U.S. signals possible airstrikes in Somalia by asking aid groups for their locations

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: crazyewok
Are you going to drop a nuke on Pairs to kill a few dozen hidden ISIS members?

Who in the F has ever suggested such a thing from a position of any authority? Jesus man, why in the hell does the conversation always seem to jump right into nuking non-hostile targets? That's not going to happen and you knew it wouldn't.

Ok extreme example. But just pointing out we are not fighting a country.

ISIS is a insurgency that hide among friends and take shelter in allied citys.

Bombs alone wont be enough. Its not like Obama or bush held back on the bombs, i mean obama loved his drones.

a reply to: crazyewok

Personally I'd rather spend a fraction of the money and drop books, food, medicine and support. While I'm essentially committing ATS suicide by saying that if we could enrich lives instead of end them we may see a different outlook of the West from future generations in these countries.

Because obviously killing them doesn't work, it provides validity to the claims of the extremists. The west is the enemy.

I guess we'll just keep projecting freedom with bullets.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: CriticalStinker

He also campaigned on actively destroying ISIS, which is very much active in Somalia.

Air strikes will not remove Al Shabaab (different group, different leaders, same aims as ISIS) but it will definitely result in lots of dead civilians. But who cares they are not American and anyway if they are dead they can't emigrate to the US to escape the carnage can they.

They only way of removing groups like this is on the ground with the people of the country who want rid of them. It is a slow process. It would be made a little faster if the finances of these groups was cut off. But that would mean cutting ties with the Saudis and they have oil and property and vast wealth. They have royalty who visit US/UK universities! They own lots of US and UK property, soccer teams etc.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

So let me get this straight. Terrorists kill around 3,000 Americans, so we attack seven or more countries losing far more than we initially lost.

Which ALL could have possibly avoided in the 90s had an American president not played politics with national security.

The bill gets picked up by tax payers, and after fifteen years of losing at the casino the "solution" from war hawks is triple down.

That bill has been paid by millions of middle class tax paying workers with the knowledge that most of the time the United States isn't like the snip show we see in the middle east.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Unbelievable the idiocy of those that get these docs and then send them to the media. I hope they realize what a detriment it is to the security of those there.

Not sure what they hope to accomplish with these media leaks.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good point, we should just keep the American people blind while our government continues to project whatever we please, even if the UN doesn't agree.

Its worked so far, right?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Blind to what ?

We've tried sticking our heads in the sand and thinking nothing will ever touch us.

Been proven wrong for over 40 years.

a reply to: neo96

If you want to look at it that way.

I see it as the vast majorities of wars since WWII we fought countries who never attacked us.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
Not a new front at all. We have been there since 2007, longer than Syria or Libya.
a reply to: neo96
There have been boots on the ground since 2007, and the 101st deployed 40 soldiers there last month.
a reply to: neo96
Iran's version of blackwater is not beheading children, crucifying people, burning people alive, exploding them with rpg's, training child soldiers with mass executions, trafficking in child and other human sex slaves and servants, enlisting suicide bombers that never seem to end, etc.. etc..

Somalia was actually stable for six months under a popular uprising in 2006. They curbed piracy, cleaned up the capitol, reopened the airport, defeated and removed the warlords who were receiving cash shipments and arms from the CIA, jump started social services. It was actually so peaceful, that the vendors who sold rifles in the open market saw their business decline and had to drop prices to very little just to try and entice a sale.

Well, Somalia being over %93 Muslim, this group was Islamic in nature, but rather moderate. They tried to reach out to the international community for dialogue and assistance. SO naturally, we had to send some military aide to Christian Ethiopia to make sure the Somalis understood "how dare you strive for peace!" Of course as they were getting their asses handed to them, the African Union had to be bribed to get involved as well, and that was too much to handle, and the country fell apart again. The AU mandate expires next year, and that is why USA has been more visible with assets on the ground and the media actually covering it more often.

Somalia is not unstable because they don't want to be, its unstable because outside forces keep it that way.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Iran's version of blackwater is not beheading children, crucifying people, burning people alive, exploding them with rpg's, training child soldiers with mass executions, trafficking in child and other human sex slaves and servants, enlisting suicide bombers that never seem to end, etc.. etc..

Then someone has never heard of Evin Prison or the Bahai genocide.

a reply to: neo96
What does a prison which apparently equal to many American ones, and a historical event have to do with the people fighting on the ground against primitive barbarians in Iraq and Syria?? In fact the comparison is completely invalid. Even you frequently dismiss peoples arguments when they bring up past events unrelated to the topic at hand as an attempt to draw a parallel.

moving on, I expect to see a steady and discrete flow of American soldiers into Somalia over the rest of the year. What exactly their goal will be after the AU pull out is a bit of a haze though. Now that there is an official Federal government of Somalia, we will try our best to keep them propped up long enough to make sure the foreign companies that have been invited to tap some of that sweet oil get to drill sometime in the near future.

