Gabbal Posted March 20, 2005 US opposes Somalia troops deployment, threatens veto Nairobi, 03/17 - The US has launched a stiff opposition to the planned deployment of a regional peacekeeping force to the war-torn Somalia and indicated it would veto any UN Security Council mandate on the same. The US has declared that it would not finance the deployment of the peace support mission, saying there was no need to use force in Somalia, preferring to treat the over 60,000 militias in the country as a mere problem to be solved through dialogue. The surprising opposition to the deployment of the planned 7,500 troops from neighbouring Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Eritrea was made on Thursday as regional Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Council of Ministers started meeting in Nairobi to put final touches to the troops deployment plan. "While we appreciate IGAD`s intentions of stabilising Somalia, we do not understand the rationale behind the IGAD deployment plan and do not support the deployment of troops from the frontline states in Somalia," the US State Department said in a communiqué. "It is our strong view that the successful establishment of a functioning central government in Somalia can only be achieved through a continued process of dialogue and negotiation, not force of arms," the State Department said. The statement comes amid a series of preparatory meetings to plan for the logistical support needed to stabilise the new government. UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, while voicing his support to the deployment of the troops under the arm of the African Union (AU), said the mission "must be carefully considered and planned with the support of the Somali people." The UN Chief gave a cautious welcome to the troops plan, saying: "The role of regional organisations (IGAD) in fostering peace in their areas is clearly enshrined in the UN Charter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NASSIR Posted March 20, 2005 There appears contradiction between the message of the article and quotes being used to support its information. Quotes indicate that State Department disapprove of the deployment of troops from frontline states but not overall the deployment. And the article is made to appear as though it is overall rejection of deployment. Can you provide the link? Yesterday, March 18, Peacekeepers Approved Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gabbal Posted March 20, 2005 Sure Caamir lest you HornAfrique is so desperate as to change a news text. US opposes Somalia troops deployment, threatens veto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
General Duke Posted March 20, 2005 I read that as well, Horn is correct however the IGAD and Arableague would do nothing without the consent of the US. Unless things have changed.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sky Posted March 20, 2005 ameerikaanka waxay qabaan cudurka la yiraahdo black hawk down. they are scared that the africans will succeed where oh so mighty america has failed. i love those pictures in my pc, where american corpses are dragged through the streets, it makes my day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
General Duke Posted March 20, 2005 ^^^ A good point Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
J.Lee Posted March 20, 2005 ^^^Dr.Evil and Mini Me, isku camirka nagadaaya. American corpses or not, they are lives that Allah created and therefore should be respected as such. In my opinion, America has ulterior motives which might involve having a military base in Somalia in order to keep an eye on the Middle East once a stable Government is established in Somalia with their brand of "help" only,of course. They're doing it for purely selfish reasons and not out of strong belief of what they strongly insist the greater good for the Somali people ought to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
General Duke Posted March 20, 2005 ^^^^^^^^ lol Ms Word. That was funny wallahi.. Sis hasha, my comment was in support of the brothers angle of reasoning regarding why America would be against troop deployment and had nothing to do with the tragic events refered to as "black hawk down" in which many innocent Somali souls were lost. Your point was good as well.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sky Posted March 20, 2005 msword, arent you aware of the fact that the us allready has a large military base in djibouti and as such somalia is totally and absolutely irrelevant for CENTCOM, the military department thats in charge of the middle east, horn of africa and central asia.msword, i have to say, i have no respect whatsoever for americans. dialogue with the muqdisho warlords, why didnt they engage a dialogue before they massacred thousands of somalis in muqdisho? they are doofaaro, and now im insulting the doofaar species. plus not many ppl are aware of the following facts: - the president c/yussef has the legal powers to ignore the parliament's decision and go ahead with his plans anyway - the president c/yussef can pass a motion to replace the speaker of parliament - the president c/yussef still has the logistical, financial support of the frontline states ethiopia, kenya and djinouti to its disposal in addition to the ugandan and sudanese troops under the AU banner wich in my opinion is better than that ethiopian troops come to our