Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 242

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

  1. #151
    Professor
    herenow1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    12-11-15 @ 10:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,686

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

    Pretty good article I read this morning;

    NEW YORK – Sending American troops to combat Ebola in Liberia is “an absolute misuse of the U.S. military,” contends retired Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin.

    “The health mission in Liberia would be better accomplished by private-sector NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), including the French organization Médecins San Frontières, Doctors without Borders, among others, or by some other U.S. government agency such as the Department of Health and Human Services,” he stressed.

    Boykin was the deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush from 2002 to 2007. His 36-year military career included 13 years in the Delta Force, with two years as its commander.

    “I believe it is a total misuse of the U.S. military’s capabilities at a time when the U.S. military is taking drastic budget cuts, it is extraordinarily thin and it is being recommitted to conflict in Iraq. I object to this quite strongly,” he said.

    Boykin grasped for reasons to explain why the Obama administration was planning to use the U.S. military in the international health care crisis.

    “In the final analysis, the military has organization and leadership, the two key things the Obama administration is probably looking for here,” he speculated.

    “The military has a capability to deal with a chemical or biological attack, and some of that may be dual-purposed for dealing with this kind of epidemic.”

    But he noted that in his 36 years of military experience, “I never dealt with any thing like this that had to do with a pandemic.”

    Boykin expressed concern about the health risk for U.S. troops.

    “The U.S. military does not have specific training regarding how to handle a medical emergency like Ebola,” he said.

    “It’s rather obvious there is a great risk the U.S. military going into Liberia to fight Ebola will end up getting infected themselves.”

    He talked through the steps the U.S. military would have to take to protect troops from contracting the disease.

    “One of the first things the U.S. military will have to do is to set up centers where the soldiers can be sterilized and cleaned, to try to reduce the risk to them. But, I think, the U.S. military going into Liberia are going to be clearly at risk of contracting Ebola.”

    Even with precautions such as these, Boykin emphasized the risk, not only to the health of the U.S. military deployed to Liberia but also to civilians back in the United States.

    “Then, let’s say two or three soldiers in a battalion get Ebola. What are you going to do with them?” he asked. “Obviously, you’re going to have to bring them back to the United States.”

    Boykin emphasized the military overburdened.

    “This is a terrible misuse of the U.S. military, and it comes at a terrible time when not only is the military really stretched thin, such that the U.S. military can not take on another mission, it comes at a time when we are reducing the military’s funding and the military’s numbers,” he said.

    He also questioned why the first line of defense would not be the United Nations peacekeepers.

    “If military are required to combat the Ebola outbreak in Liberia, then the first troops that should be involved are the 6,000 United Nations peacekeeping forces that are already in the country,” he said.

    “It doesn’t make sense.”
    Boykin now teaches at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia and serves as executive vice president at the Family Research Council.

    Separately, WND reported the Ebola outbreak in Liberia has not been slowed by the peacekeeping forces in Liberia. They include 4,460 troops, 126 military observers and 1,434 police forces, with an approved budget from July 2014 through June 2015 of $427.3 million.

    Last week, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Hervé Ladsous told reporters in Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, that the U.N. mission there “is not a public health operation” and the peacekeepers stationed there are not trained to combat the Ebola epidemic.
    .

    Read more at General: Sending military to fight Ebola ‘misuse’ of soldiers
    Last edited by herenow1; 09-21-14 at 09:29 AM.

  2. #152
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    11-30-16 @ 02:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    14,748

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

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    A Bad Chicken Dinner !!! That's worst than a RE-2BLC .
    I actually had to look that one up. At least that one can't happen anymore....
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  3. #153
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    11-30-16 @ 02:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    14,748

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

    Quote Originally Posted by herenow1 View Post
    Pretty good article I read this morning;




    Read more at General: Sending military to fight Ebola ‘misuse’ of soldiers
    And that general's being stupid. Why? If we don't do what we can to stop it over there, (1) it WILL affect U.S. interests there - such as weakening governments that actually do work with us in killing terrorists in Africa, and (2) it's better to stop it there than having to try to stop it here. There's a very real possibility that this virus could mutate to where it is as transmissible as influenza is...and if that happens, it IS coming here. That's the nature of the mobility of the populations of the modern world.

    And if you really think the military wouldn't be used if a truly deadly pandemic strikes America, you've got a lot to learn.
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  4. #154
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    I actually had to look that one up. At least that one can't happen anymore....
    Today they are called reenlistment codes but back in my day they were called seperation codes found on your DD 214.

