Also, I noticed that you have stopped arguing that we should respect the morality of the murderers, rapists, and slavers.
I think repeat murders and rapist (along with pedophiles) should be put to death. I have never ever fought for the morality of rapist or muderers. To me they lost their right to call themselves human.
Oh I don't know, because people killing, kidnapping, raping, and enslaving people is wrong?
This attitude is why the rest of the world doesnt like us much. We are too quick to imprint our values and rights and wrongs on the world and go after anyone that doesnt agree with us.
Its not an American problem, call the UN.
We all know that the UN cannot accomplish much of anything. Our rights and wrongs may be ours, but why can't we spread them to the rest of the world in cases like this. Slavery is wrong. Rape is wrong. Mass killings are wrong. Just because an extremist, minority group disagrees with us does not mean that their morality is as valid as ours. Besides, the legal government asked us to intervene. That is a good enough reason for me. The real question is whether we are able to intervene.
There is a huge problem forcing our beliefs to other countries. We are suppose to be a tolerant nation.
Until they disban the U.N. I will disagree with you. America is not police to the world. Thats what the U.N. was made for.
Also Bocephus, we should not tolerate other people's right to restrict other people's freedoms or end their lives. That is not a right that anyone deserves to have.
I dont agree. That is just America elitism. We feel everyone should live like us, well not everyone can, nor should be forced to.
We have enough problems here. We really need to start dealing with those problems at home and stop sending our money over to help everyone who asks for help.
When the U.N. becomes an effective organization that is actually able to stop these kinds of things, people will start asking them. But what good will asking the UN do if they won't do anything effective? If the country asks us for help, we should help them. Or does drawing red lines and providing support only apply to places like Ukraine? As I said, think of the children.
Then disban the U.N.
Think of the American children.
I am sorry, there are always going to be innocent casualties. We can not save the world, hell we can not even save ourselves.
You actually said that you support the right of other people to restrict freedoms and end lives because we shouldn't be forcing our culture on other people. The most disturbing part of that is the "end lives" part. That is you saying that you think that we shouldn't force people to not kill each other, not just because of the money that we would spend on it, but because you think that they should have the right to kill innocent civilians. That's just wrong. So stop contradicting yourself and decide which quote is right and which is the lie.
I am not contradicting my self. The thoughts on murders, rapists and pedophiles is based in America. I dont feel those beliefs and views should be force on other countries just because I am an American.
Just because we here in America handle things a certain way, doesnt mean that is the correct way for the whole world.
Also, I noticed that you have stopped arguing that we should respect the morality of the murderers, rapists, and slavers.
I think repeat murders and rapist (along with pedophiles) should be put to death. I have never ever fought for the morality of rapist or muderers. To me they lost their right to call themselves human.
Oh I don't know, because people killing, kidnapping, raping, and enslaving people is wrong?
This attitude is why the rest of the world doesnt like us much. We are too quick to imprint our values and rights and wrongs on the world and go after anyone that doesnt agree with us.
Its not an American problem, call the UN.
We all know that the UN cannot accomplish much of anything. Our rights and wrongs may be ours, but why can't we spread them to the rest of the world in cases like this. Slavery is wrong. Rape is wrong. Mass killings are wrong. Just because an extremist, minority group disagrees with us does not mean that their morality is as valid as ours. Besides, the legal government asked us to intervene. That is a good enough reason for me. The real question is whether we are able to intervene.
There is a huge problem forcing our beliefs to other countries. We are suppose to be a tolerant nation.
Until they disban the U.N. I will disagree with you. America is not police to the world. Thats what the U.N. was made for.
Also Bocephus, we should not tolerate other people's right to restrict other people's freedoms or end their lives. That is not a right that anyone deserves to have.
I dont agree. That is just America elitism. We feel everyone should live like us, well not everyone can, nor should be forced to.
We have enough problems here. We really need to start dealing with those problems at home and stop sending our money over to help everyone who asks for help.
When the U.N. becomes an effective organization that is actually able to stop these kinds of things, people will start asking them. But what good will asking the UN do if they won't do anything effective? If the country asks us for help, we should help them. Or does drawing red lines and providing support only apply to places like Ukraine? As I said, think of the children.
Then disban the U.N.
Think of the American children.
I am sorry, there are always going to be innocent casualties. We can not save the world, hell we can not even save ourselves.
You actually said that you support the right of other people to restrict freedoms and end lives because we shouldn't be forcing our culture on other people. The most disturbing part of that is the "end lives" part. That is you saying that you think that we shouldn't force people to not kill each other, not just because of the money that we would spend on it, but because you think that they should have the right to kill innocent civilians. That's just wrong. So stop contradicting yourself and decide which quote is right and which is the lie.
