• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to send 3,000 troops to Ebola danger zone

Ockham said:
I think it has to do more with politics than actually anything else. Obama is turning up the rhetoric on an issue that has bi-partisan support - so he sends US troops to show how much of a "leader" he is. Rather cynically but also probably close to the truth - this is meant to help mid-terms - whether or not that is the primary driver of this... cynically I'd suspect it is, realistically it might just be a happy side effect.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as cynical but the choice to send U.S. troop illogical when the U.N. Peacekeepers are well equipped and have special teams well prepared to handle something like this. It is like choosing a fork to slice a loaf of bread instead of a knife. Also putting our troops in an area that has a growing anti-American sentiment among the people seems like a stupid choice.
 
Lursa said:
People seemed to buy it for terrorism so why not infectious disease?

"If we fight it there, we wont have to fight it here."

The goal is to keep it contained in Africa.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer that Ebola stay where it is. I'm all for whatever we have to do to keep it there. I do feel bad for the military people who have to face it head on though.:(
 
Ockham said:
I think it has to do more with politics than actually anything else. Obama is turning up the rhetoric on an issue that has bi-partisan support - so he sends US troops to show how much of a "leader" he is. Rather cynically but also probably close to the truth - this is meant to help mid-terms - whether or not that is the primary driver of this... cynically I'd suspect it is, realistically it might just be a happy side effect.
Click to expand...



Well he did put some bass in his voice and talk tuff against the disease.....he knows the disease can't respond back verbally. BO will milk this for all he can get out of it.....knowing what he does with the rest of FP is a mistake waiting to happen.

Think Rahm Emanuel and any Crisis. BO follows the same mentality.
 
vesper said:
I don't understand why it is the U.S. military that is being used for this mission and not one U.N. Peacekeeper.
Click to expand...

Because the only usefulness of UN Peacekeepers are to stand around with their thumbs up their collective asses. Exhibit A being Somalia.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'd prefer that Ebola stay where it is. I'm all for whatever we have to do to keep it there. I do feel bad for the military people who have to face it head on though.:(
Click to expand...

Unlike the Flu, Ebola isn't airborne but transmitted through bodily fluid. As long as the troops aren't making out with the natives, or throwing around feces, they'll be alright.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Because the only usefulness of UN Peacekeepers are to stand around with their thumbs up their collective asses. Exhibit A being Somalia.
Click to expand...

That is comparing apples to oranges. The U.N Peacekeeping mission in Somalia was to enforce a ceasefire where it was ambushed by Somalia militias. They seem to have better success when their missions are humanitarian. I find putting U.S. troops in a region to enforce law a risky choice because of the growing number of radical Muslims in the area.
 
vesper said:
That is comparing apples to oranges. The U.N Peacekeeping mission in Somalia was to enforce a ceasefire where it was ambushed by Somalia militias. They seem to have better success when their missions are humanitarian. I find putting U.S. troops in a region to enforce law a risky choice because of the growing number of radical Muslims in the area.
Click to expand...

Say what you will though, the US has built up an impressive capacity to assist in humanitarian mission. Think back to aftermath of the Sumatra Earthquake and following Tsunami, the US Military was the one of the first on the scene and the only one with the capacity to coordinate a relief effort on that scale:

The United States has dispatched numerous C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlifters and ten C-130 Hercules tactical airlifters containing disaster supplies, nine P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft for search and rescue support, and several teams from the Departments of State and Defense to coordinate additional assistance. They are using Utapao Naval Air Base in Thailand as their regional hub. Additionally, the United States has offered assistance from its troops stationed in Japan. USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier battle group, which was in port in Hong Kong, was dispatched to the coast of Sumatra to provide support to the Indonesian province of Aceh. In addition, an Expeditionary Strike Group led by USS Bonhomme Richard, scheduled for a port call in Guam, were dispatched to render assistance. A total of 48 Navy and Marine Corps helicopters are involved. Each ship can produce around 90,000 US gallons (340,000 L) of fresh water per day. The US Navy has also deployed the USNS Mercy, a 1,000-bed hospital ship (to be initially staffed to support 250 patient beds).[122] More than 12,600 Department of Defense personnel are involved in the relief effort, Operation Unified Assistance. USNS Mercy departed San Diego on 5 January 2005 en route to the tsunami-devastated regions of South East Asia, where she provided medical care to the victims of the disaster as part of Operation Unified Assistance, and further care as part of Theater Security Cooperation Program 2005. Combined, she provided 108,000 patient services, rendered by members of the Department of Defense, Project Hope, and the United States Public Health Service.

