• 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.

:shrug: sure, and most of those employees overseas are dependent upon DOD logistics. They do not have the same lift capacity.

Look man, one of us in this conversation has actually been both in the active duty military and a military contractor. I'm not against contracting this sort of thing out - but you have to have realistic expectations. No one, but no one, has the projection capability of the US Defense Department.

I suppose you believe that it takes the DOD and American troops to go and fight a disease. In the first place, what you are talking about is the ability to pay for the work. It's not the DOD that carries the financial burden so the uniqueness of having soldiers at it's disposal is meaningless. The money comes from the general fund and the only question is who gets paid. My objection is that this kind of work is not within, or shouldn't be within the scope of the military. There are individuals who are actually trained to fight disease who would be a more rational choice than some nineteen year old kid who's been through basic training and AIT. For me, it's not who pays, or who has projection capacity. It's a question of who is the best fit to stop the pandemic. For a pandemic, it's not soldiers unless they are to enforce a quarantine. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, not to be a social welfare organization. If we are going to throw bodies at a problem, throw the appropriate bodies.
 
The 3,000 US troops are from the Africa Command (AFRICOM) and represents two-thirds of this Command's 4,800 assigned personnel. Liberia was the only African nation to offer to host AFRICOM command headquarters in 2008 but AFRICOM declined. Strangely enough, AFRICOM headquarters is located in Germany.

The US soldiers are supposed to help distribute supplies, build medical training facilities, and recruit 500 medical workers to staff clinics. Recruit them from where is a good question. It is also unknown if and to what extent contractors will be utilized and if constructed facilities are intended to be temporary or permanent.

Two days ago, the chief medical officer in Liberia quarantined herself for 21 days after her assistant died from Ebola.

Top Ebola Doc Puts Herself in Quarantine
 
Should a conscripted Nazi solider be prosecuted for refusing to turn on the gas chamber? Or a U.S. solider refusing to drop an Atomic bomb on Japanese citizens?

You saying 'this person should help people and do what the government they were born into says, or else the government can take them to court and put them in jail.' is immoral. This is the fundamental collectivist belief that people are tools for 'society' and used as a means to achieve majority ends. Your claim is- people should be forced to help, when its helping someone/others a lot. According to your logic, you should be prosecuted for having more food than you need to live because you aren't feeding people who are starving in other places in the world. You go to work instead of going to feed those people and save their lives.

This belief justifies taking other peoples money by force because it helps others and doesn't hurt them; along with enslaving a few people if it keeps cotton prices low for everyone.

Soldiers should not be prosecuted for not obeying commands of the state.
 
That, and we enable autocratic governments who hinder economic development via our aid programs.

Smart enough assessment. Which means we either have morons, both parties, pushing bad policy, or we have leaders, both parties, who view it somehow advantageous to "US interests" to hold some parts of the world down.
 
You didn't want to go to Afghanistan? If you don't mind me asking, why? I can understand people saying that about Iraq, but Afghanistan... unless you're a truther?

There were plenty of people who thought that since the vast majority of the 9/11 attackers came out of Saudi Arabia that a war in A-Stan was misguided. Not enough though. Only now are there a bit more Americans that acknowledge that mistake, then there are those still defending it, and quite naturally, it's more likely to be republicans which defend it. And that's because Americans are more likely to be loyal to their party ahead of loyal to the constitution, or sound policy.


February 19, 2014
More Americans Now View Afghanistan War as a Mistake
Republicans most likely to say the war was not a mistake

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167471/americans-view-afghanistan-war-mistake.aspx
 
And that general's being stupid. Why? If we don't do what we can to stop it over there, (1) it WILL affect U.S. interests there - such as weakening governments that actually do work with us in killing terrorists in Africa, and (2) it's better to stop it there than having to try to stop it here. There's a very real possibility that this virus could mutate to where it is as transmissible as influenza is...and if that happens, it IS coming here. That's the nature of the mobility of the populations of the modern world.

And if you really think the military wouldn't be used if a truly deadly pandemic strikes America, you've got a lot to learn.

Besides the humanitarian aspect of this engagement that is positive.
 
I suppose you believe that it takes the DOD and American troops to go and fight a disease. In the first place, what you are talking about is the ability to pay for the work. It's not the DOD that carries the financial burden so the uniqueness of having soldiers at it's disposal is meaningless. The money comes from the general fund and the only question is who gets paid. My objection is that this kind of work is not within, or shouldn't be within the scope of the military. There are individuals who are actually trained to fight disease who would be a more rational choice than some nineteen year old kid who's been through basic training and AIT. For me, it's not who pays, or who has projection capacity. It's a question of who is the best fit to stop the pandemic. For a pandemic, it's not soldiers unless they are to enforce a quarantine. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, not to be a social welfare organization. If we are going to throw bodies at a problem, throw the appropriate bodies.

How many times do you have to be told they are not 'fighting' the medical aspects of the disease?

And that they are perfectly capable and trained to do security, transporatation, and construction?

The purpose of the military is to protect & defend America and American interests.

Not "kill people and break things." That is a very ignorant statement and demeaning to our military.
 
You follow orders.

imagesFHS9Y5L6.jpg
 
How many times do you have to be told they are not 'fighting' the medical aspects of the disease?

And that they are perfectly capable and trained to do security, transporatation, and construction?

The purpose of the military is to protect & defend America and American interests.

Not "kill people and break things." That is a very ignorant statement and demeaning to our military.

You needn't tell me anything because you don't seem to understand the issue here. We are sending people there with the wrong skill set. I've been in our military and I have a good grasp of it's purpose. It's purpose is not to be an international construction company. In basic they don't train with a hawk and trowel, they use rifles.
 
You needn't tell me anything because you don't seem to understand the issue here. We are sending people there with the wrong skill set. I've been in our military and I have a good grasp of it's purpose. It's purpose is not to be an international construction company. In basic they don't train with a hawk and trowel, they use rifles.

And yet, they do construction, security, etc all the time in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. So what is your point again? They do indeed have the skills to perform these duties.

How do they have the 'wrong' skill set to set up hospitals, protect medical personel and supply shipments? They seem to have done quite well doing that elsewhere.
 
Smart enough assessment. Which means we either have morons, both parties, pushing bad policy, or we have leaders, both parties, who view it somehow advantageous to "US interests" to hold some parts of the world down.

Cpwill's Razor is that when you are looking at destructive consequences of governance, and the options before you are deliberate, competent, malice or incompetent perhaps originally-well-intended bumbling; it's incompetence.
 
Cpwill's Razor is that when you are looking at destructive consequences of governance, and the options before you are deliberate, competent, malice or incompetent perhaps originally-well-intended bumbling; it's incompetence.

Not quite sure what you mean with that CP.
 
I would not refuse to do my duty and take every precaution possible to protect myself form the virus. If everyone refused to do anything it would become a much bigger problem much faster.
 
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?

It's been a long time since I was a soldier. I would obey the order and go.
 
I agree. Only someone who had little or nothing to do with the military would contemplate on disobeying it. Besides, those that go will be medical personal who are specially qualified along with the equipment to handle the situation.

Or they would be working with qualified medical personal, perhaps putting up tents, setting up isolation wards, or performing guard duty.
 
Back
Top Bottom