Page 15 of 25 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 242

Thread: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

  1. #141
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I don't believe GWB committed troops in Africa...........Our guys signed up to fight not this.
    Our men (and WOMEN) didn't sign up to be used as pawns to fight for GWB's lies and deception either....but you seem to have no problem with that. Why am I not surprised?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #142
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    We're not talking about whether or not we want to do it, we're talking about if we would do it were we in the military. I didn't want to go to afghanistan, but I did, because it was my contractual obligation. Navy Pride implied that he would consider desertion, which I think is laughably overblown.

    I guess it's good that he was in the navy safe on a boat instead of putting his precious neck in danger with the real men.
    You didn't want to go to Afghanistan? If you don't mind me asking, why? I can understand people saying that about Iraq, but Afghanistan... unless you're a truther?

  3. #143
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    Re: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I believe the people in the military that go should be volunteers.
    EVERY single person in the military is a volunteer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    [/B]

    Listen my clueless left wing friend on that Vietnam wall In DC there are a lot of Navy names.......I have all the respect in the world for the grunts like you and you should have the same respect for the Navy guys that paid the ultimate price.
    Of course, there are a lot of great men who were in the navy, but considering you said you'd consider desertion I'm calling you not one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Your going to have to point out where I said that my left wing friend.....Otherwise it is just bull****.
    OK:

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Just because Obama hates the military is not a reason to send them there.........They did not sign up for this. I honestly don't know what I would do.
    You stated that if you were still in the military and were being deployed to africa, you don't know if you'd go or not. You are considering desertion, it's cowardice.

    And not only am I not "left wing", I'm certainly not your friend. I know you throw that label on every person you talk to just to be insulting, but it really just makes you look even less literate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    You didn't want to go to Afghanistan? If you don't mind me asking, why? I can understand people saying that about Iraq, but Afghanistan... unless you're a truther?
    No, and for about a thousand reasons. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, does not have clear and concise goals, it has ambiguous goals and an enemy that is indistinguishable from the population. Being occupied by a white, christian, foreign force, only unites them further. Every fighter we kill ends up being someone's brother, son, husband and or father, and those who he left behind will just be more determined to take up their cause, and we have more of them.

    On a personal note, it was the worst 15 months of my life. I lost friends, made sacrifices, and in the end it was really all for naught. We would build a girl's school and the taliban would burn it down, we would build roads to improve infrastructure and the taliban would demolish them into the river below. Successfully conquering and occupying Afghanistan has never been done, and for good reason. Alexander the Great, the Brits, and the Soviets learned this lesson the hard way, and because we are ignorant of history we are repeating it.

    My point is, you can't force democracy and civilization on a culture that doesn't want it. They have to choose it for themselves. There is absolutely nothing we're doing in Afghanistan that is keeping America safe. It is a waste of time, money, resources, and most importantly, American lives.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  4. #144
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post

    No, and for about a thousand reasons. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, does not have clear and concise goals, it has ambiguous goals and an enemy that is indistinguishable from the population. Being occupied by a white, christian, foreign force, only unites them further. Every fighter we kill ends up being someone's brother, son, husband and or father, and those who he left behind will just be more determined to take up their cause, and we have more of them.

    On a personal note, it was the worst 15 months of my life. I lost friends, made sacrifices, and in the end it was really all for naught. We would build a girl's school and the taliban would burn it down, we would build roads to improve infrastructure and the taliban would demolish them into the river below. Successfully conquering and occupying Afghanistan has never been done, and for good reason. Alexander the Great, the Brits, and the Soviets learned this lesson the hard way, and because we are ignorant of history we are repeating it.

    My point is, you can't force democracy and civilization on a culture that doesn't want it. They have to choose it for themselves. There is absolutely nothing we're doing in Afghanistan that is keeping America safe. It is a waste of time, money, resources, and most importantly, American lives.
    I tried to PM this to you, but it seemed your inbox was full. If you (because it's a sensitive subject), or a mod would rather me not go into this due to changing the topic (though I doubt this brief exchange will stop half the usual partisan bickering), then just say the word and I'll drop it. Qualifier out the way, here's what I was going to send you:

    Quote Originally Posted by PM Post
    I don't disagree with anything you said in the post about the futility of being there, they have the want civilization, and such and such. I'll put the question another way to you; Do you believe after 9/11, we made the right decision in going into Afghanistan and fighting Al Qaeda and their Taliban supporters?