If you want real humanitarian assistance, you don't go running to the UN, you look to the US.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Say what you will though, the US has built up an impressive capacity to assist in humanitarian mission. Think back to aftermath of the Sumatra Earthquake and following Tsunami, the US Military was the one of the first on the scene and the only one with the capacity to coordinate a relief effort on that scale:

The United States has dispatched numerous C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlifters and ten C-130 Hercules tactical airlifters containing disaster supplies, nine P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft for search and rescue support, and several teams from the Departments of State and Defense to coordinate additional assistance. They are using Utapao Naval Air Base in Thailand as their regional hub. Additionally, the United States has offered assistance from its troops stationed in Japan. USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier battle group, which was in port in Hong Kong, was dispatched to the coast of Sumatra to provide support to the Indonesian province of Aceh. In addition, an Expeditionary Strike Group led by USS Bonhomme Richard, scheduled for a port call in Guam, were dispatched to render assistance. A total of 48 Navy and Marine Corps helicopters are involved. Each ship can produce around 90,000 US gallons (340,000 L) of fresh water per day. The US Navy has also deployed the USNS Mercy, a 1,000-bed hospital ship (to be initially staffed to support 250 patient beds).[122] More than 12,600 Department of Defense personnel are involved in the relief effort, Operation Unified Assistance. USNS Mercy departed San Diego on 5 January 2005 en route to the tsunami-devastated regions of South East Asia, where she provided medical care to the victims of the disaster as part of Operation Unified Assistance, and further care as part of Theater Security Cooperation Program 2005. Combined, she provided 108,000 patient services, rendered by members of the Department of Defense, Project Hope, and the United States Public Health Service.

If you want real humanitarian assistance, you don't go running to the UN, you look to the US.
Click to expand...

Yes, our military has done some amazing humanitarian missions. However, to dismiss the current state of affairs in the region in regard to Islamofascism, is being reckless. We give the U.N. a lot of taxpayer dollars. It's time they earn them. They are perfectly capable of quarantining villages and teach the locals proper sanitation to stop the spread of the disease. Actually I find it rather a sick joke that 3000 U.S. troops are being sent to the region to quarantine when here in the U.S. the feckless policies of this administration on open borders and our own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mute on the dangers of all the influx of illegals into this country.
From the website of the CDC
A medical examination is mandatory for all refugees coming to the U.S. and all applicants outside the U.S. applying for an immigrant visa. Aliens in the United States who apply for adjustment of their immigration status to that of permanent resident are also required to be medically examined. Aliens applying for nonimmigrant visas (temporary admission) may be required to undergo a medical examination at the discretion of the consular officer overseas or immigration officer at the U.S. port of entry, if there is reason to suspect that an inadmissible health-related condition exists.”
Click to expand...
 
vesper said:
Yes, our military has done some amazing humanitarian missions. However, to dismiss the current state of affairs in the region in regard to Islamofascism, is being reckless. We give the U.N. a lot of taxpayer dollars. It's time they earn them. They are perfectly capable of quarantining villages and teach the locals proper sanitation to stop the spread of the disease. Actually I find it rather a sick joke that 3000 U.S. troops are being sent to the region to quarantine when here in the U.S. the feckless policies of this administration on open borders and our own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mute on the dangers of all the influx of illegals into this country.
From the website of the CDC
Click to expand...

Just another reason to fix the broken immigration policy in this country. Though truth be told, I doubt we'll ever solve the problem to anyone's full satisfaction. As long as their are opportunities to be had in the US, and Latin America being the ****-hole it is, we'll always have more people coming in than ideally we want.
 
"But is it really wise for Obama to send thousands of young American men and women into the Ebola death zone?

What are our troops going to do – shoot the virus?

Obama should keep in mind that hundreds of health workers have become infected even though they wear protective gear and are trained to deal with Ebola patients.

Our troops have not been trained to deal with Ebola patients and they probably will not be wearing full protective gear when dealing with the general population.

It is absolutely imperative that we keep Ebola isolated to the areas that it is already affecting.

