Perhaps Quule is the problem..because all the ones that consume it become delusional and ignorant to the point of uttering nonsense.
There is no sane person that can argue that Barre's dictatorship was good for Somalia, and that he had nothing to do with the destruction of the Somali Republic.
You just need to look at 1969, when he took power, and the promises he made.
Here is Siad Barre's justification for the coup:
''Intervention by the Armed Forces was inevitable. It was no longer possible
to ignore the evil things like corruption, bribery, nepotism, theft of public
funds, injustice and disrespect to our religion and the laws of the country.
The laws were thrust aside and people did whatever they wanted.''
These were the promises made in 1969....if we fastforward to 1991, on the eve of the end of his dictatorship we can see that nepotism, clannism, corruption, theft of public funds were all widespread.
In conclusion:
Siad Barre stole the ruling seat by proclaiming that he would eradicate evil things like clannism, nepotism, corruption and would restore a sense of confidence in national will and a minimum basis for national cooperation. In the first years of his rule he came with PR-stunts which secured him popular support. But as soon as the economic windfalls generated by the previous civilian government ended after 1974, Siad Barre had to secure his wide support and launched a premature invasion of Ethiopia to gain the Ogaden region, this turned disastrous despite the courageous effort of Somali soldiers. After the 77 war things went really bad, economy was bankrubt, self-reliance policy abandoned in favour of IMF-ism, clannism, nepotism and corruption surfaced back. Instead of restoring confidence in national will and a minimum basis for national cooperation, and fighting the evils of the previous civilian government Siad Barre’s oppressive military dictatorship further underminned any credibility the Somali state had, and ultimately destroyed any confidence and hope Somalis had in a neutral Somali state which rises above clan structured society and is free from nepotism, corruption and clannism. The dead of the First Republic of Somalia was a fact when Siad Barre was forcefully removed from the capital of Somalia. His brutal repressive measures undermined any future national unity and the required minimum of trust between the different Somali groups which is the basis for national cooperation. This was only further exacerbated by the civil war and enduring anarchy in many parts of Somalia.
This is only the political aspect, let alone how Barre's regime destroyed Somalia economically (bankrubt economy), socially (clannism widespread) and militarily (army used as private guard by Barre against the Somali civilians it had to protect).

http://www.somalinet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=264&t=120042
No sane person can deny that these things happened.
So stop consuming Quule and admitt the truth.
As for, the physical destruction of Somalia...since Somalia was Xamar, then the blame is on the inhabitants of Xamar, more precisely the two individuals that started the unnecesary bloodshed and destruction: Aideed and Ali Mahdi.
Still, this physical destruction is nothing compared to the deeper lying destruction of the very fabric that held the major Somali groups togethet and lead to the establishment of the first Somali Republic in 1960.
The corrupt government of 1960-1969 started the decay of the Somali Republic, and the 21 years of dictatorship destroyed the last remaining parts of the Somali Republic.
Again no sane person can argue that Barre's dictatorship was good for Somalia, and that he had nothing to do with the destruction of the Somali Republic.
