Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 242

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

  1. #161
    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
    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.
    I do think that in the short term, it does prevent attacks on the homeland. The reason being that, why travel thousands of miles to attack your enemy, when their just down the street guarding a checkpoint?

    And I agree precisely with your thought about thinking outside of the box, but not in the same way your thinking. Outside of all the flaws I pointed out in the strategy above, there is one that more significant; that once we leave these areas, we will be in the very same position needing to go back in there inside of 20 years. It happened with Afghanistan in the 1980's after all. We backed the rebel fighters in their campaign against the Soviet Union, but once the enemy was defeated, we left the country to it's fate. That fate wound up crashing through three buildings, and one field on September 11.

    However, you're right that simply deploying large numbers of forces to secure the area and allowing the yocals to get a government together isn't the solution either. If anything the past ten years have demonstrated, it's that they neither have the will nor capacity to get the job done. That's why there really is only one solution: annexing these countries for ourselves (or at the least, some coalition of nations). Now hear me out on this before you start pounding on the keyboard. First off, I don't believe this is an option that we should initiate at this time. After all, I'll be the first to stand up on a pedestal and cry out due to reckless spending. And I'd also be the first to recognize that this endeavor would be very expensive (though I believe we could make the money back from exploiting the resources of said country in the long run). Finally, this sort of strategy could only be undertaken with the public's support, as it would have to be a decade long endeavor (at minimum). But I do think this is an eventuality.

    At some point we need to start to attack the root cause of these conditions that allow these radicals to spring out of nowhere. There are some who would argue that if we only became isolationist and stopped supporting Israel, all the bad feelings would suddenly go away. Did you know that the majority of victims to Islamic Terrorism are Muslims themselves? Heck, ISIS' goal isn't to destroy America like Al Qaeda's but to form and Islamic Caliphate. There might of been a point in time where our foreign policy was the sole driver, but at this point, the problem is much bigger than that. There is no place where this is more evident than Iraq. After trillions spent and thousands of lives lost, the country that we fought a died for has degenerated into sectarian struggle once more as ISIS (Sunni as well) pushed through much of Iraq, due in no small part to the way Maliki's government have treated the Sunnis, and the fact that many would rather join with ISIS than stay with Iraq.

    If you recall, back six or seven years ago, we underwent a similar crisis in Iraq. It was a full blown civil war and the blood filled the street as it was Sunni against Shia. You had Shia death squads that would march the streets, looking for Sunni victims to kidnap and torture, if not outright kill. Eventually the violence died down to the point that when the final troops left, Obama could actually proclaim victory in Iraq. The reason for this was due in no small part to the fact that the US played the role as power broker, and made it clear that they weren't going to tolerate the Shia running rough shod over the Sunnis. Knowing that they had an ally in the US to watch out for their needs and support them, the Sunnis finally kicked Al Qaeda out of the Sunni Triangle in what would be known as the Sunni Awakening. But what happened after those last troops left? Maliki's Shia government went back to being the bullies they are, rounding up Sunnis, denying them access to government among other things. And if that wasn't bad enough, utilities is still a mess there.

    And it's not just Iraq that can't manage their own government; we all known the legend that is the corruption of Karzi's regime. Just how much money has been wasted from bribes or kickbacks in that country? It's bad enough that the national government is inept, but as you would know, the local governments aren't any better at keeping a handle on the situation. In fact, every time we've seen the Arabs go to the polls, all they seem to want to elect is groups or individuals that just want to blow each other up? These governments that come to power only want to continue violence, not seek to better their societies.

    What's needed in these societies to finally end the War on Terror, is to bring their societies into the 21st century in terms of utilities, basic amenities and the like, is to actually take over in these situations. And by the way, it's not like we haven't done this in one form of another before. After WW2, we did this sort of thing in both Germany and Japan, where we enforced Martial Law and rebuilt those countries from the ground up through initiatives like the Marshall Plan. It won't be easy, but it's only way to finally bring an end to the cycle of violence.

