I think thats a very good point that we should rember thx Jamaal bro

Thats a good question you poss Kahyr..........and where ever they have been (if the family unit has been re-united), and there absence, 4 whatever reason, has made things much much harder for and the single mothers who, in some instances are totally alone, with no other relatives, to looking after 3-4-perhaps 5+ children. I think i wouldnt be guilty of generalizing if i suggested that there presence, or lack of, to be more accurate, has lead to a lot of the problems for our younger somali's. for the obvious reason.

Rediculous Fire power that can only cause un-told damage and bring indiscriminate deaths

Rediculous Fire power that can only cause un-told damage and bring indiscriminate deaths

Hey north even donkeys have their days, seasons etc etc, a good example in point is Inzaghi of milan. But hey like i said before with raul he is skillfull no doubt i just dont like him as a player coz he isnt strong or fast, and i fancy if he wasnt playing for real madrid he would find scoring not quite so easy, but hey thats just my opinon. well done pool.........i thoughtthey would geat thrashed.

Indeed. but no point wishing saxiib we just have to get with reality

http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/mar13d.html Looks like the worlds most expensive Can opener A.K.A R9 is wanting to get back to cALCIO And open up some defences once more, perhaps he is already bored with the easier Spanish League

For real G-Money for Real

What is mind blowing is the fact that the word MUSLIM was frequently used to describe The perpetrators of the crime.Its visible there is a media bias and we are continuously Reminded that Islam around the world is under intense scruntiny. Not supprised and i think thats what i was trying to get @

World Print article | Email Europe is too powerful to be ignored By Joseph Nye Published: March 10 2003 20:12 | Last Updated: March 10 2003 20:12 France and Germany are making life difficult for President George W. Bush but heated rhetoric is making matters worse. To dismiss them as the "old Europe" is tactically and factually a mistake. Indeed, it is the very newness of the French-German relationship that has enhanced their power. Between 1870 and 1945, three wars tore Europe apart. Today war between these former enemies is unthinkable. From the coal and steel community created after the second world war to today's European Union, Franco- German co-operation has created something unique in world history. The union is not a new nation state with a mighty army. The Europeans are not all in the same sovereign boat but the national boats are lashed together into an island of stability that is sui generis and powerfully attractive to its neighbours. Witness the desire of central Europeans and Turkey to join it. Some American sceptics complain about "Euro-wimps" who lack the resources and will to fight or even to develop a common defence policy. Because Europe has less military power, we hear that Europeans are from Venus while Americans are from Mars. But such clever clichés obscure important differences. After all, Britain, Italy, Spain and Denmark as well as the "new" Europeans have indicated a willingness to use force in Iraq. And within countries, a recent poll by the Pew Charitable Trust showed that there are many Europeans with "American" views on policy and many Americans with "European" views. Even more important, the sceptics have a myopic view of power that focuses too heavily on the military dimension, where the US excels. But power in the 21st century is distributed differently on different issues and resembles a three-dimensional chess game. On the top board of military issues, where US military expenditure is equal to the next two dozen countries combined, the world is unipolar. There is only one superpower. It is likely to remain that way unless Europeans want to double the proportion of gross national product spent on defence to equal US levels. But even more modest European capabilities should not be discounted. European participation in a coalition against Iraq helps the legitimacy of the US cause and European nations could play a crucial role in the aftermath. There are more European than US troops helping to keep the peace today in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. The middle board of economic issues is a sharp contrast from the military board. Here the world has a multipolar balance of power. The US cannot achieve a global trade agreement without the agreement of Europe and others. In the area of antitrust, General Electric was unable to merge with Honeywell because the European Commission opposed the move. And recently, Microsoft had to make significant changes to its new passport system in order to meet European privacy regulations. This is hardly the "American hegemony" that some proclaim. Moreover, despite the political popularity of the US in Donald Rumsfeld's "new Europe", the US is becoming less prominent in business and investment there. EU countries account for three-quarters of the "new Europe's" trade. The bottom board of the three- dimensional chess game consists of transnational issues that cross borders outside the control of governments. Examples include illegal migration, drugs, crime, the spread of infectious diseases, global climate change and, of course, transnational terrorist networks. On this board, power is chaotically organised and it makes no sense to speak of unipolarity, hegemony or American empire. While these issues are having an increasing effect on the lives of ordinary Americans, they cannot be solved by military power or by the US acting alone. Co-operation with other countries, particularly the capable Europeans, is essential to Americans' ability to get the outcomes they want. Europe is not likely soon to become the military equal of the US but it has enough sticks and carrots to produce significant hard power, the ability to get others to do what they would not otherwise do. In addition, despite internal divisions, Europe's culture, values and the success of the EU have produced a good deal of soft power, the ability to attract rather than merely coerce others. Despite policy differences over Iraq, no two parts of the world share more of the basic values of democracy, liberty, tolerance and human rights than do Europe and the US. Mr Bush and President Jacques Chirac should cool the exaggerated rhetoric that obscures these similarities and the importance of working together. France should think again before producing a train-wreck by using its veto in the United Nations. And US unilateralists should remember that those who focus on only one board in a three-dimensional game are likely to lose in the long run. The writer is dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and author of The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go it Alone