  5. #145
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    Re: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    I tried to PM this to you, but it seemed your inbox was full. If you (because it's a sensitive subject), or a mod would rather me not go into this due to changing the topic (though I doubt this brief exchange will stop half the usual partisan bickering), then just say the word and I'll drop it. Qualifier out the way, here's what I was going to send you:

    [/quote= PM Post]I don't disagree with anything you said in the post about the futility of being there, they have the want civilization, and such and such. I'll put the question another way to you; Do you believe after 9/11, we made the right decision in going into Afghanistan and fighting Al Qaeda and their Taliban supporters?
    Thanks for the heads up about my inbox, I'll clear it out. However, I've got no problem talking about it here.

    Back in 2001 I did support the invasion, but I was also literally a naive child. It's always easy to condemn in hindsight, but I don't believe it was the correct decision. The justification for the invasion was essentially the Bush Doctrine concept of "Any country that helps the advancement of terrorism, even by lack of involvement, is equally as guilty as the terrorists and gives us the unilateral right to invade and restructure." We've already started to back away from this policy as a hard-line stance would have us involved in a multitude of countries until the end of time. It's untenable.

    Second, while it's true that the extremists are unreasonable and violent, they are not completely without provocation. The primary fuel to the fire of anti-American sentiment in the middle east is our policy of pseudo-imperialism and non-stop meddling in their affairs.

    Terrorism is a vague belief structure that can not be destroyed on the battlefield. There is no X number of terrorists we can kill to make it go away, and waging multiple wars in the middle east isn't going to make it less likely that we're attacked at home. I like the idea of using intelligence agencies, economic sanctions, special forces and air/drone strikes to dismantle and disrupt terrorist organizations. Ultimately though it comes back to what I said before and you agreed with: the locals have to decide for themselves that they're done tolerating extremism. As long as we're there in their face, we're going to be the ones they blame their problems on.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  6. #146
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Thanks for the heads up about my inbox, I'll clear it out. However, I've got no problem talking about it here.

    Back in 2001 I did support the invasion, but I was also literally a naive child. It's always easy to condemn in hindsight, but I don't believe it was the correct decision. The justification for the invasion was essentially the Bush Doctrine concept of "Any country that helps the advancement of terrorism, even by lack of involvement, is equally as guilty as the terrorists and gives us the unilateral right to invade and restructure." We've already started to back away from this policy as a hard-line stance would have us involved in a multitude of countries until the end of time. It's untenable.
    I get this reason for being against the Iraq War, as Iraq wasn't an active threat against the US. He was contained, and thus there wasn't the reason to invade. However, in Afghanistan we have a different case. In that example, we weren't worried about a "perceived threat" but the homeland and base of operations for the organization responsible for the single deadliest attack since the second World War. Which leads me to my second point:

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Second, while it's true that the extremists are unreasonable and violent, they are not completely without provocation. The primary fuel to the fire of anti-American sentiment in the middle east is our policy of pseudo-imperialism and non-stop meddling in their affairs.
    Let's say for the moment that I agree with the idea that our actions were responsible for 9/11 (I don't but that's not important for the purposes of this discussion). What would you do if you were President on 9/12? It's not like we have a time machine tucked away somewhere that we can go to, jump back in time, and warn ourselves not to do X. There is an organization that has committed an act of war, killing 3000 Americans in the process, sitting in safety in Afghanistan already planning to commit larger terrorist attacks against the US. What do you do? Sit back, and pray that they don't find one to sneak through and possibly detonate a nuclear weapon in an American City? You have to do something don't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Terrorism is a vague belief structure that can not be destroyed on the battlefield. There is no X number of terrorists we can kill to make it go away, and waging multiple wars in the middle east isn't going to make it less likely that we're attacked at home. I like the idea of using intelligence agencies, economic sanctions, special forces and air/drone strikes to dismantle and disrupt terrorist organizations. Ultimately though it comes back to what I said before and you agreed with: the locals have to decide for themselves that they're done tolerating extremism. As long as we're there in their face, we're going to be the ones they blame their problems on.
    There's a reason I'm asking all this by the way. I see you're a Libertarian, and so am I, and this is an area that I find myself having a hard time being a "purist". It's clear to everyone that Afghanistan is a lost cause at this point, and with Karzi already being buddy-buddy with the Taliban, it's only a matter of time before their is a reconstituted Al Qaeda that will have shelter in Afghanistan. They will no doubt, (as I'm sure they are doing now), begin to plan their next attack at the homeland. Just as many said before 9/11, it's not a matter if someone will attack the homeland, but when. When someone from Al Qaeda, who was trained and whose leaders are in Afghanistan once again, attacks the homeland and kills many Americans, what should we do then? Do we do as we did before; send in Special Forces, supported by American Air Power, and topple whatever joke of a government has formed, then leave again and wait for it to happen again?

