Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

[thalassa]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

The military as an answer to Ebola isn't too shocking. The US military has had disaster assistance as one of its side jobs for ages. The same infrastructure, training and equipment we use to transfer large amounts of heavily armed troops to kick someone's teeth in can also be used to engineers, doctors, food, medicine, prefabricated shelters and a host of other useful stuff. It's the same reason that a bit over 10 years ago when Indonesia and others got hit by a huge Tsunami, Bush called up the Navy. Moving useful crap and trained personnel from point a to point b come hell or high water is one of the things our military excels at.

I served in the Navy with a man from Nigeria. He came to the US specifically to join the Navy. When he was a child, ships came to their village during a cholera outbreak and a drought that left them with no food or medicine. CB's came and built a clinic and a school. Corpsman and doctors came and provided medical and dental care. When they left, the Peace Corps came in. He named his first child after the corpsman that saved his life.

We've been doing this for decades...it usually doesn't get any air time though.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

I think, at the risk of having someone start yelling Godwin's Law at me, that Hitler was a direct result of WW1. The Peace of Versailles was so skewed that basically what Europe ended up with was a single world war with a long interval of peace in the middle. Any observer with half a brain could have seen that it was more or less inevitable.

The west has armed and supported tyrants throughout the 20th century. We are not in a positive to claim any moral highground. We have backed some tyrants above and beyond the call of any form of sanity, and we dither and dicker about who is right and wrong. But we keep selling them weapons and arms. Both sides.

This happened in the Falklands War where Argentina was actually using Exocet missiles, bought from the Uk, against the UK. That is the wretched face of war.

Certain very high profile US families, those who eventually rose to the presidency even - had bankrolled that certain person whose name I will not repeat. I suspect that had Roosevelt not won his second term in office, that the US could well have come in on German's side. Not a popular view admittedly, but there's quite a bit of evidence for it.

The whole business of who was a friend, and how we treat our allies is tarnished with a heap of BS. For example, the UK killed 2000 French sailors because we bombed their fleet after Germany invaded them. This was so that the French ships could not be used against Britain - but the French were our allies, for heaven's sake. And after WW2, Churchill wanted to use captured German soldiers to continue the war but this time against Russia - who were our allies, (get the pattern here? It's mad).

If allies are not allies, then what are they? Allies just until we can think of a way to turn on them? No wonder the world is tearing itself apart.

So it's not - IMHO - a question of waiting too long to act. It's a question of trying to play both ends against the middle.

[thalassa]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

^^I don't really disagree with any of that.

Except to say that I think there is a mistake in thinking there is any such thing, real or imaginary, as a moral high ground in the first place. Of course countries act in their percieved best insteret. I don't think were are beyond that any time soon. The problem is when they act in the worst interest of their people--because its the people that are the country.

I think in the end all you can do is act (or not act) and hope its better than the alternative. Neither is a good answer...but I think, quite frequently, not acting is worse in the long run.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

^^I don't really disagree with any of that.

Except to say that I think there is a mistake in thinking there is any such thing, real or imaginary, as a moral high ground in the first place. Of course countries act in their percieved best insteret. I don't think were are beyond that any time soon. The problem is when they act in the worst interest of their people--because its the people that are the country.

I think in the end all you can do is act (or not act) and hope its better than the alternative. Neither is a good answer...but I think, quite frequently, not acting is worse in the long run.

I agree with you about the moral high ground. It doesn't exist, but some people try to pretend that it does. Worse, they try and convince others of its existence too.

I think - certainly in the UK, but also in what's reported to us from the US too - that our rulers have long been acting in the worst interests of some groups. I may be wrong about the US and apologies if I am, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct about the UK. And it's terrifying stuff to contemplate...

[DanieMarie]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

Germany is a huge arms manufacturing country and exports a lot of arms to other countries. It really bothers me and like a lot of people here, I think it should stop.

[Heka]

I jusy hope Australia stays right the f*** out of it.

Probably won't be that lucky though :S

[DanieMarie]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

I think Australia has already joined the coalition, as has Germany and Canada.

[thalassa]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

this is what happens (in a modern context) when we (globally) do nothing

I jusy hope Australia stays right the f*** out of it.

Probably won't be that lucky though :S

I wish everyone could stay out of it...because I wish it wasn't happening.

[Heka]

I think Australia has already joined the coalition, as has Germany and Canada.

Yeah I'm seeing stuff in the papers about Abbott making decisions about it.

It has nothing to do with us. Make it go away.

[anunitu]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

The real danger comes when people start saying "For the greater good" or "The ends justify the means"...that's when we forget about the humanity,and see only the body count....

[Rowanwood]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

It has nothing to do with us. Make it go away.

So when does it become about you? When people aligned with these factions come to your backyard and blow people up? Because they have been in the US and Europe, killing people already. I don't what the solution is. I'm frankly not smart enough to have any idea how to combat the zealotry and hysteria that make people act like that.

But little kids are being blown up every single day and I'm pretty sure that makes it everyone's problem.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

That's why I really hate the idea of drones killing civilians, especially in countries like Pakistan. I mean - who is at war with Pakistan? And has the country invited us in to bomb it?
I don't see anywhere in a hurry to bomb Israel either... in spite of what it's doing to Gaza.
But - before I alienate everyone - maybe that's quite enough from me.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

That's why I really hate the idea of drones killing civilians, especially in countries like Pakistan. I mean - who is at war with Pakistan? And has the country invited us in to bomb it?
I don't see anywhere in a hurry to bomb Israel either... in spite of what it's doing to Gaza.
But - before I alienate everyone - maybe that's quite enough from me.

Its my understanding that they are bombing in Pakistan with their permission, in an attempt to flush out terrorist cells.

And Israel isn't personally threatening the US, so we aren't bombing anyone in that war (I honestly don't know enough about the foreign policies of other nations to even comment and hardly enough about US policy to follow the news).

That seems to be the line in the proverbial sand. Are the powers that be actually threatened or not? Like Thal said, it's not about morality. The Israeli conflict is considered internal.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

To me, the question is, "Is military action in the Middle East combatting terrorism, or breeding new terrorists?" I'm not against action, but I'm not sure that the approach up until now has been helpful. This group is there -because- of armed involvement. Is sending in more troops telling people that Western countries are their friends?

[thalassa]

Re: Boots here,boots there...On the ground?

To me, the question is, "Is military action in the Middle East combatting terrorism, or breeding new terrorists?" I'm not against action, but I'm not sure that the approach up until now has been helpful. This group is there -because- of armed involvement. Is sending in more troops telling people that Western countries are their friends?

There would be terrorism anyhow. Western military involvement is just an excuse*--the real reason is the *sheer existence* of the West and of anything or anyone outside of their tiny, extremist vision of Islam.

(and don't ask my opinion on Isreal, unless irate Thalassa would be amusing to you--the government's treatment of the Palestinians makes our pre-Civil Rights era look positively cordial)

*certainly, for some it is a motivation for personal involvement, that shouldn't be an underestimation on anyone's part...but it once again comes down to the totality of the phenomenon (where it comes down to group average vs individual exception) over individual events and people