Obama sending 3,000 troops into the heart of the Ebola zone in Africa.

So, they say the reason this is an appropriate mission for the military is because they are the best qualified to do this. What makes a military force qualified to do this? In fact nothing our military does trains them and prepares them for this kind of mission. That means they are not qualified to perform this mission.

This is something that the UN should do. This would be a great way to show the world that the UN isn't a useless collection of misfits.

This is not what the US military is intended for. This is intended to make left wingers feel good about themselves because they believe they are showing the world that we care. At least that's Obama's mind set in this.

 

"n fact nothing our military does trains them and prepares them for this kind of mission. That means they are not qualified to perform this mission. " Why do you say this?

 

Where did I say that? I'd rather keep it isolated to where it is now and not expose soldiers to this disease and have them bring it home with them.

 

I would prefer to let them protect their own borders and then maybe we could concentrate on us protecting ours.

 

all you're doing is showing that you have no clue what you're talking about

 

The left thinks that deploying the American military for these purposes will make the rest of the world see that we care about everyone. Then the people in the world who look at us as the "great satan" will suddenly realize that they were wrong and now become our friends.

 

we're doing it to protect ourselves as much or more than for protecting everyone

but of course, you can't acknowledge that, since it doesn't agree with your ridiculous propaganda

 

Here's another one who simply cannot get it through his head that:
1. We don't even know all the ways that Ebola is spread (deny that and I'll cover you with links from experts stating that it is NOT yet known).
2. The United States military is intended to defend the Constitution and the American nation -- not go off half-cocked into some bunch of disease-ridden, Third-World pestholes.
3. Sending over twice as many military personnel to fight against a disease "enemy" we can't even see as we do against an enemy we can see, track, and destroy easily (ISIS) makes absolutely no ****ing sense at all!

We are at war with terrorism! We have full plates dealing with that alone, but our wonderous President Warlord hasn't even got the wits to realize that until we defend the borders of our own country, we have no business mucking around in the internal health-issue concerns of other countries! If we slap an airtight quarantine on countries with Ebola, and not let anyone inside the United States who has been to any of them, how would it just magically appear here? If you need a lesson about how a horrible virus can kill millions of people all over the planet, study the spread of the Spanish Flu of 1918, taking special note of how it was brought back to the United States by American troops who had been sent overseas in World War I....

 

that's an excellent reason to go and find out

you don't seem to know much about history or the world

all you're doing now is showing that you don't have a clue what you're talking about

just imagine all the lives and trillions of dollars that could have been saved if we'd acted early on hiv/aids

 

Actually we can protect ourselves by ensuring this disease stays isolated. Possible exposing thousands of soldiers to this disease does not facilitate that.

- - - Updated - - -

And what propaganda would that be? That the military should be used exclusively for military type operations?

 

How so? If you're such an authority, why don't you try to set me straight.

 

Because they are trained and prepared to wage war against our enemies. The army does not train and prepare to go overseas and conduct experimental medical operations.

This is an irresponsible and naive use of the military. It's purpose is simply a PR move by a president who can't get anything right and is searching for anything he can hang his hat on as a positive legacy. This ain't it.

 

doing nothing, is how you ensure the disease spreads

being proactive and attacking the disease is how you ensure the disease doesn't spread

the propaganda in your comments

despite your ignorance, history shows that it hasn't been used exclusively for military type operations

you've already shown, over a long period, that you're incapable of being set straight

 

This article offers some perspective about Ebola transmission;

http://www.aei.org/article/health/can-ebola-go-airborne/

Excerpt;

A study in the journal Science, released last week, shows that the Ebola strain spreading across Western Africa has undergone a surprisingly high amount of genetic drift during the current outbreak. Experts say the mutations could eventually make the virus harder to diagnose and perhaps treat with a new therapeutic, should one come along.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, I wrote that in response to the crisis, the Obama administration has stressed that the disease is unlikely to spread inside America. We will certainly see cases diagnosed here, and perhaps even experience some isolated clusters of disease. For now, though, the administration’s assurances are generally correct: Health-care workers in advanced Western nations maintain infection controls that can curtail the spread of non-airborne diseases like Ebola.