I am not contradicting my self. The thoughts on murders, rapists and pedophiles is based in America. I dont feel those beliefs and views should be force on other countries just because I am an American.
Just because we here in America handle things a certain way, doesnt mean that is the correct way for the whole world.
First, great job with the countryism. You automatically assume that because America is one way, the people of Nigeria obviously agree with what the terrorists are doing. Second, the lawful government of Nigeria is against it. Third, I am 100% positive that if you anonymously polled everyone in Nigeria, the vast majority of them would not say that they support Boko Haram, murder, or rape. A small extremist group is committing these crimes and you are applying the belief that they are okay to all of Nigeria. Fourth, so if it is not in America, it doesn't count as being morally and ethically wrong? Answer me this. If a Neo-Nazi group came to power in a country (say Mongolia) and started setting up concentration camps and exterminating all of the Jews there, should the Western World stand by just because "We shouldn't force our beliefs that murder is wrong on the rest of the world. We should respect their beliefs and their right to kill of the Jews."?
P.S. Seriously, why do you assume that the majority of people in any country believe that illegal groups roaming throughout the country murdering or kidnapping children, raping them, and selling them into slavery is okay? I am willing to bet that the majority of people in any country in the entire world are against that.
First, great job with the countryism. You automatically assume that because America is one way, the people of Nigeria obviously agree with what the terrorists are doing. Second, the lawful government of Nigeria is against it. Third, I am 100% positive that if you anonymously polled everyone in Nigeria, the vast majority of them would not say that they support Boko Haram, murder, or rape. A small extremist group is committing these crimes and you are applying the belief that they are okay to all of Nigeria. Fourth, so if it is not in America, it doesn't count as being morally and ethically wrong? Answer me this. If a Neo-Nazi group came to power in a country (say Mongolia) and started setting up concentration camps and exterminating all of the Jews there, should the Western World stand by just because "We shouldn't force our beliefs that murder is wrong on the rest of the world. We should respect their beliefs and their right to kill of the Jews."?
P.S. Seriously, why do you assume that the majority of people in any country believe that illegal groups roaming throughout the country murdering or kidnapping children, raping them, and selling them into slavery is okay? I am willing to bet that the majority of people in any country in the entire world are against that.
Heres what you dont understand, I dont care about Nigeria, or Mongolia, or Mexico or Canada. I care about America and what happens and how we handle things with in the borders of America. I dont expect any other country to do things the same as we do. I sure dont want to force any other country to think different then they do. Heres is a hint, just because you live here in America and think you are right about everything, we are not.
Your thinking is noble, but thats all it is. America is not going to snuff out terrorism.
Heres what you dont understand, I dont care about Nigeria, or Mongolia, or Mexico or Canada. I care about America and what happens and how we handle things with in the borders of America.
Didn't you make a post being against American elitism?
That is just America elitism.
Oh yes, here it is.
So who is the elitist one? The person who only cares about America and doesn't give a damn about anyone else, or the person who, when asked by his neighbor for assistance, assists?
(To spare you the trouble, the answer is you.)
Oh, and here's a hint:
We feel everyone should live like us, well not everyone can
You're right, not everyone can live like us. We can send our children to school in safety. Our country is not torn apart by struggle with armed militants. We have a powerful enough military to fight off threats to national security, and to our families.
Other countries are not so fortunate. Other countries do not have the opulence that we enjoy. Other countries do not have the military power we wield.
We don't build a better world by ignoring innocent people who suffer.
First, great job with the countryism. You automatically assume that because America is one way, the people of Nigeria obviously agree with what the terrorists are doing. Second, the lawful government of Nigeria is against it. Third, I am 100% positive that if you anonymously polled everyone in Nigeria, the vast majority of them would not say that they support Boko Haram, murder, or rape. A small extremist group is committing these crimes and you are applying the belief that they are okay to all of Nigeria. Fourth, so if it is not in America, it doesn't count as being morally and ethically wrong? Answer me this. If a Neo-Nazi group came to power in a country (say Mongolia) and started setting up concentration camps and exterminating all of the Jews there, should the Western World stand by just because "We shouldn't force our beliefs that murder is wrong on the rest of the world. We should respect their beliefs and their right to kill of the Jews."?
P.S. Seriously, why do you assume that the majority of people in any country believe that illegal groups roaming throughout the country murdering or kidnapping children, raping them, and selling them into slavery is okay? I am willing to bet that the majority of people in any country in the entire world are against that.
Heres what you dont understand, I dont care about Nigeria, or Mongolia, or Mexico or Canada. I care about America and what happens and how we handle things with in the borders of America. I dont expect any other country to do things the same as we do. I sure dont want to force any other country to think different then they do. Heres is a hint, just because you live here in America and think you are right about everything, we are not.
