Why isn't the dumping of toxic waste off the coast of Somalia treated as a security issue?

[ck4829]

It's been happening there ever since the government collapsed.

It's been listed as one of the motivations as why Somali pirates attack vessels that travel nearby.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.html

Villages on the coast have higher numbers of mouth ulcers, cancer, rare infections, abdominal hemorrhages, and other things associated with exposure to radioactive and toxic waste.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm

It even washed ashore by the ton after the 2004 tsunami.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article418665.ece

If Osama bin Laden ever wants a dirty bomb, then he'd be like a kid in a candy store if he were to ever visit Somalia.

Why is this not treated like a national security issue?

Is it because looking into this might mess up the profits of some corporations?

Or is it because this would be an issue, that if resolved, would help people instead of hindering them?

Maybe we shouldn't be focusing on building scanners that can see through clothes, and maybe we should instead be focused on removing the veil that is protecting the corporations and countries that are using Somalia as a toxic waste dump, eh?

[StarfarerBill]

1. "Is it because looking into this might mess up the profits of some corporations?"

Bingo, as well as mess up the graft of their enablers in government.

[Romulox]

2. The US is neither janitor nor policeman to the world.

This would be a splendid job for some of our "multilateral" European allies, or, better, yet, everyone's favorite emerging power, China.

The American people cannot take care of themselves atm. Find another hero, kid!

[ck4829]

3. What if some of our's are doing it?

[Romulox]

4. Some of "our" Somalis? Or some of "our" multinational corps?

Either way... :shrug:

Again, where is the rule of law as instituted by the multilateral institutions dominated by the EU (i.e. NATO, UNSC)? :shrug:

[izquierdista]

7. I think he meant "our" multinationals

Which is a bit confused. Multinational corporations answer to no country's laws; there's always another venue where they can get exactly what they want.

[thunder rising]

10. First, you're so clever. We fill the policeman roll when it benefits the corporations

the janitor roll would interfere with our quest for wealth.

So, IOW fuck those Somalis, they should have a government that kills them for us and we can properly ignore our responsibility.

[Romulox]

11. You posted this inanity downthread. It really wasn't worth posting twice! nt

[thunder rising]

13. another clever response ... didn't occur to you that it could be a server glitch?

[Romulox]

15. No, because DU doesn't work that way--you had to have clicked "reply" under 2 different messages. nt

[thunder rising]

18. I'll bet your mommy thinks your the smartest person in the world. A regular Sherlock Holmes

But, you'd be wrong on this, just like you are about not catching and fining corporations for the clean up. Including the purchase of "good will" of the victims.

[jtylerpittman]

5. your right we are already stretched

[jtylerpittman]

6. your right we are already stretched

[thunder rising]

8. We fill the policeman roll at will; the janitor roll would interfere with our quest for wealth.

fuck those Somalis, they should have a government that kills them for us and we can properly ignore our responsibility.

[Romulox]

9. Just a few hundred billion more for overseas military adventures--THEN we'll be safe, right?

:eyes:

[thunder rising]

12. We could not possibly hold the corporations responsible. That would be socialism.

Current wealth accumulation techniques have nothing to do with legal trade, it has to do with finding anyway to break the law. Poisoning Somalis is just cream pie. Who gives a damn.

[Romulox]

14. The "humanitarian" case for an agressive military is the very soul of the NEOCON agenda.

Will Somalis great us with flowers (this time! :wow: ) too? :shrug:

"Poisoning Somalis is just cream pie. Who gives a damn."

What is the UN Security Council for? :shrug: :shrug:

[thunder rising]

16. And enabling the corporations to hide responsibilty is the second line of the doctrine.

[Romulox]

17. Bullshit. World policing should be done by the UNSC, not unilaterally by the US.

Jesus Christ, have you learned ANYTHING from the two wars we just lost???? :wtf:

[thunder rising]

19. Only if we can't bomb the problem away right? I mean we police and kill at will. What's different?

[Romulox]

23. What's "different" is that we've LOST TWO WARS, killed hundreds of thousands...

We're supposed to have learned something from that. :shrug:

[thunder rising]

24. LIke giving the victims $$$ and asking for permission to clean the coast? All paid for by the

corporations that put the poison there?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Because it's not a security issue?

As bad at it is, I don't think the terrorists and pirates coming out of Somalia are worried about toxic waste.

[thunder rising]

21. 'scuse me? The marine dumping is exactly what started the "piracy". And I more to the point

it's a security issue, but not OUR security issue. At least until someone who has been victimized by or corporations and laughable sense of justice finally takes revenge...then it's terrorism. What is that we do?

[thunder rising]

22. Additionally, why do you think the ships keep getting close enough to that shore to get captured?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. I don't think it's got anything to do with the piracy.

This isn't Captain Planet and the Eco Rangers that we're dealing with.