norman Miller is wrong. Going to war is always a serious question ##deserving full discussion and debate by the people of every country. ##Especially the people being asked to fight the war and back it and ##the people in the area of the war need to analyze the situation ##and respond to it. ## ##The American people have a long tradition of opposing war and the ##imposition of solutions to internal problems by forces from outside Ha Ha Ha hahahahhahahhh……. Here is a quote from Cheney: "There will be peace in Somalia, even if we have to use force to create it." Vietnam, Korea, Iran-Iraq, Israel, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, and you honestly believe that our tradition is one of opposing war? Puhleeeese! Save this for rec.humor.funny -S ##will stop the anti-war, anti-militarism, pro-peace American tradition ##from finding and asserting itself. All efforts to reseach and analyze For years and years, we have been feeding our economy on building a military machine, by selling arms and armoury to nations around the world, for oil, money and "strategic" favours. Now there is no one to use it against, the economy starts to collapse. I get the point that you mean "American people" but isn’t this a democracy? Then what is represented by the people is (should be) reflected in the military policy that the country holds, n’cest pas? When was the last time you wrote to your congressman giving him/her your views about the countries policy? For the longest time, I wished there was some oil in Somalia, we could have intervened in Jan of 1991. ##the forces behind this military move will help strengthen this ##tradition and the American people’s contribution to a better world ##order. ##Norman Miller

Response:

writes: I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their own country. There’s no point in even trying to discuss the matter with the author of those lines, but they certainly sum up for some of us how silly and vacuous left-activism has become.

What I really love about them is the Catch-22 they put a Republican Administration in. If you go in, you’re flexing your muscles, acting fascist, whatever. If you don’t go in, you don’t care about humanitarian issues – after all, you went in to Kuwait, so clearly all you cared about was the oil, not the poor starving people. Give me strength! Norman Miller

– #include <std_disclaimer.h Dan S.

Response:

The same U.S. government which throws U.S. people out on the streets to starve clearly has no humanitarian reasons to invade Somalia to bring humanitarian aid to people.

Just how many people do you think are starving in the U.S.? –Tim Smith

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -obert Hauben) writes: ) writes: I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their own country. There’s no point in even trying to discuss the matter with the author of those lines, but they certainly sum up for some of us how silly and vacuous left-activism has become. Norman Miller is wrong. Going to war is always a serious question deserving full discussion and debate by the people of every country. Especially the people being asked to fight the war and back it and the people in the area of the war need to analyze the situation and respond to it.

For your information, I was actively anti-war as far back as 1937, and I’m still anti-war. What I was talking about was the fatuous language of the original poster. You don’t have to make preposterous and pinheaded claims ("domestic attack" indeed) in order to oppose war. nm

Response:

Norman Miller is wrong. Going to war is always a serious question deserving full discussion and debate by the people of every country. Especially the people being asked to fight the war and back it and the people in the area of the war need to analyze the situation and respond to it. The American people have a long tradition of opposing war and the imposition of solutions to internal problems by forces from outside a country. The civil war in Somolia is a problem for the Somolian people to solve. Humanitarian aid and military intervention should be different responses to this internal problem. After Granada, Panama, and Iraq, the American people can not be expected to think that the US military is used for humanitarian reasons. It may take a while but no cover of the invasion of Somolia with humanitarian rhetoric will stop the anti-war, anti-militarism, pro-peace American tradition from finding and asserting itself. All efforts to reseach and analyze the forces behind this military move will help strengthen this tradition and the American people’s contribution to a better world order. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Norman Miller

Response:

writes: I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their own country.

There’s no point in even trying to discuss the matter with the author of those lines, but they certainly sum up for some of us how silly and vacuous left-activism has become. Norman Miller

Response:

[...stuff deleted...] Strange that it never occurred to you – the whole history of U.S. invasions is always that they claim humanitarian reasons.

Once again I personally have no idea what is going on. All argument pro and con the Somalian rescue/invasion is based on information being put out by the mass media. And we all know what a good job they did in keeping us "informed" during the gulf war hysteria. Maybe Bush really does want to do something good before he leaves office. Or maybe this is just a "safety valve" to divert attention away from our problems here in the U.S. Who knows? All argument is based on what we are told by the mass media, and *they* are not entirely to be trusted. [...stuff deleted...] Brian Redman "If there is a worse place than Hell, I am in it." — Abraham Lincoln

Response:

My sincere apologies if sci.econ gets this twice. The same U.S. government which throws U.S. people out on the streets to starve clearly has no humanitarian reasons to invade Somalia to bring humanitarian aid to people.

