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

you have no clue what you're talking about

for years it was in the blood supply

 

Just admit that you are wrong and guided by politics feelings. Also a military deployment would not have impacted the spread of AIDS either.

 

first of all, i'm completely right and second, you're projecting your own situation

military deployment, are you really that cut off from reality

and knowledge of the long history of successful humanitarian missions by the military?

get a grip read the article i posted on the previous page

 

Tell me when they were deployed in the past to fight a disease.

 

again, you can't read it for yourself? probably not


"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."


"In the aftermath of heavy rains and flooding in Sudan in August 1988, the U.S. Army sent a team of medical personnel to assist the Sudanese army working with the civilian population. It was feared that the floods, which had inundated hundreds of thousands of latrines in the slums of Khartoum, would spread disease throughout the population. That concern was mirrored by civil disaster relief authorities; the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, among others, had sent teams of experts to assist the Sudanese authorities.

In such a situation, the doctrine of the military is straight- forward: immunize everyone at risk against all possible health threats. Therefore, the Army team began an extensive campaign to inoculate the population of their assigned areas."

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

 

Ok, now tell me when the US military was ever deployed to combat a disease.

 

what a joke, of course you don't understand english

 

OK, I'll try it slower this time...... Tell Me When The US Military Has Been Deployed Ever In The Past To Combat A Disease.

Now don't tell me about dropping food or providing help evacuating people after an earthquake or flood.

 

face it, your argument was thoroughly refuted

 

Really? The US military has been mobilized for this purpose in the past?

 

is your brain spinning so fast that you can't read?

 

Your article said that military assets have dropped food and evacuated people after a flood or earthquake, but never for this specific mission.

 

of course you didn't see the part about providing medical aid, immunizing people against health threats, delivering medical teams to foreign disasters and working to prevent the spread of disease

 

Do you ever read the news? Medics from France, Holland, Great Britain and the IRC have been involved from the start of the outbreak. The world could have left you alone to deal with the aftermath of Katrina, but you asked us for help and we gave it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hBqVhC7n0U

 

These must be Muslims that are being affected for Obama to care

 

Who gives a crap about the past? The problem is NOW!

 

Ah, good! Aces here is obviously going to tell us about all why the United States must send 3,000 U. S. military personnel into the heard of Ebola-infested -- what? Missouri? North Carolina? Idaho? NO. They're being sent to AFRICA! How 'bout it, Aces, lay it out for us. Enumerate just a few of the really sensible, valid, legal reasons why the United States of America must do this? An unrepentant knuckle-dragger like me would really like to know how putting a large contingent of American troops in the middle of a pandemic enhances the security and well-being of the citizens of the United States.

I have, of course, freely suggested that we can do all the heavy-lifting for R&D testing for the production of beneficial medicines, pathology research, and other endeavors where the finest computer technologies and analytical facilities exist, right here inside the United States of America. But hyperliberals like Obama feel that nothing else will do but that we must thrust our military people inside this lethal danger zone, thousands of miles and an ocean away from our own country -- and many of we conservatives are obviously just too retarded and stupid to see the wisdom of doing this....

Being intelligent and well-educated (no doubt), you'll have been much more familiar than me with, for instance, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, which killed millions of people, and, how it got to be in the United States in the first place. The floor is yours, Aces -- enlighten us!

 

You should do more research my friend on what our armed forces are trained and not trained to do. We have a large number of military personnel trained to do exactly what you are saying they are not. In fact you can look at this as a prime opportunity to put their training into practice and see where they can improve by using real world experience.

 

Troops? One billion??


We have enough problems at home without worrying about foreign problems.

 

Just going on my 20+ years experience. I don't ever remember training for this type of operation.

 

And this isn't our problem, nor is it a problem that requires a military deployment. Where do we stop? Do we now deploy our military to every region of the world which has some epidemic running through the population? Are we now also the caretakers of the world?

People like you say that we can't afford to have the military do the job they are required to do, but we can somehow afford to have them do something they are not intended to do. Billions spent a pet project are fine, but billions spent on national defense are not?

 

hiv/aids wasn't our problem at one point, but we didn't act soon enough and it came to the usa

“This is an emergency because nobody knows how to cure this. we know that almost 5000 people have been infected; we know that more than 2600 have died. Almost certainly more than that have been infected. The problem is, as compared with previous outbreaks of Ebola that were in remote, rural areas, this has hit in some urban areas, and when it got into Nigeria and the Congo, there are a lot of people there. There are just so many bodies brushing up against one another every day, it increases the risk. You have to isolate and care for. A lot of these people can survive if they get proper care quickly and we can stop the epidemic and let it burn itself out if we can isolate everybody that’s infected, but that is going to take a Herculean effort.” – Bill Clinton

see the video here: www.salon.com 9/18/2014

 

Another great example of why it should be a national priority to secure our borders.

