And that's why something like a firefighting service should never, ever be privatized. Ever. This is what governments are for.
Ok... so then I assume you admit there exists the potential for a system to be such that helping in one case could cause more harm in the long run...
What possible harm could come from rescuing these girls?
Well in the extreme... one of them could become the next Hitler... or be patient zero for a society destroying disease
A little more realistic... it the captors could just execute them all before we'd even get close out of protest for the Nigerian government involving the evil west. Or it could spark a much larger conflict... Or maybe the special ops team we send in ends up dead and we still dont have those girls saved...
Must I go on? There is a non-zero chance that saving them will do more harm than good. It is important that we recognize this as a grey issue not a black and white issue. We dont get to wave a magic "US Power" wand and make everything right with the world as we see fit.
Read back in the thread - I've actually stated a couple of times already that I think putting boots on the ground may have serious negative repercussions and that there's a good chance that going in at all will do more harm than good.
"one of them could become the next Hitler" isn't a useful argument in ethics - it's as much an argument that I should go kill some kids as it is an argument that I shouldn't save some, and it has some serious flaws.
But, yes, the captors could execute them. Much more serious is the "larger conflict" bit - they become martyrs to the cause and Nigeria explodes even worse (dying is presumably worse than sexual slavery, but I don't know by exactly how much, and you have to weigh the odds). I agree with you on that point. Actually, to quote myself:
On the one hand, I like the idea of doing something about Really Bad Things (tm). On the other hand, intervention seems to make things worse as often as it makes things better in these kinds of cases. What do we do when Boko Haram uses the presence of US troops to draw many more extremists to their banner and become even more powerful? It's not farfetched. We like to think that we're strong enough that when we get involved, problems get solved, but they often don't.
I agree with you very strongly that this may not be a situation where we want to deploy armed personnel, that those kinds of things must be seriously considered.
Anyone who thinks this isnt going to be lengthy needs to do some history research. America is still in Germany, Nam and Japan and how long have those little battles been over? We are still in Iraq and how long has that been over? If we put soldiers on Nigerian soil America will be there for a decade at least. History shows how the American government handles these situations. This will be no different.
Anyone who thinks this isnt going to be lengthy needs to do some history research. America is still in Germany, Nam and Japan and how long have those little battles been over? We are still in Iraq and how long has that been over? If we put soldiers on Nigerian soil America will be there for a decade at least. History shows how the American government handles these situations. This will be no different.
They're completely different situations Bocephus.
Japan has no real army, in return the U.S. acts as a defensive umbrella for them.
Can you give a source on the U.S. military in Vietnam? I can't find any.
We're in Germany because of NATO.
Iraq is a military occupation.
If we are invited in to help with a specific problem, it would be easy enough to get right back out afterwards. Trouble is that the intervention in the first place could make things worse - there are a lot of groups who automatically latch on to anything anti-American. I don't know the specifics of the situation in Nigeria enough to know how likely that is to be a problem, but it must be considered.
But your analogy of the firefighters is really dumb. Heck, freaking Afghanistan could have been a better analogy, and even that is a poor analogy.
You know why everyone on here thinks analogies are dumb? They try to apply the entire analogy to the discussed situation instead of taking it for what it is... the point of the analogy was not "since people didnt save a house why save a life?" or anything like that, it was purely a way to demonstrate that in some situations, where snap judgement is to say "of course we must help!", it may actually be better to not help.
Anyone who thinks this isnt going to be lengthy needs to do some history research. America is still in Germany, Nam and Japan and how long have those little battles been over? We are still in Iraq and how long has that been over? If we put soldiers on Nigerian soil America will be there for a decade at least. History shows how the American government handles these situations. This will be no different.
They're completely different situations Bocephus.
Japan has no real army, in return the U.S. acts as a defensive umbrella for them.
Can you give a source on the U.S. military in Vietnam? I can't find any.
We're in Germany because of NATO.
Iraq is a military occupation.
You are right about Nam, we are no longer in country. South Korea is close enough if anything goes down I guess.
It doesnt matter if its a terrorist operation (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan) or considered a police action (South Korea), we are going to be in Nigeria for a while if we end up there. Once the American military gets involves, we like to over stay our welcome.
It doesnt matter if its a terrorist operation (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan) or considered a police action (South Korea), we are going to be in Nigeria for a while if we end up there. Once the American military gets involves, we like to over stay our welcome.
The U.S. army may overstay its welcome in certain places, but they're generally strategically important and sound decisions.
Everything you've mentioned also involves a MAJOR commitment by the military. Again, they're two different things. By your line of logic we would have a major military establishment in Colombia, when we sent a number of intelligence units and I believe Delta and SEAL teams to help kill Pablo Escobar.