Let’s see the numbers, Ronda. How many people have starved to death in Michigan since general assistance disappeared? By comparison, the U.N. estimates that a quarter of a million people die of starvation in Somalia every month. The very limited social programs that have traditionally existed in the U.S. are cut. Factories are being closed. Unemployment funds raided (as in a recent bill passed in N.J. where tax on unemployment is reduced for employers in the name of providing some kind of health care)

Another canard. "Some kind of health care" happens to be health care for people with no insurance and no money to pay their hospital bills. I too consider it a ridiculous and cowardly looting of the unemployment fund, but the people who benefit happen to be the same type of people as the ones in Michigan you are whining about. Norbert

Response:

The supposed claim that the U.S. govt has humanitarian reasons for invading Somalia is false. ….. other stuff….. See here Ronda. I oppose going into Somolia at least as much as you do (See my posting in t.p.m NO GOOD DEED WILL GO UNPUNISHED), but it never once ocurred to me were invading the place.

Strange that it never occurred to you – the whole history of U.S. invasions is always that they claim humanitarian reasons. Hitler also always claimed humanitarian reasons. Do you suppose that an invader will every tell the world this is an invasion? What is to be gained by an invasion?. I think our motives for going in are well intesioned, but wrong-headed. Wromantic but Wrong you might say.

Well obviously the U.S. govt feels there is something to be gained or they wouldn’t be invading a soverign country. I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their own country. As far as the reasons domestically for the attack on us at home, the election made clear that the domestic economic problems are very deep and none of the parties put forward any real way to deal with the problems. Isn’t that the kind of situation when Hitler undertook his invasions? But the American people made clear that they wanted the economic problems at home addresssed during the election. What better excuse is there to cover up that the problems will not be addressed by the so called candidate of "change" than to have the U.S. involved in a war in Somalia — also, war is an excuse to allow the govt to stifle dissent in the name of protecting the boys abroad (as happened in the Gulf War) Thus the efforts of the American people to have open discussion and debate over economic issues now becomes *subversive* and *anti-american* and *costing american lives* etc. I haven’t heard any dissent from Clinton about Bush’s invasion. Instead, I have heard the news claim that Clinton welcomes the action. What evidence do you have this is an invasion (which implies territorial or other material gains)?

An invasion means going into a sovereign country. That is what I understand is the plan with regard to Somalia – a military force of another country entering a sovereign nation. There are always excuses given to supposedly justify the breach of another nation’s sovereignty. In the days of Vietnam it was the humanitarian cause of bringing *Democracy* to Vietnam – but it was an invasion, despite the words. Conan the Libertarian

But the particular horror of it all is that there is a need to have the significant breakthroughs represented by the personal computer and computer networks be used to help to solve the real economic and political problems in the U.S. It seems that the U.S. govt is fearing that the fate of the former Soviet Union is its fate if it doesn’t move to distract the American people from the sense that came through during the recent election that the American political and economic processes had failed. Everyone I talked to said that they didn’t like any of the candidates. And they said that none of the candidates had any proposals for how to deal with the deep economic and political problems the U.S. is facing. Wasn’t that the sentiment in the former Soviet Union before the breakup? Ronda — Amateur Computerist Newsletter or Dearborn, MI 48126

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The supposed claim that the U.S. govt has humanitarian reasons for invading Somalia is false. Last year the Michigan Govt. (with Governor Engler leading the assault) cut general assistance welfare relief for people in Michigan who had no work. That threw people out on the street with no place to live. The same U.S. government which throws U.S. people out on the streets to starve clearly has no humanitarian reasons to invade Somalia to bring humanitarian aid to people. If the U.S. government were interested in humanitarian causes, it would open up discussion and action on dealing with the economic problems in the U.S. economy.

