Israel is in the midst of a massive, emergency immunization drive of all children under the age of 9 against polio.
Why?
Health workers detected the virus in southern Israel in February. Since then, they've found it in 85 different sewage samples across the country, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative said Wednesday. Yet so far, no children have gotten sick or been paralyzed by the virus.
I bet most folks don't realize this is kind of a big deal. There are three endemic countries with Polio still: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. For the most part we have gotten rid of polio across most of the world including the Middle East. The levels are high enough to send the Israeli government into a flurry of emergency vaccine but also has the chance to spread to its neighbors who are either in Refugee overwhelm mode or lacking the infrastructure at the moment to do the same without outside help. This is bad.
Also the strain is from Pakistan and they feel it was probably a worker from Pakistan working in Israel or somewhere in the Mid East that brought it over.
It's only a small part of the overall equation, but I bet worldwide medical services are still kicking themselves after the United States had a small number of operatives pose as vaccination staffs in Pakistan in the run-up to the Bin Laden raid.
As if it wasn't hard enough already to do the work.
Israel is in the midst of a massive, emergency immunization drive of all children under the age of 9 against polio.
Why?
Health workers detected the virus in southern Israel in February. Since then, they've found it in 85 different sewage samples across the country, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative said Wednesday. Yet so far, no children have gotten sick or been paralyzed by the virus.
I bet most folks don't realize this is kind of a big deal. There are three endemic countries with Polio still: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. For the most part we have gotten rid of polio across most of the world including the Middle East. The levels are high enough to send the Israeli government into a flurry of emergency vaccine but also has the chance to spread to its neighbors who are either in Refugee overwhelm mode or lacking the infrastructure at the moment to do the same without outside help. This is bad.
Also the strain is from Pakistan and they feel it was probably a worker from Pakistan working in Israel or somewhere in the Mid East that brought it over.
It's only a small part of the overall equation, but I bet worldwide medical services are still kicking themselves after the United States had a small number of operatives pose as vaccination staffs in Pakistan in the run-up to the Bin Laden raid.
As if it wasn't hard enough already to do the work.
I can say as someone in that area there is an a large amount of anger towards that happening but this isn't the main issue with underlying problems with vaccine distribution.
Nigeria is kind of the case of what happens when anti-vaxxers get a huge group on a population. Polio was getting close to being wiped out in the country but there was an upsurge of thought that said this was actually making the kids infertile which of course was a lie. The polio folks are thrown out and boom it stays endemic and has a tendency to creep into its neighbors.
Pakistan and Afghanistan endemic areas are areas that most workers were not allowed or were not safely able to travel before the Bin Laden incident anyway. That has made the job more difficult but it isn't helped as there is local reaction against outside vaccination help anyway.
This is a problem more than a small incident and the fact that it did happen in Pakistan has made it harder for aid workers to enter certain regions and they have been attacked.
Really though this is something that might cause more problems if spreads to the Syrian refugee camps, the Gaza Strip(lacking facilities) or parts of the Sinai. And of course can spread more from there.
Surprising no one, Rand Paul has no issues coming across as a fundamentalist shitwad. I mean good god, portraying one's stance as a Christian vs Muslim stance is a fucking awful thing to do. "Assad may have gassed his own people with chemical weapons, but I Rand Paul say we shouldn't get involved because that would end up helping Muslims possible topple Assad, who I believe protects Christians."
Anyways, something that has been annoying me with the Syrian thing, is all this bitching about how Obama shouldn't have drawn a red line. Well the thing is the US did sign the Geneva Convention, so the fucking red line was already there. Obama just merely reminded everyone that "Yes, we did agree to some standards by treaty, when it comes to certain matters."
The Polio thing is rather worrisome because we have high refugee populations in the region, some that neighbor Israel. There is a very real risk of an outbreak taking place and that could make a rather shitty situation even shittier.
Does the Geneva Convention mandate unilateral strikes against countries which violate its precepts?
