You may recall that during the run-up to the 1992 election, the media out of the blue, puns aside decided that everyone should be deeply concerned about the hungry people in Somalia. Why Somalia? Who knows.
Golly, why would the media notice Somalia. It’s not like anything happened in ‘91-’92 of note in Somalia, why the world would pay attention, right?
From November 1991, there was heavy fighting in the Somali capital of Mogadishu between armed elements allied to General Mohamed Farah Aidid, or to Mr. Ali Mohamed Mahdi, the appointed “interim President”, and yet other factions. In addition to Mogadishu, there was conflict in Kismayo, and in the north-west, local leaders were pushing to create an independent “Somaliland”. The country as a whole was without any form of central government. Banditry was rife.
The fighting that followed, with clans and sub-clans constituted in loose alliances without central control, took place at a time of serious drought. That combination proved disastrous for the population at large. By 1992, almost 4.5 million people, more than half the total number in the country, were threatened with starvation, severe malnutrition and related diseases. The magnitude of suffering was immense. Overall, an estimated 300,000 people, including many children, died. Some 2 million people, violently displaced from their home areas, fled either to neighbouring countries or elsewhere within Somalia. All institutions of governance and at least 60 per cent of the country’s basic infrastructure disintegrated.
It’s a good thing us liberals and our pals in the MSM could conspire so that the relatively unimportant death of 300,000+ human beings in a famine became an issue of note just so that we could make life inconvenient for a Republican president.
must feel real bad to keep losing elections to stupid people, eh OW?
Well if it happened, it probably would. It does suck to lose elections to crooks and cheaters, that’s for sure.
Yet another reflux of conservative talking point number 1-We won
Resting on laurels is a good way to miss present and future trends.
Keep it up, even the democrats won’t be able to lose if they try.
Oh, Pedro…
It’s not losing to stupid people that feels bad. It’s the fact that stupid people run the country that really hurts.
JK
Actually, Pedro, I don’t feel bad at all. In fact, I’d have to say that I don’t think the Republicans in power are stupid. Not at all. The people who vote for them are stupid.
So, seeing how we have a representative democratic republic, if the majority of the voters are stupid, then stupid government is what they deserve. Election theft notwithstanding, the last five years have been proof positive that the ostensible majority of voters have been getting what they deserve.
Don’t worry, the progressives haven’t all run to Canada, so we’ll be here to clean up your stupid mess, just like we always do.
And just what was achieved in Somalia? How did we make things better? Other than, of course, inspiring the book, movie, and computer game “Blackhawk Down” and giving Bin Laden the idea that we could be defeated by a few casualties?
And while we’re on the subject, just what did we achieve in Clinton’s other great military adventure, the one in the Balkans? What happened to “the troops will be home by Christmas?
J.
Well alex, at least you are an honest leftist.
Your rationale will certainly justify a nanny state, after all only you and your “progressive” cadre are smart enough to make decisions.
I end with a famous quote, perhaps you will recall the novel, that sums up the leftist point of view
“All the animals are equal, it’s just that some are more equal than others…”
How profound, Southpaw. And that is germane to the topic at hand how?
J.
Most people who lived half their lives drinking whiskey, snorting cocaine and chasing women never wind up living in the White House. It helps when your old man was President.
“…the media out of the blue, puns aside decided that everyone should be deeply concerned about the hungry people in Somalia. Why Somalia?”
Because the President of the United States suddenly started talking about Somalia, that’s why. After licking his wounds from the electoral drubbing he had just been administered, George Herbert Walker Bush slinked back into Washington in November of ‘92 and started casting about for a way to spin his legacy as a single-term failed president. He decided Somalia would be the place to make his mark. Out of nowhere, the White House media machine ginned up the “crisis in Somalia” theme. Never mind that the “crisis” had been occurring for a year, or that the U.N. Security Council had already adopted three resolutions on the humanitarian disaster during 1992. Poppy Bush decided it was time for Uncle Sam to go to the rescue. So the United States contacted the Secretary-General in late November and offered to lead a military mission to make Somalia “secure” for humanitarian assistance. The Security Council adopted a new resolution on December 3, 1992 authorizing the U.S.-led “humanitarian invasion” of Somalia.
