Going all in
(USA Today) President Obama on Tuesday will announce an expansion of a $763 million U.S. plan to help West Africa nations fight the spread of the Ebola virus, officials said Monday night.(snip)
About 3,000 U.S. military personnel will be in West Africa to lead the project, officials said.
Interesting. 3000 for this, slightly over 450 to serve as advisors in the fight against ISIS, but no actual fighting troops
The virus does not threaten the United States, and will not if the right steps are taking, officials.
So, no imminent threat to the US, no threat at all. Come on, liberals, step up, tell us how we shouldn’t become involved in someone else’s fight, and should not be putting our people and troops in harms way. Should we be paying for this? Should we even become involved? It’s not our fight. These are the arguments the Left uses.
And, no, I have no problem with helping in the fight against Ebola. Perhaps we should be as serious when it comes to Islamic extremism.
This is really, really stupid. There is no treatment for Ebola. It has a definitive prognosis, which is high. All that the Army will do will be to give support care which the natives can do. In the meantime, we are needlessly exposing Americans to harm and the possibility they will bring the disease to our shores.
“The virus does not threaten the United States, and will not if the right steps are taking (sic), officials said.”
The purported quote from anonymous sources is either ignorant or intended to calm Americans.
The unprecedented Ebola outbreak is a threat to the US in at least 3 ways: 1. The obvious. Spreading to the US directly. 2. Widespread dissemination throughout the globe, throttling global economics, and further destabilizing political systems. 3. The longer the virus resides in the human population the greater the likelihood of mutations making it easier to spread. 4. The super-obvious, we can save thousands from needless suffering. But they’re Africans, so…
The incubation time is typically 7-10 days but can vary from 3 days to 3 weeks. So an infected, but asymptomatic individual can board a flight from Lagos to Houston, TX, and a week later start showing symptoms. What happens when someone from Lagos lands in Frankfurt, Germany and infects others? Nigeria’s has the largest economy in Africa, and is rapidly growing – ranking as the world’s 26th largest. Citigroup predicts Nigeria will have the fastest growing economy in the world for the next several decades.
This is an easy call. There is a clear path forward in containing this outbreak and we are doing the right thing – a bit too slow – but the right thing. The only criticism comes from those suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome. They hate Obama more than they love America. Although the probability of your little ones contracting Ebola are low, the consequences are tragic. They are a thousand times more likely to die from Ebola than from ISIS (but most likely to die in a car crash, drowning or by a bullet).
What is the clear path forward in eastern Syria and northern Iraq? Bomb the hell out of them (150 missions in the last 2 days). How many troops should we insert to contain and destroy ISIS? 3000? 10,000? 50,000? If ISIS wanted to hurt the West, they should send some foot soldiers to Liberia, catch Ebola and fly to the US or Europe. So which is easier, destroying ISIS or stopping the current Ebola outbreak? No contest.
But Obama supports it, so you oppose it. Although, you might consider anti-Ebola efforts if he also invades Syria.
Also, you probably didn’t realize this, but those infected are mostly Christians. Granted they are Black Christians, but still Christians.
How does Obama’s program to save Christians square the far-right dodos’ meme that he only works to benefit Muslims?
The only with derangement syndrome is you, Jeff, with your Obama Protection Derangement syndrome. I’m certainly not against this action, and did not say I was. Simply pointing out the differences. Yet, you had to go and build a strawman.
By your own reading, ISIS is just as much a threat as is ebola.
And the arguments you cite are Libertarian arguments not liberal arguments.
Liberals try to assess the actual, not imagined, national interest. For example, invading Iraq in 2003 was not in America’s interest. In fact, the invasion harmed America. It helped Republicans temporarily, it boosted the bottom line for weapons suppliers and goosed the Dow.
Stopping the Ebola outbreak is obviously in the US national interest. And achievable.
Invading Iraq again? Not so much. But it will make all the jingoists feel a bit safer.
“Liberals try to assess the actual, not imagined national interest.” Good one, J, but who decides what the actual national interest is? What’s an “actual interest”? As usual, you’re not saying anything.
j,
Understanding what is in the national interest isn’t always easy. Only hardcore liberals opposed Mr. Bush’s mindless invasion of Iraq, and we were obviously right. The invasion harmed America’s interests, and we’re still paying. The trade agreements that Mr. Clinton favored were not in America’s best interest, unless you consider the interests of the donor classes to be more important than the interests of workers.
The only way to stop a cureless disease (short of finding a cure) is to quarantine it. Sending soldiers into the hot spot of the disease does just the opposite. It is more likely to spread to the United States. Better to stop all flights into and out of the affected area. If doctors want to go in and help, then they’re in it for the duration. Hell, they don’t even know how it’s spreading. These doctors that caught it knew and did all the safety procedures. Yet they still caught it. Obama’s playing with our lives. He had better be careful. Smart ass half breeds are just as vulnerable as the rest of us.