Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: back to Somalia?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: back to Somalia? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: back to Somalia? - 11/19/2008 9:35:47 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
.......fair enough, i'll avoid the [ quote ][ /quote ] style of discourse. i've been asked by other posters (Merc) to use just such a format in order to thoroughly address their remarks, but to each their own.....


i see the plague as a part of the environment that a human has to navigate. Which is not to say that in another context it isn't the ship...but as we're talking about humans it'll have to be content to be the sea, or maybe a reef. So yes, in that strict semantic sense it is a source of terror to humanity.......and arguably an ally to one tribe if it decimates it's enemy's tribe. However, it is an unwieldy weapon, or an untrustworthy ally as, with a gust of wind or an errant rat it bites the other way at will.
However, terrorism seems to me to be a different kettle of fish. It aims. It selects a target......the bubonic plague is far more catholic in its tastes and will as readily eat a protestent as a papist. It does have an abiltiy to bite its own arse though, as i provokes response, retaliation.......but this is where plague and terrorism parts company. Show a plague an antibiotic, its nemesis, and it is defeated. Retaliate against terrorism and it gorws stronger. The retaliation becomes what the terrorost claimed initially as a cause. As it rallies troops, drafts recruits it distorts cause and effect. Eventually time blurs and it becomes always thus.........time locked and stalemated, terrorism creates continual warfare. And that is what it wants. for without the retaliation, without the overwhelming response it has nothing to feed on. A few die hards still bluster and posture. They may blow up the odd boat. But their lifeblood is stilled, and as they die so does their cause.

Now we come to Ulster and a shameful fact. The terrorists (both catholic and protestant) ran out of money. Why? Because Clinton stopped the flow of cash from sympathetic Irish Americans. Something Reagan, despite Thatcher most impassioned pleas, refused to do. Without that ready cash the conditions where peace could begin would have been reached a decade earlier. Hundreds died in Ulster so US politicians could secure the vote of Irish-Americans. Not a fair trade in my view, but i digress. And so the terrorism slowed to a stalemate....just insensible hate from a few die hards keeping it going.......and then, a miracle, a UK government began to talk to the terrorists.
Overwhelming force against the catholics would have brought other catholic countries into the fray.....such intemperate actions start world wars. And what was a nasty but local war would have become a nasty and uncontained war.
You are right though......discussion can only succeed in certain circumstances, but those circumstances do not include the point of a gun. Only when we become weary of fighting do we try to stop.......so, i say, become wearier earlier. Do not tolerate those who say, just one more accurate bullet.....just one more and bigger bomb. Cut them off, fight them, not in their terms, but on ground they do not know. Reduce them to the absurdities they most certainly are......and then make peace. Only by making peace do we truly defeat terrorism.......

....as for chess, well the world is replete with examples of pursuits born in one place but mastered in another. Cricket for instance, damn the Aussies....and Rugby, blasted Kiwis........Football, sodding Brazilians........Chess?

Oh, i swim well...........

Last point.......it has been said that fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. But only if we use conventional weaponry.  Attack the enemy where is unprepared and appear where you are not expected. i'm sure you recognise the reference....and a terrorist does not expect us at the discussion table. If i have seemed confrontational to you, then.......well, i have been in a sense. But only because your eloquence makes you a worthy target.....and our discourse may serve as an interesting spectacle to others..........and who knows what ideas that may give rise to?

(in reply to xBullx)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: back to Somalia? - 11/19/2008 11:12:38 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
Phil, chemical and biiological weapons are the way to go.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: back to Somalia? - 11/20/2008 1:25:51 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

General reply -

Reading around the subject, I was fascinated to find out that these "pirates" - as well as stealing cargo - also regard themselves as a sort of vigilante coastguard.  It seems that Somali waters are plundered of fish by trawlers from as far afield as Taiwan, France and Spain.  The $30m the pirates have raked in this year is rather put into perspective when you find hear that about $300m in fish stocks is taken from their shores - annually.  The pirates serve the dual purpose of protecting local fishermen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/19/piracy-somalia



SssssH you are upsetting a cosy world view. The west doesn't create the conditions in which grievances and chaos reigns, the west is always the victim of an anarchistic world.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to RealityLicks)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: back to Somalia? - 11/20/2008 3:34:36 AM   
RealityLicks