And the red line was obviously not already there. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the US aided Saddam's war against Iran in the 80s, which included large scale use of chemical weapons. We were basically helping him decide where to gas next. The US cares deeply about international law when it's convenient and ignores it entirely when it's not.
The 'red line' was dumb. Its only conceivable purpose would be to deter Assad from using chems, which doesn't seem to have worked. If Congress votes against the war (and I pray that it will) the only effect of the red line will have been to make Obama look like a jackass.
Does the Geneva Convention mandate unilateral strikes against countries which violate its precepts?
And the red line was obviously not already there. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the US aided Saddam's war against Iran in the 80s, which included large scale use of chemical weapons. We were basically helping him decide where to gas next. The US cares deeply about international law when it's convenient and ignores it entirely when it's not.
The 'red line' was dumb. Its only conceivable purpose would be to deter Assad from using chems, which doesn't seem to have worked. If Congress votes against the war (and I pray that it will) the only effect of the red line will have been to make Obama look like a jackass.
Or like a person who did not want a war but tried a bluff anyway cause it might have helped?
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
So some kind of feudal republic would have been a better idea for Afghanistan? Like local tribes get most of the sovereignty with the central government offering protection and coordination between them, with a weak elected parliament and "peacekeeping" military and police force?
It couldn't be worse then what is there now.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I still hear him referred to as Barack Hussein Obama on the radio now and then...it's fucking embarrassing.
What's imbarrasing is that at a time where the great unholy mass of Muslimism crowds at our gates we're being led down the primrose path by B. HUSSEIN Obama.
There appeared to be broad agreement with the president, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham said, that any attack on Syria should be to “degrade” the Syrian government’s delivery systems — which could include aircraft, artillery and the kind of rockets that the Obama administration says were used by the forces of President Bashar al-Assad to carry out an Aug. 21 sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs that killed more than 1,400 people. The senators said they planned to meet with Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, to discuss the strategy in greater depth.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I didn't say it at the time for fear of the urban youth federalized gangs taking me away but changing it to 'one nation under Farrakhan' really upset me. Thankfully the swine flu vaccine/mind control serum made me realize why I was wrong.
Even the guy who McCain cites in support of the missile attack plan says it's a stupid idea
"I never intended my analysis of a cruise missile strike option to be advocacy even though some people took it as that."
Also from the article:
The study immediately struck a chord with hawkish lawmakers on the Hill who were frustrated with the options outlined by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey that required a major commitment by U.S. military forces with a pricetag in the billions.
This seems to fit with the perception of the strikes as useless and symbolic
I still hear him referred to as Barack Hussein Obama on the radio now and then...it's fucking embarrassing.
Well that is his name. Nothing wrong with calling someone by his name.
Whats embarrassing is that we live in a society where have a Muslim/Arabic name is a bad thing, and people will go out of their way to remind others of that, as if a name makes a person different or worth less.
+4
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I still hear him referred to as Barack Hussein Obama on the radio now and then...it's fucking embarrassing.
Well that is his name. Nothing wrong with calling someone by his name.
Whats embarrassing is that we live in a society where have a Muslim/Arabic name is a bad thing, and people will go out of their way to remind others of that, as if a name makes a person different or worth less.
I'm fairly certain that's what Knuckle Dragger meant.
It's embarrassing that there are assholes who think that putting the emphasis on Hussein is supposed to mean anything. It's also embarrassing that it works on so many people.
Moreover, it seems really god damn suspect that Saudi Arabia would supply chemical weapons to rebels in Syria and US intelligence not be told. Do the Saudis even have chemical weapons? I can't find any indications that they do recently. But as the designated US ally in the region they're a pretty good target for proposing the counter-argument.
As far as I can tell, this argument about Saudi Arabia is completely backwards.
It seems to be widely known that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels and want Assad ovethrown. They'd probably be delighted if the US got in a shooting war with Assad.
