Military Intervention in Nigeria

Reiver · 14-05-2014 11:42pm

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Hint: This is part of the dynamic that is driving violence in these parts of the world. How about instead of sending in the jackbooted skythugs to secure the oil, we wean ourselves off it instead?

I agree. Nuclear power is much more efficient and a powerful determinator for a small nation.

wes · 14-05-2014 11:45pm

Reiver wrote: »

The last time they tried to solve a problem....well look what happened to Biafra

Ok, then if we are using the 60's as a timeline, then there isn't a country in the world with the ability to intervene, who hasn't butchered a lot of innocent people, in that time frame.......

Anyway, good governance is the solution, and the government of Nigeria should be helped so that they can sort out there own problems.

BTW, you do realise, Boko Haram, are hardly the only groups= doing this sort of thing, and there not even the most murderous. There are different tribal groups murdering and raping 1000s in South Sudan for example. Religious/Tribal violence in the Central African Republic. Thats just the stuff that I can remember on the African content off the top of my head. I am sure if I were to cast a wider a net and start looking stuff up the list would greatly expand.

Honest question, why does action need to be taken against Boko Haram, when one could easily make the case that there is potential for genocide in either the CAR or South Sudan, and far greater death and destruction? Why military intervention in one case and not the other. Also, how would military intervention help, when there is already Nigerian soliders on the ground?

Also, there are French troops in the CAR, and there is still massive violence, with the French troops being largely ineffectual (with some accusing them with taking sides even). So there is 0 guarantee that foreign intervention will achieve anything.

wes · 14-05-2014 11:48pm

wretcheddomain wrote: »

however, they'll never tweet '#bringbackourboys' when the armed intervention they so long for goes horribly wrong (see Iraq and Libya).

Sure, no one is doing it for all the young boys (and forcing them to fight for them) kidnapped by Boko Haram, and other groups who do the same. So, you are very much right in what you say.

Sulla Felix · 14-05-2014 11:50pm

Reiver wrote: »

I agree. Nuclear power is much more efficient and a powerful determinator for a small nation.

Won't happen for another generation or two unfortunately. The left in Ireland is married to the issues of the 60s/70s

end of the road · 14-05-2014 11:51pm

Reiver wrote: »

Duh? Because it is?

duh? who says it is, just because we believe it to be doesn't mean it is or that it is for everyone

Reiver wrote: »

We have to fight fire with fire

no we don't, tried and failed spectacularly

Reiver wrote: »

those heathen terrorists should be taught a lesson.

what? that their oil is ours?

Reiver wrote: »

Go tweet about it if you want change.

about what, infact what are you even on about

Reiver · 15-05-2014 12:07am

wes wrote: »

Also, there are French troops in the CAR, and there is still massive violence, with the French troops being largely ineffectual (with some accusing them with taking sides even). So there is 0 guarantee that foreign intervention will achieve anything.

There's your answer. If the French couldn't win in Algeria, Indochina or there, why should they be of any success?

Reiver · 15-05-2014 12:10am

end of the road wrote: »

duh? who says it is, just because we believe it to be doesn't mean it is or that it is for everyone

what? that their oil is ours?

Ah ok so because these guys feel it isn't for them, we should support their efforts at freedom fighting? Do you also ship arms up North to dissident republicans/loyalists? (I don't know where you fall on that)

Who said their oil is ours? It's under the authority of the legitimately elected government. Not some machete and AK-toting loonies who use terror tactics against a scared populace. A dose of napalm would do them good.

ryan101 · 15-05-2014 12:41am

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The folks who are calling for, or desire, intervention are doing so at the expense of other people's lives. They say things like 'we have to help them girls', when the 'we' is actually a euphemism for 'someone else's family members must go over and break international law so that I feel better'. The said individual will then leave their laptop and completely forget about these girls. Of course, there is one thing they can do that's of utmost value, and that's to type '#bringbackourgirls', makes them feel like they've rolled up their sleeves and done something productive...however, they'll never tweet '#bringbackourboys' when the armed intervention they so long for goes horribly wrong (see Iraq and Libya).

What do these boys join up for then ? Propping up and protecting certain politicians and rich people ?

end of the road · 15-05-2014 1:05am

ryan101 wrote: »

What do these boys join up for then ? Propping up and protecting certain politicians and rich people ?

yes

wes · 15-05-2014 1:07am

Reiver wrote: »

There's your answer. If the French couldn't win in Algeria, Indochina or there, why should they be of any success?

Why would foreign military intervention be any better in Nigeria?

end of the road · 15-05-2014 1:12am

Reiver wrote: »

Ah ok so because these guys feel it isn't for them, we should support their efforts at freedom fighting?

is that what i said? maybe you should read again, i believe we should but out in relation to changing these countries ways, support for finding the missing girls doesn't have to be weapons or military support.