Another Interesting article from The FT (Financila Times for Non-Uk residents) Bush's inflated sense of supremacy By George Soros Published: March 12 2003 20:02 | Last Updated: March 12 2003 20:02 With US and British troops poised to invade Iraq, the rest of the world is overwhelmingly opposed. Yet Saddam Hussein is generally seen as a tyrant who must be disarmed and the United Nations Security Council has unanimously demanded that he disclose and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. What has gone wrong? Iraq is the first instance in which the Bush doctrine is being applied and it is provoking an allergic reaction. The doctrine is built on two pillars: first, the US will do everything in its power to maintain unquestioned military supremacy; second, it arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. These pillars support two classes of sovereignty: American sovereignty, which takes precedence over international treaties; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the Bush doctrine. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. The Bush doctrine is grounded in the belief that international relations are relations of power; legality and legitimacy are decorations. This belief is not entirely false but it exaggerates one aspect of reality - military power - at the exclusion of others. I see a parallel between the Bush administration's pursuit of American supremacy and a boom-bust process or bubble in the stock market. Bubbles do not grow out of thin air. They have a solid basis in reality but reality is distorted by misconception. In this case, the dominant position of the US is the reality, the pursuit of supremacy the misconception. Reality can reinforce the misconception but eventually the gap between reality and its false interpretation becomes unsustainable. During the self-reinforcing phase, the misconception may be tested and reinforced. This widens the gap leading to an eventual reversal. The later it comes, the more devastating the consequences. This course of events seems inexorable but a boom-bust process can be aborted at any stage and few of them reach the extremes of the recent stock market bubble. The sooner the process is aborted, the better. This is how I view the Bush administration's pursuit of American supremacy. President George W. Bush came into office with a coherent strategy based on market fundamentalism and military power. But before September 11 2001 he lacked a clear mandate or a well defined enemy. The terrorist attack changed all that. Terrorism is the ideal enemy. It is invisible and therefore never disappears. An enemy that poses a genuine and recognised threat can effectively hold a nation together. That is particularly useful when the prevailing ideology is based on the unabashed pursuit of self- interest. Mr Bush's administration deliberately fosters fear because it helps to keep the nation lined up behind the president. We have come a long way from Franklin D. Roosevelt's dictum that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. But the war on terrorism cannot be accepted as the guiding principle of US foreign policy. What will happen to the world if the most powerful country on earth is solely preoccupied with self-preservation? The Bush policies have already caused severe unintended adverse consequences. The Atlantic Alliance is in a shambles and the European Union divided. The US is a fearful giant throwing its weight around. Afghanistan has been liberated but law and order have not been established beyond Kabul. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict festers. Beyond Iraq, an even more dangerous threat looms in North Korea. The global economy is in recession, stocks are in a bear market and the dollar is in decline. In the US, there has been a dramatic shift from budget surplus to deficit. It is difficult to find a time when political and economic conditions have deteriorated as rapidly. The game is not yet over. A rapid victory in Iraq with little loss of life could cause a dramatic reversal. The price of oil could fall; the stock market could celebrate; consumers could overcome their anxieties and resume spending; and business could respond by stepping up capital expenditure. America would end its dependency on Saudi Arabian oil, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could become more tractable and negotiations with North Korea could be started without a loss of face. This is what Mr Bush is counting on. Military victory in Iraq would be the easy part. It is what follows that should give us pause. In a boom-bust process, passing an early test tends to reinforce the misconception that has given rise to it. That could happen here. It is not too late to prevent the boom-bust process from getting out of hand. The Security Council could allow more time for weapons inspections. Military presence in the region could be reduced - and bolstered if Iraq balks. An invasion could be mounted at summer's end. The UN would score a victory. That is what the French propose and the British could still make it happen. But the chances are slim; Mr Bush has practically declared war. Let us hope that if there is war, it will be swift and claim few lives. Removing Mr Hussein is a good thing, yet the way Mr Bush is going about it must be condemned. America must play a more constructive role if humanity is to make any progress. The writer is chairman of Soros Fund Management