  7. #147
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    Re: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    I get this reason for being against the Iraq War, as Iraq wasn't an active threat against the US. He was contained, and thus there wasn't the reason to invade. However, in Afghanistan we have a different case. In that example, we weren't worried about a "perceived threat" but the homeland and base of operations for the organization responsible for the single deadliest attack since the second World War. Which leads me to my second point:
    I've highlighted the word "organization" because it's and important thing to note here. Both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are organizations, not countries. The former is an international terrorist organization while the latter is an afghani national group that really has few goals after "removing infidels from afghani soil". I don't think that you can fight international terrorist organizations in one country with infantrymen on mountaintops. It requires a different approach, most of which we're doing in one way or another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    Let's say for the moment that I agree with the idea that our actions were responsible for 9/11 (I don't but that's not important for the purposes of this discussion). What would you do if you were President on 9/12? It's not like we have a time machine tucked away somewhere that we can go to, jump back in time, and warn ourselves not to do X. There is an organization that has committed an act of war, killing 3000 Americans in the process, sitting in safety in Afghanistan already planning to commit larger terrorist attacks against the US. What do you do? Sit back, and pray that they don't find one to sneak through and possibly detonate a nuclear weapon in an American City? You have to do something don't you?
    I'm not saying we deserved 9/11 or that we're the direct cause of it, I'm saying that we've done a lot to provoke and instill hatred against us in arabs. Clearly, we don't have a time machine, but we can however control what we do in the future, and fueling the hatred they already have for us only exacerbates the core problem and doesn't solve it.

    If I were president on 9/12 I'd do what I described in the previous post. I'd start by using every political tool in my arsenal including diplomatic relations to enforce economic sanctions on the extremist groups in question. I'd have their funding seized and cut off. I'd use the full power of intelligence agencies to gather information for direct strikes against the heart of the organization. The error we made was invading Afghanistan with a standard ground force Army and expecting to redo their entire governmental structure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    There's a reason I'm asking all this by the way. I see you're a Libertarian, and so am I, and this is an area that I find myself having a hard time being a "purist". It's clear to everyone that Afghanistan is a lost cause at this point, and with Karzi already being buddy-buddy with the Taliban, it's only a matter of time before their is a reconstituted Al Qaeda that will have shelter in Afghanistan. They will no doubt, (as I'm sure they are doing now), begin to plan their next attack at the homeland. Just as many said before 9/11, it's not a matter if someone will attack the homeland, but when. When someone from Al Qaeda, who was trained and whose leaders are in Afghanistan once again, attacks the homeland and kills many Americans, what should we do then? Do we do as we did before; send in Special Forces, supported by American Air Power, and topple whatever joke of a government has formed, then leave again and wait for it to happen again?
    You're positively right. As soon as we leave, Afghanistan will degenerate back down to where it was, or worse, like it has in Iraq. How has this been a solution to our problems? We've spent trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives on fighting a war that in the end will not have a long lasting effect on Afghanistan. Can you quantify how much safer we are because of this war? How much safer would we be for the inevitable future attack if we spent those trillions of dollars on protecting America at home?

    The goal should be destroying the extremist organization in question while interfering as little as possible into the everyday life of the local populace. Putting American soldiers on every street corner only tends to instill an "us vs. them" mentality among the locals. You simply can't fight extremist political movements with foot soldiers, it requires a different approach.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  8. #148
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I've highlighted the word "organization" because it's and important thing to note here. Both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are organizations, not countries. The former is an international terrorist organization while the latter is an afghani national group that really has few goals after "removing infidels from afghani soil". I don't think that you can fight international terrorist organizations in one country with infantrymen on mountaintops. It requires a different approach, most of which we're doing in one way or another.
    I'll go with you on Al Qaeda, but Taliban was the Government of Afghanistan (even though I'll give you that was more than default by anything). However, it is important to note that the whole reason we beat back the Taliban and their forces in the first place was through the use of ground forces... remember the Northern Alliance (supported by US Special Forces and American Air Power).

