J
Josh
Guest
Given the global response to missing flight MH370, including heavy military involvement, why didn't the world respond with similar show of concern to the kidnapping of more than 230 Nigerian high school girls? It is believed that Boko Haram is responsible for the kidnapping on April 14.
Do you think that military involvement from foreign countries should be warranted by such a grievous atrocity?
When a plane goes missing over the ocean, there is very little hope, especially as the days turn into weeks. Yet millions and millions of dollars were (are) still being spent to locate the deceased. Military resources of multiple countries, including obviously Australia, New Zealand and the USA, were employed for over a month.
There are lots of factors and questions here.
Is the spectre and complication of foreign military intervention enough of a reason to look away and allow this to happen as it has?
Should there be processes for the approval of immediate military incursions like one that could have been used here in Nigeria?
Drone strikes and targeted killings like OSB, as well as the Crimea annexation, demonstrate that countries are willing to act unilaterally when they see fit. Does it always have to be to serve their interests? Wouldn't rescuing 230+ hostages warrant the unilateral deployment of military forces?
Is this too much of a slippery slope to even consider foreign military intervention?
It seems crazy to me that so much time, effort, and resources is used to look for dead people, while the same countries do nothing when there are 230+ lives that could (should) be saved. It's most certainly too late to save them in one fell swoop. Speculation is that they have been married off to men in neighboring countries, essentially sold off as property.
Kind of a broad and messy topic. Any thoughts? Should something more have been done?
http://time.com/84414/how-we-failed-the-lost-girls-kidnapped-by-boko-haram/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/30/boko-haram-girls.html
Do you think that military involvement from foreign countries should be warranted by such a grievous atrocity?
When a plane goes missing over the ocean, there is very little hope, especially as the days turn into weeks. Yet millions and millions of dollars were (are) still being spent to locate the deceased. Military resources of multiple countries, including obviously Australia, New Zealand and the USA, were employed for over a month.
There are lots of factors and questions here.
Is the spectre and complication of foreign military intervention enough of a reason to look away and allow this to happen as it has?
Should there be processes for the approval of immediate military incursions like one that could have been used here in Nigeria?
Drone strikes and targeted killings like OSB, as well as the Crimea annexation, demonstrate that countries are willing to act unilaterally when they see fit. Does it always have to be to serve their interests? Wouldn't rescuing 230+ hostages warrant the unilateral deployment of military forces?
Is this too much of a slippery slope to even consider foreign military intervention?
It seems crazy to me that so much time, effort, and resources is used to look for dead people, while the same countries do nothing when there are 230+ lives that could (should) be saved. It's most certainly too late to save them in one fell swoop. Speculation is that they have been married off to men in neighboring countries, essentially sold off as property.
Kind of a broad and messy topic. Any thoughts? Should something more have been done?
http://time.com/84414/how-we-failed-the-lost-girls-kidnapped-by-boko-haram/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/30/boko-haram-girls.html
