The War on Terror in Somalia...wait, Somalia?

[@_@ Artman]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Combined_Task_Force-150.jpg/800px-Combined_Task_Force-150.jpg

Report: U.S. hits militants' Somali base (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=105&pid=0&sid=1156321&page=1)

"This is a global war on terror and the U.S. remains committed to reducing terrorist capabilities when and where we find them," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

"We recognize the importance of working closely with allies to seek out, identify, locate, capture, and if necessary, kill terrorists and those who would provide them safe haven," Whitman said. "The very nature of some of our operations, as well as the success of those operations is often predicated on our ability to work quietly with our partners and allies."

At an international conference in Singapore, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters who asked about the Somalia reports on Saturday, "Frankly, I don't know exactly what was going on. I've been on the road. And I wouldn't be commenting on operational activities anyway."

Oh, brilliant.

This has nothing to do with the War on TerrorTM. Their likening it to that is a bit disturbing. If anything, this would be a war on war, to stop the brutal civil war. U.S. Government has been funding these rival gangs for some time.

It is precisely when these groups get an infusion of US money that they're able to buy more guns and tip the scales towards violence. Somalia is far from perfect, but they would be much better off if we simply stopped supporting their brutal thugs.

[hardeeharhar]

?

While sides are difficult to chose in the Somalian civil war, the current government there appears to be doing its best to reign in the violent actions by the various factions. While I don't think the US should be doing actions like this broadly, this action isn't entirely evil.

[@_@ Artman]

?While sides are difficult to chose in the Somalian civil war, the current government there appears to be doing its best to reign in the violent actions by the various factions. While I don't think the US should be doing actions like this broadly, this action isn't entirely evil.

I just don't like the whole "War on TerrorTM" bullshit. This is not an al-Qaeda stronghold. These are Somalian warlords and gangsters. I wouldn't be surprised if the reality of this incident is that some local gangster got the U.S. government to demolish one of his rivals by labeling him al Qaeda.

Do we need to support and arm these brutal thugs so that we can later invade to enact regime change?

Blackhawk Down II: Regime Change Starring Chuck Norris (can't go wrong, blockbuster!) :smokey:

[SDW2001]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Combined_Task_Force-150.jpg/800px-Combined_Task_Force-150.jpg

Report: U.S. hits militants' Somali base (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=105&pid=0&sid=1156321&page=1)





Oh, brilliant.

This has nothing to do with the War on TerrorTM. Their likening it to that is a bit disturbing. If anything, this would be a war on war, to stop the brutal civil war. U.S. Government has been funding these rival gangs for some time.

It is precisely when these groups get an infusion of US money that they're able to buy more guns and tip the scales towards violence. Somalia is far from perfect, but they would be much better off if we simply stopped supporting their brutal thugs.

Left: You're Focusing on Iraq!

Admin: We launched a major op today in Afghanistan.

Left: And why isn't that "done" yet?

Admin: Because it's hard and it takes a long time.

Left: Whatever. Look...over there...Iraq! You're focusing too much on Iraq and not the WOT!

Admin: We hit Somali militants today.

Left: That's just a distraction from how things are going in Iraq!

Admin: No its not, we hit terror bases and personnel.

Left. Leave Iraq!

[@_@ Artman]

Left: You're Focusing on Iraq! Admin: We launched a major op today in Afghanistan. Left: And why isn't that "done" yet? Admin: Because it's hard and it takes a long time. Left: Whatever. Look...over there...Iraq! You're focusing too much on Iraq and not the WOT! Admin: We hit Somali militants today. Left: That's just a distraction from how things are going in Iraq! Admin: No its not, we hit terror bases and personnel. Left. Leave Iraq!

This Just in...Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan and 0 in Iraq. Macedonia has 33 troops in Iraq and 0 in Afghanistan. Guess which country gets praised by US for its "commitment to nation building?" (http://pressesc.com/01180805148_nation_building_lack_of_commitment)

Sorry Canada. Really, your troops have been in the shit in Afghanistan. Germany too. Come home safely soon (now).

