[quote]pat wrote:
Yeah, let’s just ignore them. They’ll go away. They mean no harm.[/quote]\
But they’re on the run
[quote]pat wrote:
Yeah, let’s just ignore them. They’ll go away. They mean no harm.[/quote]
Boko Haram ~ al-Qaida
Regardless, who exactly is ignoring that group?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I propose a solution:
Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Yes, mercenaries.
No taxpayer money. No government involvement aka USA - World Police. No Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force sacrificing their lives for cultures that really don’t give a shit.
Turn private industry loose.
It could happen.[/quote]
I like it.
Kinda like The Expendables.
Just but a $50 million bounty on the leaders severed heads and the return of the girls. See what happens.
They can even make an “Expendables” accounts through the UN or the World Bank and all the normal/western/decent nations can make contributions for mercenary activity.[/quote]
Guns for hire that are loyal only to their next paycheck? Sounds like a sound and responsible way to achieve foreign policy objectives. [/quote]
It wasn’t a foreign policy objective. It was an idea about how to rescue some Nigerian girls without spending taxpayers money, limbs and lives.
It was about subcontracting World Policing.
[/quote]
And that shit would work.[/quote]
What makes you think this? Under supported light infantry loyal only to their next paycheck vs. indigenous insurgents driven by ideological fundamentalism. I would stay far away from this if I was a betting man.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I propose a solution:
Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Yes, mercenaries.
No taxpayer money. No government involvement aka USA - World Police. No Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force sacrificing their lives for cultures that really don’t give a shit.
Turn private industry loose.
It could happen.[/quote]
I like it.
Kinda like The Expendables.
Just but a $50 million bounty on the leaders severed heads and the return of the girls. See what happens.
They can even make an “Expendables” accounts through the UN or the World Bank and all the normal/western/decent nations can make contributions for mercenary activity.[/quote]
Guns for hire that are loyal only to their next paycheck? Sounds like a sound and responsible way to achieve foreign policy objectives. [/quote]
It wasn’t a foreign policy objective. It was an idea about how to rescue some Nigerian girls without spending taxpayers money, limbs and lives.
It was about subcontracting World Policing.
[/quote]
And that shit would work.[/quote]
As callous as this sounds, those girls are as good as dead. The most prudent course of action would be to harden potential future targets of Boko Haram. Policy should not be guided by morality, but by interest. The US is not the enforcer of international “law”. Rather, it predominantly acts to maintain and increase its power relative to its counterparts.
What makes you think this? Under supported light infantry loyal only to their next paycheck vs. indigenous insurgents driven by ideological fundamentalism. I would stay far away from this if I was a betting man.
[/quote]
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I propose a solution:
Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Yes, mercenaries.
No taxpayer money. No government involvement aka USA - World Police. No Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force sacrificing their lives for cultures that really don’t give a shit.
Turn private industry loose.
It could happen.[/quote]
I like it.
Kinda like The Expendables.
Just but a $50 million bounty on the leaders severed heads and the return of the girls. See what happens.
They can even make an “Expendables” accounts through the UN or the World Bank and all the normal/western/decent nations can make contributions for mercenary activity.[/quote]
Guns for hire that are loyal only to their next paycheck? Sounds like a sound and responsible way to achieve foreign policy objectives. [/quote]
It wasn’t a foreign policy objective. It was an idea about how to rescue some Nigerian girls without spending taxpayers money, limbs and lives.
It was about subcontracting World Policing.
[/quote]
And that shit would work.[/quote]
What makes you think this? Under supported light infantry loyal only to their next paycheck vs. indigenous insurgents driven by ideological fundamentalism. I would stay far away from this if I was a betting man.
[/quote]
What makes you think that some, if not many of the guns for hire would be indigenous Africans?
Honestly, I’m sure there’s plenty of gun-ho types that would love a chance to shoot these guys up.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I propose a solution:
Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Yes, mercenaries.
No taxpayer money. No government involvement aka USA - World Police. No Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force sacrificing their lives for cultures that really don’t give a shit.
Turn private industry loose.
It could happen.[/quote]
I like it.
Kinda like The Expendables.
Just but a $50 million bounty on the leaders severed heads and the return of the girls. See what happens.
They can even make an “Expendables” accounts through the UN or the World Bank and all the normal/western/decent nations can make contributions for mercenary activity.[/quote]
Guns for hire that are loyal only to their next paycheck? Sounds like a sound and responsible way to achieve foreign policy objectives. [/quote]
It wasn’t a foreign policy objective. It was an idea about how to rescue some Nigerian girls without spending taxpayers money, limbs and lives.
It was about subcontracting World Policing.
[/quote]
And that shit would work.[/quote]
What makes you think this? Under supported light infantry loyal only to their next paycheck vs. indigenous insurgents driven by ideological fundamentalism. I would stay far away from this if I was a betting man.
[/quote]
What makes you think that some, if not many of the guns for hire would be indigenous Africans?
[/quote]
What did I write to give you that impression? Regardless, light infantry (which any private military corporation would consist of) lacks the capability and wherewithal to perform such an operation unsupported, which they would likely be.
I think a lot of people here are under a misapprehension about this kidnapping. Everyone is trying to blame the IslamoNazis when in fact it wasn’t them at all. Who or what is responsible you ask? Wait for it…
CLIMATE CHANGE!
Oh yes, didn’t you know? According to Nafeez Ahmed of the UK Guardian, climate change is responsible:
And according to Harry Reid the Koch brothers are “one of the main causes” of climate change. So it was the Koch brothers all along. Even when it was the IslamoNazis I knew it was the Koch brothers.