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I'm not saying we deserved 9/11 or that we're the direct cause of it, I'm saying that we've done a lot to provoke and instill hatred against us in arabs. Clearly, we don't have a time machine, but we can however control what we do in the future, and fueling the hatred they already have for us only exacerbates the core problem and doesn't solve it.

    If I were president on 9/12 I'd do what I described in the previous post. I'd start by using every political tool in my arsenal including diplomatic relations to enforce economic sanctions on the extremist groups in question. I'd have their funding seized and cut off. I'd use the full power of intelligence agencies to gather information for direct strikes against the heart of the organization. The error we made was invading Afghanistan with a standard ground force Army and expecting to redo their entire governmental structure.
    I didn't mean to imply, like many on this forum would, that your "one of them liberals who think we deserved 9/11". My point was only that we have to deal with the realities as they are today, not how we wish they were. Moving on though, your options wouldn't of worked. Or should I say, didn't work. For one things, it's kind of hard to install sanctions on a country whose #1 cash crop isn't exactly legal in the US. Besides, it's not exactly like they were living the high life:

    If you were military would you refuse to &quot;fight&quot; the Ebola virus.-osama-bin-laden-cave-foreclosure-jpg

    And if you recall, we actually did launch air attacks against Al Qaeda, twice as I recall. Back in 1998 when we lobbed cruise missiles at targets inside Sudan and Afghanistan? Not exactly like that did any good in the end did it? The thing is, Air Power cannot win the war on it's own. If it could, UK would of been defeated during the Battle of Britain, or conversely, with Germany during the Allied Air Campaign against them. And then there was Vietnam where we dropped 5 times as much tonnage in an effort to get them to surrender. Actually, there was one time that Air Power ended a war.... it's when we dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Japan. So unless your advocating dusting out a few nukes and making a giant glass crater out of Afghanistan, there really is no way to options to win a war against extremism through air power. (By the way, if that ever does become an option, put me down for a maybe.)

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    You're positively right. As soon as we leave, Afghanistan will degenerate back down to where it was, or worse, like it has in Iraq. How has this been a solution to our problems? We've spent trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives on fighting a war that in the end will not have a long lasting effect on Afghanistan. Can you quantify how much safer we are because of this war? How much safer would we be for the inevitable future attack if we spent those trillions of dollars on protecting America at home?

    The goal should be destroying the extremist organization in question while interfering as little as possible into the everyday life of the local populace. Putting American soldiers on every street corner only tends to instill an "us vs. them" mentality among the locals. You simply can't fight extremist political movements with foot soldiers, it requires a different approach.
    There hasn't been a major terrorist attack from Al Qaeda since 9/11. And the attacks on the homeland that has occurred have been caused by people who simply espoused the cause, but weren't actually trained or financed by Al Qaeda. Considering there had been two major incidents prior to that (Kenya and Cole Bombings), I'd say in that case, it's done it's job. Also, as a Libertarian, you would agree that government spending is by far the least effective way of getting things done in this country. After all, even after a trillion dollar stimulus package, the economy is just barely chugging along ... five years after the recession ended.

    At the end of the day, you can't destroy these extremist organizations from bombings. And for every target you hit, there's another one that unintentionally kills a bunch of civilians that only serves to recruit more to their extremist cause. At this point their like weeds; you pull a couple here and there, and in a few weeks they'll of already multiplied. At the very least with Iraq, we left a functioning government. Of course, we leave them alone for a year and everything goes to hell. What's worse, is that Iraq's problem has nothing to do with US Policy! Yes, the fact that Maliki is in power, instead of Saddam, is the result of US Action. But what I mean is that the current conflict has nothing to do with the US, but instead, action prejudices that we as a nation are just beginning to understand.

  9. #149
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    Re: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    I'll go with you on Al Qaeda, but Taliban was the Government of Afghanistan (even though I'll give you that was more than default by anything). However, it is important to note that the whole reason we beat back the Taliban and their forces in the first place was through the use of ground forces... remember the Northern Alliance (supported by US Special Forces and American Air Power).

