Fair enough. Here is the new rule. Anyone can come into the no-fly zone. The first time there is an incident of piracy, the zone gets closed. It does not re-open until the pirates are handed over by the Somali authorities for prosecution.
Are you going to provide the military presence to ensure that the zone stays closed? This idea sounds good on paper but since no one wants to commit forces to solving the problem it's infeasible.
This will give them some incentive to form one. If the average citizen starts to feel inconvenienced, the warlords won't last long. And keep in mind, the warlords can hand over the pirates.
The warlords have all the food and all the guns. Even if every non-warlord was against them, they're all frail and weak. Anyone who isn't frail and weak is on the side of the warlords, because they want to stay well fed.
This will give them some incentive to form one. If the average citizen starts to feel inconvenienced, the warlords won't last long. And keep in mind, the warlords can hand over the pirates.
The warlords have all the food and all the guns. Even if every non-warlord was against them, they're all frail and weak. Anyone who isn't frail and weak is on the side of the warlords, because they want to stay well fed.
Not to mention that a good portion of the population is on Khat, a drug similar to meth.
The warlords have all the food and all the guns. Even if every non-warlord was against them, they're all frail and weak. Anyone who isn't frail and weak is on the side of the warlords, because they want to stay well fed.
Studies show that they have superior living conditions to most other African nations and have improved in relative leaps and bounds since the collapse of the central government, despite what we'd say is crippling poverty. In the words of one Sommali telecom mogul, "We have been through some hard timesÂ…but the worst was when we had a government. Once there was no government, there was opportunity!"
I think it's safe to say that they don't really want a government again, they just don't want a warlord state either.
The only problem here is that when a warlord falls, his or her people just become part of a new warlord's turf, complete with the benefits that come with that. It's as if AIG was just absorbed by another company, and that ended a couple weeks of financial meltdown.
I was making a joke, not offering actual reasoning why the warlords shouldn't be taken out. The concept of "too big to fail" is laughable to me. If a bank fails, there are plenty more to take its place in the long-term. It will fuck shit up for some people in the short-term, but things will stabilize eventually.
The concept of "too big to fail" is laughable to me.
Same here, I just thought it becomes a bit more reasonable (yet still flawed) when applied to a warlord state, which is a good indication of how ridiculous it is in the first place.
According to recent legal analysis by the U.S. Supreme Court, the United States treated captured Barbary corsairs as prisoners of war, indicating that they were considered as legitimate privateers by at least some of their opponents, as well as by their home countries.
Comments
Then again it might turn into Somalis signing up and turning people over after *claiming* them to be pirates!
I think it's safe to say that they don't really want a government again, they just don't want a warlord state either.