Make a poll for every country in the world. Ask the people there "Should illegal groups be allowed to roam through the country, murdering or kidnapping children, raping them, and selling them into slavery, and the response would be an overwhleming "That's wrong". You seem to think that the rest of the world doesn't have basic morality. Which is somewhat ethnocentric.
Your thinking is noble, but thats all it is. America is not going to snuff out terrorism.
But we can do things to weaken it. A special ops team in Nigeria is one of those things.
Heres what you dont understand, I dont care about Nigeria, or Mongolia, or Mexico or Canada. I care about America and what happens and how we handle things with in the borders of America.
Didn't you make a post being against American elitism?
That is just America elitism.
Oh yes, here it is.
So who is the elitist one? The person who only cares about America and doesn't give a damn about anyone else, or the person who, when asked by his neighbor for assistance, assists?
(To spare you the trouble, the answer is you.)
Oh, and here's a hint:
We feel everyone should live like us, well not everyone can
You're right, not everyone can live like us. We can send our children to school in safety. Our country is not torn apart by struggle with armed militants. We have a powerful enough military to fight off threats to national security, and to our families.
Other countries are not so fortunate. Other countries do not have the opulence that we enjoy. Other countries do not have the military power we wield.
We don't build a better world by ignoring innocent people who suffer.
What I meant about American elitism was forcing our thinking and ways on every country we seem to go into for what ever reason. We should not worry about situations around the world unless they are going to effect us on a level we have to go and do something about it.
Your age is showing. The young seem to think we can save the world. We can not. We shouldnt be trying to.
Heres what you dont understand, I dont care about Nigeria, or Mongolia, or Mexico or Canada. I care about America and what happens and how we handle things with in the borders of America.
Didn't you make a post being against American elitism?
That is just America elitism.
Oh yes, here it is.
So who is the elitist one? The person who only cares about America and doesn't give a damn about anyone else, or the person who, when asked by his neighbor for assistance, assists?
(To spare you the trouble, the answer is you.)
Oh, and here's a hint:
We feel everyone should live like us, well not everyone can
You're right, not everyone can live like us. We can send our children to school in safety. Our country is not torn apart by struggle with armed militants. We have a powerful enough military to fight off threats to national security, and to our families.
Other countries are not so fortunate. Other countries do not have the opulence that we enjoy. Other countries do not have the military power we wield.
We don't build a better world by ignoring innocent people who suffer.
What I meant about American elitism was forcing our thinking and ways on every country we seem to go into for what ever reason. We should not worry about situations around the world unless they are going to effect us on a level we have to go and do something about it.
We aren't forcing our thinking on the world. We our helping the lawful government of Nigeria and the majority of Nigerians force its thinking on a group of illegal extremists.
Your age is showing. The young seem to think we can save the world. We can not. We shouldnt be trying to.
If we don't save the world, then who will? And don't say the UN. The Security Council means that they will never accomplish much.
What I meant about American elitism was forcing our thinking and ways on every country we seem to go into for what ever reason.
That country is asking us for assistance because they agree with us.
Your age is showing. The young seem to think we can save the world. We can not. We shouldnt be trying to.
bocephus, you thought we went into Afghanistan because it had weapons of mass destruction. This makes it pretty clear you almost certainly were not past than elementary school when the recent conflicts in the Middle East began. So do you really want to bring age into this?
What I meant about American elitism was forcing our thinking and ways on every country we seem to go into for what ever reason.
That country is asking us for assistance because they agree with us.
Your age is showing. The young seem to think we can save the world. We can not. We shouldnt be trying to.
bocephus, you thought we went into Afghanistan because it had weapons of mass destruction. This makes it pretty clear you almost certainly were not past than elementary school when the recent conflicts in the Middle East began. So do you really want to bring age into this?
I don't agree with or like Bocephus, but he says that he has played Magic since Alpha. That makes me think that he was out of elementary school at least since 1993.
I don't agree with or like Bocephus, but he says that he has played Magic since Alpha. That makes me think that he was out of elementary school at least since 1993.
I withdraw my previous statement.
Anyway, I found this article informative. I'm glad we are providing assistance.
Why do we need to spend our resource on these other people? We're not the world government and we are not the world police. How many millions of dollars is it costing tax payers to send personnel over there to help? That money being used this year creates a great excuse to keep more money in the budget for next year. In the grand scheme of things it's 200 people. How many people die every day in other countries from preventable situations? Should the US go flex our muscles in any country that doesnt have FDA standards on Food and drugs?