Very different things are at stake in responding to humanitarian needs in Somalia vs those in the US. The US govt is assuming a low cost for responding in Somalia in that they do not expect significant violence. They expect it to be easy. We all hope that they are right. Responding to needs in the US is much more controversial. I share your concern over the actions listed above, but these are opposed by powerful interests in the US. The very limited social programs that have traditionally existed in the U.S. are cut. Factories are being closed. Unemployment funds raided (as in a recent bill passed in N.J. where tax on unemployment is reduced for employers in the name of providing some kind of health care), labor laws have been weakened so that the Americans who do have jobs have very little protection against employer abuses. Given all the trouble in the U.S. the claim that the U.S. is leading some humanitarian venture in Somalia is clearly false as a country that has no regard for its own people, clearly has no regard for any other people.

This is simplistic. There is regard for US citizens, but the powers that be have prioritized economic and trade interests over people interests. These powers will lose power and money by responding forcefully to humanitarian needs in the US but will not lose in responding in Somalia. So why is the U.S. invading Somalia? Why has it gotten the UN to authorize this new war? It’s the last thing needed by people in the U.S. The previous military invasion of Iraq by the U.S. sent the U.S. economy into a nosedive. With the bad economic conditions in the U.S., it seems a new war is being presented to distract attention from the bad economic conditions within the U.S. But it will only make everything worse.

I opposed the war in the Gulf but this is not the same. While I am not sure whether it is wise, it is certainly different. There is no major villain, as in Saddam Hussein. The various "warlords" are not equivalent, and are supporting this intervention, for now at least. Those who believe that most uses of the US military have been wrong or morally unsupportable, as I do, tend to have an automatic reaction when word of US troops is mentioned. I think a reaction more specific to the use is needed in this case. Ronda — Amateur Computerist Newsletter or Dearborn, MI 48126

–

Response:

The supposed claim that the U.S. govt has humanitarian reasons for invading Somalia is false.

….. other stuff….. Ronda — Amateur Computerist Newsletter or Dearborn, MI 48126

See here Ronda. I oppose going into Somolia at least as much as you do (See my posting in t.p.m NO GOOD DEED WILL GO UNPUNISHED), but it never once ocurred to me were invading the place. What is to be gained by an invasion?. I think our motives for going in are well intesioned, but wrong-headed. Wromantic but Wrong you might say. What evidence do you have this is an invasion (which implies territorial or other material gains)? Conan the Libertarian — "If you can’t love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The supposed claim that the U.S. govt has humanitarian reasons for invading Somalia is false. Last year the Michigan Govt. (with Governor Engler leading the assault) cut general assistance welfare relief for people in Michigan who had no work. That threw people out on the street with no place to live. The same U.S. government which throws U.S. people out on the streets to starve clearly has no humanitarian reasons to invade Somalia to bring humanitarian aid to people. If the U.S. government were interested in humanitarian causes, it would open up discussion and action on dealing with the economic problems in the U.S. economy. The very limited social programs that have traditionally existed in the U.S. are cut. Factories are being closed. Unemployment funds raided (as in a recent bill passed in N.J. where tax on unemployment is reduced for employers in the name of providing some kind of health care), labor laws have been weakened so that the Americans who do have jobs have very little protection against employer abuses. Given all the trouble in the U.S. the claim that the U.S. is leading some humanitarian venture in Somalia is clearly false as a country that has no regard for its own people, clearly has no regard for any other people. So why is the U.S. invading Somalia? Why has it gotten the UN to authorize this new war? It’s the last thing needed by people in the U.S. The previous military invasion of Iraq by the U.S. sent the U.S. economy into a nosedive. With the bad economic conditions in the U.S., it seems a new war is being presented to distract attention from the bad economic conditions within the U.S. But it will only make everything worse.

After posting the above the sci.econ I realized that it is an important subject that needs to be discussed and soon. So I am posting it a bit more broadly and welcome other people reposting it – and adding to the discussion. It seems the U.S. govt. has learned that it can manipulate the UN to declare war thus by passing the U.S. Congress and any debate among the U.S. people. At a time when there is a need for the development of more broad based computer networks so people can make more input into decisions that affect them, the U.S. govt instead is taking more unilateral actions with no input or oversight allowed by the American people. Ronda — Amateur Computerist Newsletter or Dearborn, MI 48126

Response:

Filed under: American Activism

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism