http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:19:03 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/25/192300.php#comment-6481 The UN was willing to treat a symptom, the starvation of Somalis due to militia raiding, and not the cause, the maneuvering of Aidid and other warlords to gain control over Mogadishu and allof Somalia. Sure, the U.S. could have backed Aidid and allowed him to take control of Mogadishu, and also the profits he would extort from the UN aid program officials. The U.S. chose not to do so, it was hardly in our own interests. Why do you think we were hunting Aidid and others in the first place? ]]> 6481@blogcritics.org Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:19:03 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/25/192300.php#comment-6336 What was notable -- again, from the movie, not necessarily a valid source -- was that our military command followed U.N. directive not to engage the militias when they were threatening Somalian noncombatants, but went right ahead with U.N.-banned operations that suited their own interests. ]]> 6336@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:34:28 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/25/192300.php#comment-6003 Considering that the UN was not willing to protect its peacekeepers against the militias, maybe those guidelines needed some revision. ]]> 6003@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:07:13 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/25/192300.php#comment-5956 Did you miss the part where we lost those men in an operation that was carried on outside the UN guidelines for our presence in the region? ]]> 5956@blogcritics.org Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:11:16 EST