… and focus on these loony **** for a change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8617627.stm

Yes. Indeed.

Mind, I'm not sure I'd want to venture an opinion on whether Somalia would be better as a head-banging taliban-style islamic state than it is now. Neither option is good, and I fear "the West" has probably forfeited the right to have a preference. 😐

That lot are about as 'Islamic' as the KKK are 'Christian'. 🙁

This is precisely the kind of situation that warrants a full-on UN 'invasion', to try and restore a bit of order and to help these poor people. It saddens me that so much is spent, on military hardware, and World Leaders proudly proclaim they are 'fighting for Democracy and Freedom', yet situations like this exist. 🙁

Time for another war?

Let's not.

Let's focus on the loonie **** known as woppit instead.

No, let's not descend into yet another 'I'm right/you're wrong' bout of silliness.

Innocent people are being butchered and oppressed, by fanatics using 'religion' as their excuse for wanting power.

Let's have a think about that, instead.

This is precisely the kind of situation that warrants a full-on UN 'invasion'

It's been done, hasn't it? It wasn't a huge success. As recently as last year the provisional government was being propped up by an Ethiopian invasion which had been gee'ed up by the US I think. There's nothing much to invade, just madness. 😐

I know, it's just fecked up. And all the time, people are suffering. 😥

Innocent people are being butchered and oppressed, by fanatics using 'religion' as their excuse for wanting power

If they were taking over from a vaguely benevolent and stable government which provided basic security, subsistence or a functioning economy I'd be more able to worry about whether they were religious, and if so what flavour. As I understand it, one lot of armed lunatics, who happen to be islamists, are successfully expanding into the power vacuum created by the complete lack of a functioning state.

I've no idea, but broadly secular and heavily armed lunatic anarchy may not necessarily be preferable to islamist heavily armed lunatic oppression.

Of course. Somalia is a country blighted by famine, disease and civil war between rival groups fighting over whatever meagre resources are to be had. It's the same wherever there is abject poverty, starvation and a lack of basic provisions.

There is, of course, no actual good reason why this situation still exists, when we have people living in relative luxury elsewhere. It's just that the playing field isn't particularly level. 🙁

a UN invasion will put that right then, just like it has in all the other UN invasions 🙄

Well, I meant in a 'teacher comes and breaks up the fight, and stays as long as necessary to prevent the two sides from starting up again' type way. Naive and idealistic, I know. And no, it hasn't worked terribly well in some other places.

Of course, the big problem, even if hostilities ceased, would be how to put the country back togeher again. The same squabbles and rivalries would resurface, and without foreign intervention, and some pretty major changes in the nation's economy and viability, it would surely just kick off once more.

What to do? Not easy at all, whatever way you look at it.

s is precisely the kind of situation that warrants a full-on UN 'invasion', to try and restore a bit of order and to help these poor people. It saddens me that so much is spent, on military hardware, and World Leaders proudly proclaim they are 'fighting for Democracy and Freedom', yet situations like this exist

If only they had a natural resource we were interested in…..

Somalia is tribal,involving different groups very well armed (thanks to us) they have been murdering one another for a long time,only stopping to turn on any foreign invaders (peacekeepers) for a wee change.

Somalia is tribal,involving different groups very well armed (thanks to us) they have been murdering one another for a long time,only stopping to turn on any foreign invaders (peacekeepers) for a wee change.

Substitute ‘Somalia’ with Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Sudan…
All their conflicts are basically tribal, the only time there seems to be consensus is when they're busy fighting interlopers. Afghanistan being the perfect example.
Northern Ireland is pretty tribal, too.
Sadly, I'm not at all sure that UN intervention really helps, it just seems to give agressive lunatics with a grudge and a power hungry mindset another target to vent their spleen on.

All their conflicts are basically tribal, the only time there seems to be consensus is when they're busy fighting interlopers. Afghanistan being the perfect example

This is often the charge levelled against 3rd world countries that are beset by conflict. The concept of tribalism infers a primitivism whereby it shouldn't mean anything other than an ethnic or cultural bond between people. The reality is that these 'tribes' are often in a position whereby they are in conflict because arbitary borders have been drawn by nation forming colonial govts and their subsequent withdrawals leaving behind unnatural nation states based upon former colonial needs rather than local politics. Inteference in the form of the UN is little more than an extension of colonialism forcing a first world narrative upon peoples that are usually trying to make sense of the previous first world narrative.