Nigeria Kidnappings - What to Do?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have been following this for about 3weeks . I am curious if it is too big for a black ops , send in a bunch of guys to kill the bad guys . Stack them up like fire wood and leave . No one knew who did it ???[/quote]

It’s not that simple. There’s a lot of bad guys there. I’m also not certain just how good our intel is there anymore.

Not to mention that it doesn’t solve the problem. We kill a small group of bad guys and next week another school is taken. Are we expected to just rinse and repeat?

james

22

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

We rarely go in (especially after Somalia) and it’s typically to rescue American citizens.

[/quote]

News to me having spent 10 months with SOCAFRICA.

We have a huge footprint in Africa, and growing. Yes, mostly in the HOA.

But regarding the original point of “what to do” – well, there is not much to do for these girls.

I am sure the girls have been sold and dispersed into slavery by the Islamic thugs, just like they’ve been enslaving and selling other Africans for 1500+ years. The only thing new is this was a large haul.

We might get lucky, but really, all that is realistic is go-forward arming and hardening the targets, so as to prevent this from happening again.

23

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
News to me having spent 10 months with SOCAFRICA.

We have a huge footprint in Africa, and growing. Yes, mostly in the HOA.[/quote]

I guess it’s how you define huge. I know we go there but I haven’t seen any large scale deployments like we did in Somalia. I’m not saying that we should have those just that’s what enters my mind when I think of huge footprints. Besides Special Ops folks are there any “regular” Army there? We used to do deployments to the region (West Africa) but nobody was actually stationed there aside from our Embassy folk.

It would make sense that we spend time in the Horn but that ignores a large portion of the area where this news story is happening.

james

24

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
News to me having spent 10 months with SOCAFRICA.

We have a huge footprint in Africa, and growing. Yes, mostly in the HOA.[/quote]

I guess it’s how you define huge. I know we go there but I haven’t seen any large scale deployments like we did in Somalia. I’m not saying that we should have those just that’s what enters my mind when I think of huge footprints. Besides Special Ops folks are there any “regular” Army there? We used to do deployments to the region (West Africa) but nobody was actually stationed there aside from our Embassy folk.

It would make sense that we spend time in the Horn but that ignores a large portion of the area where this news story is happening.

james
[/quote]

Well, just Camp Lemonnier had probably 3,000 marines/sailors/regular Army on it, plus probably 500+ SOps, plus all the Brown & Root etc there, and its probably doubled in size. All in, probably a good 5-6,000 people.

I watched everything from C130s to F15s to every kind of drone known to man land there.

The Israelis are right there, too, with something going on with the British.

25

Wow, I stand corrected. GWOT certainly expanded our presence there. It will be interesting to see if that bleeds over to West Africa too.

james

26

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Seriously, we went into Kuwait, saved their ass, spent billions of OUR treasure, but then let them keep their oil? Same with Iraq. What. The. Fuck? If they are now enjoying the benefits of freedom and democracy (even if they cant get it right), then why shouldn’t that come with a cost? It sure as fuck cost US!
[/quote]

I thought we ivaded Iraq for the oil…

That was the whole reason for the war, right? You mean we didn’t get any of that shit?

27

The only problem with this is from what I read, we would end up fighting another Vietnam style conflict that would cost us greatly. It is said that there are numerous underground passages and that the forest is crawling with these guys. Plus they have strong reason to suspect that the girls are spread out all over the place and fairly well hidden, if even still there and not in Cameroon. Just a shitty situation all around.

28

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Seriously, we went into Kuwait, saved their ass, spent billions of OUR treasure, but then let them keep their oil? Same with Iraq. What. The. Fuck? If they are now enjoying the benefits of freedom and democracy (even if they cant get it right), then why shouldn’t that come with a cost? It sure as fuck cost US!
[/quote]

I thought we ivaded Iraq for the oil…

That was the whole reason for the war, right? You mean we didn’t get any of that shit?[/quote]

Pre-2003 Iraq’s oil production was way down; it was nationalized; and it was closed to U.S. firms. Now, its open to private foreign companies and helping to stabilize spikes in demand caused by China. And, of course, Halliburton continues to be one of the big winners.

29

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Really though- I just rocked my son to sleep. If someone tried to come in and take him by force there would be at least one dead body here by the time it was all said and done. If not theirs, then mine.

But 200+, and there aren’t droves of people with any tool or weapon they can muster scouting that area and de-limbing anybody involved?