Yes it is tragic that these 200 girls are facing this situation... but that doesn't make it our problem.
Why do we need to spend our resource on these other people? We're not the world government and we are not the world police. How many millions of dollars is it costing tax payers to send personnel over there to help? That money being used this year creates a great excuse to keep more money in the budget for next year. In the grand scheme of things it's 200 people. How many people die every day in other countries from preventable situations? Should the US go flex our muscles in any country that doesnt have FDA standards on Food and drugs?
Yes it is tragic that these 200 girls are facing this situation... but that doesn't make it our problem.
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne, Mediation XVII
Why do we need to spend our resource on these other people? We're not the world government and we are not the world police. How many millions of dollars is it costing tax payers to send personnel over there to help? That money being used this year creates a great excuse to keep more money in the budget for next year. In the grand scheme of things it's 200 people. How many people die every day in other countries from preventable situations? Should the US go flex our muscles in any country that doesnt have FDA standards on Food and drugs?
Yes it is tragic that these 200 girls are facing this situation... but that doesn't make it our problem.
We all know that the Republicans aren't going to let us cut the defense budget anyways. We will be spending this money either way. We might as well do some good with the money that we are wasting on defense. And also, if we don't try to fix the world, then who will?
Helping Nigeria against a global slave trade is more than fair, because some of those slaves find themselves in places such as the US, Canada, Europe, and Russia. It stops from their human trafficking profitability to become more of a global trend by developing better tactics to fight the supply chains. The difference between drugs is that they can be hidden, humans on the other hand are very difficult to hide sometimes and are more of a liability. You can't eat a woman and act as a "coke mule," she has to come willingly or be in a state of fear to do so. These are young girls who more pliable than some of the Eastern European and Russian sex slaves who tend to be late teens to early 30's, whose only problem comes down to a trust in police and a language barriers. For the Nigerian children, they're children and have a language barrier. Both of which places them into extreme harm.
We also have a domestic slave trade issue, and I agree that the number of dollars spent to help the Nigerians should be prioritized to help out the domestic slaves, but as said before some of these slaves are global. So this complicates the matter, not only ethnically but thinking in terms of criminal prosecution and other such mechanics for having international norms and laws to deal with the problem. These acts of goodwill do benefit us as we are able to discuss global trends in the fight against slavery and train other nations to deal with their own slave trades more effectively. We have some better policing strategies and COIN strategies that can and do help better. The point is that we're not doing it "for the Nigerians," rather "with" the Nigerians. Which is leagues difference when the one day whenever the Nigerians and some of the larger geostrategic partnerships in the region align themselves together to spread training to other African states facing this threat.
Equally, Boko Haram is basically against western education. As a person who supports western education and has benefited from it, I am naturally against Boko Haram and many Al Qaeda franchisees. These franchisees aren't as harmless as too many McDonalds, as you can't avoid them. This also makes it more difficult for humanitarian aid workers and business people who happen to be women from working safely in those areas of the work as we try to spread the positive effects of good business globally rather than stomping mudholes in peoples' chests.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Why do we need to spend our resource on these other people? We're not the world government and we are not the world police. How many millions of dollars is it costing tax payers to send personnel over there to help? That money being used this year creates a great excuse to keep more money in the budget for next year. In the grand scheme of things it's 200 people. How many people die every day in other countries from preventable situations? Should the US go flex our muscles in any country that doesnt have FDA standards on Food and drugs?
Yes it is tragic that these 200 girls are facing this situation... but that doesn't make it our problem.
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne, Mediation XVII
And when I walk past a homeless man should I give him my money? I live in a nice 3 bedroom house have great insurance, drive a decent car, go on vacations... should I cut back and donate any money that is extra above the bare essentials until everyone has the essentials? It's nice to talk about helping everyone but reality is it does not happen. What makes these 200 girls in Africa special? It's a hell of a lot cheaper to help people in our borders and we don't help them. The only reason we talk about these girls is because they are new news.
Why do we need to spend our resource on these other people? We're not the world government and we are not the world police. How many millions of dollars is it costing tax payers to send personnel over there to help? That money being used this year creates a great excuse to keep more money in the budget for next year. In the grand scheme of things it's 200 people. How many people die every day in other countries from preventable situations? Should the US go flex our muscles in any country that doesnt have FDA standards on Food and drugs?
Yes it is tragic that these 200 girls are facing this situation... but that doesn't make it our problem.
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne, Mediation XVII
And when I walk past a homeless man should I give him my money? I live in a nice 3 bedroom house have great insurance, drive a decent car, go on vacations... should I cut back and donate any money that is extra above the bare essentials until everyone has the essentials? It's nice to talk about helping everyone but reality is it does not happen. What makes these 200 girls in Africa special? It's a hell of a lot cheaper to help people in our borders and we don't help them. The only reason we talk about these girls is because they are new news.
