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

cpwill said:

:shrug: no idea. I can say that I would pretty much bet every penny in my savings account that it will spread both within those countries and to new ones. The culture enables it, and hinders government response.

Click to expand...

It's the reason those countries will always be 3rd world **** holes.

apdst said:

It's the reason those countries will always be 3rd world **** holes.

Click to expand...

That, and we enable autocratic governments who hinder economic development via our aid programs.

cpwill said:

That, and we enable autocratic governments who hinder economic development via our aid programs.

Click to expand...

Those autocratic governments are going to exist anyeay.

NIMBY said:

It shows just how low the GOP will go to demonize the President and politicize every damn problem in this world--and now it's ebola.
I thought common sense GOPs would catch on after a while--I was wrong .

Click to expand...

That has didily dick to do with the thread topic either. The topic of the thread is if you were in the military, would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus - which has monkey ass to do with politics, left or right, Dem or Rep, Love Obama or Hate Obama, or any of the other crap you're derailing the thread with.

apdst said:

Those autocratic governments are going to exist anyway.

Click to expand...

Because..... magic?


For every Libya, there's a Tunisia.

RabidAlpaca said:

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

I guess it's good that he was in the navy safe on a boat instead of putting his precious neck in danger with the real men.

Click to expand...

Your going to have to point out where I said that my left wing friend.....Otherwise it is just bull****.

RabidAlpaca said:

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

I guess it's good that he was in the navy safe on a boat instead of putting his precious neck in danger with the real men.

Click to expand...

Listen my clueless left wing friend on that Vietnam wall In DC there are a lot of Navy names.......I have all the respect in the world for the grunts like you and you should have the same respect for the Navy guys that paid the ultimate price.

NIMBY said:

Yet Charles Krauthammer effusely praised the President for using Command and Control as the only ones in the world that could do this.
I have never heard him speak like this about Mr. Obama and probably never will again.



You seem to forget the great work done by GWB in Africa in stopping the AIDs epidemic--all give him kudos for this great accomplishment .

Click to expand...

I don't believe GWB committed troops in Africa...........Our guys signed up to fight not this.

Navy Pride said:

I don't believe GWB committed troops in Africa...........Our guys signed up to fight not this.

Click to expand...

No. Our guys signed up to serve and protect this country, and to defend it. They didn't sign up because they wanted to kill people. They signed up because they wanted to protect people.

Containing ebola serves our national interest. The sooner this epidemic is stopped, the lesser chance of it making it over here.

herenow1 said:

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?

Click to expand...

You mean our people in the military didn't know they were signing up for possible death when they gave the oath of enlistment???? SCANDAL!!!! IMPEACH OBAMA!!!! How DARE he expose ANY of our troops to the possibility of death, even if the troops being there might save tens of thousands of men, women, and children!!!!

FYI, this retired Navy man will tell you that anybody who refuses to go where ordered - especially when it's as morally clear-cut as this - deserves at the very least what we used to call a Big Chicken Dinner...or what civilians may have heard called "bad conduct discharge".

Navy Pride said:

I don't believe GWB committed troops in Africa...........Our guys signed up to fight not this.

Click to expand...

I thought you knew your military history better than that, NP. Do you not know all the times the soldiers, sailors, and Marines were called to provide assistance when there were disasters here and overseas? Each and every time there's a major disaster, the very real possibility of disease - like cholera and typhoid - is waiting for them. But we go, and most of us go gladly.

Glen Contrarian said:

FYI, this retired Navy man will tell you that anybody who refuses to go where ordered - especially when it's as morally clear-cut as this - deserves at the very least what we used to call a Big Chicken Dinner...or what civilians may have heard called "bad conduct discharge".

Click to expand...

A Bad Chicken Dinner !!! That's worst than a RE-2BLC .

Navy Pride said:

Our guys signed up to fight not this.

Click to expand...

Actually, these guys signed up to build field hospitals, give medical care and train people.

APACHERAT said:

A Bad Chicken Dinner !!! That's worst than a RE-2BLC .

Click to expand...

Wasn't RE-2BLC used for discharging homosexuals?

Like that highly decorated fighter pilot we spent millions training and kicked out because he likes dudes?

Deuce said:

Wasn't RE-2BLC used for discharging homosexuals?

Like that highly decorated fighter pilot we spent millions training and kicked out because he likes dudes?

