Nigeria Kidnappings - What to Do?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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]

So?

Someone could use the same logic to justify an operation anywhere in the world for practically any reason under the sun.
[/quote]

Do you honestly believe that a private military corporation could independently perform the intelligence, logistical, and counter-terrorism operations to carry out such an operation?

142

I guess if you want to please your military industrial donors there will always be plenty of terrorist groups to spend money on killing. If China and Russia don’t start stepping up their game that is.

143

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I guess if you want to please your military industrial donors there will always be plenty of terrorist groups to spend money on killing. If China and Russia don’t start stepping up their game that is.[/quote]

Yes, the securitization of terrorism has been a profitable condition for some.

They are. Perhaps American preoccupation with terrorism will wane in the coming years.

145

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Do you honestly believe that a private military corporation could independently perform the intelligence, logistical, and counter-terrorism operations to carry out such an operation?

[/quote]

Do you honestly believe that every single tragedy in the whole wide world should warrant the expenditure of American lives, limbs and lucre by a government that extracts said resources at the point of the sword?
[/quote]

Absolutely not. Where did I write as much? The fact that you believe private military corporations are capable of successfully addressing the issue the thread concerns demonstrates fundamental misunderstandings I the use of military force on your part.

146

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Do you honestly believe that a private military corporation could independently perform the intelligence, logistical, and counter-terrorism operations to carry out such an operation?

[/quote]

Do you honestly believe that every single tragedy in the whole wide world should warrant the expenditure of American lives, limbs and lucre by a government that extracts said resources at the point of the sword?
[/quote]

It would be nice if all these countries with the lavish expenditures on social programs didn’t rely on the U.S. military to protect their collective asses.
If everyone of our so called ‘allies’ truly invested in their own military’s rather than rely on the U.S. to get them out of every jam they get themselves into, they wouldn’t have the capitol to truly protect themselves and maintain their social experiments. But the fault is on both sides. Few countries will invest in their own militaries because military protection is a phone call away, to the U.S. But we also let it happen. We don’t demand our allies step up to the plate and develop a real military that can actually protect their own country should the drums of war arrive at their door step.

So sadly, where ever there is a problem in the world calling for a just solution, American lives are always at stake. Until nations can stand on their own with their own militaries, America is the one they call when force is needed. It sucks, but that’s the reality. Only a small handful of nations have a military that can actually win an engagement. And most of that handful are our enemies.

It sucks that we are the only truly strong ‘good guy’ military force in the world. All our ‘friends’ have token militaries, more or less. So when ever there is a problem in the world, America gets the call. Who else can do it? Canada? Pulease! England can stand it’s own ground, but that’s about it for our allies in terms of military power. I don’t see anybody calling France when they need military assistance.
It sucks, but it’s reality. When force is required to attain a just end to a situation, America is the one who get’s the call.
Of course in between conflicts, they are more than happy to bitch about our military that they rely on to protect their freedom.
America is the military force for the free world, nobody else has the balls to arm themselves like they need to to truly protect themselves. I don’t see that changing anytime soon either.

147

Funny how when people want to bring up a millitary pussyfooting they always mention France, but around 2006 when parts of Europe were being strategically blown up and gassed-

Not a damn thing happened in France. Maybe we should take notes.

148

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Funny how when people want to bring up a millitary pussyfooting they always mention France, but around 2006 when parts of Europe were being strategically blown up and gassed-

Not a damn thing happened in France. Maybe we should take notes.
[/quote]

Yeah, they must be doing something right. Paris, France…

149

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Funny how when people want to bring up a millitary pussyfooting they always mention France, but around 2006 when parts of Europe were being strategically blown up and gassed-

Not a damn thing happened in France. Maybe we should take notes.
[/quote]
Yeah, they must be doing something right. Paris, France…
[/quote]
Social policy be damned, I think they got it right in the whole war on terror thing.

I remember reading about some other things they get right too. I think it was Atlas Tire company Vs. Goodyear, wherein the CEO of the french owned and operated company was basically laughing at the US business model for being an abusive failure. He had the numbers (profit and all other measurable workplace data) to back it up too.

Try to remember that the US as we know it is an amalgamation of mostly European sensibilities.

Oh, wait a second, I’m trying to discuss sensibility. My bad.

150

How this for you Pat- “Fuck YEAH! Merica! WAHOO! Screw that brainy shit. We think with out fists!”

More gooder for ya?

