Talk:Somalia/Archive1

Rooting for fundamentalists
I must admit I'm sort of rooting for the fundamentalists. At least they seem have their crap more or less got together. -- 12:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * You don't really want them in charge when things settle down, though... what about Somaliland? I hear they aren't doing too badly... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 12:23, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * Um, I'm pretty sure you're won't be once you've got that brain of yours in gear. Read this too, please. In some diplomatic circles, the original Union of Islamic Courts was actually reckoned to contain a sufficient number of moderates to be worth talking to. They enjoyed considerable popular support and had restored a degree of order and some basic public services. The American-backed invasion by Ethiopia put paid to that, of course. And now that's fallen flat on its arse, some of the nastiest elements are crawling back out of the woodwork. :( --Robledo 15:09, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, the original ICU would have been (probably) better than the anarchy. Now though...it looks like Somalia has no good options.  Even the two parts with their shit together (Somaliland and Puntland) have started fighting a bit, though Puntland is far more worried about the nutjobs to their south. Researcher 15:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * The sensible money was on an Iran degree of unpleasantness with the possibility of progress, rather than an Afghanistan/Taliban-style horrorshow. But some fuckhead cried Al-Qaeda, and Washington gave Ethiopia the green light and some air support. Puntland's now seeing some pretty major inflows of cash and weapons because of the piracy, which won't help its long-term stability much. --Robledo 15:38, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * It's interesting, though, that Puntland is also the only section really fighting the pirates at this point. (Again, that was something the ICU was willing to do, but the new crazies won't.) Researcher 15:42, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * Good for them! If there isn't more organised international assistance soon, though, they'll end up with an established criminal elite with far more wealth and power than the civilian administration. And that shit just fucks a country right up. --Robledo 15:55, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * There's also the problem of Puntland not having any kind of naval force. The only reason there is any control in the territory is because of an alliance of tribes holding things together.  Their authority if far from universal. Fortunately, they've signed onto the Provisional Government (or whatever it's called), so perhaps the rest of the world can start funnelling some help to them. Researcher 16:01, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * Here's hoping... --Robledo 16:12, 26 November 2008 (EST)

CLEAN ME!!!
This article is a bit too informal, as I cannot be othered to do this myself, someone clean this article in my stead, many thanks,-- Redcoat  20:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 * You hadn't noticed: ''we're a bit informal here. If you're bothered enough then you'll do it. :-) [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Toast) and marmalade 20:32, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, yeah I get the message--[[Image:British coat of arms.png|25px]] Redcoat  20:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I've been to Mogadishu
I was there for a few days back in 2001 and while I must admit I refused to speak english and only presented a non-American passport, the city itself was not that bad. Wikitravel is a bit biased and I think it does a disservice to repeat what they say. While Somalia isn't the friendliest place on earth, it certainly is nothing like the Peshawar providence. Death is not imminent upon arrival. Somalia has some amazing history and incredible artifacts. Cgb07305
 * Sounds interesting. Do tell more! 03:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please! I really want to go someday, but I'm too frightened right now, particularly with all the gun battles that consistently rage in Mogadishu.  However, please remember that the violence in the country has gotten far worse than it was in 2001, with open civil war ripping through many of the major cities, and even the winning faction about to split into two factions. Researcher (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was worst in 2001 than it is today. I'd feel much safer today than I did then.  Perhaps Black Hawk Down isn't so fresh in my mind. Grant it, anywhere outside of Mogadishu is now war-torn (it wasn't as bad back then)...which is why piracy has ramped up like crazy the last few years.  There's a lot to tell, what all would you like to know?  Cgb07305
 * Feel free to add anything this page is missing. Tear it apart, if you like.  Researcher (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wont get rid of too much. Just the travel part, perhaps.  I should get to it this evening.   22:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

iirc
On TOW there was a mention on how the Cato Institute did a study and found that business in Somalia was doing great. Lower on the article was a section on human rights abuses. Business in Somalia? Great! Human rights? Not so much... Thank goat for government--Brxbrx (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Take your vacation back from big government in Somalia!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * nice. can you add that to the article?  I can't find the youtube template.  I think it'd be a great fit, front and center--Brxbrx (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pirates and fundamentalists are de facto governments, no true anarcy are possible on overpopulated Earth.
The claim that Somalia "has no government" is ignorant of the fact that fundamentalists and pirates are de facto governments. Coercion emerges spontaneously if interest conflict exist, global population on Earth makes interest conflict inevitable, therefore no true anarchy can exist on overpopulated Earth. Ignorant claim of the article uses idiotic narrow definition of government, there is no real difference between government and animal pecking order other than that humans have the intellectual potential (but today mostly untapped) ability to discuss and transcend Malthusian population laws. Work-demanding agriculture forced large families to breed much work force, but stopping that can only stop the growth, creating true conflictless society requires space colonization, see Space Colonization Wiki.109.58.94.34 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg
 * Well, besides the idiosyncratic writing style, I actually agree. True anarchy isn't actually possible except for that brief moment after the coup d'etat but before everyone else has noticed. But that's not the same as calling people "de facto" governments. Government has a particular purpose and mission, whether it's democratic or otherwise. What happens in a place that is anarchic is actually mob-rule, not the formation of "de facto" government. ADK ...I'll absolve your pool table! 16:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed some points. The so-called "purpose and mission" of governments are just pseudo-rationalizations and excuses. At least the fundamentalists also pseudo-rationalize their activity, so they constitute de facto governments by any measure. The pirates appear not to bother creating a idealistic veneer, but since any idealistic veneer is superficial, that is no deep difference. I mean that any coercion, even a mob, constitutes a de facto government. You also missed my other point about overpopulation and space colonization. The reason why true anarchy is not possible on Earth today is because global overpopulation creates interest conflict. Archaeological evidence proves that hierarchical societies first emerged during a period of rapid global population increase. What drove that population increase was the need to breed large families for workforce that agriculture (or quasi-agriculture in the case of native americans) created. Prior to that population increase, people lived without interest conflict, therefore true anarchy was possible. It was certainly NOT that agriculture created a surplus that enabled a ruling class to emerge, as shown by the fact that wild animals without agriculture or even quasi-agriculture have pecking orders. I think it was foresight that allowed early humans to transcend Malthusian population laws, while all nonhuman animals would only be able to avoid competition temporarily. My point about space colonization is that it would end overpopulation and restore life without interest conflict.109.58.239.86 (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg