MMA, awoowe reer Mudugu waxay yiraahdaan: Habar baa darooryeeysa oo, oday baa dareen galeye ee, heeladeena inoo tuma! Ciyaal xaafad ma fahmi karaan sheeko reer Mudug. Waan ogohay. Xikmada awoowe halkaa ku jidhaa waa dan iyo heelo ha u galin. Yacni muraad ha ka yeelan. Nin wax laga sheegayo hadaad aragto waa nin rag iska dhiciyey. Waxaad yeeshaa dubahaaga qaado madaxa ka gawi qofkaan sida nidaamku yahay aan ku dhaqmin. Awoowe marnaba calaacal iyo niic niic iyo quuqle dheg ha u dhigan. Laakiin ogow cadaaladana ha ka tegin. Awoowe wiil ina Sheekh Mukhtaar ah hedde waa inaad ku banaanaataa.

Caamir, Talking heads and political pundits see the issue differently. According to these folks Dems' chance to capture the whitehouse is extremely good. The reasons for that, they say, are: 1. Bush's is unpopular. 2. The country is in a war 3. Economy is bad 4. GOP base has no candidate to turn to -- They got tough choice btw liberal McCain (remember he told them to eff off and called them "agnets of intolerance") and Mormon flip flopper. 5. Republican coalitions for all intent and purpose has fallen apart. BTW, have ya read the new book Homo Polticus -- an excellent satire about the beltway and how the insiders who populate in that circle operate. Hit nearest BN grab latte and skim thru it. You won't be dissappointed.

^ Gediid is going for the kill. He's showcasing his bajaq-marjiyoow credentials. Waa meel bilcaan loo wada tartamaayo meeshu Now my fav username has wisely declined to volunteer for spending time to supervise amatuer forummers I have to ask our friends here in SOL politics section the following: 1. Hit hard, make a case, go for the kill but don't hold grudges and 2morrow when ya wake up make sure you treat it as being another day in SOL. 2. Give the admin. moderators the benefit of the doubt -- you don't wanna be in their shoes -- you do your things and they are forced to entertain and attend to all sorts of childish complaints. 3. Substance -- stick to it. Context, logic, history take them all into account and do ur thing once ya get a full bite of the stuff posted. 4. Be humble and try to reply posts directed at you -- there are exceptions. Do that and you would have helped our fellow mods.

^Understandable Trouble is your boy has not been nominated dhuubo hence your vote is wasted

What did Sherrif say in the clip Duke posted? I'm @ work Xiinoow hence I'm reluctant to listen the clip.

^^Vote of confidence I take it. 2 Yeahs so far -- which means 100% -- sweep -- in the stats lexicon.

Will do Valenteenah. I don't remember where but I read an Indho-yar proverb somewhere that says the begining of wisdom is to call things by their right name. The maah maah is on the money. Are you for Gediid being the fella who drops the hammer down on trouble makers?

Is this a Waxa-La-Yirri tidbit or Waa-Siday-Tahay khabar?

Originally posted by Che -Guevara: ^Puntland forces are occupying Burtinle Is that supposed to be funny? What gives! Make sense for ones awoowe.

Now that's what I call a killer column. George laid the smackdown on McCain. Outch!!! Nearly all the blogs have picked up Will's double wammy against Clintons and McCain -- and he did it in one go. Dang!