[screener]

This Just in...Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan and 0 in Iraq. Macedonia has 33 troops in Iraq and 0 in Afghanistan. Guess which country gets praised by US for its "commitment to nation building?" (http://pressesc.com/01180805148_nation_building_lack_of_commitment)

Sorry Canada. Really, your troops have been in the shit in Afghanistan. Germany too. Come home safely soon (now).

I live south of one of our military bases and know some military folks.
Some of these guys, who I would never argue with about these things, are gung ho on killing Muslims.
The best I was willing to say was, the right ones, right?

Seriously, the guys and women I deal with are the most polite people that I deal with.
All of them think the Afghanistan deployment is the right thing to do and are willing to go.

[screener]

[SDW2001;1089394

Admin: Because it's hard and it takes a long time.


That's not what was said originally, was it?

[sammi jo]

That's not what was said originally, was it?

I think it was Rumsfeld who originally stated that "it should take no more than 6 weeks, tops, to complete operations in Iraq".

!

[screener]

I think it was Rumsfeld who originally stated that "it should take no more than 6 weeks, tops, to complete operations in Iraq".

!

Rumsfeld, who the f":*% is Rumsfeld?

Oh yeah, I forgot.

[iPoster]

*eyes his ribbon for Operation Continue Hope*

Hmm...deja vu! :rolleyes:

Not really a part of the WoT, as said in above posts....


OT: Eh, just realized I'm still 'Navy geek enough' to know that photo is at least a couple of years old! All of the ships in the class for the last ship on the left were decommissioned by 2005. :\

(I was stationed on one that decommissioned in 2003)

[@_@ Artman]

*eyes his ribbon for Operation Continue Hope*

Hmm...deja vu! :rolleyes:

Not really a part of the WoT, as said in above posts....

Thanks. Wish we would wake up. There is no such thing as "al-Qaeda" anyway (http://www.irintech.com/x1/blogarchive.php?id=1133). This is a clip from The Power of Nightmares (http://video.google.com/videosearch?um=1&tab=wv&client=firefox-a&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=The%20power%20of%20nightmares). I suggest that anyone who hasn't seen this series watch it.

OT: Eh, just realized I'm still 'Navy geek enough' to know that photo is at least a couple of years old! All of the ships in the class for the last ship on the left were decommissioned by 2005. :\

(I was stationed on one that decommissioned in 2003)

:lol: I did my research! I searched Google for the CTF-150 (from the quote below) and got that picture. :smokey:

A task force of coalition ships, called CTF-150, is permanently based in the northern Indian Ocean and patrols the Somali coast in hopes of intercepting international terrorists. U.S. destroyers are normally assigned to the task force and patrol in pairs.

[iPoster]

Didn't mean to imply it was your fault. A 'task force' is just a random collection of ships with a specific task, the actual ships in the task force may rotate in or out over time, but it will still be called 'task force X', if they are performing the same orders. (see, I'm doing it again!) IIRC that TF-150 was established off Somolia shortly after 9/11, so it's not suprising there are pictures around from several years ago.

From Wiki:

A task force (TF) is a temporary unit or formation established to work on a single defined task or activity. Originally introduced by the United States Navy, the term has now caught on for general usage and is a standard part of NATO terminology. Many non-military organizations now create "task forces" or task groups for temporary activities that might have once been performed by ad hoc committees.

In U.S. terminology, now widely adopted, including by NATO, the term combined implies more than one nation. The UK originally started World War II using 'Combined' to denote forces composed of more than one service, which is how the Combined Operations term originated. However they soon adopted the U.S. usage, and organisations were named accordingly, for example, the Combined Chiefs of Staff. Today a Combined Task Force (CTF) is a task force which includes sub-elements of more than one nation.

A Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) is a task force which includes elements of more than one service and elements of more than one nation.

