NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/current/somalia/757

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky alt.current-events.somalia:757 talk.politics.mideast:24394
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,talk.politics.mideast
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!ncar!csn!boulder!qso.Colorado.EDU!perlman
From: [e-mail] (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Somalia: The REAL U.S. mission
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Daily Planet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: qso.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:47:50 GMT
Lines: 76

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ilyess Bdira) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>
>>Natural resources (of various kinds) are always convenient excuses.
>>However, one reason why they were a persuasive reason for our
>Uranium is not just any kind of natural resource.

Of course it isn't.  But the costs of mining it are very very high.  If
the infrastructure to do so is already there, it becomes a much more
viable reason.  Plus, the US already has very large uranium reserves.

>>>**Note:  strategic location on Horn of Africa along southern approaches
>>>to Bab el Mandeb and route through Red Sea and Suez Canal.  [also
>>>Somalia is good location for a military base to launch air strikes
>>>against independant countries like Libya and Yemen and protect US
>>>colonies like Saudi Arabia.]
>>
>>This last line shows just how far out in the ozone whoever wrote this
>>piece was.  Saudi Arabia is hardly a US colony.  Indeed, it's
>
>the last line was a comment from the poster I think.

Exactly my point, Ilyess.

>...
>>They'll have to do better than this.  Orders of magnitude better, I
>>should add.
>
>How about the recent article by UPI about the influence of
>Islamic fundamentalism in Somalia (which mentioned that in areas
>where they dominated looting and crime was eliminated which gave
>them more and more influence and popularity)

I don't necessarily see that as a reason.

>How about the fact that the CIA is engaging in a covert war against
>Sudan and Yemen both very close to Somalia and that it did not want Somalia
>to eventually fall under independent fundamentalists?

That's not a fact.  It's been imputed by some, and there's even some
evidence to support it in the case of the Sudan, but there's none in the
case of Yemen that I know of.  In any case, I'm not disputing the
strategic importance of Somalia's location.

>How  about the fact that the CIA needed a base to threaten both Sudan
>and Yemen and Somalia is just the right place?

I don't see this at all.

>Either the CIA is very lucky or it is creating its own "good luck."

Or, you are imputing motives and responsibility for which you have no
evidence.  This treads very very close to a conspiracy theory sans
evidence.

>They should know however that they have limited resources and that they
>cannot control every single Arab nation in the same time (remember they had
>to forget about Sudan a little bit in 1990 when they were preparing for
>the downsizingn of the Iraqi military). So if all people of those countries
>work hard in the same time to gain their real independence, they will
>defeat the CIA and minimize the effect of foreign interference.
>
>Don't make me laugh and say the the U.S.A went there for humanitarian
>reasons, maybe that is a byproduct (or a cost of transaction), but not
>a goal.. That is not in the agenda of the CIA.

So does the CIA control our foreign policy, Ilyess?  Countries have
interests, that's true, but I for one don't think that expansionism or
fighting wars was part of this.  Nor is there any evidence for that.


--
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman                  <[e-mail]>
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder