View Full Version : Sending troops to Africa.........
How do you feel about this? Obama is sending 3,000 troops to African and several million dollars to deal with Ebola.
I'm glad we have trillions of dollars to send everywhere. I suppose it's nice to always want to help everyone, but why not fix our own house first?
There are so many problems in the world right now, Ebola, mers virus, bird flu, ISIS etc etc. I suppose Obama feels if he doesn't deal with these now they will only get bigger, worse and more expensive. Its a good job he is proactive and other leaders are now following, Francois Hollande gave a good speech yesterday in support of the US air strikes against ISIS. ISIS is a big problem for us here in the UK as many of the terrorists live in Britain, scary times!
I agree about ISIS, but have reservations about sending troops to Africa to deal with Ebola.
The U.S. is soooooooooooo in debt.
I agree about ISIS, but have reservations about sending troops to Africa to deal with Ebola.
The U.S. is soooooooooooo in debt.
Agree, but if it spreads around the world it would be unthinkable. Yes Ebola is a difficult one but it should not be down to only the US to pick up the cost, it could be a worldwide problem so all countries should assist. I think Obama is a good president.
I think Obama is a good president.
He's a good politician. A lot of wealthy campaign donors are poised to make a whole lot of money in developing Africa in the next few decades. This is just one more form of subsidy for that operation. The humanitarian angle just makes it palatable (aka: an easy sale) to the other 99.9% of us.
I'm not sure what I think about all the troops being sent, but the Ebola virus seems to be a rapidly mutating strain. If it becomes airborne, I'd hate to think about how quickly it will spread. Somebody has to commit resources to stop it before it becomes un-manageable, I'm just not sure why it's always the United States.
I think Obama is a good president.
He's a good politician.
I agree with the "good politician" opinion and disagree with the "good president" belief. The two descriptions require widely different skill sets with one being dependent on a cult of personality and the other requiring the ability to lead and manage, despite political considerations. I think he's failed miserably at the latter, although that's another thread.
How else are we going to keep the human population down? :(
How else are we going to keep the human population down? :(
Yes its its a scary fact that whenever the population reaches this kind of level that there is either a war or a disease to curb it. Simple living is good practice for surviving desperate times. It would only take one disease such as ebola to mutate with h5n1 or something similar to make a super virus.
ApatheticNoMore
9-16-14, 1:46pm
How else are we going to keep the human population down?
are you saying you want to die of ebola?
Several million dollars is NOTHING, it's chump change, while I don't favor wasting it, really it's seriously nothing in terms of government spending. I'm not sure why troops are needed to deal with Ebola though. I'm a lot more concerned about Syria, that will cost real money, billions, not even comparable.
As for whether Obama is a good politician or a good president, I don't think he's a good president, but I'd be happy enough if for president we had a good person. But good people don't reach that level of power, only sociopaths do.
Gardenarian
9-16-14, 1:47pm
How are the troops going to help contain Ebola?
ApatheticNoMore
9-16-14, 1:50pm
How are the troops going to help contain Ebola?
by making sure people stay quarantined? That's all I can think of. Yea sending troops does make one suspect there may be other agendas at play here.
are you saying you want to die of ebola?
No. She's saying she's not adverse to other people dying of Ebola.
Yes, I would also like to gently point out, that as much as we would like to keep ebola isolated in Africa, it's probably not possible. That means that it's not just "them" that will die off if it gets out of control. I'm sure that a large part of the US troops role there will be to quarantine and provide resources that will control and contain the disease.
I agree also that it would be nice to get help from other nations.
As for whether Obama is a good politician or a good president, I don't think he's a good president, but sometimes I'd settle for a good person, but good people don't reach that level of power, only sociopaths do.
That's why Jimmy Carter goes down in the books as one of our worst presidents. True humanitarian, but failure as a president. Who knows what history will say about Obama? I wish in some ways that he never got re-elected. He's had some tough challenges this term. Would Mitt have been better? Doubtful.
Before I give an answer to this one, I will find out what Noam Chomsky has to say about it.
As with so many things today reported in the media, we - the little people- probably don't have a clue what is really going on. The good of the commons is not usually a first priority. At least that's my take.
Yes, I would also like to gently point out, that as much as we would like to keep ebola isolated in Africa, it's probably not possible. That means that it's not just "them" that will die off if it gets out of control. I'm sure that a large part of the US troops role there will be to quarantine and provide resources that will control and contain the disease.
I agree also that it would be nice to get help from other nations.