Posts: 1615
Joined: 10/23/2007
Status: offline
It's a shame some don't question the idea that different motives drive people in other parts of the world.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: back to Somalia? - 11/20/2008 5:06:17 AM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline
Merchant ships of the past always were armed to a certain degree, a few cannon or a blunderbus type thing mounted on the taff rail, perhaps it is time  to re arm, let the merchant ships be able to protect themselves. Oh and the watchmen on ships, perhaps they should be aware a ship has a front end and a back end, that is, look in all directions if along any coast line. Hell ships should be keeping a human look out anyway, don't rely on electronics to do the job. A friend's racing yacht has just been rammed by a fishing boat making it unusable, the yacht, some ten metres long had all nav lights working, the electronics and even a strobe, yet the fishing boat didn't see them, rules of road became a nonsense why, no one on watch I expect, thus proving electronics are not the answer. And that near entry to a busy port too.

The Somali pirates should be treated like pirates of the past, perhaps it's time for some disguised merchant men, pirate has booty is their eyes, sees a juicy looking ship, attacks, merchantman drops hoardings and blasts the pirate out of the water. Pirate gangs not seeing their pals returning might make them think is it really worth it.

As to yacht owners, many I know carry some form of protection against aggressive boarders. Someone of the past, a guy I used to sail with lost his life to pirates in the Carribean, whilst doing a yacht delivery, so pirates are real, they are a danger and should be considered.


_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: back to Somalia? - 11/20/2008 6:02:45 AM   
xBullx


Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
Tal Orion,

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Never negotiate from a point of weakness, it is called capitualtion.

Forgot to add that I agree with my verbose friend.


Verbose..... I had to chuckle a bit......guilty as charged

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: back to Somalia? - 11/20/2008 6:59:11 AM   
xBullx


Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
Greetings Philosophy,

-Tips the hat-

Now I understand why it is that you chose the dissection method of retort. It does indeed illiminate confusion when responding to "verbose" respondents such as Merc and I. I should have remained with my initial assumption of your integrity. You have the demeanor of an accomplished gentleman.

I do happen to agree with a good deal of you intent, yet I will align my position with a combined arms effect. Much like Bush finally discovered in the Iraqi theater, much to the chagrin of Rummy the Horrid.

It is ceratin that we must demonstrate the strength of character and might to be able to find suitable leverage and then garner mutual understanding at a negotiation table. But to simply sue for peace by an unwillingness to defend your position will as Orion pointed out be little more than a bargained surrender.

The opponents within your example were not all that different; they were infact countrymen evolved from a similar philosophical principle. I would surmize their worldly perception and the crux of their argument wasn't all that dissimilar. In that, the radical elements could be more easily reigned in. In fact as you said, the combatants had grown weary of death. It is possible that both sides felt their leverage was on one hand strengthed; on the other, in jeopardy.

Use the example of Iraq, once the people knew we wouldn't leave them in the hands of radicals intending to yet again subjugate the populace to a governance of tyranny and violence, they were no longer afraid of siding with a people that might, as we in the west have demonstrated in the past, be willing to bargian away their freedom for our momentary acqusition of an uncertain peace. As you said and I paraphrase, make a sacrifice for the greater good. Who's greater good? A cozy London, Berlin, Paris, Moscow or Washington has not seemingly translated well for the third world all that often. Not many trust the West's greedy, self centered intentions.

Perhaps one day all conflict will be solved through mediation; but for now I hope you don't mind my stalwart preperations for all of the dubious outcomes I can foresee.

As for those pesky priates, I doubt their what we could invision as terrorists or freedom fighters, they're simple criminals motivated by the same greed as others we aren't all that fond of.



_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: back to Somalia? - 11/20/2008 9:15:36 AM   
awmslave


Posts: 599
Joined: 3/31/2006
Status: offline
An interesting quote from Goethe: “Free trade, piracy, war – an inseparable three!” (Faust )

(in reply to xBullx)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: back to Somalia? - 11/29/2008 1:36:03 PM   
masterBruce


Posts: 133
Joined: 3/30/2004
Status: offline
lets move the 7th fleet their

(in reply to awmslave)
Profile   Post #: 49
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: back to Somalia? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.047