BruceVC

Sounds about right

Yes of course! An "effective" military campaign can do it, because if it fails to solve the problem for good, it wasn't "effective" to begin with, and your argument will emerge intact still, right? Only historical occurrences seem to suggest that military campaigns rarely can finish insurgent movements. No, not even in some magical "African context" where apparently force works where otherwise it wouldn't. A very progressive attitude, by the way. Oh, and the insurgency in Mali isn't over by a long shot, and we'll see what happens when the French pull out completely. The Sierra Leone civil war lasted for a decade. Quick and easy, right? Yes but the protracted civil war in Sierra Leone was ended within 2 years when the British directly intervened during Operation Palliser in 2000

You should go back and read the previous page to see how Valorian was insulted and baited by Drowsy and Sarex for expressing his opinion. Then comment on who is being rude to who

I really shouldn't be laughing at that but sometimes humor is a good way to break the seriousness of a situation

I never said no one takes there opinion seriously, I said no one takes there insults seriously. There is a big difference

Seriously, "the Americans have the capacity and resources to deal with Boko Haram"? Like they have dealt with the Taliban? Like they dealt with insurgency in Iraq? Like they dealt with the Viet Cong? Read up on irregular and asymmetric conflicts: the Tamil Tigers, FARC, Naxalites, PKK, Shining Path, etc. In the (few) cases where conflicts involving guerrillas have been settled, it has taken decades of concerted economic, social, political and, yes, military efforts to reach a permanent solution. I simply can't wrap my mind around the fact that, after the military approach as been proven ineffective pretty much everywhere it's been applied, you keep suggesting that America must go in and fix it by force. Because hundredth time's a charm, right? Yes 2133 in the Africa context an effective military campaign can end quite quickly an organisation like Boko Haram. Well you can never defeat an ideology but by destroying their operating bases and pushing them outside Nigeria you vastly reduce their effectiveness. This type of military strategy was used in Mali and Sierra Leone where various insurgencies and conflicts ended. And yes I am still standing by the fact that the Nigerian military is incompetent and doesn’t have the political will or military training to defeat Boko Haram

You can correct me if I am wrong, because I'll be the first to admit I know nothing of Nigeria, but it seems to me Nigeria is a divided country. The North has a Muslim population and apparently the secular government is so powerless here that they had to allow local authorities to institute the Sharia. How would the people here look upon any Western presence - would they applaud it, or would they feel the need to join up to fight the foreign invader? Can you be sure that your solution would solve the problem and not make it worse? You have raised a good point that was pointed out to me today by a colleague who travels to Nigeria for work all time, there would more than likely be resistance to just Western intervention in the parts of Nigeria where Boko Haram operates from because of the predominantly Muslim population. So any military mission needs to be sponsored by the United Nations and a collection of countries. Of couse Nigeria needs to approach and ask for help to get the UN security council to vote for a military mission against Boko Haram

Ah, it's funny what a **** you are. As for consensus, I'm not sure about that, really, while it was going on here people were a bit suspect of the "Serbs are the new Nazi" type reports to justify NATO's target practice. But then again, this entire thread is an exercise in futility as everyone's just dismissing the other. As I have mentioned several times I don't dislike Drowsy or Sarex but we have very different political views on most topics. But you can call me an a*** if that makes you feel better, it won't stop me pointing the obvious view that Drowsy and Sarex have about the West. They are defensive around the treatment of Serbia and what Serbia did during the during the Bosnian war. Maybe you should try to understand why we sometimes criticize other members comments instead of making petulant insults because of your lack of knowledge of history

To be fair, that does come across as Serbia deserving the NATO attacks Yes the general concensus from people outside Serbia is that the Serbs did bring it on themselves. I am not going to deny that

You need to realize that both Drowsy and Sarex don't trust or like the West because of the perceived unfair treatment of Serbia by NATO during the Bosnian war. Drowsy is more reasonable but Sarex is hardcore anti-western. So don't take criticism from them seriously, the rest of us don't

Nah. It's just that it's pretty much a given that abducting schoolgirls is a bad thing and so some folks here don't see the need to jump on the OMG bandwagon—others already have that part well covered already. Rather, it's a matter of WHAT does the West do, how we do it, and most importantly, *why*. I have a right, nay, a duty to protest illegal or unethical actions my government takes because they are doing it in my name, but that doesn't hold true for foreign actors. One can go all Sir Charles Napier over this (seems to be what Bruce's calling for), but that implies that Nigerians are not ready to handle their own affairs... and thus Western tutelage is warranted. We all know where that line of thinking leads. At any rate, I'm not too sure what the point of this thread is... though I raised an eyebrow at the suggestion of incompetence on the part of the Nigerian authorities. It's not like the West has a magic wand for dealing with mass kidnappings or situations that involve entrenched gunmen and hostages, especially if the gunmen are keen on becoming martyrs. It's a **** situation no matter what flag is hoisted. You have raised a good question when you ask " what is the purpose of this thread" It has several purposes. Awareness and a discussion on how to address challengers that the African continent grapples with. Boko Haram is significant because of the importance of Nigeria, And yes this does highlight the incompetence of the Nigerian military forces. I fail to see how you can have any other view , they have had years to deal with Boko Haram and they have failed terribly in addressing this growing problem. Now it cannot be ignored anymore. Nigeria is hosting the African economic summit next month but how do you position yourself as an economic investment hub for a continent if you have such internal instability, its a serious contradiction I get tired of all this anti-western talk from some quarters in the African continent. I would like Nigeria to publically announce they need Western military assistance. This will go a long way to improving the perception of the relationship between the West and Africa. I don't think the West gets nearly enough recognition from Africa because of the historical legacy of colonialism