That is ridiculous. That article should drop the subtext of human chattel and ineffectual government and start looking at these peoples complicity by neglecting to act on their own behalf. [/quote]

There are a lot of dead bodies in that region of Africa and lots of grieving parents.

It sounds so simply when you put it like you did but the reality is not that simple. Most of those people aren’t armed, they don’t have the financial means to arm themselves. And even if they are armed there is only so much they can do against an overwhelming force. Nigerian forces are spread thin. Part of that is because they providing peacekeeping (if you can call it that) throughout that region and part of is it simple economics.

But reality is never as simple as we make it sound.

james
[/quote]
I agree. It’s one thing if the people could actually do something about it, but they cannot. They don’t have the means, the resources, they are totally helpless. When you are completely helpless and then it’s decided nobody will help you that’s another atrocity.
Let somebody take our children and let us be told that nobody is going to help you, they are gone and there is nothing you can do about it. And now your child is going to be sold and have who knows what done to them, by who knows who for the rest of their lives and you will never see them again.
Sure, we’d all like to think we’d strap on our Rambo vests and go get them, but that’s not reality. If nobody helps these people, their kids are lost forever. Nigeria is clearly useless, so what? Do we just tell them “too bad”, the world is a mean place and they have to deal with it? It’s easy to say when it’s not your kid.[/quote]

No dude. Help starts with self. If they won’t ball up a fist, sharpen a stick, or do what ever, why the hell should we send in our best, some of whom absolutely will die?

And Atypical, as far as the complexity goes- Dazzle me. I’m waiting for it.

I’d love to hear one good reason why these people can’t defend their own blood with their own lives?

30

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Really though- I just rocked my son to sleep. If someone tried to come in and take him by force there would be at least one dead body here by the time it was all said and done. If not theirs, then mine.

But 200+, and there aren’t droves of people with any tool or weapon they can muster scouting that area and de-limbing anybody involved?

That is ridiculous. That article should drop the subtext of human chattel and ineffectual government and start looking at these peoples complicity by neglecting to act on their own behalf. [/quote]

There are a lot of dead bodies in that region of Africa and lots of grieving parents.

It sounds so simply when you put it like you did but the reality is not that simple. Most of those people aren’t armed, they don’t have the financial means to arm themselves. And even if they are armed there is only so much they can do against an overwhelming force. Nigerian forces are spread thin. Part of that is because they providing peacekeeping (if you can call it that) throughout that region and part of is it simple economics.

But reality is never as simple as we make it sound.

james
[/quote]
I agree. It’s one thing if the people could actually do something about it, but they cannot. They don’t have the means, the resources, they are totally helpless. When you are completely helpless and then it’s decided nobody will help you that’s another atrocity.
Let somebody take our children and let us be told that nobody is going to help you, they are gone and there is nothing you can do about it. And now your child is going to be sold and have who knows what done to them, by who knows who for the rest of their lives and you will never see them again.
Sure, we’d all like to think we’d strap on our Rambo vests and go get them, but that’s not reality. If nobody helps these people, their kids are lost forever. Nigeria is clearly useless, so what? Do we just tell them “too bad”, the world is a mean place and they have to deal with it? It’s easy to say when it’s not your kid.[/quote]

No dude. Help starts with self. If they won’t ball up a fist, sharpen a stick, or do what ever, why the hell should we send in our best, some of whom absolutely will die?

And Atypical, as far as the complexity goes- Dazzle me. I’m waiting for it.

I’d love to hear one good reason why these people can’t defend their own blood with their own lives?

[/quote]

I agree with you. If it is weapons they need send them guns.

“And even if they are armed there is only so much they can do against an overwhelming force”

I am pretty sure there are more of them than there are terrorists. They just have to be willing to fight, every able body. Why should U.S troops shed any blood?

31

I would use drones and target those radicals for extinction. I would eliminate whole forests if needed. I would not send any more troops but if the locals can provide intelligence on targets, I say we assist in taking them out.

32

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I would use drones and target those radicals for extinction. I would eliminate whole forests if needed. I would not send any more troops but if the locals can provide intelligence on targets, I say we assist in taking them out.[/quote]

That wouldn’t be effective. Neither would just sending guns. If they are to be helped the wisest course would be to use small special operations teams - say 12 or 14 men - to train and lead say 200 locals. This would have the benefit of force multiplication, reduced US casualties and it would prepare the locals to defend themselves in the future.