You shouldn't give him money, the majority of the homeless in America have either a mental health or substance abuse problem, and giving them money would not answer either of these problems, and at worst enable the substance problem. Really unless you had a spare home or moonlight as a psychologist there's little help you can provide.
This is just one of hundreds of reasons why freeing 200 girls who are going to be sold as sex slaves is in no way analogue to giving spare change to a homeless person.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
You shouldn't give him money, the majority of the homeless in America have either a mental health or substance abuse problem, and giving them money would not answer either of these problems, and at worst enable the substance problem. Really unless you had a spare home or moonlight as a psychologist there's little help you can provide.
This is just one of hundreds of reasons why freeing 200 girls who are going to be sold as sex slaves is in no way analogue to giving spare change to a homeless person.
<sarcasm>Yes take what I said literally... that's exactly the point I was trying to make... </sarcasm> #tag for your benefit
The point is not that exact scenario, but the fact that I have more resources than I need to survive... other people do not. Following the logic applied here of "we can help these girls live a better life, we should use our resources to save them because we can" I should then spend any of my additional resources that are not necessary to my survival to help other people survive... Which would mean I should move into the cheapest housing possible, buy the cheapest food, etc etc and then donate all of my free time and money to help other people. It's a great ideal and I commend people that can and do live that way, but that's just plain not the way the world works. And what makes these 200 girls more deserving of resources than anyone else that is struggling to survive?
You shouldn't give him money, the majority of the homeless in America have either a mental health or substance abuse problem, and giving them money would not answer either of these problems, and at worst enable the substance problem. Really unless you had a spare home or moonlight as a psychologist there's little help you can provide.
This is just one of hundreds of reasons why freeing 200 girls who are going to be sold as sex slaves is in no way analogue to giving spare change to a homeless person.
<sarcasm>Yes take what I said literally... that's exactly the point I was trying to make... </sarcasm> #tag for your benefit
The point is not that exact scenario, but the fact that I have more resources than I need to survive... other people do not. Following the logic applied here of "we can help these girls live a better life, we should use our resources to save them because we can" I should then spend any of my additional resources that are not necessary to my survival to help other people survive... Which would mean I should move into the cheapest housing possible, buy the cheapest food, etc etc and then donate all of my free time and money to help other people. It's a great ideal and I commend people that can and do live that way, but that's just plain not the way the world works. And what makes these 200 girls more deserving of resources than anyone else that is struggling to survive?
We are going to be wasting money on the military either way. If we can't cut spending, then we might as well use it.
We are going to be wasting money on the military either way. If we can't cut spending, then we might as well use it.
Where are these resources supposed to be going? Money for the military doesnt just sit in a giant fund labeled "money for when ***** goes down". It's assigned to projects, research, etc... The resources to be spent on a rescue op wouldnt just sit around going stale if we did not do an op. It would have to spent on something else.
Who says we can't cut spending? If we didnt max out the budget every year policing the rest of the world maybe cutting the budget would actually gain traction.
We are going to be wasting money on the military either way. If we can't cut spending, then we might as well use it.
Where are these resources supposed to be going? Money for the military doesnt just sit in a giant fund labeled "money for when ***** goes down". It's assigned to projects, research, etc... The resources to be spent on a rescue op wouldnt just sit around going stale if we did not do an op. It would have to spent on something else.
Spend less money on more equipment and redirect it to this. It isn't like we need more equipment anyways.
Who says we can't cut spending? If we didnt max out the budget every year policing the rest of the world maybe cutting the budget would actually gain traction.
The Republican party says that we can't. I am all for cutting military spending. But if we aren't going to do that, we might as well do some good with out oversized military.
Spend less money on more equipment and redirect it to this. It isn't like we need more equipment anyways.
That's not really a solution. A rather large portion of the budget is dedicated to keeping our equipment working. The military doesn't just buy jeeps for the sake of having Jeeps. Take a look at this:
Most of the funds go to Operations and Maintenance, which is 'doing stuff and keeping things working'. Procurement costs are smaller than personnel costs.
What we need is a scalable decrease in funding, cutting units we don't need and reducing our variable costs across the board, then consolidating whats left to reduce our fixed costs.
But of course, I'd just settle for a more streamlined decisions making chain so we don't get abominations like the F-35 or Littoral Combat ship, and less congressional interference in what is funded so that defense projects like missile defense systems that don't work aren't subsidized by the taxpayer for 30 years.