:rolleyes: :confused: who what where?? No I never saw that camel on that Night and no thats not my Macawuus. sorry man that poem was sleep inducing bruv........i started to have Nightmares there.

Somalia, Burundi Blacklisted The Somali and Burundian Football Federations have had their funding from Fifa stopped. Along with Puerto Rico, they were unable to provide proof of how the money from Fifa's Financial Assistance Programme had been spent. An audit of the Somali federation in 2001 was unable to find evidence of how 84 percent of the funding had been used. In Burundi's case $114,000 was unaccounted for in the period from 2000 to 2002. The Programme provides $1 million every four years for each national association, money which is intended to help improve stadia, allow teams to take part in competitions and to cover other costs in developing the game. In another blow, Somalia's FA boss Farah Addo was ordered to pay damages to Fifa President Sepp Blatter for defamation. Addo was ordered to pay Blatter $7,500 compensation and cover legal costs after claiming that bribery had assisted the Fifa president's re-election in 1998. The Caf vice-president made the claims during the 2002 election campaign, when Caf president Issa Hayatou was Blatter's only challenger. Addo was earlier banned from attending any Fifa event or competition for two years in an internal disciplinary move. The Court of Meilen in Switzerland upheld an injunction prohibiting Addo from making further statements against Blatter. bbc.co.uk

