BruceVC

I assume you are asking why would the USA try to assist in defeating Boko Haram? Several reasons, they are already involved throughout Africa in places that are potential breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalism. But the main reason is that most people, including the USA, think that the kidnapping of young girls to be sold into slavery is an utterly unacceptable situation and needs to be condemned and stopped. The good news is the USA has already offered to help https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigerian-girls-captor-sell-them-122202090.html?.tsrc=yahoo#e9OMLLo This is good news Malc, the USA is getting involved

You boys may be right and DA:I may be a disappointment but I say "hope springs eternal in the human breast "

Slaves are not something new to Nigeria. At least according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Human_rights Seems to have a lot of ingrained societal problems. I wouldn't be surprised if parts of Nigeria see it as normal for them. Why you interfere with our normal lives? or something similar. I don't see the success of trying to fix one problem when you have so many (from a western viewpoint). You right the reprehensible act of slavery still does exist in benighted parts of Africa, but its not legal or acceptable by almost all aspects of African society. In fact in a particular backward north western Africa called Mauritania slavery was only abolished in 1981 !!! And its still practiced illegally http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/world/mauritania.slaverys.last.stronghold/index.html

I'm honestly of the view that DA:I is going to be an amazing game. I think Bioware has learnt from the past mistakes of DA2 and the gameplay and fun factor of DA:I is going to blow us away

And in that case the Tigers lost largely because they weren't an insurgent force any more. When they were an insurgent army they were extremely successful, perhaps too successful since that success led to them formalising all their structures and basically setting up a mini Tamil statelet complete with all the trimmings and a regular army during the truce- an army which then got steamrollered when the conflict resumed because, as a regular army, it was no match for the Lankan one. I'm interested in what is your solution for dealing with Boko Haram?

That may be true but what has that has got to do with people who live in a particular area acknowledging what there forefathers did in a particular conflict? Do you not think that part of healing process is acceptance of past injustice ?

I have a question for you Bruce. How does one independently and with proof, weigh up the atrocities on a scale and see who committed the most atrocities? Good question, for me its the number of Serbs who are being charged in the Hague compared to the Croats and Bosniaks. During there trials evidence is presented. The Hague is not a kangaroo court. So for me the obvious response to your question would be " the Serbs committed the most atrocities as they have the most people facing charges"

You see Walsie that has been partly what I have been trying to explain to Sarex and Drowsy about the history of Serbia in the Bosnian war. But they seen conditioned around a certain perspective and aren't prepared to certain historical facts I firmly believe that people who come from a country that has had a checkered or controversial past and history shouldn't try to deny it or make excuses for it. By accepting mistakes of the past its almost a cathartic experience and can be liberating. It allows you to move on and helps to not repeat mistakes. It does not define you or your country going forward In South Africa Apartheid IMO can also be considered a crime against humanity. We dehumanized people based on the colour of there skin for decades and we have whole generations of people that don't know what a normal life is. But we don't deny it, we accept it was a terrible and appalling system of segregation. But I don't feel guilty about it. I believe by accepting what we did wrong as South Africans we have a stronger nation that is rebuilding its confidence and self worth. Of course we still have serious social problems that we need to address. This is one of the reasons I take issues of social justice so seriously. I know how harmful they can be to a country if left to fester or they become acceptable As you also alluded to for me if a country doesn't accept its role in past injustices there is the risk they may repeat them

That's a question you should ask Paul Wolfowitz, methinks. At any rate, the whole point is that Bruce is unhappy with the Nigerian gov't progress at dealing with Boko Haram. By comparison, the Americans swooping in and "dealing" with them would be, in his mind, quick and easy indeed. Because if it wasn't quick and easy, why the hell would he be suggesting it? Okay I can't predict how long neutralizing Boko Haram would take, no one can. And yes it may take longer than a year. But the situation is actually simpler than Sierra Leone, I would argue its more like the Mali conflict that the French intervened in. Boko Haram doesn't have much popular support and they basically operate only in certain regions in Nigeria. So the military goal would be to destroy there bases and drive them across the border. This is not an insurmountable objective because as I mentioned they don't have the same local support as Al-Shabaab in Somalia. There barbaric actions have alienated them from most of the Muslim community in that part of Nigeria and that will make any military mission easier

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/05/elder-scrolls-online-getting-npc-theft-dark-brotherhood/#more-205279 Some new features coming out in ESO, looks good

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/05/us-nigeria-bokoharam-idUSBREA440BJ20140505 Boko Haram is actually giving Islamic fundamentalists a bad name. Now not only are they saying they will sell the girls into slavery but that according to Allah this is what is expected. IMO they have now gone far over what would be acceptable even by Al-Qaeda terms, using Islam to justify slavery as if its there religious right. I am confidant there time is limited and the target on there backs has just got bigger

There were albanians in Srebrenica? Or are you just engaging in creative associations? Yes, we were so interested in killing every Albanian that we called Associated Press to watch the conduct of the special forces operation in Racak, whereupon we massacred them all in front of Anyway the discussion is pointless, with your baiting attitude. Stick to your version Drowsy I want to ask you two questions. We know that in the Bosnian war most people accept that all three sides committed atrocities. But in the Hague being indicted and charged the majority of people are Serbs. So my questions are Do you accept that Serbia committed war crimes\atrocities Do you accept that the Serbs committed the most war crimes\atrocities

you will be disappointed. one thing I keep noticing is that it's VERY close to the real thing, it's either a conspiracy to cover up something really terrible (Dirty Wars and No Easy Day both describe certain episodes that are portrayed in Zero Dark Thirty very close to their text), or the writers actually had access to classified documents (as some SOF folks claim). it's very well filmed, and the actors are flipping amazing. especially Jessica Chastain, she's at the top of her game in this one, and it's an Oscar-worthy performance. it's the best movie of that year, and that's why you won't like it Yeah the movie was excellent. Amazing how they finally tracked Bin Laden down and how Maya Lambert's instincts were right. But why would you think I wouldn't like it? I'm missing that part?

That's looks soooooooo yummy and healthy

Absolutely, there is no doubt that if the Americans were publically invited into Nigeria and given proper operational authority they would end the threat of Boko Haram within a few months. The British and French could do the same, all these countries have proved that in the past in other conflicts. But its not politically correct to suggest that Western countries can effectively help certain African countries with there internal problems And sadly that's one of the greatest issues in Africa, the moment foreign powers get involved in African affairs even in an attempt to help words like "sovereignty" and " imperialism" get thrown around by those opposed to there efforts to help.....and the most frustrating thing is some people believe that so public sentiment get swayed and suddenly the West becomes the bad guys, like when Gaddafi was removed from power. So that's I want a clear signal from the Nigerian government asking for Western help so there is no blowback later in any regards

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