    Sorry for the source below but I'm sure John Kerry would approve.

    Secret Discharge Codes

    By VVAW



    >"By having these numbers on the discharge certificate, the Defense Department makes it possible for employers to decode them. It thereby participates in an invasion of privacy of thousands of veterans, including many who have honorable discharges but unfavorable SPNs... We do not permit other Government departments and agencies to operate elaborate discharge systems in which every person is classified upon being released. Why should the Defense Department be allowed to act as a screening agency for private employers?"

    Rep. John F Seiberling of Ohio

    A 'secret' kept from most GIs and veterans is that their discharge certificate - honorable, general, undesirable, bad conduct, or dishonorable - is only part of the arbitrary tag the military puts around their necks on leaving the service. On every single DD-214 (discharge record) issued since 1947 there is a 'SPN' code, (for Separation Program Number Designator), which lists one of over 530 different reasons for separation from the military. Almost without exception, the GI or vet is unaware of even the existance of such a code, let alone who gave it to him or her and why.

    These codes are assigned to all GIs on leaving the service, (without right of appeal or review), whatever the type of discharge. Just because a person has an honorable discharge there is absolutely no guarantee that it will not have an unfavorable, or downright libelous, SPN code. A vet may discover years after separation that his or her DD-214 has a SPN labeling him or her as a subversive, a sexual deviant, having an inadequate personality, or something equally as incredible. In a sense it's a lot like putting a brand on cattle.

    While these codes are kept in an officially 'classified' manual (MSC-DD-214-Rsvd. 11/1/72), they are readily available to any employer who wants them for use in screening prospective employees. In a study of the nation's 100 largest corporations recently conducted by Rep. Seiberling on the subject of employer discrimination against less-than-honorably discharged vets, it was disclosed just how widely used these codes are. Over 80% of the corporations responding to the survey admitted that they require all vets applying for a job to submit a copy of their DD-214. Some 20% of these readily admitted that they know the SPN codes and use them in their hiring of employees. Given the 'official prohibition' by the Defense Department against public disclosure of SPN codes, the fact that 20% of these corporations in the survey openly admit using the SPNs is an indication of just how commonly they are used by employers.

    The following is a listing of some of the SPN cods that a vet might find listed on his or her DD-214: 246-For the Good of the Service; 262-Bed Wetting; 28G-Failure to Pay Just Debts; 281-Unsanitary Habits; 361-Homosexual tendencies; 362-Homosexual Tendencies, Desires or Interest Without Overt Homosexual Acts; 367-Aggressive Reaction; 368-Anti-Social Personality; 383-Criminalism; 385-Pathological Lying; 384-Drug Abuse; 388-Sexual Perversion; 41A-Apathy; 460-Emotional Instability; 480-Personality Disorder; 489-Disloyal or Subversive; 261-Inaptitude; 281-Desertion; and 386-Shirking.

    While these are only a few examples of SPN codes, they do give an idea of just how drastically they can affect a vet's chances of getting a good job. This injustice is compounded immeasurably when we realize that a vet may have lost out in applying for a number of jobs just because of a bad SPN code without evening knowing they exist, let alone that this was an unfavorable one. By not telling a GI before being discharged what his SPN code is, why he got it and who gave it to him, the GI is in effect sentenced by a kangaroo court without even knowing that he was on trial.

    The SPN codes are just another part of the military's incredibly unjust and racist discharge classification system. There are over 1/2 million badly discharged Vietnam-era veterans and hundreds of thousands with unfavorably SPN codes today that are being discriminated against in trying to obtain decent jobs, getting loads for education or medical care, etc. These can be directly attributed to the war in Indochina and the racism and oppression of the military. Just as resistance to the war and military life resulted in less-than-honorable discharges, so it resulted in being labeled with an unfavorable SPN code. The only solution to this injustice is to put an end to the entire discharge classification system, once and for all..."<

    Vietnam Veterans Against the War: THE VETERAN: Secret Discharge Codes

  5. #155
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    11-30-16 @ 02:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    14,748

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

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Today they are called reenlistment codes but back in my day they were called seperation codes found on your DD 214.

    Sorry for the source below but I'm sure John Kerry would approve.

    Secret Discharge Codes

    By VVAW



    >"By having these numbers on the discharge certificate, the Defense Department makes it possible for employers to decode them. It thereby participates in an invasion of privacy of thousands of veterans, including many who have honorable discharges but unfavorable SPNs... We do not permit other Government departments and agencies to operate elaborate discharge systems in which every person is classified upon being released. Why should the Defense Department be allowed to act as a screening agency for private employers?"