Well, this is interesting reading... (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Combined_Joint_Task_Force-Horn_of_Africa)

[@_@ Artman]

Well, this is interesting reading... (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Combined_Joint_Task_Force-Horn_of_Africa)

Last November, a missile fired from a CIA-operated Predator drone killed an al Qaeda operative on a desert highway in Yemen

Art imitating life, or visa versa?

http://www.gclooney.com/movies/syriana/syriana-movie-2c.jpg

Great site.

[@_@ Artman]

Link from the new, "improved" CNN World beta site... (http://beta.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/06/06/pirates/index.html):rolleyes:

According to U.S. military sources, the dock landing ship USS Carter Hall had been on patrol in international waters in the area when it encountered the MV Danica White cargo ship. Pirates were in control of the bridge and had taken the crew hostage.

The Carter Hall crew fired machine gun bursts, first as warning shots and then disabling shots.

"She fired several warning shots and fired disabling shots at three skiffs [small boats] in tow behind the White and pretty much destroyed the skiffs," Lt. Denise Garcia of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet told Reuters news service. Pirates used the skiffs to board the cargo ship, she said.

But the pirates were able to sail the ship into Somali waters where the U.S. warship would not follow them.

http://web.tiscali.it/fabioracco2/images/Whois16.gif

"HA HA!"

[SDW2001]

That's not what was said originally, was it?

Actually it was, for the most part. The Left made that into "this will be easy...really super easy....so easy it will be laughable." Bush actually said on the night of the invasion that the conflict "may be longer and more difficult than some realize."

[@_@ Artman]

Actually it was, for the most part. The Left made that into "this will be easy...really super easy....so easy it will be laughable." Bush actually said on the night of the invasion that the conflict "may be longer and more difficult than some realize."

Source...:\

[thuh Freak]

Actually it was, for the most part. The Left made that into "this will be easy...really super easy....so easy it will be laughable." Bush actually said on the night of the invasion that the conflict "may be longer and more difficult than some realize."

While the second in command often repeated that the soliders would be greeted as liberators, with flowers cast at them, as well as thanks and praise.

[iPoster]

While the second in command often repeated that the soliders would be greeted as liberators, with flowers cast at them, as well as thanks and praise.

http://i9.tinypic.com/4m84fu8.jpg

[@_@ Artman]

Yes...look at the tens of...tens greeting our soldiers!

http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/images/IraqFardusSquareBaghdad.gif

:rolleyes:

[SDW2001]

Source...:\

I saw it myself...but finding the clip might be hard. I specifically recall it.

While the second in command often repeated that the soliders would be greeted as liberators, with flowers cast at them, as well as thanks and praise.

Well, we were initially for the most part.

Edit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

...A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict.

[@_@ Artman]

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)

A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#.22End_of_major_combat.22)

And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment. (http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm)

[SDW2001]

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)

A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#.22End_of_major_combat.22)

And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment. (http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm)

1. War is messy. Civilians die. Are you saying we haven't tried to limit civilian casualties?

2. Uh, OK. Point?

3. And you apparently disagree we should have a sustained commitment. Fine. Good for you. Just say so directly.

[franksargent]

1. War is messy. Civilians die. Are you saying we haven't tried to limit civilian casualties?

2. Uh, OK. Point?

3. And you apparently disagree we should have a sustained commitment. Fine. Good for you. Just say so directly.

1. By some estimates (The Lancet) the civilian body count is 10X Artman's first link, and some 2 million Iraqi's have been expatriated! Way to go GWB!

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure.

To wage a preemptive war!

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

By not sending in enough troops?

We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace.

By waging a preemptive war!

http://graffitiresearchlab.com/missionaccomplished/flag_gif4.gif

[giant]

Actually it was, for the most part. The Left made that into "this will be easy...really super easy....so easy it will be laughable."
Well, except for all of the cost estimates, other admin officials saying things like Cheney's "weeks rather than months," etc. Even your estimates (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=215117&postcount=50) were laughably naive.
1. War is messy. Civilians die.
You mean like band teachers? Good thing you are in the grand old USA, then, where you are safe enough to be flippant about other people being killed. Hey, since it's not a big deal to you, maybe we should swap you out for an Iraqi band teacher.