Is It Wise For Obama To Send Thousands Of U.S. Troops Into The Ebola Death Zone?
 
kramercat said:
"But is it really wise for Obama to send thousands of young American men and women into the Ebola death zone?

What are our troops going to do – shoot the virus?

Obama should keep in mind that hundreds of health workers have become infected even though they wear protective gear and are trained to deal with Ebola patients.

Our troops have not been trained to deal with Ebola patients and they probably will not be wearing full protective gear when dealing with the general population.

It is absolutely imperative that we keep Ebola isolated to the areas that it is already affecting.

Is It Wise For Obama To Send Thousands Of U.S. Troops Into The Ebola Death Zone?
Click to expand...

What makes you think our soldiers will have anything to do directly with Ebola patients?
 
vesper said:
That is comparing apples to oranges. The U.N Peacekeeping mission in Somalia was to enforce a ceasefire where it was ambushed by Somalia militias. They seem to have better success when their missions are humanitarian. I find putting U.S. troops in a region to enforce law a risky choice because of the growing number of radical Muslims in the area.
Click to expand...

What's with the concern about Muslims and their supposed anti-American sentiments? We are all over the mid-East doing the same stuff, interfering, and about to bomb them again. And we'll probably end up sending in ground troops.

What's the big deal about it here? What's the difference? It's a humanitarian mission.
 
kramercat said:
What are our troops going to do – shoot the virus?
Click to expand...
• Coordinate relief efforts
• Transport medical supplies
• Build hospital facilities
• Train health care workers

They aren't very likely to be directly exposed to patients.


Obama should keep in mind that hundreds of health workers have become infected even though they wear protective gear and are trained to deal with Ebola patients.
Click to expand...
Actually, lots of health workers can't wear protective gear. Many are going into small villages to find potentially infected people, and if they show up wearing space suits then the locals are far less likely to cooperate.


It is absolutely imperative that we keep Ebola isolated to the areas that it is already affecting.
Click to expand...
Uh, yes. And in order to do that, you need to do stuff like:
• Coordinate relief efforts
• Transport medical supplies
• Build hospital facilities
• Train health care workers
 
Lursa said:
What's with the concern about Muslims and their supposed anti-American sentiments? We are all over the mid-East doing the same stuff, interfering, and about to bomb them again. And we'll probably end up sending in ground troops.

What's the big deal about it here? What's the difference? It's a humanitarian mission.
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the prez's speech today. Once again he made it perfectly clear that he was not committing ground troops to fight ISIS. Instead "his team" are planning to arm and train Syrian rebels in Saudi Arabia. You know the Syrian rebels no one is sure which side their bread is buttered? And the cherry on the sundae is this training will take place in Saudi Arabia where significant amount of funding for ISIS has been pouring forth. Marvelous.

So what we have here are no boots on the ground in Iraq but boots on the ground in Liberia. Though Ebola is a threat and needs to be dealt with it is not an imminent threat to the U.S. at this time. If it were you would expect this administration to be doing a better job on the illegal immigration problem he has allowed to happen. And if there was an outbreak in this country, because of our health standards it would be quickly contained. But terrorist groups like ISIS are an imminent threat with hundreds of our own citizens joining their ranks and who have passports to freely move about. There is such a thing as the African Corp. which is a humanitarian organization. They could be assisted by the U.N. Peacekeepers in building medical facilities and quarantining villages and all the things Obama wants our soldiers to do. No doubt our soldiers can do the job but it wasn't what they were trained to do. We give the UN a significant amount of money every year. IMO, they should be assisting the humanitarian groups already established in Africa. Obama has got it bass ackwards. He is willing to risk the lives of soldiers over a killer disease but not put boots on the ground in Iraq to do what they were trained to do even though Dempsy and others claim they are needed to end the threat of this scum. But hey we have a Commander in Chief that makes decisions on political polling.
 
vesper said:
Maybe you missed the prez's speech today. Once again he made it perfectly clear that he was not committing ground troops to fight ISIS. Instead "his team" are planning to arm and train Syrian rebels in Saudi Arabia. You know the Syrian rebels no one is sure which side their bread is buttered? And the cherry on the sundae is this training will take place in Saudi Arabia where significant amount of funding for ISIS has been pouring forth. Marvelous.