I for one would prefer a large-scale reduction in the standing forces of the Military. We really don't need the capacity to invade two countries simultaneously. I'd want that money into funding more specialized units that could accomplish more with less.
Bringing this back around on topic, I'd be happy to help the Nigerians with our technology, just not with our troops. By all means, lets gather intelligence for them with drones or train their troops, but we shouldn't be spending money fielding ground troops for Nigeria.
I think we should give off whatever old technology we aren't using to the Nigerians like we tend to do with countries.
Or we could have Israel go over there with the old technology we gave them. Now that we've given them about 91 billion, they can provide for their own and then some. If we can give them all that money, one of the two of us should be able to help Nigeria.
But if we aren't going to do anything about the Situation in Syria, we surely aren't going to help Nigeria. about 8,000 Syrian children have died in that war. That's actually a war for political power in which children are dying. Not an isolated kidnapping of 237 kids. Call me insensitive, but i'll take 237 missing kids over 8000 dead ones. If the USA isn't helping that situation, Nigeria has no luck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whats the big deal about black lotus you ask? Well you see, there is no big deal about it. It IS the big deal.
And when I walk past a homeless man should I give him my money? I live in a nice 3 bedroom house have great insurance, drive a decent car, go on vacations... should I cut back and donate any money that is extra above the bare essentials until everyone has the essentials?
Not even remotely analogous to what we're talking about. Surely you don't think that contributing to an international effort to provide military experts to a wartorn country to help deal with radical insurgents is going to strip us down to barebones essentials, do you? The cost of what we're contributing is probably a pittance compared to the actual military budget we have.
It's nice to talk about helping everyone but reality is it does not happen.
Well, we're providing aid to this country, so clearly helping people does happen.
Did you actually think there was any wisdom in what you just said? "Reality is people don't help people"? People help people all of the time.
Or do you think that by talking ***** about people who are trying to solve hundreds of innocent girls in Africa for being raped, enslaved, and possibly murdered because they don't also have the solutions to every problem ever that you're somehow being impressive?
What makes these 200 girls in Africa special?
They're in trouble. They need our help. It is within our power to help them.
It's a hell of a lot cheaper to help people in our borders and we don't help them.
Nothing you're saying has any substance. Should we just not help anyone then? Would that make you feel better? Should we just never put any effort into making the world a better place in order to assist Fluffy_Bunny in maintaining his delusion that cynicism somehow amounts to intelligence?
Yes, it's difficult to help everyone, and yes, we are not helping everyone who needs help or is in our capacity to provide help for. That does not mean we should not help anyone. Being incapable of solving every problem is not an excuse to do nothing.
Bringing this back around on topic, I'd be happy to help the Nigerians with our technology, just not with our troops. By all means, lets gather intelligence for them with drones or train their troops, but we shouldn't be spending money fielding ground troops for Nigeria.
We already field ground troops for half the countries on the planet; what's one more?
In all seriousness, it is a bad sign when a sovereign state is unable to enforce its laws within its own borders and must ask another state for assistance. I think basic human decency means we provide that assistance anyway, but we shouldn't pretend it will be free of long-term consequences for Nigeria.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In all seriousness, it is a bad sign when a sovereign state is unable to enforce its laws within its own borders and must ask another state for assistance. I think basic human decency means we provide that assistance anyway, but we shouldn't pretend it will be free of long-term consequences for Nigeria.
Recent articles I've read regarding this suggests that the government is so corrupt and ineffectual (both because of Boko Haram infiltration of the government + just general apathy towards the situation) that they really can't do diddly squat.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am not contradicting my self. The thoughts on murders, rapists and pedophiles is based in America. I dont feel those beliefs and views should be force on other countries just because I am an American.
Just because we here in America handle things a certain way, doesnt mean that is the correct way for the whole world.
First, great job with the countryism. You automatically assume that because America is one way, the people of Nigeria obviously agree with what the terrorists are doing. Second, the lawful government of Nigeria is against it. Third, I am 100% positive that if you anonymously polled everyone in Nigeria, the vast majority of them would not say that they support Boko Haram, murder, or rape. A small extremist group is committing these crimes and you are applying the belief that they are okay to all of Nigeria. Fourth, so if it is not in America, it doesn't count as being morally and ethically wrong? Answer me this. If a Neo-Nazi group came to power in a country (say Mongolia) and started setting up concentration camps and exterminating all of the Jews there, should the Western World stand by just because "We shouldn't force our beliefs that murder is wrong on the rest of the world. We should respect their beliefs and their right to kill of the Jews."?