The business of rebuilding war zones By James Arnold BBC News Online business reporter One man's interrupted commute is another man's opportunity Development agency USAid has shortlisted five US companies for a $900m contract to rebuild Iraq - so is post-war reconstruction an American stitch-up? For Tam Dalyell, a Labour member of parliament, it was "vomit-making". Indeed, there is something nauseous in the news that the US Government is handing out contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq - to American companies - before the first shots have even been fired. One of the firms is Halliburton, the company once led by Vice President Dick Cheney (although given the firm's Middle East expertise it would have been more of a surprise if it was not on the shortlist). But at a total of $900m, the current batch of controversial deals represent a tiny fraction of what promises to be an unprecedented reconstruction bonanza. It is US development aid that is being spent here, not "Iraqi money" flowing from Iraqi oil wells. And by signing up contractors before the war begins, Washington is signalling a potentially cheering truth: the post-war reconstruction business is not just getting more lucrative, it's getting far more efficient, too. Overwhelming generosity Lucrative it certainly is, however. Of the $66bn given out in international aid in 1999, a big year for reconstruction, almost one-quarter went to war-torn countries. This will need a refit for a start Hard cash is most obviously needed for rebuilding roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and other physical infrastructure. But even more expensive and long-lasting is the work involved in resettling refugees, clearing up pollution, rebuilding civil society and generally putting the economy back on its feet. Over the past few years, this sort of thing has created a gigantic surge in the average post-war aid bill: while $4bn of aid went into Lebanon in the 10 years after its civil war ended in the early 1990s, some $5.4bn poured into smaller Bosnia in half the time. Rebuilding Afghanistan - which didn't have much infrastructure in the first place - is predicted to cost $15bn, while estimates for Iraq have crept as high as $100bn. Scenting an opportunity Understandably perhaps, this tidal wave of cash has sharpened appetites among corporate contractors. Donors encourage this: while efforts like the Marshall Plan - the vast push to revive Europe after World War II - were largely state affairs, modern governments are keen to outsource as many functions as possible to the private sector. Now, a fairly narrow coterie of international firms has developed a reliable sideline in post-war clean-ups. Construction firms such as the US's Fluor and Bechtel, Britain's Costain and Balfour Beatty, and France's Spie are usually the first in; service providers such as British Crown Agents and Swiss SGS are rarely far behind. The invisible hand Sometimes, this results in a sordid scramble or stitch-up. Getting things rebuilt quickly is now the priority Company agents have been known to hit the warzone in advance of the victorious troops. And hackles were raised in boardrooms around the world when the US Army Corps of Engineers blithely handed out all rebuilding contracts to American firms in advance of the 1991 Gulf War. But for the most part, the companies' wish to make a profit coincides with the aid recipients' wish for a speedy recovery. Indeed, the main hitch in this otherwise neat alignment of interests lies with the banks, governments and other agencies that disburse the cash, and whose prevarication often slows things down to a crawl. Spending better Trouble is, growth in post-war aid budgets has outstripped bureaucratic ability, argues Colin Adams, chief executive of the British Consultants and Construction Bureau, a trade body for reconstruction contractors. Is the US too cosy with its corporate chums? Administrative muddle reached its peak in the aftermath of the Bosnian war, where aid was provided on a bilateral basis by a bewildering galaxy of governments and agencies. "Everyone wants to be seen financing the prestige projects, and because there is no coordination, you can get terrible duplication of effort," says Mr Adams. Things have started to improve: Kosovo, quickly taken under the wing of the European Commission, was a relatively tidy project - although expensive at $2.3bn. And Afghanistan has been an object lesson in efficiency. Almost all Afghan projects, even many of those financed by freewheeling non-governmental organisations, pass through a single coordinating body, the Afghan Assistance Coordination Agency (AACA). Local heroes The row over the US contracts for Iraq highlights another sticking-point - the role of nationalism. The $900m comes through USAid, a government agency obliged to prefer US firms unless a particular statute is invoked (as it has been for its Afghan activity). This is quite normal: almost all countries insist their own companies should benefit from the aid they give out; one of the few that does not is Britain, whose companies capture a hefty slice of the post-war business worldwide. But even a dose of national bias is preferable to the administrative chaos seen in the mid-1990s, Mr Adams argues. And governments, for all their faults, generally move much faster than agencies such as the European Commission or World Bank, whose money is scrupulously doled out in plodding competitive tenders. After all, getting the bridge rebuilt fast is more important than the nationality of the firm that builds it - as any Afghan will tell you.