Reiver wrote: »

Do you also ship arms up North to dissident republicans/loyalists? (I don't know where you fall on that)

whats that got to do with anything

Reiver wrote: »

Who said their oil is ours?

you said we should teach these people a lesson, what lesson, we tried that nonsense in afghanistan and were back to square 1 after almost 13 years.

Reiver wrote: »

It's under the authority of the legitimately elected government.

yeah, so military intervention is not our business.

Reiver wrote: »

Not some machete and AK-toting loonies who use terror tactics against a scared populace. A dose of napalm would do them good.

no it wouldn't, now what exactly is your point, do you want military action in nigeria or don't you because from your posts i'm not sure what you want.

wretcheddomain · 15-05-2014 11:20am

ryan101 wrote: »

What do these boys join up for then ? Propping up and protecting certain politicians and rich people ?

They join under the assumption that the premise by which they'll be sent out to combat is a legitimate one and not an illegal one.

Let's turn the tables. Imagine the IRA kidnapped 20 girls in pretty much the same situation demanding that prisoners be released. How would you feel if the Nigerian army came over here illegally and stirred up things with the IRA?

Purely hypothetical but you should get the point.

ryan101 · 15-05-2014 11:28am

wretcheddomain wrote: »

They join under the assumption that the premise by which they'll be sent out to combat is a legitimate one and not an illegal one.

Let's turn the tables. Imagine the IRA kidnapped 20 girls in pretty much the same situation demanding that prisoners be released. How would you feel if the Nigerian army came over here illegally and stirred up things with the IRA?

Purely hypothetical but you should get the point.

The correct analogy would be how would I feel if the Irish/Nigerian government was doing nothing to save these girls in Ireland/Nigeria, I would be quite happy to see the British and Americans intervene.

wretcheddomain · 15-05-2014 11:34am

ryan101 wrote: »

The correct analogy would be how would I feel if the Irish/Nigerian government was doing nothing to save these girls in Ireland/Nigeria, I would be quite happy to see the British and Americans intervene.

You think Anglo-US intervention against another Islamic extremist organisation is going to end peacefully? There'd be far more deaths than all those girls if that were the case.

This is a matter for the Nigerian government and, at most, the African Union.

By the way, do you get emotional when other atrocities take place around the world on a daily basis? How about we intervene in the Congo, or maltreatment of persons in Saudi Arabia, or maybe intervene in Myanmar to protect the Rohingya people?

Where do you interventionists draw the line? Is it simply a la carte which battles you choose to fight?

MonstaMash · 15-05-2014 11:35am

In answer to your question OP, that is what the African Union was formed for in 2001.

Jonny7 · 15-05-2014 11:37am

wretcheddomain wrote: »

They join under the assumption that the premise by which they'll be sent out to combat is a legitimate one and not an illegal one.

Let's turn the tables. Imagine the IRA kidnapped 20 girls in pretty much the same situation demanding that prisoners be released. How would you feel if the Nigerian army came over here illegally and stirred up things with the IRA?

Purely hypothetical but you should get the point.

The Nigerian army is hugely inept and in a very bad state - some men recently attacked their own commander

Countries which have suffered coups often like to keep the army weak - the Nigerian army is no exception, they are badly trained, low morale, rubbish equipment

They have requested the help from Israeli's, Chinese, Americans and some other countries because they simply don't have the resources themselves, especially for this specific situation (hostage rescue)

wretcheddomain · 15-05-2014 11:42am

Jonny7 wrote: »

The Nigerian army is hugely inept and in a very bad state - some men recently attacked their own commander

Countries which have suffered coups often like to keep the army weak - the Nigerian army is no exception, they are badly trained, low morale, rubbish equipment

They have requested the help from Israeli's, Chinese, Americans and some other countries because they simply don't have the resources themselves, especially for this specific situation (hostage rescue)

It's one thing employing the technological and skilled resources of much of those requested to help (beneficial of course), but it's quite another to be a proponent of armed intervention, of which Ryan is clearly an advocate of.

ryan101 · 15-05-2014 11:48am

wretcheddomain wrote: »

You think Anglo-US intervention against another Islamic extremist organisation is going to end peacefully? There'd be far more deaths than all those girls if that were the case.

This is a matter for the Nigerian government and, at most, the African Union.

By the way, do you get emotional when other atrocities take place around the world on a daily basis? How about we intervene in the Congo, or maltreatment of persons in Saudi Arabia, or maybe intervene in Myanmar to protect the Rohingya people?

Where do you interventionists draw the line? Is it simply a la carte which battles you choose to fight?

If you were a parent of those girls, and they were kidnapped by the IRA in Ireland and Enda and pals were doing feck all about it, you'd be quote happy to see the international community step in. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Amirani · 15-05-2014 11:49am

ryan101 wrote: »

If you were a parent of those girls, and they were kidnapped by the IRA in Ireland and Enda and pals were doing feck all about it, you'd be quote happy to see the international community step in. Anything else is hypocrisy.

