Come on, you really believe there's no ulterior motive to fighting terrorists in a country with the tenth largest oil reserves in the world? It's a textbook example of fighting a war to secure fossil fuels.
While that is a good article, don't simplify the west's interest down to fossil fuels. The abduction of 250 Nigerian girls by Muslim extremists, who are condemned to short and mean lives as sex slaves, is not some American plot. That is an organic development, and it's one which tugs on everybody's heart strings. That is why CNN is running it relentless (side note, WillipsBrighton, pull your head out of your ass). I don't see any reason to doubt Klobuchar's sincerity when she says:
Nigeria's status as a major oil exporter is an enabling factor in a potential Western intervention because oil MNC's will expect to have their contracts renegotiated more favorably if Lagos is patrolled by American humvees. But saying that is the cause misses the bigger picture. Nigeria, as we all know, is a very poor country with a tiny oil-rich minority, divided between innumerable tribes and two religions. They are experiencing high population growth and are often effected by food insecurity. The conditions are ripe for a civil war. I can only see full-scale western intervention sparking said civil war, but then I don't think not intervening will prevent said conflict. So what should the west do?
Don't worry Snowstalker, horrible person/attention whore Glen Greenwald agrees with you:
-image-
Ah yes, that's why I have you on ignore.