With friends like Rumsfeld... By Nick Assinder BBC News Online political correspondent Lending a helping hand If this was Donald Rumsfeld trying to help Tony Blair, he had better not consider a career in the diplomatic service. With one brief comment he has managed to blow a series of massive holes in the prime minister's armour. He undermined the prime minister's claims he is a major influence on President Bush. He handed the prime minister's anti-war faction the opportunity to declare Britain now had a way out of conflict. And he allowed the dissenters to claim he had finally let the cat out of the bag and shown what they had been saying all along - that the US is determined to go to war on Iraq with or without the support of any other country. No wonder Downing Street hit the phones within seconds of his intervention. Tony Blair must be utterly dismayed that Mr Rumsfeld has pulled the rug from under his feet just as the crisis within the UN is approaching critical mass and extra-sensitive diplomacy is required. More damage But the US defence secretary's comments have had another consequence. They have added to a growing feeling amongst those who support action that the sooner it comes the better. The longer the diplomatic process continues, the more damage is being done - to international relations, to the UN, and to Tony Blair's standing. None of the key countries are about to change their positions, despite the prime minister's predictions that things may change once cards have to be put on the table. And if the prime minister believes he will emerge victorious at home after a short, clean, successful war - with or without the UN's backing - then he might as well get on with it. Mr Blair can claim he has done what his dissenters want by pursuing the UN route to the last. And he can claim that the French insistence it would veto a second resolution under any circumstances is the "unreasonable veto" he has previously said he would ignore. Meanwhile, his defence secretary Geoff Hoon has signalled that Britain is ready to play the 1441 card - by declaring the original UN resolution gives countries the right to take action against Saddam without further permission. This is surely the end of the diplomatic game. And few in Westminster now believe Britain will not be at war within days.

I regularly enjoy Mecca Cola and Qiblar cola (excuse any mis-spellings)

Of course its in the end our choice to accept the countries we live in now as our adopted homes and continue to live here, have Fam here etc etc. Or Try and do something towards rebuilding somalia. Yes it is our responsilibilty to do, if you want to go back home, and how many of us want to remain where we are???

Am glad you enjoyed it guys

Scareface Bruv i think your missing the point saxiib. I think Northner perhaps discribes best the feelings most of us would have expirenced whilst watching that programme no health system, education system, policing system, welfare system, then u walk down central hargeisa and see all these multi story buildings and power stations. The govt and ppl in general who have money,home or abroad, have more or less adopted the principals of capitalism and forgotten about the poor and the needy, this i hope has woken many of us from our dream and brought us back to reality with a thud!!!! I mean My heart just Breaks just thinking about it i feel so ashamed and there is a level of guilt that i have now that i cant easily shake off. We need to do something for our ppl back home. If this is what somaliland is, whilst it is in peace and stability...........i dread to think what the rest of somalia is like for the ppl still living back there

Kenya reach semis Kenya came to the World Cup without a major team sponsor but made sure of leaving with at least $500,000 after reaching the semi-finals on Wednesday. Cricket: All the latest from the World Cup WATTS ZAP : Amusing and Entertaining Former captain Maurice Odumbe, who hit the winning runs a shock seven-wicket win over Zimbabwe on Wednesday, was not aware of those figures. Told that each team to reach the semi-finals won $400,000, he responded: "Is that it? "Our manager is currently doing the calculations now. We will come to know about that later. We're just thinking about the games to come." Kenya's individual match earnings have also netted them $50,000 dollars in the first round, for four wins and two losses. They have already made another $60,000 in two Super Six matches, with one game against world champions Australia still to come. Defeat in that match would add another $20,000. The World Cup winners will earn $2 million as well as match winnings, with $800,000 for the runners-up. Kenya's player are professionals but reaching the Super Sixes will assure them of their biggest pay day ever. Their real ambition, however, is to win test status to go with their one-day status. They have beaten test sides Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe in the tournament to date

The obvious one are outside interference from hostial countries i.e. ethopia n perhaps US, and the various warlords which are renonued universally. Equally Corruption, Dis-Unity amongts the powerfull fewer, A waring mind set, and a organisied militia culture as a way of business is scurpering any hopes for peace.

