• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The red cross will not get another cent, second or drop of blood from me . . .

I don't know if I agree with you on this. It is because the Red Cross is an impartial organization that makes them who they are. They're willing to help anyone, anywhere and they truly are humanitarian. I know that the Taliban doesn't fight this war the same way that we do, and I find their tactics appalling as much as you do. That doesn't make them any less human.

The Red Cross has a long history of working in and with the countries we are at war with. During the second World War, the Red Cross was allowed access to allied prisoners of war, as well as access to the American's EPWs. It's a give and take situation, and it doesn't always look good, but that's how they have to operate in order to maintain their impartiality. They are also mentioned in the Geneva Conventions, though not all countries abide by these accords.

I suppose I see their working with the enemy as a sign that I might have a chance at getting a message out if I'm ever captured. I know it's a very dim hope, but at least the Red Cross is doing their part to ensure channels are open.
 
Is there a difference between the International Red Cross and the American Red Cross? I've had concerns over the actions of the IRC for quite some time - wondering how much the later is tied to the prior.
 
My thoughts:

The IRC is impartial. They are there to work in between belligerents, delivering aid when and where they can. Does it suck that someone taken captive by the Taliban will more than likely end up headless before they get their Red Cross visit? Yes. Does that diminish what they do? No. Is it possible that teaching basic first aid to the insurgents/towelly ban might set them up to provide aid to a coalition serviceman? Possibly, especially given the penchant of the tribal groups to flip flop sides, whenever it's beneficial.

The Red Cross has to maintain neutrality to even have the opportunity to provide aid.

I guarantee if you end up in what the SERE instructors referred to as "the worst situation in your life," you won't be too good or too proud or too offended by their actions to take their assistance.
 
eas7888, I see your point in that they are a humanitarian organization and to remain impartial etc. etc. However the rub comes from being a member of the forces actively engaged in a war against them. By contributing to the organization you would be in part personally supporting free aid to the enemy. Aid which enables them to return to the fight, plant more IEDs and harm other fellow soldiers. I would not give up a pint of blood for it to be pumped into an insurgent so that a month from now he can shoot me in the head on TV. I understand that is a highly unlikely extreme, but the point remains. I have to agree with fc2spyguy.
Let them be humanitarian and support whomever they chose, but not supported by me.
 
Gus Gorilla said:
eas7888, I see your point in that they are a humanitarian organization and to remain impartial etc. etc. However the rub comes from being a member of the forces actively engaged in a war against them. By contributing to the organization you would be in part personally supporting free aid to the enemy. Aid which enables them to return to the fight, plant more IEDs and harm other fellow soldiers. I would not give up a pint of blood for it to be pumped into an insurgent so that a month from now he can shoot me in the head on TV. I understand that is a highly unlikely extreme, but the point remains. I have to agree with fc2spyguy.
Let them be humanitarian and support whomever they chose, but not supported by me.
Click to expand...

The blood you give to the American Red Cross usually stays local, unless there is a drive for blood to go to areas of natural disaster or something of that nature. It's also important that every minute and "dollar" spent by the insurgency trying to save the life of their comrade is a minute and dollar not spent fighting against the NATO forces there.

I would point to what scoolbubba mentioned. Would you also refuse their help if you became a prisoner of war? I highly doubt it.
 
I have absolutely no problem with it. None.

The Red Cross/Red Crescent MUST maintain neutrality and provide even levels of support and care throughout the world. That's the reason they are allowed into POW camps to meet with the POWs. If any of us were to end up as POWs, the Red Cross could be the ONLY way our family finds out that we're alive.

To me, if that means that they are also going to teach our enemies to restore the breathing, stop the bleeding, etc... Then I think it's a worthwhile trade.
 
No I get it. And like I said, I understand that is not going to happen with my direct support being money, blood, etc. going straight to an enemy combatant. However the point to be made remains. Were I to be in the worst situation in my life as schoolbubba pointed out would I refuse their treatment? No way. But as also brought up, with this enemy at this time you are very likely to end up headless before your Red Cross visit.
This discussion could continue at length when we consider both sides of the coin that the Red Cross helps our people, their people, and so on. I do not believe they should stop their humanitarian efforts, regardless of who they are. They must help all to be allowed to really help all. I don't have problems with others who support them either. It just seems to me that teaching these people basic medical skills is not exactly going to help our people any and that is who I have an interest in. As eas7888 pointed out they aren't exactly known to follow the Geneva Convention or extend basic battlefield aid.
 
You're either neutral, or you're not. If they decide not to help the Taliban, then they're no longer neutral. Think beyond the current conflict, to the future. They don't help the Taliban now, then it provides for some country to refuse to allow them in to treat/give comfort to your fellow brothers-in-arms. Why? Because they're no longer neutral.

And if you give blood here in the US, it's not like it goes into a worldwide bloodbank. It pretty much stays here.
 
Most larger cities have a local blood bank that is unaffiliated with the Red Cross, and at least some Navy hospitals also have donation centers, so there are other options for giving blood.
 
The ICRC and the ARC are separate organizations. The ARC is constantly putting out PR fires caused by the ICRC’s lefty actions. The blood donations stay local except for special needs. The ARC supplies a little more than 40% of Americas blood products. Please don’t punish the ARC for the foolishness of the ICRC.
 
For blood donors only, I have no problem w/ the American Red Cross. As a non-profit, I have a BIG problem w/ them that ~ 40% of their revenues go to cover admin/overhead expenses. My preferred donor group is the Salvation Army - they can squeeze a dollar like no other charitable organization I know of. FWIW.
 
Fog said:
For blood donors only, I have no problem w/ the American Red Cross. As a non-profit, I have a BIG problem w/ them that ~ 40% of their revenues go to cover admin/overhead expenses. My preferred donor group is the Salvation Army - they can squeeze a dollar no other charitable organization I know of. FWIW.
Click to expand...

It's not quite comparable; the Red Cross has more than just charitable activities that require overhead - education, blood donation, and emergency notification for service members.
 
mmx1 said:
It's not quite comparable; the Red Cross has more than just charitable activities that require overhead - education, blood donation, and emergency notification for service members.
Click to expand...

Even so, 40% still seems like a lot for admin...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top