That wasn't my point. My point was "supplying chemical weapons". The Saudi's don't have them as far as anybody knows. And it would be a huge international issue if they did. But even accepting all that, what possible benefit do the Saudis get by supplying a bunch of chemical weapons without indicating what they are to the rebels - especially when, on top of that, the attack would look obviously wrong since the rebels - even presuming they didn't know what they are - would fire a bunch of them at Assad's troops or more likely a military strongpoint.
It doesn't gel with the story presented which depends entirely on 1 reporter having some rebels who managed to know that Saudi Arabia supplied gas shells were accidentally released due to mishandling, but somehow weren't killed by being that proximal to it (i.e. if you released a gas shell in a tunnel, the chances of anyone surviving are pretty much 0).
And again, in turn, depends on people not knowing how a standard Sarin artillery round works - that is, it's a binary compound which requires the artillery firing to mix it. I'm not an expert on these things, I'd be happy if someone had more information, but the description of the type of failure (which again, doesn't gel with anyone being able to know about it) doesn't connect with what actually happened.
So if someone was going to be surreptitiously supplying chemical weapons to the rebels, Saudi Arabia sounds like the exact country to be doing it.
With the minor problem that again, as far as I know or can find, the Saudi's don't have chemical weapons. Sarin is not too difficult to make, but I seriously doubt they launched a crash program to supply it to a country which already has it. If the story was "it was Sarin liberated by a defecting military unit" or captured from an overrun base, then it would be totally plausible. The fact that this is not what's being spun though means it doesn't pass the smell test - unless of course you're trying to pump up "western conspiracy theory" - which the linked article took the time to include a massive rant about and very little else.
I still hear him referred to as Barack Hussein Obama on the radio now and then...it's fucking embarrassing.
Well that is his name. Nothing wrong with calling someone by his name.
Whats embarrassing is that we live in a society where have a Muslim/Arabic name is a bad thing, and people will go out of their way to remind others of that, as if a name makes a person different or worth less.
I was talking to a guy I work with about the name back before he got elected the first time, and he was amazed that I didn't have a problem with the guys name. "That's the name of our enemy!" As if Obama chose his own name or something. Or that (however old Obama is) years ago, anybody had ever head of somebody named Hussein.
I still hear him referred to as Barack Hussein Obama on the radio now and then...it's fucking embarrassing.
Well that is his name. Nothing wrong with calling someone by his name.
Whats embarrassing is that we live in a society where have a Muslim/Arabic name is a bad thing, and people will go out of their way to remind others of that, as if a name makes a person different or worth less.
I'm fairly certain that's what Knuckle Dragger meant.
It's embarrassing that there are assholes who think that putting the emphasis on Hussein is supposed to mean anything. It's also embarrassing that it works on so many people.
As I pointed out last thread, if Assad used those chemical weapons because he thought his regime was in danger, limited strikes are going to achieve absolutely nothing in terms of deterring him from using them again - or deterring any other despot in a similar situation from using them.
“The Pentagon’s most likely means of attacking Syria will not degrade or deter the regime’s use of chemical weapons, and could drag the U.S. more deeply into Syria’s civil war, retired military officers and analysts say....The administration is hoping that by degrading those capabilities, you deter Assad from using them again in the future. You want to change his decision calculus so that he chooses not to use them in the future. The problem with that is that we really don’t know why he chose to use the chemical weapons in that attack on Aug. 21,” said Nora Bensahel, deputy director of studies at the Center for a New American Security. “If it was seen by Assad and his leadership as something that was necessary for the regime to survive, that you couldn’t use other weapons to do that, and that activity had to be done, then no matter what we do, it will have no effect on his future calculations,” Ms. Bensahel said. “It’s very hard to know what will deter him in the future.”
As far as actually deterring chemical weapon use, it's regime change or nothing. As far as eliminating his ability to use chemical weapons, ditto.
It is highly unlikely this can be achieved without a ground intervention. An air only campaign on our part worked because Gaddafi was isolated and had no friends and the rebel ground forces were able to win after we neutralized his heavy assets. I don't think the same is anywhere near likely to occur in Syria, who has powerful nearby allies, though it is possible.