You brought it upon yourself, tbh. Don't post live executions stuff and other tripe and you'll be fine. I've butted heads with moderation here more times than I care to remember and it was always for doing stupid **** like circumventing the language filter or creating alts to avoid moderated posting, never for the actual content of my posts. Don't try to be clever. Also, I imagine there's a wealth of news items and different perspectives in Russian language sources, but as far as Spanish language sources go... heh. I have never had a warning from a Mod on these forums, I really don't think the forum policies are in any way restrictive or unreasonable if you just understand the expectation around acceptable posting etiquette

Nah, the suggestion that the French are allowing mass murder of Muslim civilians as they favor the Christians is nothing but anti-western sentiment that you are famous for but as usual is not based on facts The AU unfortunately did not commit enough military resources to stop the killing and the French just don't have enough troops on the ground to properly subdue the warring factions in CAR. You can't blame the French for there lack of manpower, once again this should a problem resolved by the AU. The French are not intentionally letting the Christians kill the Muslims but they also need to protect there own soldiers. However the UN has approved a 12,000 man force which should be able to prevent the murders and violence but this take some time to organize and be deployed to CAR http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140410/NEWS08/304100047/U-N-approves-12-000-troops-CAR-peacekeeping

What would you like to see done, then? You talk about apathy, but for me the matter is that I haven't seen anyone come forward with a good gameplan of what exactly needs to be done here. It's a very complex matter, and it needs a bit more thought than "Hey, let's just send in the marines." @jadedmeister So you have asked the most important question " what is the best solution to resolve this particular crisis" Before I give my views I need to give some context so I'm not misunderstood. Firstly I like Nigeria, various South African companies have made loads of money doing business there. I have been there several times for work. We always ask for 60-70% of the professional services (PS) fees upfront before we do projects in Nigeria , this is generally unheard of as normally most companies only the pay the PS after the project is done. Nigeria despite its social challengers, like corruption, is one of the rising stars in the area. They welcome investment and they treat you well when you go there. They are trying to do many things to uplift there country and make it the true economic powerhouse of Africa But this also is there biggest issue and the fact that Boko Haram has been able to act with such impunity for the last few years highlights this. The Nigerian focus has been on encouraging foreign investment and developing there oil refineries but at the expense of most other things. For example infrastructure in most parts of the country is lacking, anyone who has ever been to Lagos knows this ( over 20 million people live in Lagos making it the most populated city in Africa ). They do contribute troops and military resources to some AU missions but the reality is there troops aren't that well trained or disciplined. A major indictment with how most African countries deal with egregious social problems is basically to ignore them and hope they go away and that's what happened with Boko Haram So now what should Nigeria do as there reticence to properly deal with Boko Haram has actually emboldened this fundamentalist group. They need to publically acknowledge and accept they cannot deal with this crisis and ask for Western military assistance. They need to align themselves unconditionally with the West to deal with this group. No more of this ridiculous " African solutions for African problems " catch-phrase that we hear about that in reality translates to a lackluster response to most examples when it is used on the African continent The Americans have the capacity and resources to deal with Boko Haram but they need to be invited. Once analysis is done of where Boko Haram operates from then drones and special force soldiers along with the Nigerian army can be used to annihilate them. Boko Haram can't be reasoned with. They truly are an anachronistic and barbaric group. This type of strategy to deal with these types of groups does work, we saw this in Mali and Sierra Leone with how the French and British dealt with the various factions that were causing mayhem and spreading violence. The question may be " does the USA want to get involved?" I think they would due to public awareness and also the fact that Boko Haram is linked to Al-Qaeda so this could easily be justified as part of the USA military strategy against Islamic extremism Sadly I can't predict if this will save the girls that have been kidnapped but once Boko Haram is wiped out or at least there bases are destroyed this will at least impact there ability to perpetuate further campaigns of terror against Nigeria. So that's my solution, get the West actively involved on a military level "

Well said squeakmeister, well said I can completely empathize with the sentiment that we all had our own interpretation of what PoE would be. For example when they said BG2 I assumed deep and engaging Romance options. But it wasn't meant to be, of course committed and loyal promancers like you and me are disappointed but I still have complete confidence that Obsidian will deliver a very captivating and worthwhile RPG experience