GEORGE WILL Running against Clintons In 1976, Fred Harris -- a populist precursor of this year's version of John Edwards -- championed "the little people." When he finished fourth with just 10.8 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, he cheerfully explained that the little people were too little to reach the levers on the voting machines. Soon Edwards will join Harris in the book of presidential trivia. (What presidential candidate was known as "Little Lyndon from Lawton"? Answer: Former Sen. Harris from Lawton, Okla.) Meanwhile, note this: Although Edwards got just 18 percent of the vote in the Democrats' South Carolina primary -- which he won four years ago, beating John Kerry with 45 percent -- he received the support of half the white voters who made up their minds in the week before the voting. Many of these surely were recoiling from Hillary Clinton, who had been reduced to the role of surrogate speaker for her husband, the king across the water, restive for a Restoration with her tagging along. The week before South Carolina voted was the week when, at last, even some Democrats noticed. Noticed, that is, the distinctive cloud of coarseness that hovers over the Clintons, seeping acid rain. That cloud has been a constant accouterment of their careers, and has been influencing the nation's political weather for 16 years. But by the time Bill Clinton brought the Democratic Party in from the wilderness in 1992, the party had lost five of the previous six, and seven of the previous 10, presidential elections. Democrats were so grateful to him, and so determined not to resume wandering in the wilderness, that they averted their gazes to avoid seeing, and hummed show tunes to avoid hearing, the Clintons' routine mendacities. Then, last week, came the radio ad that even South Carolinians, who are not squeamish about bite-and-gouge politics, thought was one brick over a load, and that the Clintons withdrew. It was the one that said Obama endorsed Republican ideas (because he said Republicans had some ideas). The Clinton campaign also accused Obama of praising Ronald Reagan (because Obama noted the stark fact that Reagan had changed the country's trajectory more than some other recent presidents -- hello, Bill -- had done). This was a garden-variety dishonesty, the manufacture of which does not cause a Clinton in midseason form to break a sweat. And it was no worse than -- actually, not as gross as -- St. John of Arizona's crooked-talk claim in Florida that Mitt Romney wanted to "surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do" in Iraq because Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster." Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Clintons should bask in the glow of John McCain's Clintonian gloss on this fact: Ten months ago Romney said that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki should discuss, privately, "a series of timetables and milestones." That unremarkable thought was twisted by McCain, whose distortions are notably clumsy, as when Romney said, accurately, that he alone among the candidates has had extensive experience in private-sector business. That truth was subjected to McCain's sophistry, and he charged that Romney had said "you haven't had a real job" if you had a military career. If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice. But that dreary scenario need not come to pass. Romney seems to have found his voice as attention turns to the economy, a subject on which McCain seems neither conversant nor eager to become so. And in South Carolina, Obama, more than doubling Clinton's 27 percent, won a majority of the votes, becoming the first person in either party to do so in a contested primary this year. He won a majority of men and of women, which pretty much covers the rainbow of genders. And he used his victory speech to clearly associate the Clintons with "the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election" (hello again, Bill, you political ethicist who famously said "you gotta do what you gotta do") and "the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea -- even if it's one you never agreed with." Obama is running against two Clintons -- or one and a fraction of one, given how much she has been diminished by her overbearing spouse. Romney is marginally better off running against a Clinton impersonator. Will is an ABC commentator and Washington Post columnist. Contact him at georgewill@washpost.com Source

^Good call. Now join me fellas if u would. This place needs extra set of eyes in addition to MMA’s piercing ones. Gediid for Moderator post Reasons he qualifies for the post: * He’s no pansy. * He hails from the north (bud-wielding nutcase through and through). * He’s biased against niicle, doc-ka-yeer, naago-shaneeye et al. * He won’t put up with dhoocil-like talk where foodleey-style tit for tat passes as debate. PS: Hats off to MMA and his boss Admin for taking slag from ya know who. Wise ones understand how difficult it is to do what ya guys do day in and day out - moderating nomad politicking - and at the sometimes come across as objective, impartial, and what have you.

Friend, do not confuse two diff things: pointing out the holes of the secession case and calling warring clans to end the dispute through dialogue. The two are completely different topics. This topic is a one (arguably) written by secession proponent for secession supporters. It is by nature a backward-looking one. The author is making a pertinent point -- we were wronged by the former regime (in the name of all “other” Somalis) and we oughta remember what transpired in the past so we won’t lose sight of the importance of separating from the rest of Somalis. That being the gist of his write-up one can’t help but underline the absurdity of the case. The history he so wants to institutionalize is not one shared by the residents there. By the look of it he is not eager having their history added to the curriculum either. For if history were told as it was it will have the effect of taking the luster off his martyrs. My comment is directed at this line of reasoning. Grievance is used as raison d’etre of dismembering Somalia. He’s been selective in highlighting certain wrongdoings all the while other similar events are ignored in his piece. You are right how communities there managed to put that baby to bed is commendable and worthy of emulation. But my friend your boy here and the fella who posted are the ones living in the past and hence violating my forward-looking exhortation My question to the poster is self-explanatory and the context it came is right there in front of you awoowe. I took a position. I got all kind of slack for making that “cyber” stand. Asking the right question about grievance case doesn’t contradict that position.

It was on C-Span last night. Very interesting book. Watch

So grievances coupled with colonial subjugation card are the raison d’etre for secession huh? Should Borame too remember how they suffered at the hands of SNM “mujahidiin”??? Talk about holes! The case for secession has more holes than my window’s bug screen

Any1?