    I didn't mean to imply, like many on this forum would, that your "one of them liberals who think we deserved 9/11". My point was only that we have to deal with the realities as they are today, not how we wish they were. Moving on though, your options wouldn't of worked. Or should I say, didn't work. For one things, it's kind of hard to install sanctions on a country whose #1 cash crop isn't exactly legal in the US. Besides, it's not exactly like they were living the high life:

    And if you recall, we actually did launch air attacks against Al Qaeda, twice as I recall. Back in 1998 when we lobbed cruise missiles at targets inside Sudan and Afghanistan? Not exactly like that did any good in the end did it? The thing is, Air Power cannot win the war on it's own. If it could, UK would of been defeated during the Battle of Britain, or conversely, with Germany during the Allied Air Campaign against them. And then there was Vietnam where we dropped 5 times as much tonnage in an effort to get them to surrender. Actually, there was one time that Air Power ended a war.... it's when we dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Japan. So unless your advocating dusting out a few nukes and making a giant glass crater out of Afghanistan, there really is no way to options to win a war against extremism through air power. (By the way, if that ever does become an option, put me down for a maybe.)
    I feel like you've oversimplified my strategy to be primarily air strikes, when that is only a small piece of the puzzle. I already stated it has to be an orchestra of things working in unison to hit the organization where it hurts. Special Forces should be working with local militia groups and using counter-insurgency operations to bolster local resistance to the threat. My strategy is somewhat similar to what the US is currently planning on doing to ISIS. SF and intelligence work with local militias like the Kurds, arming and training them to fight back for themselves, while providing tactical airstrikes based on intelligence and in support of indigenous ground forces.

    The US global strategy against Al-Qaeda has had a tremendously large scope, involving millions and millions of moving pieces. Everything we've both suggested has been done, so it's hard to pick out what has been the most effective and what hasn't. I personally believe, partially from experience, that the least effective part of our strategy has been trying to maintain a ground presence. Doing such is excruciatingly expensive both in economics and in human lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    There hasn't been a major terrorist attack from Al Qaeda since 9/11. And the attacks on the homeland that has occurred have been caused by people who simply espoused the cause, but weren't actually trained or financed by Al Qaeda. Considering there had been two major incidents prior to that (Kenya and Cole Bombings), I'd say in that case, it's done it's job. Also, as a Libertarian, you would agree that government spending is by far the least effective way of getting things done in this country. After all, even after a trillion dollar stimulus package, the economy is just barely chugging along ... five years after the recession ended.

    At the end of the day, you can't destroy these extremist organizations from bombings. And for every target you hit, there's another one that unintentionally kills a bunch of civilians that only serves to recruit more to their extremist cause. At this point their like weeds; you pull a couple here and there, and in a few weeks they'll of already multiplied. At the very least with Iraq, we left a functioning government. Of course, we leave them alone for a year and everything goes to hell. What's worse, is that Iraq's problem has nothing to do with US Policy! Yes, the fact that Maliki is in power, instead of Saddam, is the result of US Action. But what I mean is that the current conflict has nothing to do with the US, but instead, action prejudices that we as a nation are just beginning to understand.
    Do you think there hasn't been a major terrorist attack since 9/11 directly because we have ground forces in Afghanistan? In my opinion being an occupying foreign power in countries that don't want you there only makes you out to be more of a bad guy and encourages local civilians to become radicalized. I would say the reason we haven't had a major attack in the past 13 years is largely because of the security measures we've implemented at home along with the other factors mentioned. The majority of fighters in Afghanistan are either Afghani or Pakistani, while the bulk of Al-Qaeda is an international coalition from all over the middle east, largely Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc. When a soldier in afghanistan blows these local fighters to smithereens, we didn't just kill an Al-Qaeda operative, we killed an idiotic local villager who can't read and has no practical link to Al-Qaeda, what have we realistically gained?

    So let's take your side for a second. Suppose it were even possible to make Afghanistan no longer a safe haven for international terrorist groups. What about the other 20 or 30 unstable third world countries throughout Africa and the middle east? Should we go invade them all and implement democracies in each so we can finally be safe? You can't defeat an international political ideology by killing low-level mountain pawns in the middle of nowhere. It comes back to my main thesis: You can't fight an unconventional war with conventional tactics, you need to think outside the box, targeting the organization where it hurts while avoiding the immense collateral damage that inevitably comes with a massive ground campaign. Think scalpel instead of sledge hammer.
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 09-21-14 at 09:26 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  10. #150
    Sage
    Lovebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,865

    Re: If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

    Specialists in their field of expertise are being sent, so of course they must obey orders. You don't enlist in the military to pick and choose, you enlist to serve.

Page 15 of 25 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •