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.
Well you said this:
Sending in every special ops teams the combined U.S. military has will achieve nothing if we don't have the full support and assistance of the Nigerian government.
Which seems to just assume that there's substantial Boko Haram support within the government, as opposed to some vague suspicion of Boko Haram sympathy in the government based on an article you can't find.
Except that's not real evidence that says we don't have the government's backing, especially since the international efforts to deal with this group and rescue the girls are there specifically because the government asked the international community to be there.
]Which seems to just assume that there's substantial Boko Haram support within the government, as opposed to some vague suspicion of Boko Haram sympathy in the government based on an article you can't find.
No, not really. There are other reasons why the Nigerian government won't cooperate fully besides Boko Haram infiltration. General apathy towards the situation and just sheer unwillingness to work with others from the laypeople, for example.
Just because the government invited foreign assistance doesn't mean that the soldiers and the government officials in charge of intelligence and whatnot will be willing to provide assistance.
]
Except that's not real evidence that says we don't have the government's backing, especially since the international efforts to deal with this group and rescue the girls are there specifically because the government asked the international community to be there.
You tell me the last time a government provided full support to foreign assistance, especially when the foreign governments generally condemn you for a number of reasons.
... What does the things Fluffy_Bunny wrote have anything to do with what I wrote?
Edit-
In any case, that is merely something I wrote in response to people who think just sending in a couple of men will achieve anything. But it goes beyond that. You need dedicated support from the host government who knows how to effectively make use of your "couple of men" and the intelligence/support that they provide.
And my reasoning is, given that the government has failed to even locate where 300(!) captives are, they're not all that competent. Either that or they simply do not care about them.
So, either the U.S. has to send in MUCH more than a couple of men, or it'll have to recognize that it won't be of much use besides providing some sort of moral support.
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.
Well you said this:
Sending in every special ops teams the combined U.S. military has will achieve nothing if we don't have the full support and assistance of the Nigerian government.
Which seems to just assume that there's substantial Boko Haram support within the government, as opposed to some vague suspicion of Boko Haram sympathy in the government based on an article you can't find.
Except that's not real evidence that says we don't have the government's backing, especially since the international efforts to deal with this group and rescue the girls are there specifically because the government asked the international community to be there.
There's quite a bit of (relatively poor) evidence available that the Nigerian government isn't really interested in dealing with Boko Haram. They asked for help (finally!) after an extended period of time under tremendous pressure. They resisted having to try to do something about it for as long as they possibly could without actively declaring themselves for Boko Haram.
On the other hand, there's no evidence of which I'm aware that says that Boko Haram controls the Nigerian government. It seems to be more a case of a vile and corrupt government resisting the need to actually spend the money for genuine internal security (which they prefer to siphon off to line their own pockets), rather than actively siding with Boko Haram.
Of course, all we have are a few news reports; good evidence could overturn some/all of it.
No, not really. There are other reasons why the Nigerian government won't cooperate fully besides Boko Haram infiltration. General apathy towards the situation and just sheer unwillingness to work with others from the laypeople, for example.
Just because the government invited foreign assistance doesn't mean that the soldiers and the government officials in charge of intelligence and whatnot will be willing to provide assistance.
And if they're not, they're not. I have nothing against your calls of the necessity to proceed with caution, it's a delicate operation.
You tell me the last time a government provided full support to foreign assistance, especially when the foreign governments generally condemn you for a number of reasons.
I'm not sure a blanket "governments never provide full support to foreign assistance" helps your case to not provide assistance, magickware99.
... What does the things Fluffy_Bunny wrote have anything to do with what I wrote?
I'm saying that reading something in which somebody mentions a vague insinuation of something about someone is not evidence of anything.
In any case, that is merely something I wrote in response to people who think just sending in a couple of men will achieve anything. But it goes beyond that. You need dedicated support from the host government who knows how to effectively make use of your "couple of men" and the intelligence/support that they provide.
And my reasoning is, given that the government has failed to even locate where 300(!) captives are, they're not all that competent. Either that or they simply do not care about them.
So, either the U.S. has to send in MUCH more than a couple of men, or it'll have to recognize that it won't be of much use besides providing some sort of moral support.
Which is perfectly valid. I would assume that's why there's an international team assessing the situation instead of a full-blown operation.
I'm not sure a blanket "governments never provide full support to foreign assistance" helps your case to not provide assistance, magickware99.
You let me know when I use that as a point to support my case that we shouldn't provide assistance.
Which... was never the point I made btw. I probably wrote something to the effect that we won't be able to do much there, but never went so far as to say "therefore we shouldn't provide assistance".
I'm saying that reading something in which somebody mentions a vague insinuation of something about someone is not evidence of anything.
Then I cannot use claims of Russians tampering with the votes during the Crimean thing as evidence either, since there was no conclusive evidence that they rigged the elections, correct?
Then I cannot use claims of Russians tampering with the votes during the Crimean thing as evidence either, since there was no conclusive evidence that they rigged the elections, correct?
Do you have evidence to suggest they did? No conclusive evidence =/= absence of evidence.