It ended with U.S. troops sinking in the quagmire of sectarian violence, without the proper resources, sufficient manpower or strategic goals (including plans for an exit). Sound familiar?
So if “the media” was “out of the blue” reporting on Somalia, it was because that supposedly biased media was being led around by the Republicans in the White House and manipulated to whip up public support for a U.S. military adventure.
Sound Familiar?
If you think that George Orwell, author of Animal Farm, would approve of the Bush administration then you have obviously read his books without understanding what they mean.
I don’t know whether he would approve of the Bush administration but I know for damn well sure that he wouldn’t approve of a leftist troglydite suggesting that only the leftists are smart enough to run this country since the rest of the lumpen proletariat are too stupid to do if themselves…..
Ahhh:) I always love that “Oh your soooo smart that no one else gets to run government”. Does this qualify as an argument? As far as Orwell, I will go on a limb and say that he would definelty not approve of this administration. If the good doctor was cognisant enough he would realize that we already have several Squeller characters; (Do we need to get into the amount of propaganda in this admin?) Napolean–obviously our president, Snowball–the old guard of conservatives. Fire Dogs–Karl Rove etc… I realize that Animal farm was originally written under the guise of utopian ideas of socialism and its counterpart, communism but such is the dynamic use of great literature. Not all righties, but most I talk too really need to read more frequently.
drpedro: you make me laugh.
You can’t seem to break into Orwell’s mind to determine whether he would support the very sort of government that was made the forefront of his novels, but you seem to be able to channel his very soul when it comes to combating a “leftist” point.
Bravo.
Actually he was quite clear that he was attempting to combat leftists….check with your neighborhood english prof….no need for me to channel anything.
I love leftist revisionism! Even the real enemy in “Animal Farm” has dropped down the ol’ memory hole!
As much as the book plays to ideas of Communism, please do not simplfy this book into being a shot across the bow of leftist thinking. Dr. Pedro should stop being silly for one moment and realize that the book is a study on utopian ideals and the government structures that are supposed to make those goals a reality. He has not read the book thouroughly because he would know that every example from Animal Farm to the competing farms are all essentially failures. If this is such a “Leftist” afront, then Bush is a socialist. The similarities practically jump off the page.
I’m still waiting to hear what we achieved in Somalia… one positive outcome for those American soldiers killed, their bodies dragged through the streets…
SOMETHING good must’ve come out of our intervention there, right? It’s better now, I’m sure. Because we CARED, gosh darn it, and DID SOMETHING.
J.
OK, I’m getting paranoid. My comments keep getting “moderated.”
J.
This is bullshit. I dunno why almost all my comments end up needing “moderation,” but it’s way more work than it’s worth.
J.
That idiot JayTea hasn’t posted for more than a day now. Maybe he’s been flushed finally.
JayTea, why not ask the Republican president who sent them there?
Quaker, you’re not playin’ fair. JayTea requires a handicap.
Yea Quaker, no fair using /facts/ with them.
Tough to make a point and have an open debate when one side’s comments are “moderated.” I’ve found this a common problem on Oliver Willis, DailyKos, etc. However, the left side of the blogosphere still paints the Right as being in a bubble, uninformed, and unwilling to debate. Yet, no comments are deleted from my site. No comments are deleted from Protein Wisdom, neither Jay Tea’s Wizbang.
With regard to this post, I think Jay Tea makes an excellent point. For all of our efforts in Somalia, what was accomplished? You may decry the “adventure” in Iraq, but at least we can point to actual accomplishments there - accomplishments that in the long-term will improve the security of the US and peace in the region.
With regard to Somalia, it still is a nightmare… But for some reason, the press dropped the story about the suffering in Somalia after we pulled out. Compare that with the lack of press coverage of the genocide in Sudan and you can understand why the question was being raised at Red State. Similiar nightmares in Africa (past and present) didn’t garner the same attention that Somalia received in 1992 for some reason.
Have to include this usual tagline - Please don’t “moderate” my comments. Each time you do, I just know that I’ve made my point and you can’t stand to let your readers see the light of truth. If you disagree, allow my comment to be posted and debate me - or simply respond with a baseless charge. Either is better for a debate than censorship.