An excellent potted history of the goings on in that part of the world that has me wondering if the US has created yet another disastrous situation via foreign intervention, or whether it can be defended for its actions. The cynic in me wants to know what the foreign interests are beyond humanitarianism. Not only is it "difficult to foresee any improvements should the international community leave the country to its own untangling", it's surely difficult to imagine the "untangling" being anything but a blood-bath who's aftermath could be anything but peaceful. Certainly humanitarian aid, in such a scenario, seems mandatory, yet how can it be delivered to those that need it safely?

Is it not possible to find a neutral mediator, bring all parties to the table, and search for a diplomatic solution? Or are the geo-political interests such as to preclude such negotiations?

Is it possibly a prudent move for the international community not to recognise Somaliland; presumably too much back-slapping from the West would creat tensions?

“It is important then that we acknowledge the complexities of Somalia’s situation” – indeed. And it is unfortunate that these present complexities are certain to escalate.

The inhuman pressures of attempting to live civilized lifestyles by 10 million Somalian people are not likely to improve. Not, while there exists the prospect of an additional 7.5 million humans struggling for an existence, come 2030.

Nor can they expect much assistance from their brother Africans in Uganda, who are increasing their population of 33.4 million at 3.6 per cent, heading for an additional 33.4 million, to total 67 million by 2030.

As it currently stands, the prospects for educating the children (about half these populations are under 15) and providing meaningful employment for them when they reach maturity are grim. The pressure from increased numbers for these services should be acknowledged as very important elements of the complexities.

Things might be improved if it was possible for the fertile females in society in both Somalia and Uganda could have the freedom to access to control of their own fertility. Better that than the alternative offered by nature.

The word Holocaust pales into obfuscation and complexity here.
A situation that challenges my sense of humanity and my inability to do anything meaningful.

To think we bitch and carry on about 2000 boat people and the set back of a personality's political career.

I'm in no doubt as to which is a real catastrophe pity I can't say the same for others.

When wickedness takes over a society it always precedes a blood bath or cleansing. Men reconcile their guilt by the wicked or twisted words (religion). Jesus blood was shed to pay the ransom for All. If only we would chose to believe Gods pure untwisted Word of Truth, for only the Word of God has the power to save. Every word deed or action on the part of man without putting God first ALWAYS leads to death.
Gods word says that there is only one race, the human race all descendant from 1 couple. United we stand, divided we fall, any word that divides takes people captive and loss of freedom and death follow as night follows day. Only as we learn the Truth are we set free. All answers for all needs pertaining to life are found in the man Christ Jesus. Without truth there is no enlightenment, without enlightenment there is no virtue, without virtue there is no integrity, without integrity there is liberty, without liberty there is no hope, without hope there is no peace and without peace we have the present situation on planet earth for the vast majority. So that leaves us still with 2 choices, Gods way or mans way.

Richie10,

What a load of absolute twaddle!

[“Jesus blood was shed to pay the ransom for All”]

Yes, but as usual you fail to read the tale as the writer wrote it, from his perspective, from his context/zeitgeist - relative to the reader he was addressing.

Jesus’ mission as the story goes was with his own people and those of the greater Semitic peoples, all the Children of Abraham. He never preached to any others outside of Southwest Asia which at the time people believed to be the entire world. They were a nomadic desert dwelling people who lived harsh lives, under harsh laws, ruled by harsh Kings engrossed in fanatical religious beliefs as dictated by narcissistic priests living in a land occupied by a hostile foreign gentile/goyim/infidel European Army that would eventually kill Jesus.

That was the context of the times that Jesus wandered through preaching to his people, the Children of Abraham. Jesus never addressed any gentile, goyim, or infidel in a religious sense, his message was for his people only and was not pertinent or relevant to the many other tribes of humans that existed at the same time.

So in the context of the story from your quote above “Jesus blood was shed to pay the ransom for All”. The “All” is explicitly referring to the Children of Abraham that lived in the tiny area that they perceived to be the whole world and no-one else. That is why it is “their” religion, “their” faith and of no relevance to others who have their own indigenous beliefs that in the same manner are of no relevance, of no significance to the Children of Abraham but just as credible in the faith stakes, as each other.

Now back to Uganda and Somalia.