fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2686 ]

[ SECRET POST #2686 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2686 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What would you have her do besides what's already being done? Fly over to Nigeria and try to find them herself?

Now there is a pitch for the next series of 24, get rid of Bauer and have 24 Hours of Michelle in the Jungle! I'd watch the fuck out of that.

Or just have Barack send a few drones, and maybe a couple of SEAL Teams. Its not like he hasn't done it for other causes.

But is that really a good idea with Nigerians saying "no?"

So what you are saying is that ignoring national borders for assassinations are good, but ignoring them to rescue kidnapped girls is bad? I'm not sure I can approve of that philosophy of force. It seems a little backwards.

...where did I say that I was okay with ignoring national borders for assassinations? I don't think that they should be ignored at all.

Well it is a few years too late to get off that horse, you're in for a penny so you might as well go all in for the pound too! Get at least a small amount of positive PR back on that.

I'm not sure who you think I am, but I'm not in charge of America's foreign policy.

Drones wouldn't be much help in the Nigerian environment. You think they're causing problems operating in predominantly open-terrain environments? Imagine the insanity of those things operating in tropical areas.

Meanwhile, people are already sending in the military aid the Nigerians will accept. Sending in military aid they don't want just means anyone dealing with this will have no back-up, no access to data from the legitimate investigation of where these girls even are (let alone how the hell to get them back alive). These are literally hundreds of girls - a few SEAL teams isn't going to help them much and could even hurt them more. And that's even before getting to the possibility of them having to fight the Nigerian military on top of the Boko militants.

Assuming that superior military power/technology can beat environment, locality, and logistics is basically how we got the Vietnam War.

But you killed the shit out of the vietnamese in the vietnam war.

You just didn't have the will to sustain a protracted war without a clear goal and negative public approval against an enemy who could throw basically limitless troops at you.

"Go in, kell the fuck out of some militans and rescue some hostages" is more than achieveable, unless you get mission creep, and there's no reason to think there would be.

The problem would be after the fact because the Nigerian governemnt doesn't have a monopoly on force.

Why are you responding as if you think that anyone who pops in here agrees with every foreign policy decision America has made in, well, ever, or that they agree with current tactics? Do you agree with everything that your country does or has done? Were you personally responsible for any and all of it?

Huh?

This is my first response and has no intended moral element, I was just disagreeing with their claims that it's impractical.

Okay, I'm sorry. I thought you were someone else.

a.) I wasn't alive back then, and based on my current political ideologies and philosophies, I probably wouldn't have supported that war even if I had been. I'm pretty sure Michelle Obama wasn't involved in the Vietnam War, either.

b.) 300 schoolgirls is very, very sad, and I know I want them back home, and I guarantee the Obama and most of the White House and U.S. government does want them back home to their families. But no one currently in power is going to risk a war that could kill thousands, even tens of thousands, for them. It's 300 lives vs tens of thousands of lives.

c.) As you just said it yourself, there would be a HUGE backlash afterwards even if the U.S. did attempt to do something like this.

d.) And as I mentioned, there is a matter of physical capability. The U.S. could throw their entire army into Nigeria and may still not be able to find those girls. Throwing brute force at the problem isn't going to help anyone, least of all those kids. The goal isn't just to get them back, it's to get them back alive. You said "go in, kill some militants, and rescue hostages" - but where, exactly, would they go into? How can they guarantee that only the militants die, and not the girls? And oddly enough, military conflict in Vietnam started out as a few 'simple' and 'achievable' goals as well, that happened to explode beyond what anyone expected at the time.

There is a lot to be gained from just throwing the might of our army and a few others at the problem. But there is a LOT to be lost, too. Even if we could be sure that we could get all those girls alive just by doing so, it might not be worth the cost, and quite frankly we can't be sure that doing so wouldn't just lead to Boko Haram killing them all just to make sure that if they can't have the girls, then no one can. Better we get back some of those girls alive than all of them dead.

The fact that it took so long, and so much work, to get international attention on this problem and these girls? Absolutely a problem. However, suddenly throwing in "too much attention" won't make it better.

A) I wasn't saying you were? Just challenging you over the idea that it would be impractical.

B) There would not be a war over this, no ifs or buts. I mean it's a pretty open secret that american troops operate in Pakistan - a nuclear power, let alone a shitshow like nigeria.

C) Eh, there would be backlash if anything got proved in any serious way (big if there), but it would be a bit embarrassing on the national stage and then people would move on.

D) America and it's allies are very good at what they do. If they put serious effort towards finding them with boots on the ground to assist, they would. This isn't a lone man with a massive network existing to keep him hidden, this is three hundred school girls who don't want to remain hidden. And the forces that would be sent in have serious training in hostage rescue. Sure there might be a few casualties, but it'd be justifiable.

This goes right back to the original matter of relying on superior military power to get around the fact no one is even sure where to look, or what would happen if they used the "full frontal invasion" method in order to do so.

Again, the fact is that if it's an entire army, that means the Boko Haram will have plenty of advance warning when they are about to be stumbled upon/get raided by the military - and if they can't escape, including with the 300 girls (which they very highly can, because again, tropical environment), then they may very well just kill all those girls to be done with it. A huge portion of their philosophy is that Western Education and educating girls is evil - there is a very good chance they may kill all those girls just because.

Quite frankly, a lot of people are justifiably concerned with the aid we are sending in now, forget special forces teams. And it's ridiculous to assume that just because a group doesn't have too many people and/or firepower doesn't mean they can't cause serious trouble - or that someone else might not be willing to use Nigeria and American "invasion" of it (even if it's a rescue mission) as an excuse to start a war, whether Nigeria wants it or not. We already had similar problems like that in the Middle East, including Pakistan, where the government does actually want - or at least benefit from - US Troops in the country.

As someone else mentioned, the US (and possibly a few others) are sending in military aid, so it's not as if they are ignoring the problem. Maybe it could be more, maybe not, as serious as 300 girls' lives on the line, they are not the only thing anyone is considering. The kind of military action you are talking about - "shitshow" country or not, wanted or not, effective or not - would have serious ramifications beyond those girls' lives, and not only may not get them back but may actually hasten their deaths.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2686 ]

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama

Re: Michelle Obama