Obama has sent troops and drones into the region. I guess #bringbackourgirls didn’t work.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Obama has sent troops and drones into the region. I guess #bringbackourgirls didn’t work.
And so it begins.
Spending millions of dollars we don’t have, on a mission that only matters to people on social media.
JFC.
#bringbackourtroops
Lets see if it catches on…
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
#bringbackourtroops
Lets see if it catches on…
[/quote]
It was catchy in the '60’s.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Obama has sent troops and drones into the region. I guess #bringbackourgirls didn’t work.
And so it begins.
Spending millions of dollars we don’t have, on a mission that only matters to people on social media.
JFC.[/quote]
This constitutes a solid and relatively cheap training opportunity, as well as greater intelligence regarding Boko Haram.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I propose a solution:
Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Yes, mercenaries.
No taxpayer money. No government involvement aka USA - World Police. No Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force sacrificing their lives for cultures that really don’t give a shit.
Turn private industry loose.
It could happen.[/quote]
I like it.
Kinda like The Expendables.
Just but a $50 million bounty on the leaders severed heads and the return of the girls. See what happens.
They can even make an “Expendables” accounts through the UN or the World Bank and all the normal/western/decent nations can make contributions for mercenary activity.[/quote]
Guns for hire that are loyal only to their next paycheck? Sounds like a sound and responsible way to achieve foreign policy objectives. [/quote]
It wasn’t a foreign policy objective. It was an idea about how to rescue some Nigerian girls without spending taxpayers money, limbs and lives.
It was about subcontracting World Policing.
[/quote]
And that shit would work.[/quote]
What makes you think this? Under supported light infantry loyal only to their next paycheck vs. indigenous insurgents driven by ideological fundamentalism. I would stay far away from this if I was a betting man.
[/quote]
What makes you think that some, if not many of the guns for hire would be indigenous Africans?
[/quote]
What did I write to give you that impression? Regardless, light infantry (which any private military corporation would consist of) lacks the capability and wherewithal to perform such an operation unsupported, which they would likely be.
[/quote]
Money opens many a closed door.[/quote]
Not enough to make up for the intelligence and logistical apparatuses that only governments possess the wherewithal for.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Obama has sent troops and drones into the region. I guess #bringbackourgirls didn’t work.
And so it begins.
Spending millions of dollars we don’t have, on a mission that only matters to people on social media.
JFC.[/quote]
This constitutes a solid and relatively cheap training opportunity, as well as greater intelligence regarding Boko Haram.
[/quote]
IDK. I think our drone pilots have had plenty of opportunity to practice blowing up terrorists around the world already. I doubt the administration cares much about gathering intelligence on a group they refuse to label Islamic terrorists anyway.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Obama has sent troops and drones into the region. I guess #bringbackourgirls didn’t work.
And so it begins.
Spending millions of dollars we don’t have, on a mission that only matters to people on social media.
JFC.[/quote]
This constitutes a solid and relatively cheap training opportunity, as well as greater intelligence regarding Boko Haram.
[/quote]
IDK. I think our drone pilots have had plenty of opportunity to practice blowing up terrorists around the world already. I doubt the administration cares much about gathering intelligence on a group they refuse to label Islamic terrorists anyway.
[/quote]
Yes, because the experience gleaned from reconnaissance operations in a new area of operations holds no intrinsic value to US forces.
That’s patently false. Boko Haram was added to the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list on November 14th, 2013.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Obama has sent troops and drones into the region. I guess #bringbackourgirls didn’t work.
And so it begins.
Spending millions of dollars we don’t have, on a mission that only matters to people on social media.
JFC.[/quote]
This constitutes a solid and relatively cheap training opportunity, as well as greater intelligence regarding Boko Haram.
[/quote]
IDK. I think our drone pilots have had plenty of opportunity to practice blowing up terrorists around the world already. I doubt the administration cares much about gathering intelligence on a group they refuse to label Islamic terrorists anyway.
[/quote]
Yes, because the experience gleaned from reconnaissance operations in a new area of operations holds no intrinsic value to US forces.
That’s patently false. Boko Haram was added to the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list on November 14th, 2013.
http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm[/quote]
I missed the news on Boko Haram being designated. Whoops. I’m sure there are plenty of areas that are heavily forested where our pilots could practice without the expense of deploying to Africa. Unless the admin is planning on a rescue operation.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Obama has sent troops and drones into the region. I guess #bringbackourgirls didn’t work.
And so it begins.
Spending millions of dollars we don’t have, on a mission that only matters to people on social media.
JFC.[/quote]
This constitutes a solid and relatively cheap training opportunity, as well as greater intelligence regarding Boko Haram.
[/quote]
IDK. I think our drone pilots have had plenty of opportunity to practice blowing up terrorists around the world already. I doubt the administration cares much about gathering intelligence on a group they refuse to label Islamic terrorists anyway.
[/quote]
Yes, because the experience gleaned from reconnaissance operations in a new area of operations holds no intrinsic value to US forces.
That’s patently false. Boko Haram was added to the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list on November 14th, 2013.
http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm[/quote]
I missed the news on Boko Haram being designated. Whoops. I’m sure there are plenty of areas that are heavily forested where our pilots could practice without the expense of deploying to Africa. Unless the admin is planning on a rescue operation.
[/quote]
Against an active civilian-centric terrorist organization(CCTO) hostile to Western interests?
Just playing the role of devil’s advocate.