Nothing bad can come out of this...

[JustAlex]

The rest of the world lives in peace? What rock have you been hiding under? I guess it was a pretty big one for you to be unaware of happenings in Ukraine, the civil war in Central African Republic, the war in Congo, the non-stop fighting between Palestine and Israel, the fighting that continues in Libya, Columbia constantly fighting rebel factions, Mexican cartels murdering thousands every year...yeah, the rest of the world is SUCH a peaceful place

Please re-read my comment and you'll immediately notice I said the First world.

The first world is the following:

Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and the U.S....and maybe a few others.

Out of all those countries who is doing all the fighting, all the invasions, all the nonsense around the world?

Did you know all the countries I listed have better life expectancy than the U.S?

They all have better health care, better education, and better infrastructure.

MAYBE....because they don't literally BURN their money on nonsense like never-ending wars against religious boogeymen who will NEVER stop hating us and can NEVER be changed.

perhaps it is because they are expecting us to do it or initiate it?
where the heck is the UN in all this?

Now imagine if the U.S STOPPED doing it, and MAYBE we could have more cooperation from other countries.

But nope, the U.S is stupid enough to carry the burdens of the world on it's shoulders like some self-righteous individual, but in the end all it gets is hatred from everyone and never seems to do the right thing.

WHY must this continue?

=================================================

And let me say the following, it's not like I'm blind, I know just how bad ISIS is, but "going it alone" is NOT the correct option.

You either get support from your allies or you don't do a damn thing.

It is NOT our problem to begin with, and we should NOT have to carry the burden for the entire freaking world.

[shrewsbury]

It is NOT our problem to begin with,

so threatening America and killing Americans is not our problem?

we should NOT have to carry the burden for the entire freaking world.

Agreed

[duane1969]

Responses in bold

Please re-read my comment and you'll immediately notice I said the First world. Fair enough. I overlooked the word "first". My bad. <---See how I admitted a mistake. You should try it sometimes. It is very liberating to admit you are human.

The first world is the following:

Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and the U.S....and maybe a few others.

Out of all those countries who is doing all the fighting, all the invasions, all the nonsense around the world? Because the rest of those countries are either too scared or too overrun with liberal pansies to stand up for what is right. Instead of getting involved in world issues that they should be concerned about they stand around with their hands in their pockets waiting for the US to do something (that benefits them, by the way) and then declare themselves superior and issue criticisms. I find nothing about a person/country that is too cowardly to get involved and then criticizes those who do to be desirable.

Did you know all the countries I listed have better life expectancy than the U.S? What does that have to do with healthcare or the US getting involved in wars/conflicts? The reason they have a higher life expectancy is because we have a higher obesity rate, not because we have a poor health care system or because we get involved in minor conflicts. What's more, taunting a higher life expectancy rate is pretty weak considering their life expectancy rate is somewhere between 1 and 3 years long. We aren't talking about a monumental gap here.

They all have better health care, better education, and better infrastructure. They do not have better health care, education or better infrastructure. Sorry.

A) Their healthcare systems all receive high rankings because of lower costs based on a socialistic system. The 2014 Commonwealth Fund ranked the US 5th in quality of care and 9th in access to health care.

B) In most of the countries that you seem to favor they have a nice little habit of "sifting" the student population. The smart ones are directed into better education programs while the "dumb" ones are sent to trade schools or technical school systems. The net result is they only test the higher achieving portion of their student population. Thanks to the liberal ideal of "everybody deserves the same education" we are testing students with IQs ranging from 70 to 120 in the same manner and applying those scores to the ranking system. Hardly fair. The irony in all of that is that even though we test the lower IQ students we still have a mean score of 497 compared to Italy (494), Norway (496), France (499), U.K. (514), Germany (524) and Canada (525)...as far as I am concerned we are doing pretty damn good.

C) I don't know where you got that the US is below those other countries in quality of infrastructure. The US has the 5th ranked infrastructure in the world with Germany, Singapore, Netherlands and Norway ranked ahead of us.

MAYBE....because they don't literally BURN their money on nonsense like never-ending wars against religious boogeymen who will NEVER stop hating us and can NEVER be changed. Interesting that you see them as just boogeymen. Perhaps you should go over and introduce yourself to ISIS as an American and see if the boogeyman really exists or not.

[JustAlex]

First of all Duane, I have admitted to my mistakes in the past on this forum.

In fact, being incorrect and being able to see your mistakes and change your position is a great trait to have.

At the moment I am not able to properly research and show proper evidence for all the assertions I have made when I compared the U.S. with other first world countries, but rest assured when I get a chance, I will do so.

I also want to say that perhaps the word "boogeymen" was not the correct term to use.

I know how very real ISIS is, I know how they use their religion to do all the horrific things they do.

If anything, they are a very vivid reminder what religion can do to human beings, and why if you simply use logic and reason you can deduct all the obvious flaws.

What I meant to say is that the U.S. has this insane "war on terror" and then use these guys as justification to invade nations and continue never-ending wars.

Newsflash...the "war on terror" is about as effective as the "war on drugs".

It doesn't matter what you do these people can NOT be changed, they will always hate the U.S and the West because we are secular, because we reject their medieval mentality and because we reject their make belief "god" and their stupid book filled with hatred and nonsense.

