3,000 Ebola victims dead; US to send 3, 000 troops to Africa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A coupla weeks ago, you were saying that military folks should be able to opt out of missions (when we were talking about war) if they don't want to go.

Now it's just their place to do as they're told. Even though the risk of death is as high or perhaps higher than war.

I still think people should be able to opt out (of the mission and their military contract) if they conscientiously object to the mission.

Conscientious objection is not "I'm too scared to go".

Edited October 2, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[rlogan 2,036]

The tinfoilery that begins to develop around this critical mission is truly stunning! If there ever was an enemy that we rather fight over there than here at home, it's this ebola bug.

Rubbish. You are just saying that rather than demonstrating so. If it is so clear then by all means SHOW us. All you are showing is that you can call people names. "Tin Foilery"? That's a pretty interesting description of people raising reasonable issues here.

Sending in the marines sounds like you are "doing something", sure - but you need to demonstrate this is even the right tool for the job regardless of whether we should go or not. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether CDC personnel are better suited than marines - I mean let's just consider the option of Marines with hand grenades to Ebola and CDC personnel fighting ISIS with cotton balls and antiseptic. It just proves how silly this is to be asking the right questions because the results can be so stupid when you don't.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not rocket science mate. You need soldiers to enforce a quarantine, prevent assaults on medical staff, build treatment centres etc. Common sense!

I don't get the outrage. Perhaps you need to explain why its a bad idea to send troops...

Edited October 2, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's not rocket science mate. You need soldiers to enforce a quarantine, prevent assaults on medical staff, build treatment centres etc. Common sense!

I don't get the outrage. Perhaps you need to explain why its a bad idea to send troops...

You beat me to it.

[Operator 1,927]

FHA is one of the most common missions for our military. They are extremely good at it, they aren't just grunts with SAW's and hand grenades.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_29.pdf

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't doubt it.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Ebola

[rlogan 2,036]

It's not rocket science mate. You need soldiers to enforce a quarantine, prevent assaults on medical staff, build treatment centres etc. Common sense!

I don't get the outrage. Perhaps you need to explain why its a bad idea to send troops...

No it isn't common sense. You made all of the above up off the top of your head. The most hilarious of which is prevent assaults on medical staff. Oh really? So assaults on medical staff is something that has actually happened and requires this response?

No, you just made it up. It is precisely the proof of my point: people will just make up reasons. Outrage? lol. Yes, paint your opposition as foaming-at-the-mouth crazy.

Common sense to me is the President of the USA acting in the interests of the USA, to protect the USA and not being "world citizen". Interesting that Thomas Sowell has the same take on this:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/obamas-priority-not-protecting-americans/

Obama has made statements about "threats to global security", which is now getting us closer to a more understandable military role and the US government's obsession with controlling governments:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/16/obama-ebola-atlanta-centers-for-disease-control/15691299/

Unlike you, making stuff up off the top of your head, some of us look for substantiation in things Obama is actually saying and doing.

[GandD 5,966]

Rubbish. You are just saying that rather than demonstrating so. If it is so clear then by all means SHOW us. All you are showing is that you can call people names. "Tin Foilery"? That's a pretty interesting description of people raising reasonable issues here.

Sending in the marines sounds like you are "doing something", sure - but you need to demonstrate this is even the right tool for the job regardless of whether we should go or not. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether CDC personnel are better suited than marines - I mean let's just consider the option of Marines with hand grenades to Ebola and CDC personnel fighting ISIS with cotton balls and antiseptic. It just proves how silly this is to be asking the right questions because the results can be so stupid when you don't.

Marines would have a role with crowd control, quarantine, assisting with supplies, and other types of things needed to support local and international aid workers. For sure, we need doctors there but our marines can provide a safe stable and well supplied place in which the doctors could work.

It's not rocket science mate. You need soldiers to enforce a quarantine, prevent assaults on medical staff, build treatment centres etc. Common sense!

I don't get the outrage. Perhaps you need to explain why its a bad idea to send troops...

Ah nuts, ya beat me to it.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Lie Lie Lie CDC a bunch of liars.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No it isn't common sense. You made all of the above up off the top of your head. The most hilarious of which is prevent assaults on medical staff. Oh really? So assaults on medical staff is something that has actually happened and requires this response?

No, you just made it up. It is precisely the proof of my point: people will just make up reasons. Outrage? lol. Yes, paint your opposition as foaming-at-the-mouth crazy.

Common sense to me is the President of the USA acting in the interests of the USA, to protect the USA and not being "world citizen". Interesting that Thomas Sowell has the same take on this:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/obamas-priority-not-protecting-americans/

Obama has made statements about "threats to global security", which is now getting us closer to a more understandable military role and the US government's obsession with controlling governments:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/16/obama-ebola-atlanta-centers-for-disease-control/15691299/

Unlike you, making stuff up off the top of your head, some of us look for substantiation in things Obama is actually saying and doing.

The UK has sent military staff to Sierra Leone to help build a treatment centre there. Why? Because the World Health Organisation asked them to. Strangely, no one here is obsessed with finding some deep reason as to why this is necessary, it's self evident.

Why should the US help an international humanitarian relief effort appears to be your question, if that's not something you can answer on your own I'd suggest that maybe you need to buy a new moral compass.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No it isn't common sense. You made all of the above up off the top of your head. The most hilarious of which is prevent assaults on medical staff. Oh really? So assaults on medical staff is something that has actually happened and requires this response?

No, you just made it up. It is precisely the proof of my point: people will just make up reasons. Outrage? lol. Yes, paint your opposition as foaming-at-the-mouth crazy.

Common sense to me is the President of the USA acting in the interests of the USA, to protect the USA and not being "world citizen". Interesting that Thomas Sowell has the same take on this:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/obamas-priority-not-protecting-americans/

Obama has made statements about "threats to global security", which is now getting us closer to a more understandable military role and the US government's obsession with controlling governments:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/16/obama-ebola-atlanta-centers-for-disease-control/15691299/

Unlike you, making stuff up off the top of your head, some of us look for substantiation in things Obama is actually saying and doing.

If you're looking for substantiation, an opinion piece in the World Nut Daily is probably the last place you should go for. But it seems you made it the first. Which explains a lot, really. Certainly, it explains your foaming-at-the-mouth - it's what the World Nut Daily does extremely well. And it is all it does.

So you think there are no assaults on medical staff in the West African countries where Ebola rages? Medical centers and quarantine centers are not subjected to violence by angry mobs? Really? To contain this outbreak, these facilities and personnel do not need to be protected? I suggest you put down the World Nut Daily and consult a real, actual news source from time to time. You might find it enlightening. But probably not since it doesn't fit your already made up mind. You appear to believe isolationism is the proper response to this outbreak - all the subject matter experts globally disagree with that. And they're right. And you're not.

And you shouldn't chastise other posters for "making stuff up off the top of their head" when you then turn around and try to back up your own argument with opinion pieces - which is to say with stuff that someone just made up off the top of their head. But I get it, you think your sh!t don't stink. Got news for you - it does.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[UncleBeer 244]

3,000 apparently wasn't enough. King O'bama's sending 1,000 more.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

3,000 apparently wasn't enough. King O'bama's sending 1,000 more.

What's the problem with sending troops?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What's the problem with sending troops?

Nothing. There's just a problem with "O'bama" sending them. There'd also be a problem with "0bama" not sending them. It matters not what the "preznit" does or doesn't do - they'll be outraged about it one way or the other. It's a permanent state they're in.