• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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:
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.
 
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

:laughat: 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
 
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

:laughat: 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....
 
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

:laughat: 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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
So, in fact, yes, you do hold a bigoted derogatory view of the US military.

However, you are wrong :)

face-the-facts-members-of-the-military-are-smarter-than-those-they-serve-infographic-2012-9

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_and_politics/war_stories/2008/01/dumb_and_dumber.html
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
:lol: 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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
Probably what would happen however I don't se why any soldier would re up and serve under this commander in Chief. The military has no business fighting a virus.

They are not 'fighting a virus'. I hope you were being facetious when you wrote that...that you dont actually believe that literally?
 
I know all about the two doctors dude. Sending a bunch of military people into an area like that opens up the risk to a lot more people. And for those who might be immune and come back home; are they still carriers?

I don't like it.

I have also noticed that putting one's foot in one's mouth up to their knee is also common.

They can check their blood titers for Ebola. (Look for antibodies...markers...for Ebola in their blood)
 
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.

Why would you refuse to go, if that was your decision. Why?
 
Back
Top Bottom