Ideally the same thing would happen here. We send a number of elite teams and support units to AID the country in killing its terrorists, essentially minimizing our presence. Obviously the difference is that Nigeria doesn't seem to be serious about killing them off, while Colombia and its citizens were quite serious in killing Pablo Escobar...
Anyone who thinks this isnt going to be lengthy needs to do some history research. America is still in Germany, Nam and Japan and how long have those little battles been over? We are still in Iraq and how long has that been over? If we put soldiers on Nigerian soil America will be there for a decade at least. History shows how the American government handles these situations. This will be no different.
We sent a special ops team into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Are we occupying it? I don't think so. Also, we don't have troops in Vietnam, Germany is a part of NATO, and Japan doesn't really have a military.
It doesnt matter if its a terrorist operation (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan) or considered a police action (South Korea), we are going to be in Nigeria for a while if we end up there. Once the American military gets involves, we like to over stay our welcome.
The U.S. army may overstay its welcome in certain places, but they're generally strategically important and sound decisions.
Everything you've mentioned also involves a MAJOR commitment by the military. Again, they're two different things. By your line of logic we would have a major military establishment in Colombia, when we sent a number of intelligence units and I believe Delta and SEAL teams to help kill Pablo Escobar.
Ideally the same thing would happen here. We send a number of elite teams and support units to AID the country in killing its terrorists, essentially minimizing our presence. Obviously the difference is that Nigeria doesn't seem to be serious about killing them off, while Colombia and its citizens were quite serious in killing Pablo Escobar...
Comparing a country in our backyard to a country half way around the world is quite different. There is a reason we dont need a presence in Columbia, we can get there any time.
No one has made an argument to sway me from its a bad idea to get involved. Its going to be lengthy and costly for the America people.
For those who dont know where we have bases in the world.
And I am saying that there are better analogies for such situations than the one you presented...
So the only point of your response was not that you disagreed with what I said... just to imply that I am dumb for using an analogy you don't like? Seems like a waste of a post and borderline insulting.
So the only point of your response was not that you disagreed with what I said... just to imply that I am dumb for using an analogy you don't like? Seems like a waste of a post and borderline insulting.
I see. Pointing out that your analogy seems bad to me=saying you're dumb and insulting you.
Comparing a country in our backyard to a country half way around the world is quite different. There is a reason we dont need a presence in Columbia, we can get there any time.
I'm not comparing the countries. I'm comparing the situation. Ideally in both cases our involvement will be minimal. You seem to be saying "involvement of any kind=we will stay there for a long time."
But that's absolute bullcrap. Every situation you wrote of involved SIGNIFICANT involvement and a genuinely good strategic reason for the U.S. military to stay there, along with the fact that they were invited to stay there.
So the only point of your response was not that you disagreed with what I said... just to imply that I am dumb for using an analogy you don't like? Seems like a waste of a post and borderline insulting.
I see. Pointing out that your analogy seems bad to me=saying you're dumb and insulting you.
Are you always so sensitive?
Why do you find it to be a bad analogy? You are did absolutely nothing to further the discussion other than say "your analogy is dumb, it's so dumb that this other thing would be better but still be bad".
It comes off as a personal attack since you are doing nothing other than critiquing the quality of my post without giving any reason.
Why do you find it to be a bad analogy? You are did absolutely nothing to further the discussion other than say "your analogy is dumb, it's so dumb that this other thing would be better but still be bad".
It comes off as a personal attack since you are doing nothing other than critiquing the quality of my post without giving any reason.
It wasn't a personal attack. I suggest you stop being so sensitive on things written online.
But, yes, you're right that I didn't say why it's a bad analogy.
Here's why-
There is simply not guarantee that the U.S. can actually do anything in Nigeria. In comparison, a firefighting crew is more than equipped to put out a house fire, especially if they're right next to it. Thus, it is simply much easier for the firefighting crew to achieve good in that case than the U.S. in Nigeria.
"it was purely a way to demonstrate that in some situations, where snap judgement is to say "of course we must help!", it may actually be better to not help."
As Drawmeomg wrote, your fire-fighting analogy reveals that certain services simply shouldn't be privatized. I didn't repeat this because he already wrote it and B_S frowns upon people repeating points.
I agree with the point you made, but the analogy was bad because it uses a service that is generally a public service and comprised of volunteers and/or government employees.
Furthermore, just because a privatized firefight chooses to help out a house burning right next door doesn't guarantee that they'll go help out anyone whose house is burning. They're right next door to the house that's burning down, and so it becomes a matter of location and convenience. Any sensible individual would realize this, and so would continue to pay for the privatized firefighting service.