soil and create excuses for the muqdisho warlords to sabotage the peace process. i dont know why c/yussef insists on itoobiyaan, its irritating i wish i was president. marka the game is far from over na'm sayin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gabbal Posted March 20, 2005 No pun intended Oodweyn, but it would seem your credibility is much more intact when "Somaliland" is not the issue at hand. Though expressed with much flourish, the point you are wishing to make is very simple and understandble. The United States would rather keep the status-quo on the political dynamics of Somalia then risk creating a huge and unforseen military situation that would require international scrutiny and attention. A very fine point might I say, but I also believe that there are several other reasons the United States is challenging Ethiopian influence in Somali affairs on the current. 1. Ethiopian-American relations has been cooling for a period of time now. It has reached the point that the Ethiopian government denies the State Departments Human Rights report concerning it. Just recently Ethiopia accused Washington of writing "baseless allegation" against Addis Ababa. Washington took the liberty of calling back the American ambassador in Addis Ababa, and currently the Tigray regime is without an American envoy. 2. The Egypt-Ethiopian Nile dillema is also another factor. Egypt has promised to attack were Ethiopia to go ahead with their plans of building a dam. The United States cannot risk a war, yet Egypt a much bigger interest then Somalia's next door neighbor. Egypt is Washington's foremost ally in the Middle East and a friendly country to neighboring Israel. Because of that, the United States has unofficially taken the side of Cairo, the result of which has left Addis Ababa in a stand-still due to lack of international (American) support. The United States has its reasons for its policies, but I don't find it a coincidence that the cooing off of relations with Ethiopia came with the ascension of Dr. Condoleeza Rice to the highest post in the State Deepartment. Condi Rice is a foremost Neo-Con, who cares about naught save for the Oil Industry. The Oil Industry, as you know, is heavily intertwined with Middle Eastern politics. plus not many ppl are aware of the following facts: - the president c/yussef has the legal powers to ignore the parliament's decision and go ahead with his plans anyway - the president c/yussef can pass a motion to replace the speaker of parliament - the president c/yussef still has the logistical, financial support of the frontline states ethiopia, kenya and djinouti to its disposal in addition to the ugandan and sudanese troops under the AU banner wich in my opinion is better than that ethiopian troops come to our soil and create excuses for the muqdisho warlords to sabotage the peace process. i dont know why c/yussef insists on itoobiyaan, its irritating i wish i was president. marka the game is far from over na'm sayin. Mr. Thirty Nicknames exactly how old are you? :confused: Wind Talker have a laugh with me here pal Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sky Posted March 20, 2005 honrafrique these false accusations of having several nicks here is really annoying. im warning you son. TOLSTOY= you can shove that 'brotherly advice' into a place where the sun doesnt shine. thats all i gotta say. what the hell do you have to prove by writing like every post is an essay? relax and enjoy life, that would be my brotherly advice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rahima Posted March 20, 2005 ^Or else what? looool What is wrong with people these days, threatening each other over the net like it matters. Sky, it's only the net brother, relax mate . Do what everyone else here seems to do, you have insults/accusations thrown at you, throw them right back, i'm sure Horn won't take it serious nor will he threaten you . In fact, i'm sure he'll just laugh it off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sky Posted March 20, 2005 rahima my dear sister, hornafrique will shit himself if i get full frontal with him. im sparing him from that humiliation, who knows he will be kicked out of his favorite internetcafe for obscene behaviour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rahima Posted March 20, 2005 ^ Let's just say that i have complete confidence in Horn , he is way too mature for this, threatening him won't get you far considering that you don’t even know which cafe he attends (and no I don’t take bribes , I will not tell, my lips are sealed). Also, he does not elicit any obscene behaviours. He is by far one of the most respectful and mature nomads here- I’m sure I am not alone is attesting to that. As for you, really brother this is childish, don't worry about it . He holds one opinion, you another, so what! If you can't discuss it without threatening then leave it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gabbal Posted March 21, 2005 What is wrong with people these days, threatening each other over the net like it matters. Rahima ina eedo faanka iga daa and on the other hand ka dhex bax meesha, when we, men, get that extra adrenaline rush it could get ugly Case point: our parliament As for Sky. African ku daayay ina adeer, though I suppose now is the time to tell you I've never been in an internet cafe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