[duane1969]

Just because something will "always be" does not mean we should give up, bring our troops home and hide our heads in the sand. That is a pacifist and victim mentality. Being a nice guy never, ever works. Australia is a prime example. They never get involved in this stuff yet some nutjobs were planning a public beheading of a totally innocent person just the other day in the name of Islamic jihad. Quite simply, thinking that the world will be nice to you because you are nice to it is like thinking the lion will not eat you because you did not try to eat it first.

Do I think we should be the world police? Absolutely not. Do I think we should stand idly by while tens of thousands of people are killed simply because they aren't the right religion or from the right region? Absolutely not. Unchecked ISIS will turn the world into one big 3rd world country. Make no mistake, they have one goal, world indoctrination and massacre of those who refuse to accept. They have no Plan B.

[Zimbow]

A real-life horror story is playing out in Africa as Ebola spreads, and President Obama’s decision to send 3,000 troops to Liberia to combat the virus could very well put Americans at risk of contracting the deadly illness at home, some health experts say.


According to the World Health Organization, at least 4,985 people have contracted Ebola and at least 2,461 have died. Several doctors have fallen ill with Ebola


, and two of them have died. New reports indicate


a Doctors Without Borders staff member has contracted the virus in Liberia and will be evacuated to France for treatment.


“You can see that these doctors, who are highly trained people, got themselves infected,” said Dr. Lee Hieb, former president of the


Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “So sending troops into an area, if they’re dealing one-on-one with a patient, they’re not going to be able to protect themselves very well. It’s not easy to [prevent transmission], because you get tired and you get careless and you make some simple mistakes. All it takes is one virus particle.”


Dr. Hieb said quarantine measures should be taken to control the outbreak and prevent Ebola from coming to America.


“You don’t get Ebola from Europe,” she told WND. “You get Ebola from Africa. And it’s a really simple formula: Don’t let people fly to America if they’ve been to areas where there’s an outbreak. When there’s an outbreak, stop air [traffic] flow.”


Hieb added, “If they’re going to use the troops to do population control, which is one of the ways you contain it, basically you just don’t let anybody out. You’d make a ring around where it is, and you’d quarantine the area.”


With quarantines in places where the outbreaks are occurring, even if a person infected with Ebola were to try to board a plane to the U.S., it would be far more difficult for them to make the journey, she explained.


“Could somebody sneak through by going to Pakistan or some place?” she asked. “Yes, potentially. Ebola comes on so rapidly, you would know it. They wouldn’t make it. We should not allow flights from nations that are having Ebola outbreaks.”


Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has warned that


the U.S. must “treat Ebola as a wake-up call.”


“What African troops are doing is shooting people who cross borders or violate quarantine,” Orient told WND, reacting to news of the U.S. troop deployment. “Is that what we plan to support?”


She added, “Africans are already very suspicious of us. How will they react to an army setting up hospitals?”


Orient called the planned U.S. deployment a “dubious mission,” warning that the nightmarish scenario could bring Ebola to America.


“There is definitely a risk,” she said. “It seems irresponsible to send more people there when the ones already there are having trouble leaving. Probably anyone who has been exposed should be quarantined for 25 days since the last exposure.”


Orient echoed the concerns of Elaine Donelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, who told WND, “I’m just appalled. Judging from this, the United States seems to have a very confused vision of what ‘national security’ means.”


“But whether 3,000 American troops should be sent into that area of the world to deal with that problem, I do not see the justification,” Donelly said. “Surely there are alternatives in the international health-care networks.”


WND also reported when retired Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin charged that sending American troops to combat Ebola in Liberia is “an absolute misuse of the U.S. military.”


Donnelly emphasized it’s “not the purpose of our military.”


“I am very disappointed to see this announcement,” she said.


Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger appointed Donnelly to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services for a three-year term from 1984 through 1986. Then, in 1992, President George H. W. Bush appointed her to the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.


Donnelly explained to WND her concern that the U.S. military is not designed to fight health wars.


“Our military people will show compassion in Liberia, as they always do, and they will do everything asked of them,” she said.


“Still, health wars are unhealthy for soldiers and all living things. Like oxymoronic ‘peace wars,’ such as the incursion into Bosnia, deployments such as this put our troops in causes having little impact on America’s national security,” she said.


American military families will be put at greater risk, Donnelly warned.


“Here we have a ‘health war’ that could cost our troops’ health.”

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/doctors-i...-combat-ebola/

[pwaldo]

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/21...to-fight-ebola

The Pentagon is sending as many as 1,000 more troops to Africa to help fight the Ebola virus.

The troops are being sent on top of the 3,000 President Obama has already ordered to help efforts in West Africa.

"We project that there could be nearly 4,000 troops deployed in support of this mission," Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said Friday.

"I'm not going to put a floor or ceiling on this," he added.

More than 230 U.S. troops are currently in Africa helping to contain the disease.

The troops are deploying to West Africa to help build hospitals and other treatment centers, as well as testing labs. They will not have direct contact with Ebola patients.

Nonetheless, Kirby said all returning troops would be screened, and those suspected of exposure to the virus would be monitored for 21 days.

The additional deployments come as fears grow that the disease could spread after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed the first Ebola case in the U.S. on Tuesday.