BruceVC

a rival to rt? here in the US, we have more than enough comedy channels already. am s'posing that if you want better production values to accompany your conspiracy theory story, then a rt rival has merit. dunno, the best part o' conspiracy theories is seeing and/or imagining the wild-eyed basement hermit in his sweat-stained wifebeater and greying tighty whiteys froth at the mouth as he explains how putin's plane were s'posed to be exact where the malaysia airliner were when it were blown to smithereens by a us built flying saucer. have some bbc third-stringer in business attire do such stuff with a cambridge accent and a mild hint o' contempt might be amusing for a day or two, but we don't see the lasting appeal. HA! Good Fun! " some bbc third-stringer in business attire do such stuff with a cambridge accent and a mild hint o' contempt " This is one of the funniest things I read in ages

Agreed, that is a little disappointing The game looks like crap, that's different from hating Bioware. Sure, I hear you But you don't think traditional "Bioware Bias" is also responsible for the low score. I'll hazard a guess and say RPGCodex has a good number of members who dislike Bioware?

Great idea but I sadly haven't played one of those games But its not my fault, I grew up near the end of Apartheid and we didn't have access to certain things as easily as others

Wow for some reason you have really made me excited about this game, I want to play it now

No, I'm also guessing its not

Hi Jaded " waves " Where have you been? I was worried you had joined the Ukrainian army and you were involved in the conflict in eastern Ukraine !!!

Awesome, can't wait. Very excited

Agreed, that is a little disappointing

The simple answer is the Fed shouldn't get involved because it's 100% unconstitutional for the Fed to do so. When you consider the negatives of the Fed getting involved beyond the fact that it has no legitimate legal authority to do so, the why gets a bit more complex, but the negatives are quite big. Legality aside, which is no trivial issue (though I know you think it is), there's absolutely no need for Community colleges to be free. They are already affordable to everyone (and grants are even available to many). You'd have to look really really really hard to find someone that couldn't afford it due to their financial situation, and if such a person exists their predicament is very unusual. Loans that fully cover the cost are readily available for everyone, unless they already took similar loans and defaulted on them. And if Community college is of any real benefit they will make the money to pay back those loans. The reality is that community college is not of any real benefit to a lot of people who go there. The reality is that even four year schools are increasingly of little to no benefit to a lot of people who go there. The more people who get a degree the lower the value of that degree in regards to getting a job. The reality also is that the Federal governments involvement in higher education is the primary driver of cost increases. If the government starts shouldering 100% of the costs of community colleges you can rest assured that the expenses associated with running them will become even more skewed and subject to corruption and waste than they already are. Thanks for sharing, interesting post And why is it unconstitutional, does the US constitution specifically say " the federal government must get involved in education for reason x " "?

Perhaps because it's not clear that ~2000 civilians were even massacred yet. Reports range from 'at least one hundred' to 'over 2000', with no one as yet confirming what exactly even happened. I saw that today , its unclear how many people who massacred...well the Nigerian government is denying it was 2000 But he still has made no statement even if the number was 150. He is getting loads of deserved criticism for his general disinterest in dealing with BH and its very surprising considering the fact its election time in Nigeria

Not quite sure the examples are comparable, Somalia in 92, perhaps - though that country was shattered thoroughly at the point. Oddly, the Marines present calmed the city (and the US may or may not have inflamed things via TOW missile, anyway). But wasn't implying they'd get the roses and hugs, necessarily, but that there wouldn't be a simmering insurgency they need to combat. I would hope BH is not popular with Nigerians, but I suppose if they were that changes things. As for tackling them outside, a military approach could work. Just have to hope you kill a lot before they are driven underground. But at that point they won't be getting audacious as they are and starting to threaten neighbouring countries. That and seeing one of these kill crazy African militias run up against a proper military is something I've always wanted to see. No BH is extremely unpopular in Nigeria so its not like Al-Shabaab in Somalia....so there would be no repeat of Black Hawk Down And there have been several examples of Western forces successfully defeating African militias. These inlcude The French in Mali : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict#U.N._Peacekeeping_Force British SAS against the West Side Boys : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barras Various military missions by Executive Outcomes in Western Africa : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes

Well most of you guys who have some strange sympathies with Russia over Ukraine don't really believe the like of CNN, Sky and BBC anyway right? So lets have the EU sponsored news channel and fight fire with fire as far as RT is concerned Besides we have no idea if this new channel will be about " EU propaganda " ( I'm not really sure what that even means...maybe documentaries showing happy immigrants and local EU people having picnics together and frolllicking in fields letting us know how happy everyone is living in EU )

I returned to work today after a 3 week break. I had already started going through emails so I had a good idea of what this week was going to hold There has been a major issue at one of my customers around Firewall rules and getting this application I support to work so I was expecting to have a torrid day..but everything was working when I did my testing....what a great first day back

