- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 35,183
- Reaction score
- 44,144
- Location
- Somewhere in Babylon...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Explain it. Why is this in our national interest? Be specific. or don't play the game.
However it reeks of politics. Why hasn't the One on the golf course stopped people from ebola country from coming to the US? Politics.
If the One stopped people from ebola country from coming here he might not be able to subvert the Constitution completely when after the election he declares an amnesty for the 20-30 million illegals who are here.
Why didn't you select a more reasonable alternative and prevent anyone who had been to ebola country from entering the US? It has the same effect of protecting American citizens without placing our volunteer military at risk for no good reason.This virus and more importantly it's social implications cannot be avoided, the best way to keep America safe (and incidentally the rest of us) is to tackle the crisis at its source and stop it.
The US has very great capability in this regard, the unit being sent over specializes in this kind of thing and on top of that it will provide them with invaluable experience that can be used should something crop up closer to home that is worse.
Can you explain how preventing a disease from being introduced in America will make the disease worse in America?You heard the CDC last week... shutting down flights would make ebola in America worse.
Simpleχity;1063857223 said:Yesterdays fear has become today's reality. The Ebola virus has now been transmitted within the United States.
Texas is the uninsured capital of the United States. More than 6.3 million Texans - including 1.2 million children - lack health insurance. Texas' uninsurance rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to all Texans. Those who lack insurance coverage typically enjoy far-worse health status than their insured counterparts. - See more at: http://www.texmed.org/Uninsured_in_Texas/#sthash.UBwIaKwa.dpuf
I believe it is Obama's October Surprise. If we have an epidemic we will spend billions of dollars thus spurring economic growth. I am sure it will have an impact on the elections in Reid's favor.But Obama and the flop at the CDC says it's fine.
I believe it is Obama's October Surprise. If we have an epidemic we will spend billions of dollars thus spurring economic growth. I am sure it will have an impact on the elections in Reid's favor.
Can you explain how preventing a disease from being introduced in America will make the disease worse in America?
The surrounding oceans would protect us if the One on the golf course liked Americans. He doesn't. I don't believe he ever has or ever will.Where do you draw the line? Incubation is 21 days, and you are only infectious once symptoms (which resemble flu) are present. There are many indirect routes to the USA, which is a long expensive way away from West Africa. Why would anyone without a connection want to come? The number of people who can afford the trip is very small, the number of alternative destinations is very large, and effective treatment (should they need it) is a lot nearer than the US. Once more your surrounding oceans protect you.
May we speak of these separately?This virus and more importantly it's social implications cannot be avoided,
Why didn't you select a more reasonable alternative and prevent anyone who had been to ebola country from entering the US? It has the same effect of protecting American citizens without placing our volunteer military at risk for no good reason.
It can be done in minutes and at almost no additional cost.
No one that I am aware of has suggested that we do or should. But we can prevent people who have recently been in "ebola country" from coming here. We just tell them they cannot come here.The point is we can't isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world.
"Ebola country" at this moment consists of four African countries. Ebola will burn itself out in a VERY short time. This is the best first line of defense. It works when it is tried.If we stop flights from Africa that might work for the VERY short term.
Then perhaps those who are next in line should see it as their problem. I am all for those countries who have a vital national interest getting involved. This is not our problem. It was never our problem.But if the outbreak isn't controlled, it will soon spread to the ME, then to Europe, etc.
This is also not our problem. We can keep anyone out of the country who presents a health risk.if nothing else from affected aid workers from the rest of the world travel home and carry it with them, as happened here.
None of these points has anything to do with keeping people out of the US who have recently been to Ebola country.So the best hope for containing the spread is to address the crisis in Africa, which requires flights to Africa to carry supplies, and healthcare and other workers to help impoverished areas deal with something they do not have the resources to deal with.
Given that you believe so what strategy has the One devised for defeating the ebola virus that requires US military troops?And the "cannon fodder" comment is BS.
We can add more countries to the ebola country list if it becomes necessary. As long as we do not allow potentially infected people into the country we will be fine.If "we" in the developed world do not assist Africa in dealing with the crisis, it will spread and soon it will touch us here and pose a far greater risk to more Americans than any "terrorist" threat.
I am not recommending that anybody be sent. It is not in our national interest to go to Ebola country nor is it in our interest to allow them to come here.If you don't want to send U.S. troops to assist, who would you recommend?
It is not our problem to solve.Fact is it will take the military and MANY other groups to effectively deal with the crisis.
You have failed to make the case for why sending American troops is in our vital national interest.And if we in the developed world don't succeed, somebody blowing up a plane or another 9/11 will the the least of our concerns, and we've put millions of troops over the past decade plus at risk to prevent those kinds of terrorist threats to Americans.
"Why didn't you select a more reasonable alternative and prevent anyone who had been to ebola country from entering the US? It has the same effect of protecting American citizens without placing our volunteer military at risk for no good reason.
Stopping people who may have been exposed to ebola is a great idea. All we have to do is say then cannot come. We can continue to screen all international passengers. We need to add an ebola tax to each ticket to pay for the additional manpower needed to do the screenings.I guess we'll agree to disagree that stopping the ebola spread is in our national interests. Seems obvious to me the threat from the unconstrained spread of ebola exceeds any risk of "terrorism" by a factor of 1,000 or so. And pretending we can wall ourselves off from the rest of the world seems naive.
Why would you believe that? The time from infection to symptoms is 21 days. Anyone who wants to come can voluntarily go into a quarantine village for three weeks prior to coming here. I am sure someone will figure out how to make money selling the time in the facility.Bottom line is there will be perhaps 10s of thousands of Americans, Europeans, Asians, etc. assisting in containing the outbreak. If you take your suggestion literally, any American who goes to assist takes a one way trip out of America, never to return. Same with the Europeans, etc. and everyone they interact with when they return home. It's a logistical impossibility, IMO.
There is nothing difficult about it.I'm not necessarily opposed to much more screening and the rest, but those are difficult decisions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?