Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"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

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

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.

You keep arguing the same point, i.e.-that regardless of who got the food, those
Somalis didn't starve. I haven't disagreed with you....I merely took a partial
exception and, at risk of being repetitious, this is what I said:

"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."

The point I've been trying to make is that we never intended our relief supplies
to go to only those who could afford to buy it. We expected that it would be
distributed on some sort of equitable basis, the only prerequisite being that
they didn't have enough food to sustain themselves and their families.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. That's what made our effort somewhat short
of successful.

If that doesn't explain my position to you, then it'd probably be just as well
to drop the semantic ****ing match and move on to something else. I'll just
conclude that my explanatory skills are not hitting on all cylinders.

George Z.

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

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.

You keep arguing the same point, i.e.-that regardless of
who got the food, those
Somalis didn't starve.

No. That argument came later. The first argument I advanced was:

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

You replied:

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.

Your statement was not wrong in the sense of being contrary
to fact and I never said that it was wrong. To be clear, I
agreed that it was a true statement while also pointing out
that the effort continued to save lives despite the unfortunate
developements you noted.

However, the context in which it was introduced gave me the
impression that it was an objection to my statement, and a
falacious one, specifically an argument from irrelevency.
That appears to have been a false impression on my part,
though had you preceded your remarks with "Yes, but" I
might have done better.

In a similar vein, I observed that despite the
corruption of the relief by the warlords starvation was
still reduced in Somalia. That statement was made neither
in support of my earlier statement as it referred to later
developments, nor was it made to contradict yours, which
in fact it does not. It was made to keep it clear that
the humanitarian relief effort, even after being corrupted,
continued to accomplish some good.

I will agree that the effort was corrupted by the warlords.
Yet despite that, there were fewer people starving in Somalia
even with the warlords in control of the food supply. The
demagraphic distribution of the famine victims is less important
than their sheer numbes which continued to be reduced even with
the warlords in control of the food supply. I suspect that many
who received food through the warlords were as poor as those
who did not. The warlords needed soldiers, starving men and men
with starving families could be bought for food. In every modern
nation the soldiers are recruited from the poorest of the social
classes. This had seriously bad implications as it helped to
perpetuate the civil war by keeping the militias populated with
soldiers But starvation was reduced notwithstanding.

I hope we can agree that for a time the humanitarian effort was
a success and starvaton was reduced, that the warlords took
control of the food supply which both reduced that success and
reinforced some of the problems that had created the famine in
the first place, and that despite the corruption of the relief
effort by the warlords famine continued to be reduced because in
order for the warlords to use the food to their advantage they
had to distribute it to someone who otherwise faced starvation.

Perhaps we can also agree that the only way to keep the relief
effort from being corrupted by the warlords was the creation of
a strong central unified Somali government superior both in moral
authority and in brute force to the warlords. In short, nation
building.

I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
from the Clinton White house.

Have I got that right?

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

(Snipped for brevity)

I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
from the Clinton White house.

Have I got that right?

Yes, although perhaps some of Clinton's leadership failures could have been
attributed in part to his selection of Les Aspin as his first Secy. of Defense.
Aspin, in spite of a prior extensive Congressional exposure to military matters,
turned out to be an ineffectual civilian leader of the DOD who made mistake
after mistake. Those occurred at a time when Clinton needed strong civilian
leadership in the DOD to compensate for his prior lack of exposure to military
affairs. He obviously didn't get much.

George Z.

--

FF

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...


I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
from the Clinton White house.

Have I got that right?

Yes, although perhaps some of Clinton's leadership failures could have been
attributed in part to his selection of Les Aspin as his first Secy. of Defense.
Aspin, in spite of a prior extensive Congressional exposure to military matters,
turned out to be an ineffectual civilian leader of the DOD who made mistake
after mistake. Those occurred at a time when Clinton needed strong civilian
leadership in the DOD to compensate for his prior lack of exposure to military
affairs. He obviously didn't get much.


Thanks.

Advancing the clock a bit, could you suppliment my foggy memory further?
After the Mogadishu disaster, wasn't Aspin replaced? As I recall,
subsequent military action by the Cinton administration, in the
Balkans, and against Al Queda assets in the Sudan and Afghanistan
were much better managed, though the Republicans complained fiercly,
especially about the counterstrikes against Bin Laden and AL Queda.

Imagine the uproar during the impeachment trial if the Republicans
had learned that Clinton had rescinded Carter's ban on assasination
and personally marked bin Laden for death!

Just thought I'd slip that in.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...


I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
from the Clinton White house.

Have I got that right?

Yes, although perhaps some of Clinton's leadership failures could have been
attributed in part to his selection of Les Aspin as his first Secy. of
Defense.
Aspin, in spite of a prior extensive Congressional exposure to military
matters,
turned out to be an ineffectual civilian leader of the DOD who made mistake
after mistake. Those occurred at a time when Clinton needed strong civilian
leadership in the DOD to compensate for his prior lack of exposure to
military
affairs. He obviously didn't get much.


Thanks.

Advancing the clock a bit, could you suppliment my foggy memory further?
After the Mogadishu disaster, wasn't Aspin replaced?

Yes. He had been having some heart problems at about that time, one of which
resulted in him having a pacemaker implanted. After Somalia, he submitted his
resignation "for personal reasons", although most observors thought that
political reasons provided far more impetus than personal ones.

As I recall, subsequent military action by the Cinton administration, in the
Balkans, and against Al Queda assets in the Sudan and Afghanistan
were much better managed, though the Republicans complained fiercly,
especially about the counterstrikes against Bin Laden and AL Queda.

Imagine the uproar during the impeachment trial if the Republicans
had learned that Clinton had rescinded Carter's ban on assasination
and personally marked bin Laden for death!

Just thought I'd slip that in.

--

FF