Okay I have heard enough feedback to believe that community colleagues are not all bad and do have value from a financial cost perspective and also from an education perspective So now I have two primary questions Why is it wrong for the Federal government to get involved in education? GD was saying that the Fed shouldn't be involved in education. I'm missing the reason why this is so, I think we all accept that education is the foundation for a successful and growing economy so why shouldn't the Fed get involved ? Hurlshot mentioned this is more of PR in his view, do the rest of you guys agree? I just think there is a massive difference between free and getting something cheaper and ultimately this program will offer free education for 2 years which is surely better than the current system where you need to pay. But this raises another question, who will pay for this free 2 years? Will it be from the tax revenue of each independent state?

Yes Oby, we live in a world of consequences for illegal annexations of regions. Its always consequences we should consider when we salute and support these types of unacceptable legal decisions by countries like Russia

To be honest don't you think its a good idea if an organisation like the EU does decide to create a counter to RT? RT is funded by the Russian government and is basically a propaganda tool, anything to diminish RT influence should be seen in a positive light. What am I missing?

The problem is they don't get jobs and they don't contribute. And not only them, their descendants also. Over 95% of children that were raised in families that lived on social benefits also live on social benefits themselves. After all if they see that their parents and their social circle never worked why would it occur to them to work themselves? Well this is a relevant point if its true because it would explain the frustration on some levels Don't these immigrants work? Surly they can't just live off social services indefinitely?

I agree this is not a simple situation and you have raised some reasonable logistical challenges that would face any military force But there are several major differences between a military mission in Nigeria and lets say Afghanistan Boko Haram really only operate in 3 states in NE Nigeria so the area where they are in is not as large as you think? Still challenging, but not unmanageable If there was a consolidated effort to address the threat of Boko Haram ( BH )neighbours like Cameroon and Chad would assist by working to close the various border crossings. So unlike the Taliban who could basically safely cross into Pakistan to avoid having to face the US troops this escape mechanism would be much harder for BH BH seems to be using the vast Sambisa foret as there real place of operation. So with Nigerian trackers and a Western military force this forest could surely be entered and BH could be engaged ? As that is where there real military camps seem to be based http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/nigeria-sambisa-forest-boko-haram-hideout-kidnapped-school-girls-believed-to-be-held BH does have an official leader, the brutal Abubakar Shekua. If you kill him that should also reduce their military effectivenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abubakar_Shekau But finally Gromnir I can't stress enough that the main reason for the seemingly ineffectual actions of the Nigerian military against BH is there lack of discipline, training and there low morale. If you bring a military force that is motivated and properly trained we would see a different result So yes I agree there are challengers with any military mission but don't think that the issues that would face a Western military force in Nigeria are insurmountable. I firmly believe they would be effective over a period of 8-12 months dunno. iraq had a single leader and a far smaller population than has nigeria. also, the lack of discipline, training and morale make us shudder when we consider how much help the nigerians would be with the necessary security force that would be required to help maintain order after the western infidels showed up to help drive boko haram into hiding. oh, but at least we will stop referencing north west nigeria when we were meaning to describe north east. sheesh. baga is about as north east as one can possibly be in nigeria after all. keep in mind that we believe nigeria needs help, and what is going on in nigeria deserves more attention, but at the moment, we don't see any quick fixes or solutions, and am doubtful that a likely half-arsed western military intervention would do more than galvanize the islamic extremists in the region. this is another one o' those situations where when we is asked what we thinks should be done, we feels like slapping folks silly. our gut-level reaction is to respond with a question o' our own: "why didn't you ask that question in 2009-10?" am not speaking o' bruce, insofar as the slapping is concerned, but boko haram were a small problem in 2009. is 4 or 5 years ago that this problem shoulda' been addressed. HA! Good Fun! ps killing the leader of a terrorist organization has some value, but is arguable Not the best strategic option. the whole point o' a terrorist cell system is that independent cells can function, well, independently. no doubt there is great value in a single charismatic leader that can bring followers to a cause, but kill leader o' a terrorist organization would not be our goal. identify such a leader, find as many links 'tween him and other cells as possible, and then exhaust all the information one can through observations o' his operations, communications and intermediaries. kill such a leader may be necessary for political reasons, but is bad strategy in our estimation. removal of a leader in a cell structure is not the same as taking the head from the snake. I agree this is not a simple situation and you have raised some reasonable logistical challenges that would face any military force But there are several major differences between a military mission in Nigeria and lets say Afghanistan Boko Haram really only operate in 3 states in NE Nigeria so the area where they are in is not as large as you think? Still challenging, but not unmanageable If there was a consolidated effort to address the threat of Boko Haram ( BH )neighbours like Cameroon and Chad would assist by working to close the various border crossings. So unlike the Taliban who could basically safely cross into Pakistan to avoid having to face the US troops this escape mechanism would be much harder for BH BH seems to be using the vast Sambisa foret as there real place of operation. So with Nigerian trackers and a Western military force this forest could surely be entered and BH could be engaged ? As that is where there real military camps seem to be based http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/nigeria-sambisa-forest-boko-haram-hideout-kidnapped-school-girls-believed-to-be-held BH does have an official leader, the brutal Abubakar Shekua. If you kill him that should also reduce their military effectivenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abubakar_Shekau But finally Gromnir I can't stress enough that the main reason for the seemingly ineffectual actions of the Nigerian military against BH is there lack of discipline, training and there low morale. If you bring a military force that is motivated and properly trained we would see a different result So yes I agree there are challengers with any military mission but don't think that the issues that would face a Western military force in Nigeria are insurmountable. I firmly believe they would be effective over a period of 8-12 months dunno. iraq had a single leader and a far smaller population than has nigeria. also, the lack of discipline, training and morale make us shudder when we consider how much help the nigerians would be with the necessary security force that would be required to help maintain order after the western infidels showed up to help drive boko haram into hiding. oh, but at least we will stop referencing north west nigeria when we were meaning to describe north east. sheesh. baga is about as north east as one can possibly be in nigeria after all. keep in mind that we believe nigeria needs help, and what is going on in nigeria deserves more attention, but at the moment, we don't see any quick fixes or solutions, and am doubtful that a likely half-arsed western military intervention would do more than galvanize the islamic extremists in the region. this is another one o' those situations where when we is asked what we thinks should be done, we feels like slapping folks silly. our gut-level reaction is to respond with a question o' our own: "why didn't you ask that question in 2009-10?" am not speking o' bruce, insofar as the slapping is concerned, but boko haram were a small problem in 2009. is 4 or 5 years ago that this problem shoulda' been addressed. HA! Good Fun! ps killing the leader of a terrorist organization has some value, but is arguable Not the best strategic option. the whole point o' a terrorist cell system is that independent cells can function, well, independently. no doubt there is great value in a single charismatic leader that can bring followers to a cause, but kill leader o' a terrorist organization would not be our goal. identify such a leader, find as many links 'tween him and other cells as possible, and then exhaust all the information one can through observations o' his operations, communications and intermediaries. kill such a leader may be necessary for political reasons, but is bad strategy in our estimation. removal of a leader in a cell structure is not the same as taking the head from the snake. Interesting development, I see the UN have offered to help Nigeria end the threat of BH http://www.greenbreporters.com/home/foreign/united-nations-offers-help-nigeria-end-boko-haram-war.html I wonder, if anything, what this will translate to? As you mentioned this threat could have been resolved years ago but the lackluster response from the Nigerian government has emboldened BH. And the Nigerian government still doesn't seem that concerned, the president of Nigeria still hasn't made an official statement about the massacre of the 2000 civilians So I want to see what happens now ? For I still think if the Nigerian government is not that