He gave one full hour interview to FOX last night. He was alright though. No major gaffes.

Hearty Hambalyo. Make it work awoowe.

Ayoub, come on board buddy. Reconcilliation is good for Somalis. It is the way forward. It is one thing to ponder over how to accomplish this monumental task - the task of ending the conflict. Opposing the reconcilliation process outright is totally different thing altogether. Take a position I can wrap my arms around. I'm for it. It won't be easy. Personaly I don't know how exactly the process should play out. All I know is going forward reconcilliation is "the" best option Somalis have. Buzz word? No. It is a word alright but more than that it is a process that have the potential of saving Somalia from itself. As to kismayo, awoowe Kismayo is a microcasm of Somalia. I know you are not fan of certain segment of Somalis. But I suspect that you would support justice. Justice for residents (whatever clan they may belong to), biz owners, merchants, minorities such as Bajun, and so on. Justice starts with property rights address that and you will have touched all greivances. Xoogsade, actually it is the other way around. More like damn if you don't do it! You know it awoowe. Short of quick and decisive victory there is no other option left on the table. Remember reconcilliation is a process -- not an event. There would be naysayers that would appeal to small fringes of hardcore clanists. There will be Kelligii Muslims the likes of Kashafa who will insist on complete victory a la zero sum game -- in order for some to win, certain ones have to lose kind of mentality. Awoowe walligaa nabada lama diido. "Walaal aan wada hadalno" waa phrase nin raggi aannu hadal ka soo celin. Hadaad wax diidan tahay iyo hadaad arrin qoonsato dee kalaam oo adaan dirrinta ka kicin waxaad tiraahdaa midkaa ima maro.

Camel boy, you are off topic. Stick to the topic fella. True there are interest groups making things difficult for all of us. Those include Uncle Sam and AU. Point taken. At issue is RECONCILIATION? Do Somalis need it now, berrito, saad dambe, saakuun, at all! I mean regardless who did what or who is supporting whom are we better off solving thsi sh*t by ourselves under acacia tree somewhere in the san dunes? Xoogsade, Yes bro. That's true then and still true. As I said let bygones be bygones. Inna Yey is here. His hordes are here. Somaliland is here to stay. So is Puntland. UIC is not going away. Al-shabaab are determined and have time on their hands. I couldn't care less really. I'm sipping my latte down here. All and I mean all of my relatives are outta there. They have the benefit of education and government services. However some Somalis are paying the price of this conflict. It is unwinnable one. Right or wrong, Ethiopia sees its backyard as an existential threat if left unchecked or untamed. Uncle Sam sees this is as too close to the energy reserves and a hub if taken by undesirable elements that can be used to disrupt world trade. See ya next Monday fellas (won't work 2morrow). I’m done for the day.

Originally posted by Armchair Politician: Please inform us then, Baashi, how these few thousand peacekeepers are going to, as you so aptly put it "get rid of the war itself"? If they could do such a thing, they would be called peacemakers, not peacekeepers. You are making a big leap there. I wasn't talking about that. I have been making the case for reconciliation for quite sometimes now. The topic is about reconciliation. I am for it. Others are against it. The issue of peacekeepers should come up after the conflict is addressed. As of today that hasn't happened yet. It won't happen, can't happen unless the very core of the conflict is addressed. The best venue to tackle such undertaking is, in my opinion, on dirrin - a euphasim for reconciliation process. Gotta it?

Originally posted by Dr.Galbeyte: Well flooding Somalia with peace keepers when there clearly aren't much peace to keep but a war Zone to pick and chose sides in isn't going to help at all. No. It won't. Getting rid off of the war itself and the sides it necessitates would be a good start. No? Amazing how folks confuse issues ha!!

Originally posted by -: Everyone here speaks of reconciliation. Who's to be roconciled anyway. No kidding! I’m sure you are aware of the existence of the ragging conflict in Somalia. That much is given I guess. What is not clear to me is if you can really list the names of the warring factions. I know it is stretch but if you would can you say why or even, generally speaking, what are the root causes of the conflict

Addressing the deep seated clan grievance is the key to all other problems. To do that folks have to convene genuine and all inclusive reconcilliation process. They need to understand that the dirrin approach is not an event. It is a process.

What case?