33

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think that Africa would be a great place to get into another war. I’m getting tired of that “desert camouflage” uniform anyway - that was SOOO last season.

Here’s a thought (probably a politically incorrect thought): If we, the United States “world police”, have to go into a country to “save” it, then why don’t we charge them for the privilege? Seriously, we went into Kuwait, saved their ass, spent billions of OUR treasure, but then let them keep their oil? Same with Iraq. What. The. Fuck? If they are now enjoying the benefits of freedom and democracy (even if they cant get it right), then why shouldn’t that come with a cost? It sure as fuck cost US!

Africa has metric shit tons of natural resources. Why aren’t we "quid pro quo"ing that to our advantage? We will kill your war lords and set you up with some better farming equipment, provide peace, vaccinations and education, etc… and you will give us XYZ quantity of natural resources.

This isn’t a new phenomenon or anything. Britain just settled it’s war debt from WWII back in 2006. So why don’t we make these other countries pay? They have plenty of natural resources. Hell, in lieu of direct payments, we could just agree to give US companies exclusive rights to the oil/minerals/whatever.

That would be win:win. Africa would be a far more peaceful place, the US would have several international income streams, it would allow us to forward deploy our military with “justification” to keep China on it’s heels and it would PAY DOWN OUR DEBT. And it would keep Muslim extremists down and perhaps keep 200+ innocent girls from being kidnapped and sold into slavery.

What do you guys think? [/quote]

Sounds like it could lead to becoming mercenaries.

34

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I would use drones and target those radicals for extinction. I would eliminate whole forests if needed. I would not send any more troops but if the locals can provide intelligence on targets, I say we assist in taking them out.[/quote]

That wouldn’t be effective. Neither would just sending guns. If they are to be helped the wisest course would be to use small special operations teams - say 12 or 14 men - to train and lead say 200 locals. This would have the benefit of force multiplication, reduced US casualties and it would prepare the locals to defend themselves in the future.[/quote]

We do not want reduced U.S casualties we want none. Do they not have their own military, militia, freedom fighters, willing farmers or are they all corrupt? Why can’t they train there own people?

35

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I would use drones and target those radicals for extinction. I would eliminate whole forests if needed. I would not send any more troops but if the locals can provide intelligence on targets, I say we assist in taking them out.[/quote]

That wouldn’t be effective. Neither would just sending guns. If they are to be helped the wisest course would be to use small special operations teams - say 12 or 14 men - to train and lead say 200 locals. This would have the benefit of force multiplication, reduced US casualties and it would prepare the locals to defend themselves in the future.[/quote]

We do not want reduced U.S casualties we want none. Do they not have their own military, militia, freedom fighters, willing farmers or are they all corrupt? Why can’t they train there own people?
[/quote]

I’m not advocating helping them. I’m just saying if they are to be helped that is the best way.

36

I like AC’s suggestions, they have assets we can trade for our services.

37

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I like AC’s suggestions, they have assets we can trade for our services. [/quote]

Has the U.S not pretty much always done this? Don’t know if people would call it “trading” though.

38

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I like AC’s suggestions, they have assets we can trade for our services. [/quote]

Has the U.S not pretty much always done this? Don’t know if people would call it “trading” though.

39

700×663 63.3 KB

To: Nigeria

From: America

I know exactly what we should do.

#ifyouarenotflyingthestarsandbarsiwillnotacceptyoutakingkidsfromparents

40

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I would use drones and target those radicals for extinction. I would eliminate whole forests if needed. I would not send any more troops but if the locals can provide intelligence on targets, I say we assist in taking them out.[/quote]

That wouldn’t be effective. Neither would just sending guns. If they are to be helped the wisest course would be to use small special operations teams - say 12 or 14 men - to train and lead say 200 locals. This would have the benefit of force multiplication, reduced US casualties and it would prepare the locals to defend themselves in the future.[/quote]

We do not want reduced U.S casualties we want none. Do they not have their own military, militia, freedom fighters, willing farmers or are they all corrupt? Why can’t they train there own people?
[/quote]

They have their own police and security forces. This has been going on for 5 years! They just lack the will to fight terrorist like you need to fight them: With no rules, and bring the fight to them and destroy them. They only understand one thing: Strength.

Nigeria and it’s president has been too concerned about growing and preserving it’s economy (the largest in Africa) than dealing with the growing terrorism over the last 5 years.

Now he’s stuck with it.

I say we can take out a target or two with drones. that’s all.