LOLOL
I love when somebody cant refute a response and all they do is give multiple, "na huhs," so I'll just point it out with 'ya huh' and then repost my response and you can try again with actual reasons why my opinions are wrong, instead of "na huh." If you can.
I see no explanation for why dealing with ebola in four African countries is in our national interest. None. So far we completely agree. There is no national interest and therefore sending our troops there is a criminal act.
I see no argument yet for a vital national interest. By keeping those exposed to ebola out of our country it does not matter what happens with the virus there.
Very vital. Your denial means nothing, unless you can say why this isnt valid: "The more people Ebola infects, the more chances it has of mutating to become more virulent or airborne. If the disease becomes more dangerous, esp. more easily transmissable, then it will become much more difficult to control....meaning keeping it out of the US."
None of these are American vital national interests. Troops are not required. They should not have been sent.
This is not a vital national interest either.
Nothing refuted^^^, no facts, just na-huh.
It is clear that one of us has not thought it through. Why don't you and jetboogie get together and see if you can wring a vital national interest out of the air."
Is there a vital national interest hidden in this manure that compels The One to send American military to ebola country? I do not see it. What mission will the troops accomplish that advances our strategy to achieve our political goals?
Nothing refuted^^^, no facts, just na-huh.
So where should we send our troops to combat the flu?
Are you seriously trying to make an argument that because one disease is already here we should not stop a far worse one from being introduced for political reasons?
Apparently your depth of knowlege on diseases is marginal at best. In the event of another disease epicenter where we had a chance to contain it, of course we'd attempt to so, in a similar manner. (Or hopefully better). Not all countries would necessarily allow it of course. However it all depends on the nature of the disease...how it's transmitted, how infectious, how deadly, etc. Flu, which is very infectious and easily transmissable, would require different methods and since it's mostly airborne, not easily contained at all. But it has the potential to be at least as deadly as Ebola.
I see. So if we prevent 150 people per day from coming to the nation from ebola country our economy is doomed?
You 'see?' You do? Well I gave you many examples and you didnt manage to refute a single one in that comment^^^, just another na-huh.
That is okay. I can tell that you are no rocket scientist. In your opinion does allowing 150 additional potential ebola carriers into the country every day increase fears or decrease fears. Ponder that for a few moments. Will our bridges collapse and the roads crumble if we do not let an additional 150 potential ebola carriers into the country every day? Will sending 4,000 of our American military to be exposed to ebola increase fears or diminish them?
I never said anything about allowing more potential Ebola carriers into the US except I clearly said we had to stop air traffic to stop it, from all countries, not just those in West Africa, and discussed the economic impacts. However the more the disease *spreads* here in the US, the more steps the govt will have to take to prevent it. And every failure, every new case, adds to public fears. And who said sending our military over there 'reduces fear?' Not me. I said they had a legitimate purpose in helping contain the virus by assisting with construction (infrastructure), transportation, and security. Please try to read more carefully.
And magically, you go off the rails into fantasy land...I wonder why?
Please explain what is 'fantasy.' Be specific. Otherwise, what we have here folks, is another nh-huh. Not a thing refuted.
Having failed to accomplish your mission of describing the vital national interest that compels the Golfer to send American troops to ebola country you have lapsed into a strange fantasy of your own design. Bravo. Bravo, I say!
Another na-huh without a single thing refuted, only attempts to attack...interesting....no content so you have to go on the defensive.
Well if you ever demonstrate an understanding of what's been written so far, I'd be happy to tell you.
And yet, despite making it perfectly clear that you know there is a vital national interest in sending American troops to ebola country where they will be exposed to the virus, you are unable to make a case.
Another na-huh without a single thing refuted, only attempts to attack...interesting....no content so you have to go on the defensive.
Care to try again?
Lursa said:
I see you need it spelled out. It's not like no one else hasnt written this or discussed it in the media.
The more people Ebola infects, the more chances it has of mutating to become more virulent or airborne. If the disease becomes more dangerous, esp. more easily transmissable, then it will become much more difficult to control....meaning keeping it out of the US.
We know about the flu every year. We CANNOT keep it from crossing borders and infecting people all over America.
Scaling back from the realities of the disease itself, the more we restrict air travel, the more we harm the economy. The more people in this country that fear Ebola, the fewer people go out and spend money. The more cases actually on the ground? The more people stop going to work. Infrastructure suffers, people dont make $ and they dont spend $. This is not rocket science. A true quarantine of communities would be a nightmare, not just economically but it would end up failing and crime and disease would spread. Will our troops fire on our own people? Will the police stay on the job? Will hospital staff? Look at what has just happened. All public servants will go home to try and protect their families.
I've been reading about this...in science, epidemiology texts, and fiction...for 40 yrs. So far your perspective is limited to a pinhole.