So what we have here are no boots on the ground in Iraq but boots on the ground in Liberia. Though Ebola is a threat and needs to be dealt with it is not an imminent threat to the U.S. at this time. If it were you would expect this administration to be doing a better job on the illegal immigration problem he has allowed to happen. And if there was an outbreak in this country, because of our health standards it would be quickly contained. But terrorist groups like ISIS are an imminent threat with hundreds of our own citizens joining their ranks and who have passports to freely move about. There is such a thing as the African Corp. which is a humanitarian organization. They could be assisted by the U.N. Peacekeepers in building medical facilities and quarantining villages and all the things Obama wants our soldiers to do. No doubt our soldiers can do the job but it wasn't what they were trained to do. We give the UN a significant amount of money every year. IMO, they should be assisting the humanitarian groups already established in Africa. Obama has got it bass ackwards. He is willing to risk the lives of soldiers over a killer disease but not put boots on the ground in Iraq to do what they were trained to do even though Dempsy and others claim they are needed to end the threat of this scum. But hey we have a Commander in Chief that makes decisions on political polling.
Click to expand...

Yeah we have no idea what's going to happen with ISIS and that claim of no boots on the ground is way too early. I dont believe it and I implied that in my post.

I think it would be fine if the UN sent troops, I dont know why they arent. Do you know they havent? The point is there are solid reasons in our American best interests to send troops there and I dont understand why you were connecting that with Islam?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Because the only usefulness of UN Peacekeepers are to stand around with their thumbs up their collective asses. Exhibit A being Somalia.
Click to expand...

They also have a habit of committing rape.
 
Lursa said:
Yeah we have no idea what's going to happen with ISIS and that claim of no boots on the ground is way too early. I dont believe it and I implied that in my post.

I think it would be fine if the UN sent troops, I dont know why they arent. Do you know they havent? The point is there are solid reasons in our American best interests to send troops there and I dont understand why you were connecting that with Islam?
Click to expand...

The reason for my concerns for our troops being sent to that region is because of the uptick of Islamofascism in the region. Terrorist organizations in Africa are uniting. United States and the west need to take serious the increase activities of terrorism in Africa. The aims and objectives of the terrorisms in Africa are to stop the flow of freedom/democracy and to destroy the interest of the United States and its Western allied nations. Sending 3000 troops to the region will regardless their mission is likely to be met with resistance by terrorist organizations. Instead, working behind the scenes by offering assistance to organizations already operating in the area seems much more logical.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Unlike the Flu, Ebola isn't airborne but transmitted through bodily fluid. As long as the troops aren't making out with the natives, or throwing around feces, they'll be alright.
Click to expand...

Scientists are very concerned that it will mutate to an airborne disease, if it hasn't happened already. Then what?
 
leoborn said:
Scientists are very concerned that it will mutate to an airborne disease, if it hasn't happened already. Then what?
Click to expand...

We have a cure, didn't you know? So even in that case, we're good.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
We have a cure, didn't you know? So even in that case, we're good.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't hear that. They were previously announcing that there was no cure, because it's a virus. I believe I read that they did take blood from the doctors that were flown here for treatment, though, so maybe they found a way to fight it. Good news!
 
vesper said:
The reason for my concerns for our troops being sent to that region is because of the uptick of Islamofascism in the region. Terrorist organizations in Africa are uniting. United States and the west need to take serious the increase activities of terrorism in Africa. The aims and objectives of the terrorisms in Africa are to stop the flow of freedom/democracy and to destroy the interest of the United States and its Western allied nations. Sending 3000 troops to the region will regardless their mission is likely to be met with resistance by terrorist organizations. Instead, working behind the scenes by offering assistance to organizations already operating in the area seems much more logical.
Click to expand...

That's pretty out there. IMO, better to stick to protecting America....and doing good for the people there which should be clearly displayed to political and religious groups there.
 
leoborn said:
No, I didn't hear that. They were previously announcing that there was no cure, because it's a virus. I believe I read that they did take blood from the doctors that were flown here for treatment, though, so maybe they found a way to fight it. Good news!
Click to expand...

I found out about it from Jon Stewart's piece on the Ebola Scare, on it, there were news outlets like CNN who were reporting on a "magic cure". One of the people went on to say that the infected person's "fever was down and rash was (decreasing?)"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom