• 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!

If you were military would you refuse to "fight" the Ebola virus.

I guess dropping off medication is not enough, we now have to send our troops to face possible death.

If you were ordered to go by the president, would you follow orders, or would you say no and face a dishonorable discharge?

The military must go in to fight enemies foreign and domestic as lawfully ordered to do so by the President (with consent of Congress at some point). You may get to chose who and how you want to serve but if it is different than ordered be prepared to face the consequences of court martial and so forth. Mission first, men always.
 
My friend who's a medic in the Canadian military said there has been an ebola vaccine since the 90's, but it's for military use only, mostly because it has potential severe side effects. Glad I'm not a soldier, but on the other hand it does illustrate how the media uses fear of disease to get the sheep running to their local pharmacy for injections. It's funny how simultaneous to the ebola story there's now this ev-d68 hysteria happening. Run for your lives, or into our waiting hands!... preferably with your cash!
 
No, cause I would not "fight" the virus in ordinary uniform. I suppose they would issue me the right kind of a uniform that would conceal me from such influence.
 
I guess dropping off medication is not enough, we now have to send our troops to face possible death.

If you were ordered to go by the president, would you follow orders, or would you say no and face a dishonorable discharge?
Going on this kind of mission is exactly why I joined the service in the first place.
 
One of us is having delusions. I'm suggesting they will send 3,000 grunts and you are implying that they will send the best and brightest. One of us is wrong.
You're not delusional, just ignorant; US to assign 3,000 from US military to fight Ebola

With the addition of military personnel, administration officials said that the new U.S. initiatives aim to:

—Train as many as 500 health care workers a week.

—Erect 17 heath care facilities in Liberia of 100 beds each.

—Set up a joint command headquartered in Monrovia, Liberia, to coordinate between U.S. and international relief efforts.

—Provide home health care kits to hundreds of thousands of households, including 50,000 that the U.S. Agency for International Development will deliver to Liberia this week.

—Carry out a home- and community-based campaign to train local populations on how to handle exposed patients.

That's not the work of "grunts".
 
My friend who's a medic in the Canadian military said there has been an ebola vaccine since the 90's, but it's for military use only, mostly because it has potential severe side effects. Glad I'm not a soldier, but on the other hand it does illustrate how the media uses fear of disease to get the sheep running to their local pharmacy for injections. It's funny how simultaneous to the ebola story there's now this ev-d68 hysteria happening. Run for your lives, or into our waiting hands!... preferably with your cash!

Your friend is mistaken. There is no special military vaccine for ebola. The current trials are the first examples we have of possibly successful treatments for the disease.
 
Lol, most of the smartest people you've met have been in the military!!!! Small circles you walk.

:shrug: I have two graduate degrees. I've interacted with lots of pretty intelligent people. But your bigotry is noted. :)
 
One of us is having delusions. I'm suggesting they will send 3,000 grunts and you are implying that they will send the best and brightest. One of us is wrong.

You are wrong, for two reasons:

1. They aren't by and large planning on sending infantry, but rather pilots, logisticians, command and control staff, medics, engineers, and the like;

2. There are lots of smart people in the infantry. The two-time jeopardy champion I told you about, for example, was an infantry officer. I couldn't tell you how the Army does it, but the Marine Corps actually structures it such that the various arms get a rather even divide of talent. Only Lawyers and Pilots get to pick their MOS - and if they drop from the program, it's right back to where the Corps sends them.
 
:shrug: I have two graduate degrees. I've interacted with lots of pretty intelligent people. But your bigotry is noted. :)

Bigotry! Lol, better blow the dust off those degrees you're hiding behind.
 
You are wrong, for two reasons:

1. They aren't by and large planning on sending infantry, but rather pilots, logisticians, command and control staff, medics, engineers, and the like;

2. There are lots of smart people in the infantry. The two-time jeopardy champion I told you about, for example, was an infantry officer. I couldn't tell you how the Army does it, but the Marine Corps actually structures it such that the various arms get a rather even divide of talent. Only Lawyers and Pilots get to pick their MOS - and if they drop from the program, it's right back to where the Corps sends them.

I didn't see any links with that.
 
Bigotry! Lol, better blow the dust off those degrees you're hiding behind.

:shrug: I don't have to hide behind them - I don't even bring them up to bolster my own credentials, only to point out that I've been around quite a few above-average educated and intelligent people.

The "oh the military is just a bunch of losers" bigotry doesn't match reality, which doesn't stop a certain class of losers, desperate to affirm their life choices, from clinging to it.
 
I didn't see any links with that.

