Largest online Somali community!
http://somalinet.com/forums/
Your argument here lacks historical context and what has actually transpired in Germany and Japan after the end of world war II. Germany was divided into occupation zones by the allied armies and Soviets who won the war. And it has continued for few years until, in the case of Britain, it became a huge economic burden to maintain the occupation; and for the USA, in order to contain soviet expansion in Eastern Europe, they have opted to turn allied administered zones into a unified, single, civilian authority.SahanGalbeed wrote:What has happened in Lybia rests on the inability of the Lybian people to rebuild their country . Qaddafi was a megalomaniac blood thirsty fuc,ker . Let me give you an example . When the United States destroyed Germany in WW2 , the germans didn't turn on each other as to whose fault was it or how did they get there . No ! They rolled up their sleeves and rebuild their country . The fact to the matter is whether it is Iraq , Somalia , Lybia or Syria , all these countries who happen to be muslims do not have a sense of unity{ something that is a developemental process } like other people do { Japan , Korea} . It is always easier to blame your shortcomings on others but Hillary Clinton is not to be blamed for the way Lybia turned , I'm sorry to say .
US also announced the Marshall plan in 1947 that has poured billions of US dollars into the economies of West Germany and Japan, as it has allowed the economies of both countries to kickstart. The goods manufactured in West Germany and Japan were also allowed to be exported to the US.By early 1946, the Western Allies--the United States and Britain in particular--had become convinced that Soviet expansionism had to be contained. The Soviet Union's seizure of Polish territory and the drawing of the Oder-Neisse border (which gave formerly German territory to Poland), its antidemocratic actions in other countries occupied by Soviet forces, and its policies toward areas such as Greece and Turkey persuaded Western leaders that the Soviet Union was aiming for communist domination of Europe. Churchill's use of the expression "Iron Curtain" to describe the Soviet cordoning off of a sphere of influence in Europe illustrated a basic change in attitude toward Soviet intentions on the part of Western leaders. As a result of this change, Germany came to be seen more as a potential ally than as a defeated enemy.
The change in attitude led United States officials to take a more active role in Germany. A notable early example of this policy change was a speech given in Stuttgart in September 1946 by the United States secretary of state, James F. Byrnes, proposing the transfer of administrative functions from the existing military governments to a single civilian German administration. Byrnes stated that the United States had not defeated the Nazi dictatorship to keep Germans suppressed but instead wanted them to become a free, self-governing, and prosperous people. The speech was the first significant indication that Germany was not to remain an outcast but was, according to Byrnes, to have "an honorable place among the free and peace-loving nations of the world."
Neither the Soviet Union nor France desired a revitalized Germany, but after intensive negotiations, a unified economic zone, the Bizone, consisting of the United States and British zones, was proclaimed on January 1, 1947. After a difficult beginning, the Bizone proved itself a success, and its population of 40 million began to benefit from an improving economy. Only in the spring of 1949, after a period of sustained economic growth, did the French occupation zone join the Bizone, creating the Trizone.
The difference is not in the fact that Japan or Germany were helped and Iraq or Lybia was not , that's a simpleton salafi argument .To simply put it, while Germany and Japan were gradually helped to have stable governments and vibrant economies, instability in Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Syria was carefully designed and maintained as well. But since you're a new atheist who is in love with everything western, I don't expect you to acknowledge it.
} if they goal is to maintian instability in your country , tell me ? Why would they bother bringing us here ? That's an argument acknowledged and ceded by pres Obama , nothing new . The quetion I have for you is , where does the responsibility lies upon ?The US or NATO who took Qaddafi out , or the people in Lybia to even get a single government together ? Are you then advocating for an occupation of Lybia , Somalia ? What has happened when the US occupied Iraq ? What was your stand on that issue , pro or con ?To the contrary, Libya was attacked from the air, while western special forces and tribal militia were attacking from the ground. When the Libyan military was crippled and the president killed, it was left to deal with its anarchy. There were no structures in place to deal with the anarchy, and there was no intention of ending that anarchy.
It lies with NATO who launched an unjust attack on a defenseless nation (Libya) that has been under arms embargo for a long time, overthrew its legitimate government, killed its leader, and made sure anarchy prevails by cutting deals with warring factions. It is not easy to remove a functioning system through violent means and expect everything will be fine. The Libyan people need time and at the anarchy will end at some point. However, you're moving the goalposts as the topic was about your crook-nosed, satan-worshipping, darling, named Hillary Clinton, who engineered the war against Libya. It seems this new atheism that you embraced is all about falling in love with everything westernSahanGalbeed wrote:gegiroor
That's an argument acknowledged and ceded by pres Obama , nothing new . The quetion I have for you is , where does the responsibility lies upon ?The US or NATO who took Qaddafi out , or the people in Lybia to even get a single government together ? Are you then advocating for an occupation of Lybia , Somalia ? What has happened when the US occupied Iraq ? What was your stand on that issue , pro or con ?
If you were not a salafi I would think you were high
even if they massacred fellow Africans. I gave up, man.SahanGalbeed wrote:What you do not understand gegiroor is that my loyalty lies with America , it took me some time but I am there . If I were more pre occupied with muslims or fellow africans , I would have made a life somewhere else .
There are tens of millions of Americans who don't have that same mindset as you. They oppose America's foreign military interventions in other countries, particularly in the Muslim world. The overwhelming majority of the people who supported Bernie Sanders, and many Republicans who support Trump are people who espouse those views. That translates to there is a difference between being loyal to the constitution and being loyal to the empire. As a naturalized American citizen, I support the constitution but not empire building, especially when the people who are victimized are my defenseless,fellow Muslims.SahanGalbeed wrote:What you do not understand gegiroor is that my loyalty lies with America , it took me some time but I am there . If I were more pre occupied with muslims or fellow africans , I would have made a life somewhere else .
There is indeed a significant risk that a nuclear war will happen under the watch of crook-nosed, Hillary Clinton.mare wrote:Either way america and in turn the world is f'd up trump is an open bigot/capitalist scum and Hillary is not fit to be president given the chance she would blow up half the world (she is dopey as f).