Tudalen 1 o 3


PostioPostiwyd: Gwe 28 Mai 2004 2:54 pm
gan Sioni Size
Mae Somalia wedi ei grybwyll fwy nac unwaith fel enghraifft o America'n ymddwyn er lles anhunanol pobl mewn trybini. Mae'n debyg mai'r rheswm am hyn yw fod pobl wedi gweld Black Hawk Down ac yn ddigon naturiol yn ei ystyried fel y gwir. A fyddai'r rhai sydd wedi defnyddio Somalia fel enghraifft o ddaioni gan America yn hoffi cefnogi eu honiad mai arbed pobl oedd pwrpas yr antur fach yma?

PostioPostiwyd: Gwe 28 Mai 2004 3:29 pm
gan Garnet Bowen
Dod a sefydlogrwydd i un o ranbarthau peryclaf y byd oedd y syniad yn Somalia. Sicrhau fod yr holl bethau sy'n gwneud eu bywydau ni mor gyfforddus yn cael eu hymestyn i rai o bobl dlotaf y byd.

Yn ddi-os, mi wnei di godi'r pwynt fod yna olew yn Somalia. Pan wyt ti'n gwneud hyn, fedri di esbonio hefyd pam fod presenoldeb olew yn y wlad yn newid y sefyllfa o gwbwl? Ydi'r ffaith fod yna olew yno yn golygu nad oes hawl gan drigolion y wlad i fyw mewn heddwch?

PostioPostiwyd: Gwe 28 Mai 2004 3:48 pm
gan Sioni Size
Mae hyn yn waeth nag o'n i'n disgwyl.
Sut aethon nhw ati i ddod a heddwch i'r wlad felly? A dod a phethau gorau ein bywyd ni i'w thrigolion? Sut wnaethon nhw hynny?

PostioPostiwyd: Gwe 28 Mai 2004 4:11 pm
gan Garnet Bowen
Sioni Size a ddywedodd:Mae hyn yn waeth nag o'n i'n disgwyl.
Sut aethon nhw ati i ddod a heddwch i'r wlad felly? A dod a phethau gorau ein bywyd ni i'w thrigolion? Sut wnaethon nhw hynny?

Yn syml iawn.........Wedi i Arras (dwi'n meddwl), yr hen unben - a oedd yn cael ei gefnogi gan Reagan - gael ei ddi-sodli, fe lithrodd Somalia i mewn i ryfel cartref gwaedlyd a brwnt. Gyrrwyd milwyr y CU yno ar ddechrau'r 90au i geisio cadw trefn. Ymosodwyd ar filwyr y CU, gyrrodd Clinton griw o special forces i geisio dal Aideed, y prif warlord. Roedd hyn yn fethiant, a penderfynnodd America dynnu allan o'r wlad.

PostioPostiwyd: Gwe 28 Mai 2004 4:17 pm
gan Garnet Bowen
Os wyt ti'n gofyn ar lefel fwy damcaniaethol, yna mi fyswn i'n ateb eu bod nhw'n ceisio hybu llywodraethu da (? - good governance) a thwf economaidd, sef dwu o'r prif ffyrdd o ymladd tlodi.

PostioPostiwyd: Gwe 28 Mai 2004 4:19 pm
gan Gwyn T Paith
Be oedd y stori eto......roedd mab neu perthynas y prif warlord yn y fyddin yn america ac wedi rhybuddio y bois nol adra am fwriad yr Yanks i ymosod. Ydw i'n iawn dwch - ta dwi'n cymysgu efo rwbath arall :?

PostioPostiwyd: Gwe 28 Mai 2004 11:26 pm
gan Norman
Darllenwch y Llyfr Black Hawk Down - mai gymaint mwy infformativ!

PostioPostiwyd: Sad 29 Mai 2004 8:36 am
gan Macsen
Ti'm yn cael dweud gair yn erbyn somalia. Roedd Orlando Bloom yn Black Hawk Down. W00t!!!!11111!!1111!!!

I ddweud y gwir, dw i heb weld y ffilm. Ond yn sicr dw i yn dibynnu ar allbwn byd y ffilmiau i siapio fy marn gwleidyddol.

PostioPostiwyd: Sul 30 Mai 2004 12:41 pm
gan Cwlcymro
Macsen a ddywedodd:I ddweud y gwir, dw i heb weld y ffilm. Ond yn sicr dw i yn dibynnu ar allbwn byd y ffilmiau i siapio fy marn gwleidyddol.

Yna plis paid a gwylio JFK, U-571, Braveheart na'r ffilm Brenin Arthur newydd!

PostioPostiwyd: Llun 31 Mai 2004 3:27 pm
gan Sioni Size
Ydi'r ffaith fod yna olew yno yn golygu nad oes hawl gan drigolion y wlad i fyw mewn heddwch?

http://www.zmag.org/content/ForeignPoli ... ckHawk.cfm

Before the US government handed over the administration of Somalia to the United Nations in 1993, it had already made several fundamental mistakes. It had backed the clan chiefs Mohamed Farah Aideed and Ali Mahdi against another warlord, shoring up their power just as it had started to collapse. It had failed to recognise that the competing clan chiefs were ready to accept largescale disarmament, if it were carried out impartially. Far from resolving the conflict between the clans, the US accidentally enhanced it.