Just because a store gave out free food to some homeless people once, doesn't mean that they'll start giving out food to everyone. The leap you make is unlikely.
A far simpler analogy would have been to say that you gave some money to some homeless looking guy who is holding a sign saying "help me! I'm homeless and starving!" and it turned out that the guy was using the money for drug money while he was getting all his food from government assistance or something.
Your obvious instinct (mine isn't) may be to help the guy out because he looks poor and sad. But your help may be completely counterproductive in this case.
Comparing a country in our backyard to a country half way around the world is quite different. There is a reason we dont need a presence in Columbia, we can get there any time.
I'm not comparing the countries. I'm comparing the situation. Ideally in both cases our involvement will be minimal. You seem to be saying "involvement of any kind=we will stay there for a long time."
But that's absolute bullcrap. Every situation you wrote of involved SIGNIFICANT involvement and a genuinely good strategic reason for the U.S. military to stay there, along with the fact that they were invited to stay there.
The only reason America is being invited is because the government can not run its own military effectively. Not a good sign for a short engagement.
Anyone who thinks this isnt going to be lengthy needs to do some history research. America is still in Germany, Nam and Japan and how long have those little battles been over? We are still in Iraq and how long has that been over? If we put soldiers on Nigerian soil America will be there for a decade at least. History shows how the American government handles these situations. This will be no different.
You're confusing wars with interventions. The counter point to this list of large scale conflict is the far more similar small scale ones: Grenada, Bosnia.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Actually no I am not confusing anything. We were in Bosnia for quite a while. Grenada was one objective, once we got it we stuck around a while until things died down. But again, comparing Nigeria which is half way around the world to Granada which is a few hour plane ride south is not the same thing. The fact we are going over there to snuff out terrorism, which cant be snuffed out, should make it clear we will be there for some time.
Actually no I am not confusing anything. We were in Bosnia for quite a while. Grenada was one objective, once we got it we stuck around a while until things died down. But again, comparing Nigeria which is half way around the world to Granada which is a few hour plane ride south is not the same thing. The fact we are going over there to snuff out terrorism, which cant be snuffed out, should make it clear we will be there for some time.
We don't need to snuff it out. We just need to rescue the girls.
magickware99, would you mind citing sources as to Boko Haram having the support of the government, or at least a significant portion of the government? And specifically how much support for them continues to exist after this situation?
magickware99, would you mind citing sources as to Boko Haram having the support of the government, or at least a significant portion of the government? And specifically how much support for them continues to exist after this situation?
I never said anything about them having support from the government. I said that a couple articles I read suggest that they have people within the government and/or there are people within the government who are sympathetic to them.
I never said anything about them having support from the government. I said that a couple articles I read suggest that they have people within the government and/or there are people within the government who are sympathetic to them.
One would imagine if they actually had solid proof of such infiltration or corruption in the government, then they would be all up in arms and it would be an actual major news story.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok... so then I assume you admit there exists the potential for a system to be such that helping in one case could cause more harm in the long run...
What possible harm could come from rescuing these girls?
Well in the extreme... one of them could become the next Hitler... or be patient zero for a society destroying disease
A little more realistic... it the captors could just execute them all before we'd even get close out of protest for the Nigerian government involving the evil west. Or it could spark a much larger conflict... Or maybe the special ops team we send in ends up dead and we still dont have those girls saved...
Must I go on? There is a non-zero chance that saving them will do more harm than good. It is important that we recognize this as a grey issue not a black and white issue. We dont get to wave a magic "US Power" wand and make everything right with the world as we see fit.
But your analogy of the firefighters is really dumb. Heck, freaking Afghanistan could have been a better analogy, and even that is a poor analogy.
"one of them could become the next Hitler" isn't a useful argument in ethics - it's as much an argument that I should go kill some kids as it is an argument that I shouldn't save some, and it has some serious flaws.
But, yes, the captors could execute them. Much more serious is the "larger conflict" bit - they become martyrs to the cause and Nigeria explodes even worse (dying is presumably worse than sexual slavery, but I don't know by exactly how much, and you have to weigh the odds). I agree with you on that point. Actually, to quote myself:
I agree with you very strongly that this may not be a situation where we want to deploy armed personnel, that those kinds of things must be seriously considered.
They're completely different situations Bocephus.
Japan has no real army, in return the U.S. acts as a defensive umbrella for them.
Can you give a source on the U.S. military in Vietnam? I can't find any.
We're in Germany because of NATO.
Iraq is a military occupation.
You know why everyone on here thinks analogies are dumb? They try to apply the entire analogy to the discussed situation instead of taking it for what it is... the point of the analogy was not "since people didnt save a house why save a life?" or anything like that, it was purely a way to demonstrate that in some situations, where snap judgement is to say "of course we must help!", it may actually be better to not help.