That's why Jimmy Carter goes down in the books as one of our worst presidents. True humanitarian, but failure as a president. Who knows what history will say about Obama? I wish in some ways that he never got re-elected. He's had some tough challenges this term. Would Mitt have been better? Doubtful.
well I would swap David Cameron for Obama, but we have had much worse I suppose, you can't please all the people all the time but yes Ebola is quite scary as is Mers and Isis.
ApatheticNoMore
9-16-14, 2:28pm
Before I give an answer to this one, I will find out what Noam Chomsky has to say about it.
:laff: not a bad idea but he's getting up there in years. I can't keep track of what all the hidden agenda's may be, though obviously the U.S. military is involved in Africa already. And sometimes in a very very rare moment a cigar might just be a cigar. Syria seems to have far more potential for U.S. intervention to go very very wrong.
Just found a pin in my DS's junk that I'm cleaning out.........which has been there for maybe 7 years?? Anyhow..........the pin says "ISIS". Was that a rock group? If so, they'd better change their name and soon.....and I better get rid of this pin. :~)
I wonder how the troops feel about possibly being (accidentally) exposed to Ebola.........and then how do we treat them upon arrival back home?
The world is a very small place anymore........everyone and everything comes and goes all the time. I, too, would like to see much more international effort for many things the U.S. is into. Maybe the others just have more sense?
ApatheticNoMore
9-16-14, 2:45pm
I don't know if it was a rock group, it's an ancient Egyptian goddess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis
Why western translations decided to use that acronym who knows, as it is a translation.
I wonder how the troops feel about possibly being (accidentally) exposed to Ebola.........and then how do we treat them upon arrival back home?
well how dangerous is it compared to combat? Because that is a risk they signed up for :\. Compared to toxic chemical exposure if it was various wars in Iraq (gulf war syndrome etc.) - not really what they thought they were getting into either.
Teacher Terry
9-16-14, 3:49pm
Jimmy Carter has always been a wonderful humanitarian. Obama is fine but I think other countries need to help with the Ebola crisis. It should be the world's concern that this disease does not keep spreading.
Well it isn't really hard to figure out why the troops are needed. When you know something about the area where ebola is, then it isn't hard. This part of Africa is also an area of starvation, lack of decent healthcare, resources, etc..Why? It isn't because these people, after thousands of years, suddenly forgot how to feed/take care of themselves. It's because of the political climate, namely warlords, armed gangs, and thugs aplenty taking control of these things.
If we send resources there, you better believe we need to send troops to guard/protect these resources and to make sure they go where we want them to go. We also need to protect our people, who are also part of the resources. Look up the politics of the region. *google is your friend.
But, carry on criticizing the President (damned if he does, damned if he doesn't), making up conspiracy theories, or wishing we could do nothing at all, letting 'god' sort them out.
Hey, and extra credit to you gregg, for suggesting that this President couldn't possibly be doing it for anything other than shrewd political gain, no matter how far you need to reach to make that claim. :+1:(and I'll bet you believed that Bush simply wanted to free the Iraqi people)
And yes, he IS a good President. And apparently a pretty good person.
Gardenarian
9-16-14, 4:08pm
Thanks peggy! That makes sense.
flowerseverywhere
9-17-14, 8:17am
Many going are medical personnel. China is sending advisors as well. This is an international emergency
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announce-major-ebola-effort-043320604.html
The two richest countries are sending help to the poorest countries. It is difficult to understand why this is not the right thing to do. It will benefit all of mankind.
while you are at it read this about the deficit that the politicians aren't hollering about daily
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2014/09/16/the-federal-budget-deficit-has-disappeared-really/
It will be interesting to see how all the different countries which are sending personnel and supplies interact with each other once they all get there.
Many going are medical personnel. China is sending advisors as well. This is an international emergency
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announce-major-ebola-effort-043320604.html
The two richest countries are sending help to the poorest countries. It is difficult to understand why this is not the right thing to do. It will benefit all of mankind.
while you are at it read this about the deficit that the politicians aren't hollering about daily
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2014/09/16/the-federal-budget-deficit-has-disappeared-really/
So the deficit is "only" 500 billion this year. And the debt continues to rise. And that is considered a good thing?
And Obama is not a good president, and the majority of the people agree. There will always be the koolaid drinkers out there that can't see it.
Question on relative value: If we have $1 billion to spend (arbitrary number) will it do more good to send 3,000 troops to guard doctors & nurses and move sick folks around OR would there be more benefit if we gave $20 million to each of the top 25 ebola researchers and immunologists and said whoever comes up with a successful vaccine first gets the other $500 million? Same investment. Which has greater potential?