Soma Oil & Gas is a private UK company founded in 2013 to pursue oil and gas exploration opportunities in Somalia. Ironically, the company is backed by Russian billionaire Alexander Djaparidze.
Somalia invites energy companies to explore for oil

I wonder if Exxon Mobile and Royal Dutch Shell will reactivate their project??

So you see, Somalia is already locked in to the IMF/World Bank/BIS international bankster cartel and the oil should be flowing soon, with a bit more commitment by American soldiers again.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

When you put it that way it's kind of hard to Rah Rah Rah around it.


Almost like all wars...

Its just sad some people get off because America is all over the world dictating how countries are run and calling that freedom.

a reply to: neo96

By the way, more Americans die a year from drowning than all terrorist related deaths since 2000.

Should we start bombing all countries with water?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: neo96

By the way, more Americans die a year from drowning than all terrorist related deaths since 2000.

Should we start bombing all countries with water?

I always enjoy this perspectiveless argument rearing it's head... The difference between drownings, heart disease, suicides, car accidents, domestic firearm assaults, etc. and Islamofascist terrorism is that only the terrorism represents a matter which is in the Constitutionally defined sphere of federal responsibility. The feds have only one mandatory job: providing for the common (national) defense. The United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.

So your attempt to correlate terrorism and the federal response against it to other issues that cause the deaths of Americans isn't an appropriate correlation in any way.

READ THE FING Project for the New American Century!!!!

Ffs, how many times do I have to type this. NONE of this, I MEAN NONE OF IT, comes as a surprise. Next is Iran.

Then after that China and Russia. Like a playbook.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good point, we should just keep the American people blind while our government continues to project whatever we please, even if the UN doesn't agree.

Its worked so far, right?

Blind? Are you kidding?

It's a military operation...did Japan announce a week ahead they were going to hit Pearl Harbor?

For someone to have leaked this is a major detriment to our ability to actually neutralize a potential threat.

You do realize there are real threats to the US right?

The very day the very first sniper went into enemy territory under fauna cover and picked off a high ranking official was when everyone realized that operations had to be done in secret.

I would actually say I blame the administration for sending a notice out, though that's better than the prior that announced it via media outlet 2 weeks in advance.

The whole point is to take them out and by surprise. Whomever leaked this just cost the US taxpayer millions in Intel and likely lives as well.

If you don't understand war then you should likely stay out of it.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: neo96

If you want to look at it that way.

I see it as the vast majorities of wars since WWII we fought countries who never attacked us.

Correct....they didn't attack us directly.

People don't look at the issue correctly or on a smaller scale to understand.

What if 10 of your 15 neighbors decided they were going to take the other neighbors land? Do you fight them or let them take it knowing they will gain strength and numbers?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I always enjoy this perspectiveless argument rearing it's head... The difference between drownings, heart disease, suicides, car accidents, domestic firearm assaults, etc. and Islamofascist terrorism is that only the terrorism represents a matter which is in the Constitutionally defined sphere of federal responsibility.

Considering we haven't been attacked maybe we can spend a fraction on what we do for wars to address the health crisis.

Far more people die because of poor health.

And I know, you're going to say that's not the federal governments job. But that's what your interpretation is, you have an opinion.

Mine is let's address real threats instead of going into seven countries who didn't attack us while we spend trillions on losing wars.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
Hey, I would love nothing more to maybe just take $200 billion out of defense budget for health care by scaling back the nuclear arsenal and shutting down a bunch of bases in Europe, and stopping all military aide to everyone except Israel, because our masters obviously are not going to allow the money to stop. But sometimes, we have to stop dreaming and accept the world for the reality it is.

America is going to conquer, and it is going to conquer hard for another century to come at the very least. May as well just root for the home team! Even when we know how bad that is for innocent people all over the world. This is humanity, and when its us or them, absolutely our people and live are worth 1000 times more. We don't have to like it. We just need to quietly appreciate and enjoy our stable electricity, internet, clean water, universal access to any type of food from the globe, expensive crime inspiring air jordans, trash tv, climate control, digital entertainment, and niche obscure hobbies. Ain't none of us ever going to change the world until we reach our own personal success and wealth and start in the community.

If he is doing what i think he is doing, i actually support this.

Somalia oceanic piracy is expensive, and fairly obnoxious. If we are going to go after this issue by flexing some muscle, this is one of the roles of a maritime force: protecting trade routes from piracy.