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/01/cameroon-army-kills-143-boko-haram-fighters/ The Cameroon army seems more effective than the Nigerian army at dealing with Boko Haram and this isn't the first time they have had these types of military successes

Fair enough, lets say if I was asked to predict how long a military mission would take to reduce the effectiveness of BH I would say a year because of the area they operate in ?

I agree this is not a simple situation and you have raised some reasonable logistical challenges that would face any military force But there are several major differences between a military mission in Nigeria and lets say Afghanistan Boko Haram really only operate in 3 states in NE Nigeria so the area where they are in is not as large as you think? Still challenging, but not unmanageable If there was a consolidated effort to address the threat of Boko Haram ( BH )neighbours like Cameroon and Chad would assist by working to close the various border crossings. So unlike the Taliban who could basically safely cross into Pakistan to avoid having to face the US troops this escape mechanism would be much harder for BH BH seems to be using the vast Sambisa foret as there real place of operation. So with Nigerian trackers and a Western military force this forest could surely be entered and BH could be engaged ? As that is where there real military camps seem to be based http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/nigeria-sambisa-forest-boko-haram-hideout-kidnapped-school-girls-believed-to-be-held BH does have an official leader, the brutal Abubakar Shekua. If you kill him that should also reduce their military effectivenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abubakar_Shekau But finally Gromnir I can't stress enough that the main reason for the seemingly ineffectual actions of the Nigerian military against BH is there lack of discipline, training and there low morale. If you bring a military force that is motivated and properly trained we would see a different result So yes I agree there are challengers with any military mission but don't think that the issues that would face a Western military force in Nigeria are insurmountable. I firmly believe they would be effective over a period of 8-12 months