I do Northner but hey Roma where focusing on the league which the won 2 yrs ago, and just missed out last year before having this years disastors league campagin. ...you no whats coming up nxt innit North when has liverpool recently even come close to winning The Premiershiid?? am not that old i think

Published on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times When Bombs Fall, U.S. Will Join Ranks of War Criminals by Robert Scheer The maiming or killing of a single Iraqi civilian in an attack by the United States would constitute a war crime, as well as a profound violation of the Christian notion of just war. That is because the recent report of the U.N. inspectors has made indelibly clear that disarmament is working and that Iraq at this time poses no direct threat to the well-being of the American people. Of course, we are not talking about one or two casualties. In seriously considering such war strategies as bringing a city- destroying firestorm down upon a population half made up of children, the U.S. is planning to disarm a nation of its weapons of mass destruction by using weapons that cause mass destruction. Brutal, preemptive and unilateral war under such circumstances is -- by the standards of any great civilization or religion -- morally indefensible and also seriously damages the reputation of free societies, the principles of which we are trying to market to the rest of the world. To distract us from this essential truth, the president has shamefully frightened the American people, first with his baseless attempt to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and then with unproven claims that Iraq's government and weapons pose an immediate danger to Americans. The real story is that U.N. inspectors are reporting substantial progress in terms of Iraqi cooperation and the destruction of weapons in Iraq. George Bush and the 200,000-plus troops he has sent to the Persian Gulf could take some credit for this, but he continues to isolate the U.S. as other leading nations request that the U.N. inspectors be given four more months to complete their work. Why the unseemly rush to war when the chief U.N. weapons inspector stated: "One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January." Hans Blix went on to cite increased air surveillance using U.S., French, German and Russian planes, the unfettered ability "to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq," rising cooperation on private interviews with scientists, inspections of "mobile units," destruction of 40% of the Al-Samoud 2 missile cache and excavation and analysis of a major weapons disposal site. Most important, Blix noted that for the U.N. to finish its survey of sites, documents and relevant people, it "will not take years, nor weeks, but months." In the meantime, he emphasized, "we are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed." And as for the most lethal of weapons -- the one that could end all life on this planet -- the news from Iraq is even more promising. "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq," the chief atomic weapons inspector told the U.N. Security Council on Friday. After 218 inspections of 141 sites over three months by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei charged that the U.S. had used faked and erroneous evidence to support the claims that Iraq was importing enriched uranium and other material for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. So why, considering all this good news, is the White House afraid to allow the inspections to continue? Is Bush worried that the weapons may not exist and that his real goal, stated blatantly in his last press conference, of taking over Iraq might be undermined? How else to explain the president's indifference to the fact that the evidence of weapons locations supplied by his own intelligence agencies has not checked out on the ground? Terrifyingly, we are hours away from doing irreparable harm to our democratic heritage by launching a risky, arrogant crusade that most of the world opposes, all at the behest of a small coterie of neoconservative ideologues plotting to remake the world in their image and who unfortunately have the ear of our accidental president. All this in the name of the victims of 9/11, an attack carried out by Muslim fanatics originally embraced and trained by the U.S. during the Cold War and whose proven ties have been with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. If we pursue this unjust war in the coming weeks, we can surely add the desecration of the victims' memory to the list of outrages we will perpetrate. Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

Exactly Tamina, u can get 2 yrs for drink driving and running over a mother with here 3 yr old, get less custodial time for raping someone, manslaugter etc etc. So how can someone, who hasnt purpetrated any crime of any substance, let alone anything akin to the offence mentioned above be given a lenghtier custodial sentence. I mean it is a joke a sick joke at that

Well until we decide to try and change the situation back home somehow.........i mean it is our country correct. And whether you hail from North or South or whever else we should strive to try and make aware any types of solutions to problems back home here. So perhaps we need to become more political active, keep tabs on new developments back home, have some kind of registered charitey where as individuals we can contribute towards the establishment of Hospitals, Medicine bills, Books School buldings etc etc. These are things that perhaps we should strive to start here. Am sure a vast amjority of those of us that live in the UK Watched 2 nights ago the Rednose appeal programme in somaliland. That is the relaity of the situation, and if we are to remain refugees for a while yet, whilst warlordism maintains its power grip as a system of Governance (if it can be called that) then we can only do what we can from here.