You can certainly remove his conventional military forces easily enough. A sustained no-fly zone and drone-strike campaign against artillery and tanks would topple him. What's left over might not be a fixed Syria, but it would make the point well enough.
You can certainly remove his conventional military forces easily enough. A sustained no-fly zone and drone-strike campaign against artillery and tanks would topple him. What's left over might not be a fixed Syria, but it would make the point well enough.
Yeah, we'd either get a hard line Islamist Syria or the civil war would just continue between the secular and islamic rebels.
That's what we did in Libya and it worked well. I think that if Assad wound up in the same situation, his allies would be likely to help him out against the rebels. What you propose is probably the best politically available route to deposing, I agree. It definitely can work. I just think the differences from Libya will make it harder to pull off than in Libya.
What are the domestic political consequences if the Congress hands back a "NO" vote? I keep hearing that Obama could order the strikes anyway, but that sounds like a pretty bad option.
The Rebels wouldn't be able to win fast, but without an Air Force and with strikes on whatever artillery he deploys, they have a chance...and if a bunch of them get killed in the fighting, that just makes it easier for the FSA and these guys we are apparently training.
I feel dirty.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
What are the domestic political consequences if the Congress hands back a "NO" vote? I keep hearing that Obama could order the strikes anyway, but that sounds like a pretty bad option.
Obama would probably be mocked by some for failing to uphold the red line and praised by others for allowing Congress to vote on whether or not to go to war. Not sure if it would be a net positive or negative; it might depend on how the press spins it. I don't *think* the administration would be dumb enough to launch an attack after a no vote, as it would generate a great deal of backlash, but I've been wrong before.
As for individual reps and senators, people probably won't pay enough attention/care enough or this vote to have significant political consequences. I called/emailed all of my congresspeople and promised to support their opponents in the next election if they vote for the war, but somehow I doubt a whole lot of people are doing that.
Thankfully, Maine's representatives aren't quite as evil as most, and will probably vote against authorization. Susan Collins will vote for it, and I honestly have no idea what Angus King will do (which is why I've been haranguing people to harangue him).
That's what we did in Libya and it worked well. I think that if Assad wound up in the same situation, his allies would be likely to help him out against the rebels. What you propose is probably the best politically available route to deposing, I agree. It definitely can work. I just think the differences from Libya will make it harder to pull off than in Libya.
Syria isn't Libya. And it bears repeating that Libya shouldn't exactly be called a success. Quadaffi may be gone but the country is still a mess and the fall out from the conflict spread throughout half of north Africa (see: Mali).
An Egyptian military court has sentenced 11 Muslim Brotherhood members to life in prison for violence targeting the army in the port city of Suez last month.
Forty-five other Brotherhood members were handed five-year jail terms on Tuesday, and eight defendants were acquitted.
I'm sure these trials were completely fair.
I haven't heard a lot from Egypt lately. Part of it is that the Syrian war has overshadowed it in the media, but it seems like things have calmed down somewhat, at least on the surface. Is this just a lull before more large scale clashes, or is the military junta succeeding in its efforts to crush the Brotherhood? My bets are on the former, but I'm a bit surprised at the lack of such clashes in recent days.
What are the domestic political consequences if the Congress hands back a "NO" vote? I keep hearing that Obama could order the strikes anyway, but that sounds like a pretty bad option.
Obama would probably be mocked by some for failing to uphold the red line and praised by others for allowing Congress to vote on whether or not to go to war. Not sure if it would be a net positive or negative; it might depend on how the press spins it. I don't *think* the administration would be dumb enough to launch an attack after a no vote, as it would generate a great deal of backlash, but I've been wrong before.
As for individual reps and senators, people probably won't pay enough attention/care enough or this vote to have significant political consequences. I called/emailed all of my congresspeople and promised to support their opponents in the next election if they vote for the war, but somehow I doubt a whole lot of people are doing that.
Thankfully, Maine's representatives aren't quite as evil as most, and will probably vote against authorization. Susan Collins will vote for it, and I honestly have no idea what Angus King will do (which is why I've been haranguing people to harangue him).