P.S. Seriously, why do you assume that the majority of people in any country believe that illegal groups roaming throughout the country murdering or kidnapping children, raping them, and selling them into slavery is okay? I am willing to bet that the majority of people in any country in the entire world are against that.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Heres what you dont understand, I dont care about Nigeria, or Mongolia, or Mexico or Canada. I care about America and what happens and how we handle things with in the borders of America. I dont expect any other country to do things the same as we do. I sure dont want to force any other country to think different then they do. Heres is a hint, just because you live here in America and think you are right about everything, we are not.
Your thinking is noble, but thats all it is. America is not going to snuff out terrorism.
Oh yes, here it is.
So who is the elitist one? The person who only cares about America and doesn't give a damn about anyone else, or the person who, when asked by his neighbor for assistance, assists?
(To spare you the trouble, the answer is you.)
Oh, and here's a hint:
You're right, not everyone can live like us. We can send our children to school in safety. Our country is not torn apart by struggle with armed militants. We have a powerful enough military to fight off threats to national security, and to our families.
Other countries are not so fortunate. Other countries do not have the opulence that we enjoy. Other countries do not have the military power we wield.
We don't build a better world by ignoring innocent people who suffer.
Make a poll for every country in the world. Ask the people there "Should illegal groups be allowed to roam through the country, murdering or kidnapping children, raping them, and selling them into slavery, and the response would be an overwhleming "That's wrong". You seem to think that the rest of the world doesn't have basic morality. Which is somewhat ethnocentric.
But we can do things to weaken it. A special ops team in Nigeria is one of those things.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
What I meant about American elitism was forcing our thinking and ways on every country we seem to go into for what ever reason. We should not worry about situations around the world unless they are going to effect us on a level we have to go and do something about it.
Your age is showing. The young seem to think we can save the world. We can not. We shouldnt be trying to.
Infraction for stonewalling. - Blinking Spirit
We aren't forcing our thinking on the world. We our helping the lawful government of Nigeria and the majority of Nigerians force its thinking on a group of illegal extremists.
If we don't save the world, then who will? And don't say the UN. The Security Council means that they will never accomplish much.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
bocephus, you thought we went into Afghanistan because it had weapons of mass destruction. This makes it pretty clear you almost certainly were not past than elementary school when the recent conflicts in the Middle East began. So do you really want to bring age into this?
I don't agree with or like Bocephus, but he says that he has played Magic since Alpha. That makes me think that he was out of elementary school at least since 1993.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Anyway, I found this article informative. I'm glad we are providing assistance.
Why do we need to spend our resource on these other people? We're not the world government and we are not the world police. How many millions of dollars is it costing tax payers to send personnel over there to help? That money being used this year creates a great excuse to keep more money in the budget for next year. In the grand scheme of things it's 200 people. How many people die every day in other countries from preventable situations? Should the US go flex our muscles in any country that doesnt have FDA standards on Food and drugs?
Yes it is tragic that these 200 girls are facing this situation... but that doesn't make it our problem.
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne, Mediation XVII
We all know that the Republicans aren't going to let us cut the defense budget anyways. We will be spending this money either way. We might as well do some good with the money that we are wasting on defense. And also, if we don't try to fix the world, then who will?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
We also have a domestic slave trade issue, and I agree that the number of dollars spent to help the Nigerians should be prioritized to help out the domestic slaves, but as said before some of these slaves are global. So this complicates the matter, not only ethnically but thinking in terms of criminal prosecution and other such mechanics for having international norms and laws to deal with the problem. These acts of goodwill do benefit us as we are able to discuss global trends in the fight against slavery and train other nations to deal with their own slave trades more effectively. We have some better policing strategies and COIN strategies that can and do help better. The point is that we're not doing it "for the Nigerians," rather "with" the Nigerians. Which is leagues difference when the one day whenever the Nigerians and some of the larger geostrategic partnerships in the region align themselves together to spread training to other African states facing this threat.
Equally, Boko Haram is basically against western education. As a person who supports western education and has benefited from it, I am naturally against Boko Haram and many Al Qaeda franchisees. These franchisees aren't as harmless as too many McDonalds, as you can't avoid them. This also makes it more difficult for humanitarian aid workers and business people who happen to be women from working safely in those areas of the work as we try to spread the positive effects of good business globally rather than stomping mudholes in peoples' chests.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
And when I walk past a homeless man should I give him my money? I live in a nice 3 bedroom house have great insurance, drive a decent car, go on vacations... should I cut back and donate any money that is extra above the bare essentials until everyone has the essentials? It's nice to talk about helping everyone but reality is it does not happen. What makes these 200 girls in Africa special? It's a hell of a lot cheaper to help people in our borders and we don't help them. The only reason we talk about these girls is because they are new news.
