Drop Ebola on ISIS?

[frigidweirdo]

How do we help the Kurds and Iraqi's team up so they can have independence separately
if they fight united against the oppressors attacking everyone.

How can we set it up where it is clear they will be fighting for real freedom as in restoring sovereignty
and not like Vietnam where they would lose their country to one enemy or the other trying to take advantage.

You make a good point.

But I do believe the help of other troops ARE needed,
and you are right it is set up wrong if it is adding to the
perception of motivated by a conflict of interest and not really fighting
for Iraq to be independent.

We do not need any more fear that the fighting is just to install another puppet govt that is going
to favor one group or another (just like Vietnam taking the risk of
getting support of Chinese Communists in order to fight for freedom
and ending up falling to Communists dominating instead of Ho Chi Min's
real vision of a sovereign Viet Nam where the people would own the land.)

Would it help to make sure all the other groups are truly united first?
So that when the outside troops come in to help, they are working
in partnership and letting the other groups lead?

I guess this is where it conflicts with American govt structure,
where the military is only supposed to be fighting for American security interests,
and was never Constitutionally set up to be under UN or any other foreign agenda.

[Back to the idea of intervening under medical services.
Could that be made the focus where it is agreed to be neutral
with the focus on emergency support and services in case of biohazard contagion.

Is there a way to set that up where it is within the agreed laws?
Or would even asking this open up the channels to put a check on this whole thing,
if there is no way to contain an outbreak should one occur and spread.
So this would compel people to set up means to fight this out
another way where it doesn't put the entire population at risk,
including ISIS fighters and captives if contagion were to break out and spread.]

Don't help them. Or at least make any help so that they don't really see it as help. For once let them get on with it, let them struggle, let them sort out the mess and let them take ownership of their region.

How do you provide outside support of troops where needed. Well in the air and just the air helps. The troops on the ground will think it's all them. They are taking things, controlling places etc.

 

[emilynghiem]

Don't help them. Or at least make any help so that they don't really see it as help. For once let them get on with it, let them struggle, let them sort out the mess and let them take ownership of their region.

How do you provide outside support of troops where needed. Well in the air and just the air helps. The troops on the ground will think it's all them. They are taking things, controlling places etc.

so the genocide of women, children and civilian/academic leaders
we just have to let it run its course?

I don't see how we can intervene if we frame this as "not a direct threat to the US"
so the military cannot be ordered in as national security.

If it's a UN issue of international laws,
there is still this unanswered conflict about sending US troops
to fight under UN leadership which many still argue is outside Constitutional limits.

So how do we intervene:
through religious outreach to the people and leaders there?
through medical UN and humanitarian outreach?

I don't think letting genocide continue, without means of stopping it with military force,
makes sense. There must be a way to intervene that all sides can agree to.

 

[emilynghiem]

What about threatening to infect ISIS with Ebola? yay or nay?

Very stupid.
First, it is biological warfare and very unethical.
Also, it would kill lots of innocents, whether they be people in the vicinity of ISIS or their own families -- children, women, the elderly.
As well, they could send 'suicide bombers' into any territory they wanted: i.e., they could send their own Ebola infected people around the world to infect others.

Really stupid and unethical.

OK so given this is not a choice.

What about asking to prepare all sides
in case some contagion does break out, whether intentional or not.

What do you think about medical intervention
and asking to set up neutral facilities for aiding the population if biohazardous contagion
were to hit and get out of hand?

 

[frigidweirdo]

so the genocide of women, children and civilian/academic leaders
we just have to let it run its course?

I don't see how we can intervene if we frame this as "not a direct threat to the US"
so the military cannot be ordered in as national security.

If it's a UN issue of international laws,
there is still this unanswered conflict about sending US troops
to fight under UN leadership which many still argue is outside Constitutional limits.

So how do we intervene:
through religious outreach to the people and leaders there?
through medical UN and humanitarian outreach?

I don't think letting genocide continue, without means of stopping it with military force,
makes sense. There must be a way to intervene that all sides can agree to.

Two choices, let it run it's course or see the same killing going on for decades, centuries even. Death is going to happen one way or another. Iraq happened without giving a damn about a single life in that country. So why does the US care now? Oh, it doesn't. It's worried about the oil.

 

[Kondor3]

No. This would backfire.

1. it would eventually find is way to our shores

2. it would harm far too many innocents along with the savages that it was targeted against

 

[Esmeralda]

I apologize for my harsh attitude.

What do I suggest we do to defeat them? We send in ground troops. That's the only way. Of course, whether or not we should do that is another issue.

Best way to defeat them, pull out and don't go back.

The best way to defeat them is to pull the money out from under them.

No, it isn't.

People need ownership of their own country, by this I mean they need to fight for what they want and fight to keep it.

The Kurds are fighting better than the Iraqis because the Kurds (apart from experience) know what they want and know they can get it and will die for it. The Iraqis from the south know as soon as they beat ISIS the US or someone else is going to come along and take it away from them AGAIN AND AGAIN.

Your post is not a response to what I posted. I mean, take the financial support away from ISIS. Whoever is funding them, get them to stop or prevent the funding. Without any money, ISIS will be without any power.

ISIS, Levitt says, is funded like no other traditional terrorist group in the past. Besides revenue from oil smuggling, the group receives money through donations from wealthy sympathizers in countries including Qatar and Kuwait.

But the group has another method of funding itself: through organized crime within the territories it has vanquished and now controls.The group, says Levitt, was born among crooks and thugs from a broken Iraq, and at its root it is a criminal enterprise.
"We shouldn't be surprised," says Levitt. "Remember, the Islamic State called ISIS is what used to be called the Islamic State of Iraq, and al Qaeda in Iraq, the Tawhid Network, the Zarqawi Network; it's all the same. And they were always primarily financed through domestic criminal activity within the borders of Iraq."

Levitt says ISIS operates as a massive organized crime group with virtually no law enforcement to rein it in -- and its long history has allowed it to set roots and develop over many years

How ISIS makes its millions - CNN.com

Read the whole article. It is very interesting.

 

[Politico]

What about threatening to infect ISIS with Ebola? yay or nay?

Can you add an am I an idiot option?

An idiot for not guessing that some people will not have a sense of humor about this? Or won't be okay with some people being dead serious and other people being stupid or silly?

Do I need to add about 10 more options to the poll next time, so people can rag on the poster instead of sharing thoughts on the issue itself?

Sure if that works, cool with me!

You can spin it back all you want. You did not ask the question with a sense of humor and sarcasm to stimulate discussion. Your question was worded seriously and straightforward.

Yes, it is a serious question
and people can address it any way they want.

Why do you insist it has to be only one way?

I've written entire satires that were several ways mixed together.
Both satire and serious statements, and making fun of both, big deal.

If you want to take this seriously, great, I'm all for addressing it seriously.
But if people want to answer or talk about it like it's something stupid,
let's talk about that, too.

I'm open either way.
What do you want to address with this issue?
SERIOUSLY?

Can we talk about that?
Sorry if I offended you in any way. SERIOUSLY that bothers me and I apologize.

Even when the extreme idea was brought up, the idea of dousing dead
bodies of terrorist with pig's blood, that is both near-satirical in its extremity
but also dead serious. It can be both, at the same time, and taken both ways.

Either way, whatever people think whatever comes to mind, let's get it out there.

You are a stranger on an obscure internets forum. You can't offend me.