More Piracy Near Somalia

[motorfirebox]

The question was aimed at the fact that warfare in that area is virtually incessant and does not take any malevolent US influence to get going.

Way before my time but Ethiopians and Somalis have been fighting since the 16th Century. ...So, yeah, the Ethiopian invasion did that destroy thing but it was merely a continuation of an ancient pattern which is not going to be changed by well intentioned interference.

You elide the fact that the 'judges' were a part of the problem. The intent was to disrupt the Islamic Courts. You may not agree that was a worthwhile operation but the Ethiopians with far more knowledge of the area and experience there than anyone commenting here happens to possess did think it a good enough idea to get some of their people killed to implement it. You may second guess that, you obviously do -- but you might ask yourself if you really have the knowledge to ask ALL the right questions instead of just some in which you're interested.I totally agree and thus my questioning why you wish to do what you say...

Well, regarding the Ethiopians, they certainly have better knowledge of the region but they also have a dog in that fight (to put it mildly). I'm from Pittsburgh. Ask anybody in this town who the best football team in the AFC is, and they'll probably have the information necessary to give you an accurate response--but they're more likely to say "Steelers". And then punch you for having to ask.

No, warfare in the region doesn't take any US involvement to get going. But that war at that time? That was US involvement. I mean, heck, by that logic, it oughtta be okay for you and me to invest in some Somali pirates. After all, piracy doesn't take any US involvement to get going.

That is whom?

In terms of lives and money? The fishers and, especially, the dumpers. (Even before you add, as I do, the lives and money lost to piracy.)

Uh, actually, I've been paying attention for quite some time and plan on doing so for some years. So IF (big if...) that occurs, I will not be surprised or depressed. I'll just be able to say to you "I told you so..."

That was a dig at the attention span of the public at large. Regardless, failure to have an effect is failure to have an effect, whether you started with a plan that was unworkable or intentions that are impossible to implement.

Nor should you. Neither should you accept the opinions of others blindly.

I'm not. I'm accepting them because they make sense. I see that fishing is a large part of the region's income. I see activities that depress fishing in the region. I see piracy increase, and I see pirates talking about retribution for the activities which depressed fishing in the first place.

I disagree, you're after the rule of law -- a distinctly western concept (as are judges...) -- and again I suggest that rather than ascribing malignant intent to all others who've interfered, you consider that their intentions may have been as good as are yours.

How in the world is rule of law--a concept which has been espoused by everyone from Confucius to Buddha to the Koran to the Bible to, well, any number of western luminaries--a western concept? Or judges, for that matter--again, you can find examples in China and sharia law, to name two that come to mind.

Regardless, yours are still interference -- and from the west.

That's too broad a definition to be useful.

As I wrote above, give some thought to the fact that previous interference in that area (or elsewhere) should not automatically be assigned evil intent.

Eh? I'm not assigning evil intent. Selfish intent, in some cases--but not in the case of anyone posting here.

That sounds like arguing for arguing's sake.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that "I think X" and "I think X because Y" are both opinions, but that the first can't really be discussed (only agreed with or disagreed with) and the second can. This is a discussion board; when I post, I post to discuss. Otherwise I'd just say "I don't think we should limit our response to simply shooting pirates" and be done.

Let me suggest that you use words stemming from 'argue' quite often. Argument as you appear to use it is actually an academic effort. What's going on in Somalia and Puntland is not academic. Sticking one's nose in that is likely to dispel all notions of 'argument.' It's reality and those who endeavor to implement any interference, no matter how benign are not going to be popular or insulated from reality.

The reality of the situation in Somalia has no bearing on making an argument on a discussion board--even a discussion board with members who are, were, or will be directly involved in that reality. Given the caliber of some of the members of this discussion board, it could be... argued... that an argument here could have an effect on the reality in Somalia.

The last sentence and its parenthetical comment are important. The point, of course, is that any band-aid solution not designed and implemented there by locals is not going to work. Period.

I agree to a large extent--ie, no "period". You can't come in and impose a solution and expect it to work. But you can assist with solutions. Ethiopia is actually a good example, here.