Comments on: Small arms shipped to Somalia

By: malikali

malikali — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:10:57 +0000

The current government is supported by the populous, but u cannot under rate the amount of support that the rebels got daily from countries like Iran and Eriteria, hope things go better for the government despit the fact that it’s not the perfect one, thanx for the post.

By: DrStrangegun

DrStrangegun — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:07:39 +0000

Next shipment should contain weapons with severely underbored barrels, overloaded ammunition, and everything not associated with the cartridge feed path under or oversized by ~5%. Oh, and no security detail.

Just saying…

By: ahrcanum

ahrcanum — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:26:55 +0000

How many times is America going to supply weapons to a foreign country or group, only to have them aimed at back U.S. Soldiers?

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:35:24 +0000

RobM, 50 tons is peanuts! Iraq and Afghanistan are switch to the M16 / 5.56mm NATO platform!!!!

By: RobM

RobM — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:31:54 +0000

So, could this be part of the reason there is an ammo shortage??? The State Dept has been buying small arms and ammo for Africa?? Hmmm.

By: James R. Rummel

James R. Rummel — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:11:58 +0000

Good post.

James

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:32:47 +0000

I am sorry to disagree here, but Somalia, and much of the African continent, is largely a lost cause. The various radical Islamic groups are actually better at administering the country than the recognized government. The government is unsupported by the populous and would collapse in 20 minutes if military support was withdrawn. And this is the case in most of sub-Saharan Africa. The choice is one group of corrupt thugs or another. Which should the U.S. support? No western nation wants to get involved in Somalia, so the peacekeeping duties are left up to the African Union, another totally ineffective group of Kleptocrats. As for doing something in Somalia, if the U.S. had not decided to support the existing government and recognize its sovereignty even in the areas that it does not control, it would be perfectly legitimate, under international, for the US and the rest of the world to carpet bomb the port cities of that country for harboring pirates. But, the world won’t do that. So exactly what can the U.S. do?

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:41:55 +0000

but that attitude’s the problem, matt; ten years ago, how many people would’ve said “let afghanistan sink” and look where they, and we, ended up. one of the lessons of 9/11 is that we can’t afford to be unconcerned with terrorists in remote third-world countries, because thanks to advances in air travel and america’s necessarily loose security situation, those countries and the people in them that wish us harm aren’t all that remote anymore. africa, and somalia in particular, is going to be the next front in the war on terror. there’s certainly a reluctance on the part of the gov’t to involve troops, sort of a post-post-vietnam syndrome, and i don’t think we can blame them; settling issues like this is specifically what the african union is for. but for us, doing nothing is not an option. it’s an open secret that the u.s. has been conducting targeted airstrikes in somalia for a couple years now; the time for a multinational force in somalia may not be long coming.

sorry; i just wrote a paper on this very subject, and it’s fresh in my mind.

By: Matt Groom

Matt Groom — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:21:55 +0000

In the words of Kim Du Toit: “Let Africa Sink”.