For what? For what we're going to do? The President announced that on the news. We aren't invading Liberia, and frankly, we don't have 3,000 infantry immediately available to send, unless you wanted to mobilize a stateside regiment (which we aren't).
 
:shrug: I don't have to hide behind them - I don't even bring them up to bolster my own credentials, only to point out that I've been around quite a few above-average educated and intelligent people.

The "oh the military is just a bunch of losers" bigotry doesn't match reality, which doesn't stop a certain class of losers, desperate to affirm their life choices, from clinging to it.

Why is that in quotations???? I didn't say that, stop lying! Hear?
 
Why is that in quotations???? I didn't say that, stop lying! Hear?

:) Are you now backtracking on your earlier implicit suggestion that the Fagan's claim is indeed correct and the military is just a bunch of idiotic automatons?
 
I guess dropping off medication is not enough, we now have to send our troops to face possible death.

If you were ordered to go by the president, would you follow orders, or would you say no and face a dishonorable discharge?

I was shocked wjhen I heard what was going to happen. I don't like that idea by any stretch of the imagination. They gotta go though; it's their orders.

I just wonder what's going to happen when some of our people come down with this thing.
 
:shrug: I don't have to hide behind them - I don't even bring them up to bolster my own credentials, only to point out that I've been around quite a few above-average educated and intelligent people.

The "oh the military is just a bunch of losers" bigotry doesn't match reality, which doesn't stop a certain class of losers, desperate to affirm their life choices, from clinging to it.


You put into quotations something I never said!!
 
No member of the military is required to follow an illegal order. The UCMJ sets what an illegal order would be, to include breaking the various Conventions of War. So, no, a member of the military would not have to follow an order to fire into a crowd of women and children or use a car bomb as a weapon.

Good question - with the parameters you added. It's less of a moral question as it would be a question of legality. Especially since what I said is also true, that many of the actions taken during combat could be seen as immoral by some people. That's why the military relies upon the UCMJ and the various Conventions on War to define and guide their actions, not morality.

Hey Beau :2wave:

To play devil's advocate here: what if those laws weren't in place? What if there were no such thing as an "illegal" order? Would soldiers still have a moral obligation to disobey those orders?

You see, I just have a real fundamental problem with the idea that laws and orders have to be followed 100%. I am of the opinion that morality transcends the law. Following the law will generally steer you in the right track morally, but sometimes that is not the case. What then? What will these military men do when they are given a direct order, a legal order, to do something blatantly immoral? Will they do it out of misplaced patriotism or a sense of duty? Out of blind obedience to their government? Or will they disobey and risk prosecution?

Better question, what would you do?
 
Hey Beau :2wave:

To play devil's advocate here: what if those laws weren't in place? What if there were no such thing as an "illegal" order? Would soldiers still have a moral obligation to disobey those orders?

You see, I just have a real fundamental problem with the idea that laws and orders have to be followed 100%. I am of the opinion that morality transcends the law. Following the law will generally steer you in the right track morally, but sometimes that is not the case. What then? What will these military men do when they are given a direct order, a legal order, to do something blatantly immoral? Will they do it out of misplaced patriotism or a sense of duty? Out of blind obedience to their government? Or will they disobey and risk prosecution?

Better question, what would you do?

The only problem I see with that is that morality is subjective.
 
You put into quotations something I never said!!

:shrug: you are right, it was an approximation. Would you argue that there is not a heavy overlap between mindless autonomons and losers?
 
:shrug: you are right, it was an approximation. Would you argue that there is not a heavy overlap between mindless autonomons and losers?

:roll: I don't recall having said that either though.
 
:roll: I don't recall having said that either though.

:) Alright. What did you mean by your implication that members of the military were stupid, in the context of responding to my disagreement with Fagan that they were not mindles autonoma? :)
 
:) Alright. What did you mean by your implication that members of the military were stupid, in the context of responding to my disagreement with Fagan that they were not mindles autonoma? :)

I didn't say they were stupid, or imply that they are or were. I don't consider them to be amongst the brightest or the dimmest. And Dave should probably speak for himself, but I imagine he's referring to the young and enlisted men, the grunts I think as he referred. But to the op, I don't know why the men in the military should refuse to fight the Ebola virus, when they haven't refused to target positions that kill innocent civilians along with alleged militants. Or perhaps some have, I don't know. I just find the op question strange at any rate.
 
I didn't say they were stupid, or imply that they are or were. I don't consider them to be amongst the brightest or the dimmest.

Ah. So when you responded to my comment that many of the smartest people I know I met in the military by laughing and saying that therefore I must run in small circles, what did you mean by that comment, monte? :)
 
Back
Top Bottom