Obama absolutely can order the strikes if Congress votes no. That was why they labelled this a risk to national security. Of course that is likely to have its own consequences.
As for how people view the no vote, itself, that is pretty much going to a personal bias issue. The pro-Obama and anti-intervention side would be more inclined to see it as deferring to congress, while the anti-Obama and pro-intervention crowds would be more likely to see it as him backing down (or getting shut down).
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I read that there was a call for Brotherhood supporters to protest today in Cairo, but I'm not sure how widespread or how well received that message was.
Posts
It's only a small part of the overall equation, but I bet worldwide medical services are still kicking themselves after the United States had a small number of operatives pose as vaccination staffs in Pakistan in the run-up to the Bin Laden raid.
As if it wasn't hard enough already to do the work.
I can say as someone in that area there is an a large amount of anger towards that happening but this isn't the main issue with underlying problems with vaccine distribution.
Nigeria is kind of the case of what happens when anti-vaxxers get a huge group on a population. Polio was getting close to being wiped out in the country but there was an upsurge of thought that said this was actually making the kids infertile which of course was a lie. The polio folks are thrown out and boom it stays endemic and has a tendency to creep into its neighbors.
Pakistan and Afghanistan endemic areas are areas that most workers were not allowed or were not safely able to travel before the Bin Laden incident anyway. That has made the job more difficult but it isn't helped as there is local reaction against outside vaccination help anyway.
This is a problem more than a small incident and the fact that it did happen in Pakistan has made it harder for aid workers to enter certain regions and they have been attacked.
Really though this is something that might cause more problems if spreads to the Syrian refugee camps, the Gaza Strip(lacking facilities) or parts of the Sinai. And of course can spread more from there.
Anyways, something that has been annoying me with the Syrian thing, is all this bitching about how Obama shouldn't have drawn a red line. Well the thing is the US did sign the Geneva Convention, so the fucking red line was already there. Obama just merely reminded everyone that "Yes, we did agree to some standards by treaty, when it comes to certain matters."
The Polio thing is rather worrisome because we have high refugee populations in the region, some that neighbor Israel. There is a very real risk of an outbreak taking place and that could make a rather shitty situation even shittier.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
And the red line was obviously not already there. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the US aided Saddam's war against Iran in the 80s, which included large scale use of chemical weapons. We were basically helping him decide where to gas next. The US cares deeply about international law when it's convenient and ignores it entirely when it's not.
The 'red line' was dumb. Its only conceivable purpose would be to deter Assad from using chems, which doesn't seem to have worked. If Congress votes against the war (and I pray that it will) the only effect of the red line will have been to make Obama look like a jackass.
Or like a person who did not want a war but tried a bluff anyway cause it might have helped?
We never really figured out a way to enforce international law.
A genuine desire to keep him from using it and an election cycle full of Republicans saying Obama was a terrorist coddler.
It couldn't be worse then what is there now.
I had some stuff written out, but then I read through it a few more times, and felt like a man wearing a tin foil hat.
This is the right answer.
Now, when you say 'we' ...
I still hear him referred to as Barack Hussein Obama on the radio now and then...it's fucking embarrassing.
- John Stuart Mill
What's imbarrasing is that at a time where the great unholy mass of Muslimism crowds at our gates we're being led down the primrose path by B. HUSSEIN Obama.
New York Times:
- John Stuart Mill
Even the guy who McCain cites in support of the missile attack plan says it's a stupid idea
Also from the article:
This seems to fit with the perception of the strikes as useless and symbolic
Well that is his name. Nothing wrong with calling someone by his name.
Whats embarrassing is that we live in a society where have a Muslim/Arabic name is a bad thing, and people will go out of their way to remind others of that, as if a name makes a person different or worth less.
I'm fairly certain that's what Knuckle Dragger meant.
It's embarrassing that there are assholes who think that putting the emphasis on Hussein is supposed to mean anything. It's also embarrassing that it works on so many people.
