• 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!

US to deploy 10,000 troops in Haiti

You just changed your entire argument.

The United States has to do the right thing, but France gets to be practical.

Which one is it? Are we supposed to be moral or practical?

The US has ships and troops in the area. France doesn't. The US has the capacity to get supplies and equipment there. France doesn't. The US is already there. France isn't.
Sending more troops into an already ****ed up situation brings it's own problems which make sorting out the mess worse.
 
I don't get it.

Why is President Obama allowing the war Bush started to continue? Doesn't he realize it's what's making the economy go south?

Whatcha mean? Is the government having a tough time creating wealth?
 
Europe is not a country. . .can't paint them all with one brush. There's everything from Bulgaria to Iceland - a huge, different array of cultures and politics.

Refering to Europe as one unified area is like refering to 'the Americas' in a reference about North and South America politics and drawing conclusions based on that when were different entities with a few threads that bring us together and divide us at the same time (like NATO).

Quite a few European countries are offering support - any support helps so I wouldn't consider any of it to be paltry.

One reason we (as Europe) can't send a large volume of troops is because we have no central Rapid Reaction Force as such. In fact there are many countries whos populations oppose such a thing as it may be seen as a loss of sovereignty to have to send your troops to a war that may not concern your country. Take the Iraq war for example. Italy, Spain, and the UK sent troops. Germany, France etc didn't
If those countries had been envolved in a EU wide RRF do we or do we not send troops?

Secondly, most countries in Europe are already members of NATO, why would they need to sign up to yet another pact which already covers most of their needs?

These two things make the largescale deployment of troops outside NATO or the UN difficult to arrange.
 
So how many sick and hungry Haitians are you as the force commander willing to shoot to ensure that the aid gets to where it's going intact? And where exactly are you supposed to deliver it too? And what are you to deliver?

Honestly, you have noooooo idea.

As many as I have to, to insure the safety and security of the goods and the people that need them.
 
Including the ones you just shot?

Looters and agitators don't count. If left to their own devices, they'll end up killing even more people, both directly and indirectly.

Not shooting looters and trouble makers is a bad idea. We saw it in New Orleans and we saw it in Iraq.
 
Looters and agitators don't count. If left to their own devices, they'll end up killing even more people, both directly and indirectly.

Not shooting looters and trouble makers is a bad idea. We saw it in New Orleans and we saw it in Iraq.

Yes, and you ended up with an insurgency. Have you answered the second part of the question about what to bring and where to bring it too?
 
Yes, and you ended up with an insurgency. Have you answered the second part of the question about what to bring and where to bring it too?

Thank you for illustrating my point.

As to the second part, you deliver the supplies anyhwere there are people who need them and, at this point, you bring food and water.
 
Thank you for illustrating my point.
That it took 6 years, cost trillions and got thousands of your service people killed? That it took years to get more than an hour or two of electricity to Bagdad?


You are welcome.

And

As to the second part, you deliver the supplies anyhwere there are people who need them and, at this point, you bring food and water.

Rather simplistic view.
The more correct answer is:
1. You bring it to the least effected or closest area of the city. (aftershocks and all of that.)
2. You bring engineering equipment, medical supplies and staff, water. water purification equipment and yes food. (To clear the roads, treat the wounded supply water, and finally food.)

And only once the road is clear for trucks, and you have secured a resupply route to that point.

Its SOP for any relief operation.
 
19 troops died trying to arrest a local warlord. They weren't handing out food.
The point of icing the warlord was to get him out of the way so they could hand out food.
 
That it took 6 years, cost trillions and got thousands of your service people killed? That it took years to get more than an hour or two of electricity to Bagdad?


You are welcome.



Rather simplistic view.
The more correct answer is:
1. You bring it to the least effected or closest area of the city. (aftershocks and all of that.)
2. You bring engineering equipment, medical supplies and staff, water. water purification equipment and yes food. (To clear the roads, treat the wounded supply water, and finally food.)

And only once the road is clear for trucks, and you have secured a resupply route to that point.

Its SOP for any relief operation.

Don't forget the light machine guns.
 
That it took 6 years, cost trillions and got thousands of your service people killed? That it took years to get more than an hour or two of electricity to Bagdad?

Not, that if we had acted decisively in the early hours of the occupation of Baghdad, things would have gotten better, sooner.