It is a virus and its contagious, there are also two strains. But outbreaks are rare so don't worry too much

I'm sorry but that does sound absurd, a game winning awards and it hasn't been released yet

Okay I see where you have misunderstood my view on USA military intervention, I need to explain my view in a better way I still support military action by Western powers under certain circumstances, its should be clear to anyone where the USA has been absolutely correct to intervene militarily under certain conditions, like Bosnia and the airstrikes against ISIS ( I can give more examples if required ). But that doesn't mean I support all suggestions where the USA has been expected to intervene in conflicts or areas of concern around the world For example the USA could only have attacked Assad if they had ignored the UNSC and that would have meant another illegal intervention as far as the world was concerned...and I don't think I need to remind you of how bad Iraq was for the American image. So as much as I wanted the West to remove Assad because he was a brutal and intransigent dictator I wanted them to respect the UNSC more...and thats what happened. Obama was correct to not ignore the UNSC Then Iran, there was a real concerted effort to get the USA to attack Iran from Israel and certain Republicans. Obama ignored this pressure and now due to the severe sanctions Iran has come to the negotiating table in a way that I doubt bombing them would have achieved. So once again I support Obama in this decision So there is no contradiction in my view of defending Obama but also acknowledging that sometimes military intervention is needed. We have to look at each possible example of military intervention on a per case basis But none of this changes the fact that the West could efficiently engage and defeat Boko Haram if they wanted to. But my point is why should they? This is an African problem and if Africa cannot deal with them then the Nigerians need to make an official request to the UN to get a proper UN military mission funded by Nigeria to defeat Boko Haram. And yes the USA should be part of this because of there experience and effectiveness Finally we aren't talking about the West fixing the economies of a country like Nigeria, they just need to defeat Boko Haram. So no nation-building in this case ok, the last bit is a bit naive. the current government in nigeria is unwilling or unable to stop or even limit boko haram. am not certain what you thinks would be accomplished by a military action designed at nothing more than stopping a terrorist group. also, am not certain what makes you think UNSC is so meaningful. neverthless, what makes you think that a UNSC resolution authorizing military action in nigeria would be forthcoming? indifference perhaps? less than 20 people is killed in france and you got world leaders doing a unity march. 2,000 people are massacred in baga and where is the public outcry for the dead in africa we wonder. unsc? *snort* http://www.bbc.com/news/world-23847169 HA! Good Fun! Sure I hear you, its seems almost unfair when you look at all the attention paid to the Paris shootings and the constant massacres of civilians by Boko Haram...which seem to get very little world focus. Well thats the perception Thats a good link, I was aware of a legal clause where countries can intervene militarily in other countries without UNSC support if its due to humanitarian grounds. But even those lawyers in the link you posted say this is a more complicated way of military intervention and there would be numerous conditions. The point being you still prefer to get UNSC endorsement to ensure legitimacy And finally you right there is no guarantee you would get UNSC support but if a country like Nigeria, who is a non-permanent member currently of the UNSC, raised the notion and was prepared to fund it I would surprised if there would be any objections. But that takes political will and as I've said thats what is lacking from the AU and many of its member states

Okay I see where you have misunderstood my view on USA military intervention, I need to explain my view in a better way I still support military action by Western powers under certain circumstances, its should be clear to anyone where the USA has been absolutely correct to intervene militarily under certain conditions, like Bosnia and the airstrikes against ISIS ( I can give more examples if required ). But that doesn't mean I support all suggestions where the USA has been expected to intervene in conflicts or areas of concern around the world For example the USA could only have attacked Assad if they had ignored the UNSC and that would have meant another illegal intervention as far as the world was concerned...and I don't think I need to remind you of how bad Iraq was for the American image. So as much as I wanted the West to remove Assad because he was a brutal and intransigent dictator I wanted them to respect the UNSC more...and thats what happened. Obama was correct to not ignore the UNSC Then Iran, there was a real concerted effort to get the USA to attack Iran from Israel and certain Republicans. Obama ignored this pressure and now due to the severe sanctions Iran has come to the negotiating table in a way that I doubt bombing them would have achieved. So once again I support Obama in this decision So there is no contradiction in my view of defending Obama but also acknowledging that sometimes military intervention is needed. We have to look at each possible example of military intervention on a per case basis But none of this changes the fact that the West could efficiently engage and defeat Boko Haram if they wanted to. But my point is why should they? This is an African problem and if Africa cannot deal with them then the Nigerians need to make an official request to the UN to get a proper UN military mission funded by Nigeria to defeat Boko Haram. And yes the USA should be part of this because of there experience and effectiveness Finally we aren't talking about the West fixing the economies of a country like Nigeria, they just need to defeat Boko Haram. So no nation-building in this case