    Rep. John F Seiberling of Ohio

    A 'secret' kept from most GIs and veterans is that their discharge certificate - honorable, general, undesirable, bad conduct, or dishonorable - is only part of the arbitrary tag the military puts around their necks on leaving the service. On every single DD-214 (discharge record) issued since 1947 there is a 'SPN' code, (for Separation Program Number Designator), which lists one of over 530 different reasons for separation from the military. Almost without exception, the GI or vet is unaware of even the existance of such a code, let alone who gave it to him or her and why.

    These codes are assigned to all GIs on leaving the service, (without right of appeal or review), whatever the type of discharge. Just because a person has an honorable discharge there is absolutely no guarantee that it will not have an unfavorable, or downright libelous, SPN code. A vet may discover years after separation that his or her DD-214 has a SPN labeling him or her as a subversive, a sexual deviant, having an inadequate personality, or something equally as incredible. In a sense it's a lot like putting a brand on cattle.

    While these codes are kept in an officially 'classified' manual (MSC-DD-214-Rsvd. 11/1/72), they are readily available to any employer who wants them for use in screening prospective employees. In a study of the nation's 100 largest corporations recently conducted by Rep. Seiberling on the subject of employer discrimination against less-than-honorably discharged vets, it was disclosed just how widely used these codes are. Over 80% of the corporations responding to the survey admitted that they require all vets applying for a job to submit a copy of their DD-214. Some 20% of these readily admitted that they know the SPN codes and use them in their hiring of employees. Given the 'official prohibition' by the Defense Department against public disclosure of SPN codes, the fact that 20% of these corporations in the survey openly admit using the SPNs is an indication of just how commonly they are used by employers.

    The following is a listing of some of the SPN cods that a vet might find listed on his or her DD-214: 246-For the Good of the Service; 262-Bed Wetting; 28G-Failure to Pay Just Debts; 281-Unsanitary Habits; 361-Homosexual tendencies; 362-Homosexual Tendencies, Desires or Interest Without Overt Homosexual Acts; 367-Aggressive Reaction; 368-Anti-Social Personality; 383-Criminalism; 385-Pathological Lying; 384-Drug Abuse; 388-Sexual Perversion; 41A-Apathy; 460-Emotional Instability; 480-Personality Disorder; 489-Disloyal or Subversive; 261-Inaptitude; 281-Desertion; and 386-Shirking.

    While these are only a few examples of SPN codes, they do give an idea of just how drastically they can affect a vet's chances of getting a good job. This injustice is compounded immeasurably when we realize that a vet may have lost out in applying for a number of jobs just because of a bad SPN code without evening knowing they exist, let alone that this was an unfavorable one. By not telling a GI before being discharged what his SPN code is, why he got it and who gave it to him, the GI is in effect sentenced by a kangaroo court without even knowing that he was on trial.

    The SPN codes are just another part of the military's incredibly unjust and racist discharge classification system. There are over 1/2 million badly discharged Vietnam-era veterans and hundreds of thousands with unfavorably SPN codes today that are being discriminated against in trying to obtain decent jobs, getting loads for education or medical care, etc. These can be directly attributed to the war in Indochina and the racism and oppression of the military. Just as resistance to the war and military life resulted in less-than-honorable discharges, so it resulted in being labeled with an unfavorable SPN code. The only solution to this injustice is to put an end to the entire discharge classification system, once and for all..."<

    Vietnam Veterans Against the War: THE VETERAN: Secret Discharge Codes
    I did not know that! I really appreciate that, AR. Remind me to buy you a beer if you're ever out Seattle way....
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  6. #156
    Engineer
    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    12,232

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

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Today they are called reenlistment codes but back in my day they were called seperation codes found on your DD 214.

    Sorry for the source below but I'm sure John Kerry would approve.

    Secret Discharge Codes

    By VVAW



    >"By having these numbers on the discharge certificate, the Defense Department makes it possible for employers to decode them. It thereby participates in an invasion of privacy of thousands of veterans, including many who have honorable discharges but unfavorable SPNs... We do not permit other Government departments and agencies to operate elaborate discharge systems in which every person is classified upon being released. Why should the Defense Department be allowed to act as a screening agency for private employers?"