Click to expand...

Yes it is.

And if you are referring to the Air Force fighter jock who was discharged for causing problems in his squadron before DADT you do know how it worked from WW ll until DADT was initiated in the military don't you ?

Before DADT there was no box to check when you enlisted if you liked girls.

Buggery was illegal in the military but gays have always served in the U.S. military

The only time a soldier, Marine, sailor or airman received an administrative discharge for being a homosexual was when he was caught in the act of buggery or was causing a problem with in his unit like hitting up on other members of his unit. Basically causing **** and disrupting the morale and unit cohesion of the unit. It was always handled at company or squadron level up to the CO to fix the problem.

That Air Force fighter jock you are referring to allowed his homosexual hormones to interfere with his duties and he was causing problems on the tarmac. The problem was fixed, he was discharged.

But our former fighter jock got his panties all wadded up and continued to cause problems which led to DADT. Those gays who were in the military were better off with the old policies than DADT. Fast track to the Obama administration and during a lame duck session of Congress the Obama White House lied to Congress and DADT was repealed and a new social engineering policy was forced upon the military.

BTW:
HBO did a bias and one side pro LGBT documentary on that gay fighter jock who couldn't keep his mind on flying that fighter.

Navy Pride said:

I don't believe GWB committed troops in Africa...........Our guys signed up to fight not this.

Click to expand...

Our men (and WOMEN) didn't sign up to be used as pawns to fight for GWB's lies and deception either....but you seem to have no problem with that. Why am I not surprised?

RabidAlpaca said:

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

I guess it's good that he was in the navy safe on a boat instead of putting his precious neck in danger with the real men.

Click to expand...

You didn't want to go to Afghanistan? If you don't mind me asking, why? I can understand people saying that about Iraq, but Afghanistan... unless you're a truther?

Navy Pride said:

I believe the people in the military that go should be volunteers.

Click to expand...

EVERY single person in the military is a volunteer.

Navy Pride said:

[/B]

Listen my clueless left wing friend on that Vietnam wall In DC there are a lot of Navy names.......I have all the respect in the world for the grunts like you and you should have the same respect for the Navy guys that paid the ultimate price.

Click to expand...

Of course, there are a lot of great men who were in the navy, but considering you said you'd consider desertion I'm calling you not one of them.

Navy Pride said:

Your going to have to point out where I said that my left wing friend.....Otherwise it is just bull****.

Click to expand...

OK:

Navy Pride said:

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.

Click to expand...

You stated that if you were still in the military and were being deployed to africa, you don't know if you'd go or not. You are considering desertion, it's cowardice.

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

Hamster Buddha said:

You didn't want to go to Afghanistan? If you don't mind me asking, why? I can understand people saying that about Iraq, but Afghanistan... unless you're a truther?

Click to expand...

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

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

My point is, you can't force democracy and civilization on a culture that doesn't want it. They have to choose it for themselves. There is absolutely nothing we're doing in Afghanistan that is keeping America safe. It is a waste of time, money, resources, and most importantly, American lives.

RabidAlpaca said:

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

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

My point is, you can't force democracy and civilization on a culture that doesn't want it. They have to choose it for themselves. There is absolutely nothing we're doing in Afghanistan that is keeping America safe. It is a waste of time, money, resources, and most importantly, American lives.

Click to expand...

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

PM Post said:

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

Click to expand...

Hamster Buddha said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up about my inbox, I'll clear it out. However, I've got no problem talking about it here.

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

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

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

RabidAlpaca said:

Thanks for the heads up about my inbox, I'll clear it out. However, I've got no problem talking about it here.

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

Click to expand...

I get this reason for being against the Iraq War, as Iraq wasn't an active threat against the US. He was contained, and thus there wasn't the reason to invade. However, in Afghanistan we have a different case. In that example, we weren't worried about a "perceived threat" but the homeland and base of operations for the organization responsible for the single deadliest attack since the second World War. Which leads me to my second point:

RabidAlpaca said:

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

Click to expand...

Let's say for the moment that I agree with the idea that our actions were responsible for 9/11 (I don't but that's not important for the purposes of this discussion). What would you do if you were President on 9/12? It's not like we have a time machine tucked away somewhere that we can go to, jump back in time, and warn ourselves not to do X. There is an organization that has committed an act of war, killing 3000 Americans in the process, sitting in safety in Afghanistan already planning to commit larger terrorist attacks against the US. What do you do? Sit back, and pray that they don't find one to sneak through and possibly detonate a nuclear weapon in an American City? You have to do something don't you?