How do you know the Nigerians are doing nothing?

Jonny7 · 15-05-2014 11:52am

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's one thing employing the technological and skilled resources of much of those requested to help (beneficial of course), but it's quite another to be a proponent of armed intervention, of which Ryan is clearly an advocate of.

Ah indeed, I support reasonable internationally sanctioned armed intervention, e.g. Yugoslavia, Ivory coast

but un-invited intervention in Nigeria? absolutely not

I don't think any country has proposed such a thing anyway

end of the road · 15-05-2014 12:04pm

ryan101 wrote: »

I would be quite happy to see the British and Americans intervene.

even though their no better then terrorists themselves? murika and britain aren't exactly bastians of morality

Reiver · 15-05-2014 4:19pm

end of the road wrote: »

even though their no better then terrorists themselves? murika and britain aren't exactly bastians of morality

Well compared to Nigeria, they seem just fine. How many schoolgirls got kidnapped and threatened by machete-wielders in the UK this year?

The United Kingdom is comprised of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Britain is a mere geographical expression.

Use mercenaries like they did in Sierra Leone in the 90s. A few dozen South Africans with helicopter gunships and BMP's did mroe in a few months than the UN ever could. Same with Mad Mike Hoare in the Congo.

CrabRevolution · 15-05-2014 4:43pm

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Won't happen for another generation or two unfortunately. The left in Ireland is married to the issues of the 60s/70s

Its not like Ireland is alone in not trusting nuclear power. Are Austria, Italy, Australia and New Zealand also stuck in the 60s, since they have no nuclear power? Germany, Switzerland and Belgium are closing down their nuclear plants, are they also backwards?

Some people just really get a kick out of criticising Ireland.

(On a somewhat related note Austria built a nuclear power plant in the 70s for the equivalent today of €1 Billion. It was never once used. I wonder if they have message boards crammed with the phrase "Only in Austria :rolleyes:".)

ryan101 · 15-05-2014 4:53pm

end of the road wrote: »

even though their no better then terrorists themselves? murika and britain aren't exactly bastians of morality

I've yet to see them kidnap 200 children to sell them into sexual slavery.

Amirani · 15-05-2014 5:34pm

ryan101 wrote: »

I've yet to see them kidnap 200 children to sell them into sexual slavery.

Are you kidding or just completely ignorant of recent history?

Both the US and Britain have long histories of exploiting people (including children) via slavery. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Even if we ignore those histories (which would be pretty silly), there's been numerous modern day atrocities committed by both states. The US had killed well over 200 children via drone strikes in the past few years. Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2014 5:42pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Are you kidding or just completely ignorant of recent history?

Both the US and Britain have long histories of exploiting people (including children) via slavery. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Pretty sure it's 2014, not 1714.

Amirani · 15-05-2014 5:54pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Pretty sure it's 2014, not 1714.

Slavery existed in the US upto 1865 and institutionalised racism for much longer after that. What's the timeline for absolving a nation from responsibility? Many people are proud of and champion the US for the 1st and 2nd amendment, both implemented a long time before slavery was abolished in the 13th amendment.

Even without the slavery issue, what on the US killing significant amounts of children via drone strikes? Is it a case of white children>black children>Arab children?

Some of the outcry about this by the US Government (not its citizenry) is incredibly hypocritical. The Nigerian Government (as bad and backward as it is) has far less blood on its hands.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2014 6:06pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Slavery existed in the US upto 1865 and institutionalised racism for much longer after that. What's the timeline for absolving a nation from responsibility? Many people are proud of and champion the US for the 1st and 2nd amendment, both implemented a long time before slavery was abolished in the 13th amendment.

Even without the slavery issue, what on the US killing significant amounts of children via drone strikes? Is it a case of white children>black children>Arab children?

Some of the outcry about this by the US Government (not its citizenry) is incredibly hypocritical. The Nigerian Government (as bad and backward as it is) has far less blood on its hands.

Could you tell me any country that could not be accused of hypocrisy then?

Amirani · 15-05-2014 6:11pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Could you tell me any country that could not be accused of hypocrisy then?

No, most could be accused of hypocrisy at one point or another.

However, most countries don't drop bombs on children on an ongoing basis. I think this sort of precludes them taking on the "we care dearly about foreign children" approach. Again as I said, I've no problem with the American people taking this approach, Obama et al not so much.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2014 7:23pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

No, most could be accused of hypocrisy at one point or another.

However, most countries don't drop bombs on children on an ongoing basis. I think this sort of precludes them taking on the "we care dearly about foreign children" approach. Again as I said, I've no problem with the American people taking this approach, Obama et al not so much.