(Something I feel that should be stated: I think we agree more than we disagree, assuming we disagree at all. I'm mostly trying to get a feel for where you stand, and also to maintain a conversation about something other than something bocephus or Fluffy_Bunny posted.)
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.
I was trying to hide my disdain for your silly list by pretending that you were confused rather than what suspect was a parroting of some talk radio host who tickles your rage bone with a list of large scale conflicts that were intended to be large scale, and therefore have nothing to do with what we're talking about. No one is calling for a Nigerian invasion. No one is talking about mobilization en mass or even stopping terrorism as a whole. It's about one tiny militia whose own government has asked us to help with.
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.
I was trying to hide my disdain for your silly list by pretending that you were confused rather than what suspect was a parroting of some talk radio host who tickles your rage bone with a list of large scale conflicts that were intended to be large scale, and therefore have nothing to do with what we're talking about. No one is calling for a Nigerian invasion. No one is talking about mobilization en mass or even stopping terrorism as a whole. It's about one tiny militia whose own government has asked us to help with.
Lets see how it plays out and resume the talk after that.
Which seems to just assume that there's substantial Boko Haram support within the government, as opposed to some vague suspicion of Boko Haram sympathy in the government based on an article you can't find.
Except that's not real evidence that says we don't have the government's backing, especially since the international efforts to deal with this group and rescue the girls are there specifically because the government asked the international community to be there.
I mean, I read somewhere that we shouldn't rescue those girls because one of them might be the next Hitler. Is there any reason I should take this seriously? Hell no, because it's a vague aspersion that isn't based on anything.
No, not really. There are other reasons why the Nigerian government won't cooperate fully besides Boko Haram infiltration. General apathy towards the situation and just sheer unwillingness to work with others from the laypeople, for example.
Just because the government invited foreign assistance doesn't mean that the soldiers and the government officials in charge of intelligence and whatnot will be willing to provide assistance.
You tell me the last time a government provided full support to foreign assistance, especially when the foreign governments generally condemn you for a number of reasons.
... What does the things Fluffy_Bunny wrote have anything to do with what I wrote?
Edit-
In any case, that is merely something I wrote in response to people who think just sending in a couple of men will achieve anything. But it goes beyond that. You need dedicated support from the host government who knows how to effectively make use of your "couple of men" and the intelligence/support that they provide.
And my reasoning is, given that the government has failed to even locate where 300(!) captives are, they're not all that competent. Either that or they simply do not care about them.
So, either the U.S. has to send in MUCH more than a couple of men, or it'll have to recognize that it won't be of much use besides providing some sort of moral support.
There's quite a bit of (relatively poor) evidence available that the Nigerian government isn't really interested in dealing with Boko Haram. They asked for help (finally!) after an extended period of time under tremendous pressure. They resisted having to try to do something about it for as long as they possibly could without actively declaring themselves for Boko Haram.
On the other hand, there's no evidence of which I'm aware that says that Boko Haram controls the Nigerian government. It seems to be more a case of a vile and corrupt government resisting the need to actually spend the money for genuine internal security (which they prefer to siphon off to line their own pockets), rather than actively siding with Boko Haram.
Of course, all we have are a few news reports; good evidence could overturn some/all of it.
"The form of an argument which you didn't make and don't agree with is poor, therefore why should I listen to you?"
I'm not sure a blanket "governments never provide full support to foreign assistance" helps your case to not provide assistance, magickware99.
I'm saying that reading something in which somebody mentions a vague insinuation of something about someone is not evidence of anything.
Which is perfectly valid. I would assume that's why there's an international team assessing the situation instead of a full-blown operation.
You let me know when I use that as a point to support my case that we shouldn't provide assistance.
Which... was never the point I made btw. I probably wrote something to the effect that we won't be able to do much there, but never went so far as to say "therefore we shouldn't provide assistance".
Then I cannot use claims of Russians tampering with the votes during the Crimean thing as evidence either, since there was no conclusive evidence that they rigged the elections, correct?
(Something I feel that should be stated: I think we agree more than we disagree, assuming we disagree at all. I'm mostly trying to get a feel for where you stand, and also to maintain a conversation about something other than something bocephus or Fluffy_Bunny posted.)
I was trying to hide my disdain for your silly list by pretending that you were confused rather than what suspect was a parroting of some talk radio host who tickles your rage bone with a list of large scale conflicts that were intended to be large scale, and therefore have nothing to do with what we're talking about. No one is calling for a Nigerian invasion. No one is talking about mobilization en mass or even stopping terrorism as a whole. It's about one tiny militia whose own government has asked us to help with.
Lets see how it plays out and resume the talk after that.
How's that mission creep coming along?
I forgot all about that situation. Instead I have been keeping up with things that actually effect this country. You know the one I live in.
That's a pretty smug way to admit you were wrong/lied and actually had to intent to talk about it later.
Smug? Admit? What is there to talk about? Its a non-issue today. You just want to beat a dead horse.
You said there'd be mission creep. I said there wouldn't. Then you said we should wait. We've waited and there has been no mission creep.