You shouldn't give him money, the majority of the homeless in America have either a mental health or substance abuse problem, and giving them money would not answer either of these problems, and at worst enable the substance problem. Really unless you had a spare home or moonlight as a psychologist there's little help you can provide.
This is just one of hundreds of reasons why freeing 200 girls who are going to be sold as sex slaves is in no way analogue to giving spare change to a homeless person.
<sarcasm>Yes take what I said literally... that's exactly the point I was trying to make... </sarcasm> #tag for your benefit
The point is not that exact scenario, but the fact that I have more resources than I need to survive... other people do not. Following the logic applied here of "we can help these girls live a better life, we should use our resources to save them because we can" I should then spend any of my additional resources that are not necessary to my survival to help other people survive... Which would mean I should move into the cheapest housing possible, buy the cheapest food, etc etc and then donate all of my free time and money to help other people. It's a great ideal and I commend people that can and do live that way, but that's just plain not the way the world works. And what makes these 200 girls more deserving of resources than anyone else that is struggling to survive?
We are going to be wasting money on the military either way. If we can't cut spending, then we might as well use it.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Where are these resources supposed to be going? Money for the military doesnt just sit in a giant fund labeled "money for when ***** goes down". It's assigned to projects, research, etc... The resources to be spent on a rescue op wouldnt just sit around going stale if we did not do an op. It would have to spent on something else.
Who says we can't cut spending? If we didnt max out the budget every year policing the rest of the world maybe cutting the budget would actually gain traction.
Spend less money on more equipment and redirect it to this. It isn't like we need more equipment anyways.
The Republican party says that we can't. I am all for cutting military spending. But if we aren't going to do that, we might as well do some good with out oversized military.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Military funding isn't a flat cost. It's going to cost us more to actually do something with our military.
That's not really a solution. A rather large portion of the budget is dedicated to keeping our equipment working. The military doesn't just buy jeeps for the sake of having Jeeps. Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_2010_Military_Budget_Spending.jpg
Most of the funds go to Operations and Maintenance, which is 'doing stuff and keeping things working'. Procurement costs are smaller than personnel costs.
What we need is a scalable decrease in funding, cutting units we don't need and reducing our variable costs across the board, then consolidating whats left to reduce our fixed costs.
But of course, I'd just settle for a more streamlined decisions making chain so we don't get abominations like the F-35 or Littoral Combat ship, and less congressional interference in what is funded so that defense projects like missile defense systems that don't work aren't subsidized by the taxpayer for 30 years.
I for one would prefer a large-scale reduction in the standing forces of the Military. We really don't need the capacity to invade two countries simultaneously. I'd want that money into funding more specialized units that could accomplish more with less.
Bringing this back around on topic, I'd be happy to help the Nigerians with our technology, just not with our troops. By all means, lets gather intelligence for them with drones or train their troops, but we shouldn't be spending money fielding ground troops for Nigeria.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Or we could have Israel go over there with the old technology we gave them. Now that we've given them about 91 billion, they can provide for their own and then some. If we can give them all that money, one of the two of us should be able to help Nigeria.
But if we aren't going to do anything about the Situation in Syria, we surely aren't going to help Nigeria. about 8,000 Syrian children have died in that war. That's actually a war for political power in which children are dying. Not an isolated kidnapping of 237 kids. Call me insensitive, but i'll take 237 missing kids over 8000 dead ones. If the USA isn't helping that situation, Nigeria has no luck.
Well, we're providing aid to this country, so clearly helping people does happen.
Did you actually think there was any wisdom in what you just said? "Reality is people don't help people"? People help people all of the time.
Or do you think that by talking ***** about people who are trying to solve hundreds of innocent girls in Africa for being raped, enslaved, and possibly murdered because they don't also have the solutions to every problem ever that you're somehow being impressive?
They're in trouble. They need our help. It is within our power to help them.
Nothing you're saying has any substance. Should we just not help anyone then? Would that make you feel better? Should we just never put any effort into making the world a better place in order to assist Fluffy_Bunny in maintaining his delusion that cynicism somehow amounts to intelligence?
Yes, it's difficult to help everyone, and yes, we are not helping everyone who needs help or is in our capacity to provide help for. That does not mean we should not help anyone. Being incapable of solving every problem is not an excuse to do nothing.
He took what you said as an analogy. The fact that your analogy doesn't work is not his fault.
In all seriousness, it is a bad sign when a sovereign state is unable to enforce its laws within its own borders and must ask another state for assistance. I think basic human decency means we provide that assistance anyway, but we shouldn't pretend it will be free of long-term consequences for Nigeria.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Recent articles I've read regarding this suggests that the government is so corrupt and ineffectual (both because of Boko Haram infiltration of the government + just general apathy towards the situation) that they really can't do diddly squat.