    Like I said in the beginning, this isn't a plan that we can, or should implement at this time. For one thing, the cost of such a plan isn't justified by the current level of the threat. We can stream line these types of operations you are talking about to the point where they can be fairly cost effective. But there will be a day when we will realize that this strategy wasn't enough to contain the threat. When will that day occur? The day a mushroom cloud forms over a major western city. To me, it's not a question of if this will occur, but when.

    I've gone on for quite a long time, and probably didn't make as strong a case for this plan as I wanted to, but I'm getting kind of tired, so I'll let you respond anyways.

  2. #162
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    So, in fact, yes, you do hold a bigoted derogatory view of the US military.

    However, you are wrong

    And that is your opinion. Definitely deviating from the op topic here CP, but you seem determined to push this issue. I told you that the military is neither the brightest or the dimmest, it's true, and you should leave it at that. As to the op topic, I think that soldiers should follow lawful orders and putting oneself in harms way is what the military does and I see this as no different.

    The latest statistics—compiled by the Defense Department. and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Boston-based National Priorities Project—are grim. They show that the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas has plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007. (The Pentagon's longstanding goal is 90 percent.)

    The percentage of what the Army calls "high-quality" recruits—those who have high-school diplomas and who score in the upper 50th percentile on the Armed Forces' aptitude tests—has declined from 56.2 percent in 2005 to 44.6 percent in 2007.

    In order to meet recruitment targets, the Army has even had to scour the bottom of the barrel. There used to be a regulation that no more than 2 percent of all recruits could be "Category IV"—defined as applicants who score in the 10th to 30th percentile on the aptitude tests. In 2004, just 0.6 percent of new soldiers scored so low. In 2005, as the Army had a hard time recruiting, the cap was raised to 4 percent. And in 2007, according to the new data, the Army exceeded even that limit—4.1 percent of new recruits last year were Cat IVs.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...nd_dumber.html
    Last edited by Montecresto; 09-23-14 at 09:41 AM.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #163
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by herenow1 View Post
    I guess dropping off medication is not enough, we now have to send our troops to face possible death.

    If you were ordered to go by the president, would you follow orders, or would you say no and face a dishonorable discharge?
    Shouldn't there be a poll?

    Anyway, it's not like they throw soldiers into a bloodied tent and expect them to shoot up the virus, there will be reasonable precautions if they must be in the restricted, quarantine areas. Mostly it will be to ensure the peace outside of the hospitals and regions.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #164
    Professor
    herenow1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    12-11-15 @ 11:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,686

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Shouldn't there be a poll?

    Anyway, it's not like they throw soldiers into a bloodied tent and expect them to shoot up the virus, there will be reasonable precautions if they must be in the restricted, quarantine areas. Mostly it will be to ensure the peace outside of the hospitals and regions.
    I tried making it a pill and it didn't go through.

  5. #165
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,552

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

    I would do what they told me and go.

    Helping people without having to kill an enemy would be a nice change as of late.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  6. #166
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

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

    Quote Originally Posted by herenow1 View Post
    I guess dropping off medication is not enough, we now have to send our troops to face possible death.

    If you were ordered to go by the president, would you follow orders, or would you say no and face a dishonorable discharge?
    It is not very likely that they would get sick. As long as they keep to the rules, and being military they should be perfectly able to do so. Also the US army would not send in these troops if they were at serious risk of getting infected.

    And also, refusing your orders if they are not immoral should land you in the brig.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  7. #167
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    And that is your opinion.
    if by "the actual objective, measurable reality" you mean "your opinion", then yes, yes it is

  8. #168
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    if by "the actual objective, measurable reality" you mean "your opinion", then yes, yes it is
    Yes, I do! And you ignored the rest of my post, but who cares.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #169
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 05:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    72

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    No question about it - do my duty.

    Anyone that refuses to go should be court martialed.

    I've been given some pretty hard orders to follow in my carreer, but never thought twice about following them to the letter.
    I agree follow orders but I would ask what the purpose of the military going over there is? If it is medical personell then I could see it but sending combat troops what's the point? (I dont know by the way so it could be mostly medical)
    (Sorry didnt read the whole thread before I posted. It seems that this has been answered)
    Mike

  10. #170
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    The USA's military is an all volunteer force and everyone who joins takes an oath to obey orders.

    Those who violate that oath pay a price.

Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... 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
  •