But our relative comfort in the U.S. is based on our belief that our public health tools could easily contain a virus spread only through direct contact. That would change radically if Ebola were to alter its mode of spread. We know the virus is mutating. Could it adapt in a way that makes it airborne?

 

Why is it the responsibility of the United States in general and specially the US military to do anything here?

I doubt this deployment ends well

 

Ah, jac, we have sparred so many times, I'm just going to let this one go for now. You have no idea what the purpose of the U. S. military is, and so how could I possibly get enough traction to convince you that it has nothing to do with defending "treatment" camps in other countries in Africa.

You sig-line says it all in a way, "it's more difficult to convince people that they've been fooled than it is to fool them" As one native Texan to another, "That dog don't hunt!" I'm all for the U. S. doing the heavy-lifting R&D and lab work needed to find the cure. I will be happy to see the U. S bear all the expense of doing so, and if necessary, paying for the medicine, too. I simply see no merit or need at all in sending 3.000 U. S. military personnel to the disease-ridden heart of equatorial Africa. If all these people are doctors and research scientists (as at least one poster here claims), how in hell does it help anything for them to be sent to Africa instead of conducting their research in the United States where all the research facilities are vastly better than they are in some Third World pisspot. And, with our people safely behind our borders, we don't need to send anyone anywhere in Africa to secure treatment compounds, "treatment centers", or anything else that African countries should be providing for themselves!

Hint: How is it going to look if American troops have to use machineguns and RPG's to stop hordes of Africans from overrunning "treatment centers"...?! The race cards would be filling the skies everywhere!

 

Ok, tell me how we would have saved trillions of dollars by acting earlier on AIDS. Especially when there's still no cure in spite of the billions and billions of dollars spent on research and such? AIDS still largely remains isolated to one demographic world wide.

 

i know how it's been used throughout history, which is far more than you seem to understand about the military


USE OF THE MILITARY IN HUMANITARIAN RELIEF

Use of military forces for humanitarian purposes is a long- established tradition in all corners of the world. The earliest recorded instances predate Alexander the Great.

Today the military is more heavily engaged in humanitarian operations than before. In the past five years, military aircraft have air-dropped food into Ethiopia, helicoptered aid into remote villages in Sudan, rescued flood victims (and often their animals) in Bangladesh, rushed pharmaceutical to earthquake sites, and delivered medical teams to hundreds of major and minor disasters. Engineers have helped rebuild roads and bridges (in some countries, to the point where there are more Bailey bridges than normal bridges!) and have supervised the construction of major flood control works in some regions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cuny/laptop/humanrelief.html

oh please, you're always out in left field composing fluffy hogwash, never even close to the sparring ring

by not allowing it to spread

 

Oh, please! Accuse me of any loathsome, disgusting, nauseating thing you like, but DON'T accuse me of being in any kind of LEFT field. I'm in the far-Right wing, and I'll proudly live and die there, jac, defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic!

If I'm right, after the elections in November, we're going to put that stupid, incompetent son-of-a-***** you hyperlibs re-installed in the White House for four years in 2012 on a real short leash. We're going to bottle him up in the White House, and if he tries to rule the United States with his "pen and phone", he's going to find himself under the judicial equivalent of house-arrest. Then, finally, on January 20, 2017, we'll finally be RID of him! OH! Happy day!

 

of course you can't make a rational argument or even address the long history of using the military for humanitarian relief

try reading the article i referenced in my previous comment instead of doubling down on fluffy hogwash, out in left field

 

AIDS is spread through one's behavior. The only way to stop the spread of AIDS is to alter behaviors.

 

Yet another huge mistake from the big eared dope.

 

generally through sexual intercourse and in the early stages it was spread in the medical blood supplies

my earlier assertion stands, despite your ridiculous, moralistic insinuation

[video=youtube;_CGpghqSRrE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CGpghqSRrE[/video]

 

I don't know why people even try to debate with a Conservative. It's like debating with a two year old. The only difference is that a 2 year old is brighter and easier to understand. They both drool on themselves though.

 

And that is through behavior. The amount spread through blood transfusions was minimal. And the blood supply was tainted through people's behavior.

- - - Updated - - -

Heavy sigh........ ^^^^^^^ never contributes anything.

Did I make any judgements about that behavior?