"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...

(Snip)

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.

At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
humanitarian relief effort was a success.

Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that
the
people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem
to
recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.


Note the caveat above 'for a time'. Even after, though the food
shipments were stolen, someone got to eat who previously
would have starved. I don't think they resold the food abroad.

I never said that they resold the food abroad....

It appear we are agreed on that point. Do you understand that
if none of the food was sold abroad then, due ot the humanitarian
effort, there was more food and therefor less starvation in
Somalia than without, even though the warlords eventually
gained control over the distribution of the food? Even when
the warlords had that control there were people in Somalia
not starving who would otherwise have starved.

they merely sold it to Somalis
who had something of value they would give up for the food. While some Somalis
undoubtedly got the food and survived,

Hence my statement 'At least some good did come of it.' I hope you
agree that some Somalis geting the food and sruviving was the object
of the exercise.

we gave it with no strings attached and
nobody should have felt obliged to give up his earthly possessions in order to
get the food, and we intended that destitute Somalis have the same chances of
survival as those with means.

Yes, it is terrible that the distribution effort fell under the control
of the warlords. The only way to stop that would have been to get involved
in a Somalian Civil War and to attempt to build a new Somali nation.


So, when all was said and done, we sent food over there and only affluent or
relatively affluent Somalis got to eat any of it. The starving poor continued
to starve in spite of our best efforts. I don't think I would call that a
successful effort.


Note the caveat above 'for a time'.

Really, I meant that. It took a while for the warlords to gain
control. Even after they did, I am sure that the Somalis who
had the means to procure the food from the warlords distributed it
further in exchange for various forms of renumeration to themselves,
such as labor. That's called 'trickle down'. Perhaps you can
find some Ronald Reagan fans who can explain to you how that works.

If you can explain how sending food to a starving country fails to
help to relieve that famine regardless of who distributes
the food, please do so.

--

FF