    Rep. John F Seiberling of Ohio

    A 'secret' kept from most GIs and veterans is that their discharge certificate - honorable, general, undesirable, bad conduct, or dishonorable - is only part of the arbitrary tag the military puts around their necks on leaving the service. On every single DD-214 (discharge record) issued since 1947 there is a 'SPN' code, (for Separation Program Number Designator), which lists one of over 530 different reasons for separation from the military. Almost without exception, the GI or vet is unaware of even the existance of such a code, let alone who gave it to him or her and why.

    These codes are assigned to all GIs on leaving the service, (without right of appeal or review), whatever the type of discharge. Just because a person has an honorable discharge there is absolutely no guarantee that it will not have an unfavorable, or downright libelous, SPN code. A vet may discover years after separation that his or her DD-214 has a SPN labeling him or her as a subversive, a sexual deviant, having an inadequate personality, or something equally as incredible. In a sense it's a lot like putting a brand on cattle.

    While these codes are kept in an officially 'classified' manual (MSC-DD-214-Rsvd. 11/1/72), they are readily available to any employer who wants them for use in screening prospective employees. In a study of the nation's 100 largest corporations recently conducted by Rep. Seiberling on the subject of employer discrimination against less-than-honorably discharged vets, it was disclosed just how widely used these codes are. Over 80% of the corporations responding to the survey admitted that they require all vets applying for a job to submit a copy of their DD-214. Some 20% of these readily admitted that they know the SPN codes and use them in their hiring of employees. Given the 'official prohibition' by the Defense Department against public disclosure of SPN codes, the fact that 20% of these corporations in the survey openly admit using the SPNs is an indication of just how commonly they are used by employers.

    The following is a listing of some of the SPN cods that a vet might find listed on his or her DD-214: 246-For the Good of the Service; 262-Bed Wetting; 28G-Failure to Pay Just Debts; 281-Unsanitary Habits; 361-Homosexual tendencies; 362-Homosexual Tendencies, Desires or Interest Without Overt Homosexual Acts; 367-Aggressive Reaction; 368-Anti-Social Personality; 383-Criminalism; 385-Pathological Lying; 384-Drug Abuse; 388-Sexual Perversion; 41A-Apathy; 460-Emotional Instability; 480-Personality Disorder; 489-Disloyal or Subversive; 261-Inaptitude; 281-Desertion; and 386-Shirking.

    While these are only a few examples of SPN codes, they do give an idea of just how drastically they can affect a vet's chances of getting a good job. This injustice is compounded immeasurably when we realize that a vet may have lost out in applying for a number of jobs just because of a bad SPN code without evening knowing they exist, let alone that this was an unfavorable one. By not telling a GI before being discharged what his SPN code is, why he got it and who gave it to him, the GI is in effect sentenced by a kangaroo court without even knowing that he was on trial.

    The SPN codes are just another part of the military's incredibly unjust and racist discharge classification system. There are over 1/2 million badly discharged Vietnam-era veterans and hundreds of thousands with unfavorably SPN codes today that are being discriminated against in trying to obtain decent jobs, getting loads for education or medical care, etc. These can be directly attributed to the war in Indochina and the racism and oppression of the military. Just as resistance to the war and military life resulted in less-than-honorable discharges, so it resulted in being labeled with an unfavorable SPN code. The only solution to this injustice is to put an end to the entire discharge classification system, once and for all..."<

    Vietnam Veterans Against the War: THE VETERAN: Secret Discharge Codes
    I didn't know this was a thing. I just checked my DD214 and despite having a little bit of friction with a few people before but I got: MBK - Completion of active duty service commitment or expiration of term of service
    "If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I didn't know this was a thing. I just checked my DD214 and despite having a little bit of friction with a few people before but I got: MBK - Completion of active duty service commitment or expiration of term of service
    I was unaware of these reenlistment codes until about 15 years ago when on a military forum there were those who served during the 80's and 90's asking about what codes would prevent one from reenlisting after being out of the service for some years ? This was a question that active and retired E-8's and above had no problem answering.

    It seems there are reenlistment codes on "general discharges" that would allow one to reenlist. Then there are reenlistment codes on "Honorable Discharges" that would prevent one from reenlisting. Interesting.

  8. #158
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    05-09-16 @ 06:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,052

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

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    I was unaware of these reenlistment codes until about 15 years ago when on a military forum there were those who served during the 80's and 90's asking about what codes would prevent one from reenlisting after being out of the service for some years ? This was a question that active and retired E-8's and above had no problem answering.