Wait, are you saying that back in the early to mid eighties a military deployment to somewhere in the world could have stopped men from having anal sex with other men?

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't seen one left winger yet say "we are broke, who's going to pay for it"? Why is that?

 

look what that did for china, it crippled their progress

and it's not even possible to keep everyone out


intelligent people act by meeting the challenge head on, not hiding and hoping it goes away


this destroys the dumb argument y'all have been making

1:50 - "this is the moment to act"



MELISSA BLOCK, HOST:

There's a word we're hearing a lot these days when officials talk about the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It's spreading faster and exponentially.

BAN KI-MOON: Ebola is an exponential crisis.

DAVID NABARRO: It is advancing in an exponential fashion.

BLOCK: We heard President Obama, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and David Nabarro, another U.N. official, speaking this week. Now, exponential is a word you don't ever want to hear in the same sentence as Ebola. NPR's Michaeleen Doucleff explains why.

MICHAELEEN DOUCLEFF, BYLINE: Right now, we've had more than 5,000 cases of Ebola and at least 2,600 people have died. Alessandro Vespignani, at the Northeastern University in Boston, is one of the scientists taking numbers like that and putting them into computer models to see where the epidemic is going.

ALESSANDRO VESPIGNANI: And you know, for instance, in our modeling we see that mid-October, we are already between 10 to 25,000 cases.

DOUCLEFF: Five-thousand cases of a Ebola is bad. Ten to 25,000 cases is crazy. And that's why you want to pay attention to the word exponential. This outbreak is following an exponential curve. On a chart, it looks a little like a J. So what does that mean?

VESPIGNANI: Well, an exponential curve is a curve that doubles every certain amount of time.

DOUCLEFF: Right now, this outbreak doubles within a month. If help doesn't arrive in time and we have about 15,000 Ebola cases in mid-October, then there will be 30,000 cases by mid-November, 60,000 by mid-December.

VESPIGNANI: And you see that, right away, you get very scary numbers.

DOUCLEFF: So every day or week that goes by, the epidemic gets harder and harder to control. The number of cases rises. The number of beds, doctors and nurses needed to stop it keeps going up, quicker and quicker. And Alessandro Vespignani says the actual number of cases is likely much higher than what's been reported, which means the models are underestimating the situation anyway you look at it.

VESPIGNANI: The window of opportunity is closing in a sense. And that's why it is very important to understand that this is the moment to act.

DOUCLEFF: OK, when I heard this, I thought it sounded a bit alarmist. But then I talked with several more disease modelers and the message was similar. Jeffrey Shaman, of Columbia University, is making models for the U.S. government. And, in fact, when he first saw the results of his models, the numbers were so high that he was afraid to make them public.

JEFFREY SHAMAN: I didn't want to scare people, but we're really in uncharted territory here. We've never had a sustained outbreak of Ebola like this, certainly nothing of this magnitude. It's never penetrated into cities and city slums.

DOUCLEFF: Before you fall off your chair at these numbers, the world did get some welcome news this week. On Tuesday, President Obama announced plans for the U.S. military to provide 1,700 hospital beds in West Africa. It will also help set up training facilities for health care workers.

Do you think that 1,700 beds is enough? Is this something that you think could actually start to turn the tide?

SHAMAN: Well, I hope so, and I know that doesn't give you a really great answer.

DOUCLEFF: Because here's the thing about the exponential curve; it can turn on a dime. Tiny changes in how the virus spreads can make huge differences in the number of cases. If these countries could even get a little bit of help, perhaps slow the spread so that sick people only infect one person instead of two, it dramatically cuts the total cases Jeffrey Shaman predicts for October.

SHAMAN: For our improved scenario, we have something about 7,700 cases instead of 15,000 come October 19th.

DOUCLEFF: Now, we do need to remember that these models come with a lot of caveats. For starters, they don't do a good job at making predictions far out into the future, just like with weather forecasts.

SHAMAN: The farther out you go the more uncertain it is.

DOUCLEFF: That's because to really predict what's happening way out in November, we need to have a good idea what will happen in October. And of course, we don't know that yet. But Shaman says there's one thing they are sure of - help needs to come fast because even if the new, beefed-up aid starts to slow down the epidemic next week, it'll take a year or a year and a half to wipe out Ebola from West Africa. Michaeleen Doucleff, NPR News.

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=349341606

 

So, in the left wing hack mind, securing our borders will cause us to regress back to the Stone Age?