You are right about Nam, we are no longer in country. South Korea is close enough if anything goes down I guess.
It doesnt matter if its a terrorist operation (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan) or considered a police action (South Korea), we are going to be in Nigeria for a while if we end up there. Once the American military gets involves, we like to over stay our welcome.
The U.S. army may overstay its welcome in certain places, but they're generally strategically important and sound decisions.
Everything you've mentioned also involves a MAJOR commitment by the military. Again, they're two different things. By your line of logic we would have a major military establishment in Colombia, when we sent a number of intelligence units and I believe Delta and SEAL teams to help kill Pablo Escobar.
Ideally the same thing would happen here. We send a number of elite teams and support units to AID the country in killing its terrorists, essentially minimizing our presence. Obviously the difference is that Nigeria doesn't seem to be serious about killing them off, while Colombia and its citizens were quite serious in killing Pablo Escobar...
We sent a special ops team into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Are we occupying it? I don't think so. Also, we don't have troops in Vietnam, Germany is a part of NATO, and Japan doesn't really have a military.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Comparing a country in our backyard to a country half way around the world is quite different. There is a reason we dont need a presence in Columbia, we can get there any time.
No one has made an argument to sway me from its a bad idea to get involved. Its going to be lengthy and costly for the America people.
For those who dont know where we have bases in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
So the only point of your response was not that you disagreed with what I said... just to imply that I am dumb for using an analogy you don't like? Seems like a waste of a post and borderline insulting.
I see. Pointing out that your analogy seems bad to me=saying you're dumb and insulting you.
Are you always so sensitive?
I'm not comparing the countries. I'm comparing the situation. Ideally in both cases our involvement will be minimal. You seem to be saying "involvement of any kind=we will stay there for a long time."
But that's absolute bullcrap. Every situation you wrote of involved SIGNIFICANT involvement and a genuinely good strategic reason for the U.S. military to stay there, along with the fact that they were invited to stay there.
Why do you find it to be a bad analogy? You are did absolutely nothing to further the discussion other than say "your analogy is dumb, it's so dumb that this other thing would be better but still be bad".
It comes off as a personal attack since you are doing nothing other than critiquing the quality of my post without giving any reason.
It wasn't a personal attack. I suggest you stop being so sensitive on things written online.
But, yes, you're right that I didn't say why it's a bad analogy.
Here's why-
There is simply not guarantee that the U.S. can actually do anything in Nigeria. In comparison, a firefighting crew is more than equipped to put out a house fire, especially if they're right next to it. Thus, it is simply much easier for the firefighting crew to achieve good in that case than the U.S. in Nigeria.
"it was purely a way to demonstrate that in some situations, where snap judgement is to say "of course we must help!", it may actually be better to not help."
As Drawmeomg wrote, your fire-fighting analogy reveals that certain services simply shouldn't be privatized. I didn't repeat this because he already wrote it and B_S frowns upon people repeating points.
I agree with the point you made, but the analogy was bad because it uses a service that is generally a public service and comprised of volunteers and/or government employees.
Furthermore, just because a privatized firefight chooses to help out a house burning right next door doesn't guarantee that they'll go help out anyone whose house is burning. They're right next door to the house that's burning down, and so it becomes a matter of location and convenience. Any sensible individual would realize this, and so would continue to pay for the privatized firefighting service.
Just because a store gave out free food to some homeless people once, doesn't mean that they'll start giving out food to everyone. The leap you make is unlikely.
A far simpler analogy would have been to say that you gave some money to some homeless looking guy who is holding a sign saying "help me! I'm homeless and starving!" and it turned out that the guy was using the money for drug money while he was getting all his food from government assistance or something.
Your obvious instinct (mine isn't) may be to help the guy out because he looks poor and sad. But your help may be completely counterproductive in this case.
The only reason America is being invited is because the government can not run its own military effectively. Not a good sign for a short engagement.
You're confusing wars with interventions. The counter point to this list of large scale conflict is the far more similar small scale ones: Grenada, Bosnia.
We don't need to snuff it out. We just need to rescue the girls.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I never said anything about them having support from the government. I said that a couple articles I read suggest that they have people within the government and/or there are people within the government who are sympathetic to them.
I already posted this link a couple of days ago-
http://news.yahoo.com/nigeria-refused-help-search-kidnapped-girls-165639038.html
I can't seem to find the others.
Did I ever say that I have anything beyond such?
One would imagine if they actually had solid proof of such infiltration or corruption in the government, then they would be all up in arms and it would be an actual major news story.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.