It doesn't gel with the story presented which depends entirely on 1 reporter having some rebels who managed to know that Saudi Arabia supplied gas shells were accidentally released due to mishandling, but somehow weren't killed by being that proximal to it (i.e. if you released a gas shell in a tunnel, the chances of anyone surviving are pretty much 0).
And again, in turn, depends on people not knowing how a standard Sarin artillery round works - that is, it's a binary compound which requires the artillery firing to mix it. I'm not an expert on these things, I'd be happy if someone had more information, but the description of the type of failure (which again, doesn't gel with anyone being able to know about it) doesn't connect with what actually happened.
With the minor problem that again, as far as I know or can find, the Saudi's don't have chemical weapons. Sarin is not too difficult to make, but I seriously doubt they launched a crash program to supply it to a country which already has it. If the story was "it was Sarin liberated by a defecting military unit" or captured from an overrun base, then it would be totally plausible. The fact that this is not what's being spun though means it doesn't pass the smell test - unless of course you're trying to pump up "western conspiracy theory" - which the linked article took the time to include a massive rant about and very little else.
I was talking to a guy I work with about the name back before he got elected the first time, and he was amazed that I didn't have a problem with the guys name. "That's the name of our enemy!" As if Obama chose his own name or something. Or that (however old Obama is) years ago, anybody had ever head of somebody named Hussein.
Edit: http://news.msn.co.nz/worldnews/8717367/missiles-launched-in-mediterranean-russia
Edit: Russia says no signs of attack following launch, Sky News reports it to be a US test firing.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Well then....
My B?
This is why Russia has warships in the area.
No one else has reported on this so I'm starting to doubt its accuracy.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.545100
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/03/syria-ballistic-launch-mediterranean.html
There are still denials going about, but it seems like a joint US-Israel missile test. Israel's defense ministry has confirmed the tests.
Also, we can't eliminate his ability to use those weapons because we don't know where they are, and even if we did couldn't bomb the stockpile directly, and their delivery systems are ubiquitous and dispersed.
As far as actually deterring chemical weapon use, it's regime change or nothing. As far as eliminating his ability to use chemical weapons, ditto.
It is highly unlikely this can be achieved without a ground intervention. An air only campaign on our part worked because Gaddafi was isolated and had no friends and the rebel ground forces were able to win after we neutralized his heavy assets. I don't think the same is anywhere near likely to occur in Syria, who has powerful nearby allies, though it is possible.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Yeah, we'd either get a hard line Islamist Syria or the civil war would just continue between the secular and islamic rebels.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
I feel dirty.
- John Stuart Mill
If the US launches these strikes, it is going to come out of them cleanly.
As for individual reps and senators, people probably won't pay enough attention/care enough or this vote to have significant political consequences. I called/emailed all of my congresspeople and promised to support their opponents in the next election if they vote for the war, but somehow I doubt a whole lot of people are doing that.
Thankfully, Maine's representatives aren't quite as evil as most, and will probably vote against authorization. Susan Collins will vote for it, and I honestly have no idea what Angus King will do (which is why I've been haranguing people to harangue him).
Syria isn't Libya. And it bears repeating that Libya shouldn't exactly be called a success. Quadaffi may be gone but the country is still a mess and the fall out from the conflict spread throughout half of north Africa (see: Mali).
I'm sure these trials were completely fair.
I haven't heard a lot from Egypt lately. Part of it is that the Syrian war has overshadowed it in the media, but it seems like things have calmed down somewhat, at least on the surface. Is this just a lull before more large scale clashes, or is the military junta succeeding in its efforts to crush the Brotherhood? My bets are on the former, but I'm a bit surprised at the lack of such clashes in recent days.
Obama absolutely can order the strikes if Congress votes no. That was why they labelled this a risk to national security. Of course that is likely to have its own consequences.
As for how people view the no vote, itself, that is pretty much going to a personal bias issue. The pro-Obama and anti-intervention side would be more inclined to see it as deferring to congress, while the anti-Obama and pro-intervention crowds would be more likely to see it as him backing down (or getting shut down).
- John Stuart Mill