    It seems there are reenlistment codes on "general discharges" that would allow one to reenlist. Then there are reenlistment codes on "Honorable Discharges" that would prevent one from reenlisting. Interesting.
    It's really pretty basic. After Viet Nam we had more Military then we could handle. They were discharging people before their enlistments were up to save money. Those people were given a General Discharge but would be allowed to re-enlist at a later time if they chose to.
    Same thing in the late 80s and early 90s when the BRAC was going hot and heavy.

    Honorable Discharge basically means your enlistment is up and you chose not to reenlist. A person can receive a Honorable Discharge and not be allowed to re-enlist for various reasons, maybe you lost a body part, maybe you had a heart attack or any number of things.
    I confess, I did it, I let the dogs out.

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BMCM View Post
    It's really pretty basic. After Viet Nam we had more Military then we could handle. They were discharging people before their enlistments were up to save money. Those people were given a General Discharge but would be allowed to re-enlist at a later time if they chose to.
    Same thing in the late 80s and early 90s when the BRAC was going hot and heavy.

    Honorable Discharge basically means your enlistment is up and you chose not to reenlist. A person can receive a Honorable Discharge and not be allowed to re-enlist for various reasons, maybe you lost a body part, maybe you had a heart attack or any number of things.
    I remember that, in the Marine Corps starting in late 69 when they started pulling out of Nam and deactivated the 5th Mar Div. they started allowing Marines to get an early out if you didn't have a critical MOS. The average seemed to have been six months before you fulfilled your active duty contract.

  10. #160
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 04:10 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 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.
    It wasn't my intention to belittle your strategy, and in fact I pointed to a case where it was very successful with us. Back when our war with Afghanistan began, we deployed in SF inside the country to begin to train and coordinate air strikes with the Northern Alliance. Your strategy is one that excels in that type of situation of pushing and organized fighting forces (like the Taliban was) from it's territory. There's three problems however that you run into when you do a SF/Indigenous Forces led campaign against an organization like ISIS.

    1) Remember Tora Bora? It was the first opportunity we had to take out Bin Laden after 9/11. However, despite our best efforts, and the fact that the Northern Alliance had the mountain surrounded, somehow the man got away. That is because local forces have their own loyalties (often tribal, but sometimes religions in natures as we see in Iraq now) that take precedence over American interest. To this day we don't know how Bin Laden did it, but somehow he managed to con the local commanders into letting him slip away and into Pakistan.

    2) Your strategy is especially problematic when it comes to trying to counter ISIS due to the varying political actors in the region. With the news tonight that, allied airstrikes are underway, we find ourselves in the awkward position of not having any combat forces available to press the advantage. The vaunted Free Syrian Army is months away from being combat ready and able to be deployed to be of any use, so any damage that these air strikes might accomplish, they would of recovered by the time they're ready. The Kurds are formidable yes, but they can't handle ISIS. And after years of training and billions of dollars, the Iraq Army can't take on ISIS, then I don't believe we could suddenly turn that force around in a few weeks time. What's even more awkward, is that the only force that is capable of taking the fight to ISIS at this moment (Assad), is also the one that we've decided has to go. To be fair, as I understand your position, I doubt you would of had us at odds with Assad in the first place.

    3) By choosing the ally with one party, we inevitably make more enemies. Let's say we did the smart thing with ISIS and actually put aside our beef with Assad and worked together. We could probably finish off ISIS by Christmas, especially if we established a joint command center, where the Iraqis pushed in from the east while Assad pushed north. And let's say that we are ultimately successful in destroying the ISIS threat. What does that leave us? Supporting a brutal tyrant in Syria that has demonstrated how little he cares for his people, and a sectarian government in Iraq that is trying to stave off another Civil War with the Sunnis, who they've probably been fighting this whole time as the Sunnis in Iraq have long since thrown their hat in ISIS ring. A lot of people talk crap about our foreign policy in the Middle East, and I don't actually disagree with them. My problem, is that history their their citing begins in 2003, and ends when Bush left office. What it doesn't include is the fact that US has supported some nasty governments like the Shah of Iran and Mubarak in Egypt. One's now our enemy, and the other is ... well I can't really tell what Egypt is to us nowadays? Oh and of course, you know the first time we used this strategy? Afghanistan.... 1980's.... with the Mujaheddin. You never know if the enemy you work with today, might be the one who blows up the Sears Tower tomorrow...

Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... 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
  •