RabidAlpaca said:

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

Click to expand...

There's a reason I'm asking all this by the way. I see you're a Libertarian, and so am I, and this is an area that I find myself having a hard time being a "purist". It's clear to everyone that Afghanistan is a lost cause at this point, and with Karzi already being buddy-buddy with the Taliban, it's only a matter of time before their is a reconstituted Al Qaeda that will have shelter in Afghanistan. They will no doubt, (as I'm sure they are doing now), begin to plan their next attack at the homeland. Just as many said before 9/11, it's not a matter if someone will attack the homeland, but when. When someone from Al Qaeda, who was trained and whose leaders are in Afghanistan once again, attacks the homeland and kills many Americans, what should we do then? Do we do as we did before; send in Special Forces, supported by American Air Power, and topple whatever joke of a government has formed, then leave again and wait for it to happen again?

Hamster Buddha said:

I get this reason for being against the Iraq War, as Iraq wasn't an active threat against the US. He was contained, and thus there wasn't the reason to invade. However, in Afghanistan we have a different case. In that example, we weren't worried about a "perceived threat" but the homeland and base of operations for the organization responsible for the single deadliest attack since the second World War. Which leads me to my second point:

Click to expand...

I've highlighted the word "organization" because it's and important thing to note here. Both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are organizations, not countries. The former is an international terrorist organization while the latter is an afghani national group that really has few goals after "removing infidels from afghani soil". I don't think that you can fight international terrorist organizations in one country with infantrymen on mountaintops. It requires a different approach, most of which we're doing in one way or another.

Hamster Buddha said:

Let's say for the moment that I agree with the idea that our actions were responsible for 9/11 (I don't but that's not important for the purposes of this discussion). What would you do if you were President on 9/12? It's not like we have a time machine tucked away somewhere that we can go to, jump back in time, and warn ourselves not to do X. There is an organization that has committed an act of war, killing 3000 Americans in the process, sitting in safety in Afghanistan already planning to commit larger terrorist attacks against the US. What do you do? Sit back, and pray that they don't find one to sneak through and possibly detonate a nuclear weapon in an American City? You have to do something don't you?

Click to expand...

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

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

Hamster Buddha said:

There's a reason I'm asking all this by the way. I see you're a Libertarian, and so am I, and this is an area that I find myself having a hard time being a "purist". It's clear to everyone that Afghanistan is a lost cause at this point, and with Karzi already being buddy-buddy with the Taliban, it's only a matter of time before their is a reconstituted Al Qaeda that will have shelter in Afghanistan. They will no doubt, (as I'm sure they are doing now), begin to plan their next attack at the homeland. Just as many said before 9/11, it's not a matter if someone will attack the homeland, but when. When someone from Al Qaeda, who was trained and whose leaders are in Afghanistan once again, attacks the homeland and kills many Americans, what should we do then? Do we do as we did before; send in Special Forces, supported by American Air Power, and topple whatever joke of a government has formed, then leave again and wait for it to happen again?

Click to expand...

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

The goal should be destroying the extremist organization in question while interfering as little as possible into the everyday life of the local populace. Putting American soldiers on every street corner only tends to instill an "us vs. them" mentality among the locals. You simply can't fight extremist political movements with foot soldiers, it requires a different approach.

RabidAlpaca said:

I've highlighted the word "organization" because it's and important thing to note here. Both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are organizations, not countries. The former is an international terrorist organization while the latter is an afghani national group that really has few goals after "removing infidels from afghani soil". I don't think that you can fight international terrorist organizations in one country with infantrymen on mountaintops. It requires a different approach, most of which we're doing in one way or another.

Click to expand...

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

RabidAlpaca said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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



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

RabidAlpaca said:

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

The goal should be destroying the extremist organization in question while interfering as little as possible into the everyday life of the local populace. Putting American soldiers on every street corner only tends to instill an "us vs. them" mentality among the locals. You simply can't fight extremist political movements with foot soldiers, it requires a different approach.

Click to expand...

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

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

Hamster Buddha said:

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

Hamster Buddha said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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