Rather simplistic view.
The more correct answer is:
1. You bring it to the least effected or closest area of the city. (aftershocks and all of that.)
2. You bring engineering equipment, medical supplies and staff, water. water purification equipment and yes food. (To clear the roads, treat the wounded supply water, and finally food.)

And only once the road is clear for trucks, and you have secured a resupply route to that point.

Its SOP for any relief operation.

If that's SOP for any relief op, then it's apparent why most relief ops are total cluster ****s.

How stupid is it to bring water to thirsty and starving people...last?!?

That explains alot, thanks for the info.
 
Last edited:
The point of icing the warlord was to get him out of the way so they could hand out food.

Because everyone knows that warlords hate food. Can't wait till a volcano blows up in Washington state so our war troops and hired mercs can enforce their morals on me with the barrel of a gun. :roll:
 
Because everyone knows that warlords hate food. Can't wait till a volcano blows up in Washington state so our war troops and hired mercs can enforce their morals on me with the barrel of a gun. :roll:
And your point would be ... what?

Had you followed the thread you would understand that I wasn't endorsing the Somalian operation.
 
The point of icing the warlord was to get him out of the way so they could hand out food.

They were on a combat mission. Not a relief mission as you suggested. I believe they are supposed to be dangerous.
 
They were on a combat mission. Not a relief mission as you suggested. I believe they are supposed to be dangerous.
No ****, Sherlock. Do you understand the point I was making, or are you just being obtuse?
 
No ****, Sherlock. Do you understand the point I was making, or are you just being obtuse?

I suppose I don't. Can you explain it, because it went over my head.

(not being sarcastic, it really did...):confused:
 
I suppose I don't. Can you explain it, because it went over my head.

(not being sarcastic, it really did...):confused:

I think his point is that the combat mission was in support of the relief mission.
 
Not, that if we had acted decisively in the early hours of the occupation of Baghdad, things would have gotten better, sooner.
Thousands of tonnes of men and equipment in a flattened city full of hungry wounded sick people does not move quickly unless it's organized.




If that's SOP for any relief op, then it's apparent why most relief ops are total cluster ****s.

How stupid is it to bring water to thirsty and starving people...last?!?

That explains alot, thanks for the info.
Because:
A. More people will die of their injuries than will die from starvation or dehydration in the short term. And the longer that goes on the worse the problem gets.
B. You don't get any ****ing volume at all of relief to where it's needed without firstly knowing where in the city it's needed, secondly knowing where it is possible to get it too, and thirdly being safe in the knowldege that you can do it again tomorrow. Otherwise the people who do actually need it don't know where to go to get it.

Which is exactly why you don't rush the **** off with tonnes of stuff only to find yourself either fighting the local population off, or hung up all over the city in pockets needing to be dug out yourself.

That officer is doing exactly the right thing.
 
Thousands of tonnes of men and equipment in a flattened city full of hungry wounded sick people does not move quickly unless it's organized.

I don't think I said otherwise.





Because:
A. More people will die of their injuries than will die from starvation or dehydration in the short term. And the longer that goes on the worse the problem gets.
B. You don't get any ****ing volume at all of relief to where it's needed without firstly knowing where in the city it's needed, secondly knowing where it is possible to get it too, and thirdly being safe in the knowldege that you can do it again tomorrow. Otherwise the people who do actually need it don't know where to go to get it.

Which is exactly why you don't rush the **** off with tonnes of stuff only to find yourself either fighting the local population off, or hung up all over the city in pockets needing to be dug out yourself.

That officer is doing exactly the right thing.

Now you're just stating the obvious, my friend. I never once suggested that logistical planning was key.

What I was saying, is that the priority, initially, is to get food and water to the people that need it. Everything else is motivated by that goal.
 
I don't think I said otherwise.







Now you're just stating the obvious, my friend. I never once suggested that logistical planning was key.

What I was saying, is that the priority, initially, is to get food and water to the people that need it. Everything else is motivated by that goal.
Of course it is. But the initial comment I was responding to was something about "Lets just get the stuff into the city" or somesuch. As you know yourself, there is more to that then simply loading trucks and driving. Which is mostly why the supplies were sitting at the airport and the officer in question was waiting to get them moving.

His job is made even more difficult because he has tonnes and tonnes of stuff coming in from everywhere to an airport that is essentially leveled. I'm guessing that a big part of their job is actually sorting out what is what.

And under those circumstances I totally understand that they would take American supplies first (it's quicker to process) and they are doing a very very good job.
 
Back
Top Bottom