That's grand then. You sit there on your moral high ground being totally unhypocritical, whilst 200 young girls are sold off as slaves by some extremist nutter.

ryan101 · 15-05-2014 7:25pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Are you kidding or just completely ignorant of recent history?

Both the US and Britain have long histories of exploiting people (including children) via slavery. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Even if we ignore those histories (which would be pretty silly), there's been numerous modern day atrocities committed by both states. The US had killed well over 200 children via drone strikes in the past few years. Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

Oh well in that case that's all right then, let the kids rot in Nigeria.
After all two wrongs make a right !

Amirani · 15-05-2014 8:03pm

So the US should invade Nigeria to protect the kids. Dear god.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2014 8:32pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

So the US should invade Nigeria to protect the kids. Dear god.

No, but as is rightly happening at the moment, if asked, the world's only superpower should assist in their release.

Joe Doe · 15-05-2014 8:51pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, but as is rightly happening at the moment, if asked, the world's only superpower should assist in their release.

China? (Will overtake the US rather shortly as the world's biggest economy).

Wasn't the Irish Army dropped into the Congo back in the 60's to help tidy it up a bit (under the UN). Wouldn't fancy it all the same.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2014 9:58pm

Joe Doe wrote: »

China? (Will overtake the US rather shortly as the world's biggest economy).

Wasn't the Irish Army dropped into the Congo back in the 60's to help tidy it up a bit (under the UN). Wouldn't fancy it all the same.

China isn't a superpower in relation to the US. China's ability to project power is relatively limited.

There's no reason why the ARW couldn't be sent in if requested by Nigeria.

Reformed Character · 15-05-2014 10:15pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, but as is rightly happening at the moment, if asked, the world's only superpower should assist in their release.

The worlds only Superpower?
Tell that to Russia and China!

Reiver · 15-05-2014 10:21pm

upyores wrote: »

The worlds only Superpower?
Tell that to Russia and China!

Russia can't even handle an insurgency in Chechnya. Just because they've a large land force doesn't mean they've force projection, their navy is laughable. Read up on your facts.

MonsterCookie · 15-05-2014 10:31pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

So the US should invade Nigeria to protect the kids. Dear god.

Did I miss something? When did invasion come into it? Bottom line for me is that the children in question have a Better chance of being found and rescued with assistance from outside Nigeria, therefore all the sh1t talk about hypocrisy blah blah blah is pretty sad.

bnt · 15-05-2014 10:40pm

Invasion, no, but I'm conflicted about what can or should be done. Boko Haram represents a medieval attitude that has absolutely no place in this world, not if we have any interest in genuine progress as a species. They think and act as if the last thousand years never happened, in ways that I can only describe as un-evolved and fundamentally Stupid. There is no cure for Stupid.

They do not possess the intelligence to see and understand everything has happened in the world that shows us the way forward. I don't see anyone talking about their "rights": with rights come responsibilities, and they have none of either. If they were wiped out, Nigeria would not miss them, never mind the rest of the world. But I know better than to suggest that "the West" should be the ones to do that. Real change comes from within, not imposed from the outside, and that is as true of countries and religions as it is of individual people. Here endeth the lesson. :cool:

Reformed Character · 15-05-2014 10:41pm

Reiver wrote: »

Russia can't even handle an insurgency in Chechnya. Just because they've a large land force doesn't mean they've force projection, their navy is laughable. Read up on your facts.

I suggest you check your own facts instead of engaging in hostile posting.
Russia has a huge navy, has just retaken Crimea, Ossetia, and likely will make further "acquisitions" in the near future. Those are facts!

Reiver · 15-05-2014 11:35pm

upyores wrote: »

I suggest you check your own facts instead of engaging in hostile posting.
Russia has a huge navy, has just retaken Crimea, Ossetia, and likely will make further "acquisitions" in the near future. Those are facts!

A huge navy? Half of their kit was antiquated by the close of the Soviet era. They've never had a major naval tradition, their only Pacific ports are icebound in winter! How many carriers do they have?

Crimea...well thats ongoing but Ossetia? You might as well point out that Iraq captured Kuwait. No way a tiny nation like Georgia was going to win that one. And when hadji's stop ambushing border guards in Dagestan and the rest of the Caucasus region then I might listen to you. Doesn't make them a superpower.

A large majority of them are conscripts, in Chechnya whole companies were butchered because they'd sold their ammo to the muj. I am checking my facts . What force projection have they? They've proven themselves to be able to engage on their borders but even the IRA pull that off, what overseas operations could they threaten?

ryan101 · 15-05-2014 11:48pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

So the US should invade Nigeria to protect the kids. Dear god.

Do you get hysterical much ?

Reiver · 24-09-2014 12:39am

Well a few months on, I rest my case. Nigeria has done sweet FA.

Military Intervention in Nigeria

Comments