Moving troops will certainly lend aid and comfort to a few thousand sick people mostly by providing security for the medical staff treating them. It will also provide a nice windfall for those who gear up and supply those troops. On the big pharma side of things an ebola vaccine probably isn't high priority. There just aren't a lot of people in Liberia with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Strange as it sounds, the idea that their research could benefit humanity isn't always the prime source of motivation for that group. And not that I don't care about people on the other side of the world, but on the practical side my worry about an ebola plague in the US rates exactly zero. That IS relevant since we're talking about US troops heading to Africa to stop the spread of this disease. If it were me I'd send a polite email to Pretoria and let them know we have a few advisers we'd be happy to send over if they need help with this ebola thing.
Question on relative value: If we have $1 billion to spend (arbitrary number) will it do more good to send 3,000 troops to guard doctors & nurses and move sick folks around OR would there be more benefit if we gave $20 million to each of the top 25 ebola researchers and immunologists and said whoever comes up with a successful vaccine first gets the other $500 million? Same investment. Which has greater potential?
Moving troops will certainly lend aid and comfort to a few thousand sick people mostly by providing security for the medical staff treating them. It will also provide a nice windfall for those who gear up and supply those troops. On the big pharma side of things an ebola vaccine probably isn't high priority. There just aren't a lot of people in Liberia with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Strange as it sounds, the idea that their research could benefit humanity isn't always the prime source of motivation for that group. And not that I don't care about people on the other side of the world, but on the practical side my worry about an ebola plague in the US rates exactly zero. That IS relevant since we're talking about US troops heading to Africa to stop the spread of this disease. If it were me I'd send a polite email to Pretoria and let them know we have a few advisers we'd be happy to send over if they need help with this ebola thing.
Had that kind of thinking prevailed fifty years ago, people (including Americans) would still be dying of smallpox.
Had that kind of thinking prevailed fifty years ago, people (including Americans) would still be dying of smallpox.
+1
Had that kind of thinking prevailed fifty years ago, people (including Americans) would still be dying of smallpox.
Care to elaborate? From where I sit troops in dust masks applying cool compresses probably won't stem the tide of any future global pandemics (not that there's a credible threat of it with this virus). Let's go with that. Gates is probably on the wrong track with malaria, too. Better to call in the Guard.
Miss Cellane
9-18-14, 7:38am
Many years ago, my brother, career military, was stationed in a country that suffered a major earthquake. Many lives were lost, thousands and thousands of people were left homeless for up to a year. My brother and many of his colleagues felt frustrated, because they were sitting on large storehouses of tents, and food supplies, and medical supplies. And they had the vehicles and trained troops and medics to get those supplies to people who needed them faster than anything could be shipped in from another country. But they could do nothing.
And yes, those supplies were for if we went to war. But they could have been easily re-stocked within a week or two.
A while after that, my brother told me that he was part of a team working on a new initiative that would allow US forces stationed overseas to assist with both supplies and people in the event of a natural disaster. He sees this as a positive way for the US military to assist the countries that have allowed us to have military bases on their land.
The military has the equipment and the trained personnel to get where they need to go, bring in equipment safely, and get the help to those who need it. And many of those involved *want* to help, in a crisis. I know anything "military" has a certain connotation to many people, but the US military has the infrastructure to deal with serious situations like this, and the clout of the US government behind it.
And yeah, I have a pro-military bias. So shoot me.
And for those who think Ebola can't or won't ever spread beyond Africa, think of SARS. Think of H1N1. In the days of air travel, every epidemic has the potential to become global. And we had global flu epidemics long before air travel was common. Diseases mutate. Ebola is not immune from mutation.
And for those who think Ebola can't or won't ever spread beyond Africa, think of SARS. Think of H1N1. In the days of air travel, every epidemic has the potential to become global. And we had global flu epidemics long before air travel was common. Diseases mutate. Ebola is not immune from mutation.
Ebola is not an airborne transmitter like influenza. It is passed through contact with bodily fluids. Think HIV, not the flu. You could be on a plane with 100 ebola patients on a round the world flight and if you didn't come into contact with any of their bodily fluids you wouldn't catch the disease. The problem with the virus is that it can live on for a while once outside the body. Everyone knows that you shouldn't let an ebola patient sneeze in your face, but not everyone knows that you have to be just as careful cleaning up blood or feces left behind by a patient or for that matter the patient's corpse if they die.
And don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with our troops providing humanitarian support. My only question is whether its the highest and best use of our resources or not.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.