151

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Funny how when people want to bring up a millitary pussyfooting they always mention France, but around 2006 when parts of Europe were being strategically blown up and gassed-

Not a damn thing happened in France. Maybe we should take notes.
[/quote]

French leaders declared in 2006 that terrorism against France would be met with nuclear retaliation.

*EDIT: didn’t read the link over my own

152

Both France and the UK are among the five de jure nuclear powers, and both maintain robust nuclear forces. Their conventional forces are among the most well equipped and well trained in the world. Anyone chastising them for their weakness is demonstrating their own ignorance.

153

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Both France and the UK are among the five de jure nuclear powers, and both maintain robust nuclear forces. Their conventional forces are among the most well equipped and well trained in the world. Anyone chastising them for their weakness is demonstrating their own ignorance. [/quote]

Superior militaries mean absolutely nothing if the people don’t have resolve. If Britain got involved in a conflict there’d be thousands of smelly hippies on the streets demanding the government stop murdering babies and the media would be running defeatist propaganda day and night. By contrast a country like North Korea would be willing to send millions of men to their deaths for the love of their dear leader.

154

Democracy and civilian controlled militaries must be able to endure such malcontents. If the West was faced with an enemy with maximalist objectives, they would have no choice but to resolute.

155

[quote]Bismark wrote:
If the West was faced with an enemy with maximalist objectives, they would have no choice but to resolute.[/quote]

You mean like France in WWII?

156

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Do you honestly believe that a private military corporation could independently perform the intelligence, logistical, and counter-terrorism operations to carry out such an operation?

[/quote]

Do you honestly believe that every single tragedy in the whole wide world should warrant the expenditure of American lives, limbs and lucre by a government that extracts said resources at the point of the sword?
[/quote]

It would be nice if all these countries with the lavish expenditures on social programs didn’t rely on the U.S. military to protect their collective asses.
If everyone of our so called ‘allies’ truly invested in their own military’s rather than rely on the U.S. to get them out of every jam they get themselves into, they wouldn’t have the capitol to truly protect themselves and maintain their social experiments. But the fault is on both sides. Few countries will invest in their own militaries because military protection is a phone call away, to the U.S. But we also let it happen. We don’t demand our allies step up to the plate and develop a real military that can actually protect their own country should the drums of war arrive at their door step.

So sadly, where ever there is a problem in the world calling for a just solution, American lives are always at stake. Until nations can stand on their own with their own militaries, America is the one they call when force is needed. It sucks, but that’s the reality. Only a small handful of nations have a military that can actually win an engagement. And most of that handful are our enemies.

It sucks that we are the only truly strong ‘good guy’ military force in the world. All our ‘friends’ have token militaries, more or less. So when ever there is a problem in the world, America gets the call. Who else can do it? Canada? Pulease! England can stand it’s own ground, but that’s about it for our allies in terms of military power. I don’t see anybody calling France when they need military assistance.
It sucks, but it’s reality. When force is required to attain a just end to a situation, America is the one who get’s the call.
Of course in between conflicts, they are more than happy to bitch about our military that they rely on to protect their freedom.
America is the military force for the free world, nobody else has the balls to arm themselves like they need to to truly protect themselves. I don’t see that changing anytime soon either.
[/quote]

Name one country whose protection we run to, that hasn’t provided us with significant logistical or materiel support in the war on terror, and that spends lavishly on failed social policies. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

If I have a child who screams and yells and throws a fit and cries every time he wants something, and then I give it to him each time, it’s pretty silly of me to complain about the kid’s behavior. If I don’t cave in and give him the toy or the candy or whatever every single time he throws a fit, he’ll stop asking eventually. Parenting 101. If you look at ourselves as a reluctant “parental” figure for the rest of the planet, why are you complaining about the behavior of the child when it is the actions of the parent that perpetuates said behavior?

157

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
If the West was faced with an enemy with maximalist objectives, they would have no choice but to resolute.[/quote]

You mean like France in WWII?[/quote]

Germany didn’t seek the destruction of France, but merely its subjugation.

158

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Do you honestly believe that a private military corporation could independently perform the intelligence, logistical, and counter-terrorism operations to carry out such an operation?

[/quote]

Do you honestly believe that every single tragedy in the whole wide world should warrant the expenditure of American lives, limbs and lucre by a government that extracts said resources at the point of the sword?
[/quote]

It would be nice if all these countries with the lavish expenditures on social programs didn’t rely on the U.S. military to protect their collective asses.
If everyone of our so called ‘allies’ truly invested in their own military’s rather than rely on the U.S. to get them out of every jam they get themselves into, they wouldn’t have the capitol to truly protect themselves and maintain their social experiments. But the fault is on both sides. Few countries will invest in their own militaries because military protection is a phone call away, to the U.S. But we also let it happen. We don’t demand our allies step up to the plate and develop a real military that can actually protect their own country should the drums of war arrive at their door step.