I'm going to watch Zero Dark Thirty tonight and I'm really excited. I know there will be some artistic license used around how Bin Laden was really tracked down but I'm sure the movie will be very entertaining

Where in this thread do you see anyone saying that Boko Haram fanatics are "plucky revolutionaries"? I'm quite confused, I don't see anyone here cheering them on or even remotely defending them. I believe Walsie is predicting comments from some of our members who tend to dismiss anything the West does as having an ulterior motive and any example of an organization or country opposing the West as noble and righteous. But I don't think we will see this sentiment on this thread as its unequivocal who the " bad guys " are

Well no other blatant reason, you think the US/EU likes spending money and risking their people's lives for no return? Security reasons I'd guess for most of those - no need to have some failed state be the next training ground for terrorists to come bomb you in a couple of years. Heh, thinking of how Russia would have handled the whole 'Blackhawk Down' incident if it were their people. Actually the USSR basically pulled out of Afghanistan when the war turned for them the moment the Mujahideen learnt how to effectively use RPG that started bringing down there helicopters at an alarming rate. The Afghanistan war became too expensive for them from a military hardware perspective

Jadedmeister Yes Somalia does have some oil reserves that are obviously not in production due to the violence that has been raging in the country the last 20 years. But you raise an interesting point. The initial background to Black Hawk Down was the humanitarian crisis, there is no doubt around that point. But lets say the Americans had stabilized the country and then the various energy corporations started investigating sources of potential oil. Lets say they did find oil and started building refineries. What is wrong with that? Someone has to make the huge capital investment to refine and produce oil and gas. Why cant it be Western countries, would you prefer Chinese companies that didn't contribute towards ensuring peace? These energy companies employ thousands of people and still pay tax to the home country but the reality is there will always be some large corporation behind the building of refineries. But for me the more important point is that Somalia would have had a working and growing economy as opposed the reality of the country now which is basically one of the worst failed states in the world where most of the people live in dire poverty.

Uh, I think that's pretty much every power. No Malc that's incorrect. There are numerous examples of direct intervention and military assistance by the West in Africa when there was no other reason to do it but humanitarian interest. Sierra Leone, Somalia, CAR, Mali are just some examples where the West has intervened and they didn't gain anything by it but to try to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of some sort Was that when we were still fighting proxy wars against the spread of Communism? No, all those conflicts I mentioned are examples of Western intervention in Africa after 1990.

Uh, I think that's pretty much every power. No Malc that's incorrect. There are numerous examples of direct intervention and military assistance by the West in Africa when there was no other reason to do it but humanitarian interest. Sierra Leone, Somalia, CAR, Mali are just some examples where the West has intervened and they didn't gain anything by it but to try to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of some sort

Funny I thought that Bethesda did release hotfixes and patches for all there games in an attempt to fix issues?

If you haven't heard about this story yet you will. CNN is now really starting to focus on it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/nigeria-boko-haram_n_5232957.html In summary Boko Haram is another Islamic fundamentalist group that operates out of north-eastern Nigeria and is linked to Al-Qaeda. For the last 4 years they been involved in numerous bombings and mass killings in the region in order to achieve some sort of Islamic conservative independent state from Nigeria. I have to say there tactics are particularly cruel and barbaric. Very similar to Al-Shabaab in Somalia Anyway over 2 weeks ago they marched into a remote town in the area and kidnapped over 200 school girls. They then fled into forests on the border of Nigeria and Cameroon. Some of the school girls escaped but the rest are still being held captive in an unknown area. Over 2 weeks later the Nigeria government has been utterly unable to get the girls back due to incompetence or lack of properly trained military resources. This raises many questions and concerns but 2 that come to mind for me are Can you imagine a situation in your country where it could be in any way possible that such a large group of children could be kidnapped and your government is unable to get the people back? This region of Nigeria is suppose to be under a state of emergency so it just highlights the lack of security and ineffectiveness of the Nigerian security forces Certain African and Nigerian commentators are asking " what is the world doing about it". And I have to ask why is this a problem that the West has to deal with? ( I say the West because when that question is asked people mean the West as Russia and China never intervene militarily unless it directly suits there national interest. They are happy to let Western countries commit resources and manpower to humanitarian conflicts) The rise of the power of Boko Haram should be a Nigerian and African Union problem. But this incident highlights again one of the main reason why the AU isn't achieving its full potential. The lack of political will and proper financial commitment to deal with serious internal problems in the continent . So when the West helps to remove a dictator like Gaddafi its considered "imperialism and neo-colonialism" but when it comes to military missions or funding then the West needs to get involved or its gets criticized. Nigeria has just surpassed South Africa as the country with the biggest GDP in the continent. But what's the point of having a growing GDP if you cannot even ensure the safety and security of your citizens when it comes to examples like this mass kidnapping I hope this school girls get reunited with there families but I'm not hopeful

Did you boys survive this calamitous event....please let me know you are okay

Nice recipe idea, thanks