After the handover, the UN's Pakistani peacekeepers tried to seize Aideed's radio station, which was broadcasting anti-UN propaganda. The raid was bungled, and 25 of the soldiers were killed by Aideed's supporters. A few days later, Pakistani troops fired on an unarmed crowd, killing women and children. The United Nations force, commanded by a US admiral, was drawn into a blood feud with Aideed's militia.

As the feud escalated, US special forces were brought in to deal with the man now described by American intelligence as "the Hitler of Somalia". Aideed, who was certainly a ruthless and dangerous man, but also just one of several clan leaders competing for power in the country, was blamed for all Somalia's troubles. The UN's peacekeeping mission had been transformed into a partisan war.

The special forces, over-confident and hopelessly ill-informed, raided, in quick succession, the headquarters of the UN Development Programme, the charity World Concern and the offices of Medecins sans Frontieres. They managed to capture, among scores of innocent civilians and aid workers, the chief of the UN's police force. But farce was soon repeated as tragedy. When some of the most senior members of Aideed's clan gathered in a building in Mogadishu to discuss a peace agreement with the United Nations, the US forces, misinformed as ever, blew them up, killing 54 people. Thus they succeeded in making enemies of all the Somalis. The special forces were harried by gunmen from all sides. In return, US troops in the UN compound began firing missiles at residential areas.

So the raid on one of Aideed's buildings on October 3rd 1993, which led to the destruction of two Black Hawk helicopters and the deaths of 18 American soldiers, was just another round of America's grudge match with the warlord. The troops who captured Aideed's officials were attacked by everyone: gunmen came even from the rival militias to avenge the deaths of the civilians the Americans had killed. The US special forces, with an understandable but ruthless regard for their own safety, locked Somali women and children into the house in which they were beseiged.

Ridley Scott says that he came to the project without politics, which is what people often say when they subscribe to the dominant point of view.

http://www.zmag.org/content/Africa/sche ... ckhawk.cfm
Black Hawk Down also seems part of a propaganda strategy aimed at Americans, not people overseas, where it is unlikely to win many hearts and minds. Notes Larry Chin in the Online Journal: "True to its post-9/11 government-sanctioned role as U.S. war propaganda headquarters, Hollywood has released Black Hawk Down, a fictionalized account of the tragic 1993 U.S. raid in Somalia. The Pentagon assisted with the production, pleased for an opportunity to 'set the record straight.' The film is a lie that compounds the original lie that was the operation itself."
The film starts with signposts -- literally, writing on the screen, a few short paragraphs, to remind us what happened. The problem is the information is false. It implies, for example, that U.S. troops were sent to Somalia to feed the hungry. Not true. Later, I turned to David Halberstam's new book, War in a Time of Peace, which recounts the Somalian mishap in some depth.

Halberstam's book mentions, but does not detail, the bloody background: The massive crimes of the Somali dictator Siad Barre, who the U.S. backed and who Somali warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid ejected. It also does not fully explain how the stage was set for a confrontation, and how the U.S. provoked he fiasco that followed.

Halberstam does describe, however, the Washington debate and incompetence at a time when a policy launched by one administration was handed off to another. He tells us that the defense secretary told an associate, "We're sending the Rangers to Somalia. We are not going to be able to control them. They are like overtrained pit bulls. No one controls them." The Rangers were indeed sent with great fanfare, to hunt and capture Aidid. Their mission failed.

Halberstam also describes the American hatred for Somalis, expressed in the much-bandied phrase, "The only good Somali is a dead Somali." Is it any wonder Somalis fought back? (In the movie, the battle looks like a racial war, with virtually all-white U.S. forces going mano-a-mano with an all black city.) Halberstam reveals how these forces made arrogant assumptions in Somalia, underestimating the resistance, and how the urban "battlefield became a horror ... a major league CNN-era disaster..."

Mae hwn yn anferth. I'w fentro ond os oes ganddoch ryw 3 awr.
U.S. casualties quickly revealed how superficial the humanitarian concern for Somalis was. "There are a lot of Somalis who deserve to be simply killed," a senior U.S. officer said in Mogadishu, and a reporter noted that the sentiment was widely shared among the soldiers.
The United States was thus going to follow one of its two basic policies toward Africans: either dominate them or let them starve.

Does the U.S. government care about dying Somalis? The historical record leaves much reason to be skeptical of noble pronouncements. Mass murder has frequently been ignored or even promoted when it served U.S. interests -- as in Indonesia in 1965, or Bangladesh in 1971, or Chile in 1973, or East Timor from 1975, or El Salvador and Mozambique in the 1980s

there are at least two other compelling indications that the United States went into Somalia not for the primary purpose of helping the starving, but in order to promote the Pentagon and smooth the way for future U.S. interventionism: (1) Washington designed the operation in such a way that the U.S. military, and not the United Nations, would run the show; and (2) public relations opportunities for the U.S. military have taken precedence over feeding the hungry.