So sadly, where ever there is a problem in the world calling for a just solution, American lives are always at stake. Until nations can stand on their own with their own militaries, America is the one they call when force is needed. It sucks, but that’s the reality. Only a small handful of nations have a military that can actually win an engagement. And most of that handful are our enemies.

It sucks that we are the only truly strong ‘good guy’ military force in the world. All our ‘friends’ have token militaries, more or less. So when ever there is a problem in the world, America gets the call. Who else can do it? Canada? Pulease! England can stand it’s own ground, but that’s about it for our allies in terms of military power. I don’t see anybody calling France when they need military assistance.
It sucks, but it’s reality. When force is required to attain a just end to a situation, America is the one who get’s the call.
Of course in between conflicts, they are more than happy to bitch about our military that they rely on to protect their freedom.
America is the military force for the free world, nobody else has the balls to arm themselves like they need to to truly protect themselves. I don’t see that changing anytime soon either.
[/quote]

This post is underpinned by the erroneous assumption that the United States is a “reluctant sheriff”, using force only when international bandits give it little choice.

159

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Both France and the UK are among the five de jure nuclear powers, and both maintain robust nuclear forces. Their conventional forces are among the most well equipped and well trained in the world. Anyone chastising them for their weakness is demonstrating their own ignorance. [/quote]

Superior militaries mean absolutely nothing if the people don’t have resolve. If Britain got involved in a conflict there’d be thousands of smelly hippies on the streets demanding the government stop murdering babies and the media would be running defeatist propaganda day and night. By contrast a country like North Korea would be willing to send millions of men to their deaths for the love of their dear leader.[/quote]

But Britain does have the means to protect itself, which is a rarity in western Europe. I am not so sure about the french. They sure got bogged down in Sierra Leon. I am not sure if that was weakness, stupidity, or a lack of resolve as you say.
I am not so sure about the hippies part, but definitely smelly.

160

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Do you honestly believe that a private military corporation could independently perform the intelligence, logistical, and counter-terrorism operations to carry out such an operation?

[/quote]

Do you honestly believe that every single tragedy in the whole wide world should warrant the expenditure of American lives, limbs and lucre by a government that extracts said resources at the point of the sword?
[/quote]

It would be nice if all these countries with the lavish expenditures on social programs didn’t rely on the U.S. military to protect their collective asses.
If everyone of our so called ‘allies’ truly invested in their own military’s rather than rely on the U.S. to get them out of every jam they get themselves into, they wouldn’t have the capitol to truly protect themselves and maintain their social experiments. But the fault is on both sides. Few countries will invest in their own militaries because military protection is a phone call away, to the U.S. But we also let it happen. We don’t demand our allies step up to the plate and develop a real military that can actually protect their own country should the drums of war arrive at their door step.

So sadly, where ever there is a problem in the world calling for a just solution, American lives are always at stake. Until nations can stand on their own with their own militaries, America is the one they call when force is needed. It sucks, but that’s the reality. Only a small handful of nations have a military that can actually win an engagement. And most of that handful are our enemies.

It sucks that we are the only truly strong ‘good guy’ military force in the world. All our ‘friends’ have token militaries, more or less. So when ever there is a problem in the world, America gets the call. Who else can do it? Canada? Pulease! England can stand it’s own ground, but that’s about it for our allies in terms of military power. I don’t see anybody calling France when they need military assistance.
It sucks, but it’s reality. When force is required to attain a just end to a situation, America is the one who get’s the call.
Of course in between conflicts, they are more than happy to bitch about our military that they rely on to protect their freedom.
America is the military force for the free world, nobody else has the balls to arm themselves like they need to to truly protect themselves. I don’t see that changing anytime soon either.
[/quote]

This post is underpinned by the erroneous assumption that the United States is a “reluctant sheriff”, using force only when international bandits give it little choice.[/quote]

We’re no sheriff. That’s not the point. The point is that to many countries rely on the U.S. military to bail themselves, or their interests out of jams. We don’t barge in in many cases, we are asked, begged to ‘do something about it’.
Of course, we do it to ourselves as well. How many times have we asked Israel to show restraint? Since their restraint has shown little progress in making peace in the region, perhaps we should let them deal with their enemies how they see fit.