Count me as saying NO. It is not the mission of our military. It would not surprise me if some soldier goes AWOL in protest of this misuse of duty.

We are setting another precedent here and no one is questioning it. What will be the NEXT thing our military will be used for? Maybe...Patrolling our Southern border?

Be very careful with precedents you set.

I have been saying for a long time that the UN needs a volunteer armed force funded by its members to handle hot spots internationally and include humanitarian and medical support. This would be one of those things they could be used for.

No but if we didn't, the disease would spread and it would likely be worse for us later.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

No it shouldn't be, but it goes with the territory of being the strongest.

Nope.

No, they sign up understanding they may take a bullet to defend out country and interests, not catch Ebola on humanitarian missions.

This is a job for the WHO and UN. (Yes I understand that UN largely means the US, but still.)

NO

Nope.
Nor anywhere else, either.

(10-05-2014 11:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  No but if we didn't, the disease would spread and it would likely be worse for us later.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Never miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis. This is exactly how the growth of government and centralization of power occurs.

Not a single media outlet, commentator or talk show host is saying a damn thing....Neither is Congress. At the minimum...there should be discussion about this before doing it. Instead...Crickets.

That's what Missionaries do daily. Not armed soldiers that could be protecting folks from ISIS or other Terror groups.

(10-05-2014 11:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  No but if we didn't, the disease would spread and it would likely be worse for us later.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

You have no idea if it would be worse for us later or not, you're just regurgitating a CNN talking point. Per usual.

NO.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-05-2014 10:01 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Count me as saying NO. It is not the mission of our military. It would not surprise me if some soldier goes AWOL in protest of this misuse of duty.

We are setting another precedent here and no one is questioning it. What will be the NEXT thing our military will be used for? Maybe...Patrolling our Southern border?

Be very careful with precedents you set.

I have been saying for a long time that the UN needs a volunteer armed force funded by its members to handle hot spots internationally and include humanitarian and medical support. This would be one of those things they could be used for.

Problem with that is ,.... We pay 75% of the UN costs anyway.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-05-2014 07:11 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(10-05-2014 11:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  No but if we didn't, the disease would spread and it would likely be worse for us later.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

You have no idea if it would be worse for us later or not, you're just regurgitating a CNN talking point. Per usual.

I don't even watch CNN. It's just common sense. Why else would we go?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-05-2014 08:38 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(10-05-2014 10:01 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Count me as saying NO. It is not the mission of our military. It would not surprise me if some soldier goes AWOL in protest of this misuse of duty.

We are setting another precedent here and no one is questioning it. What will be the NEXT thing our military will be used for? Maybe...Patrolling our Southern border?

Be very careful with precedents you set.

I have been saying for a long time that the UN needs a volunteer armed force funded by its members to handle hot spots internationally and include humanitarian and medical support. This would be one of those things they could be used for.

Problem with that is ,.... We pay 75% of the UN costs anyway.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

That needs to halt.

(10-05-2014 08:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-05-2014 07:11 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(10-05-2014 11:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  No but if we didn't, the disease would spread and it would likely be worse for us later.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

You have no idea if it would be worse for us later or not, you're just regurgitating a CNN talking point. Per usual.

I don't even watch CNN. It's just common sense. Why else would we go?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

How exactly do you propose to have Soldiers stop the Ebola spread? I mean they do have weapons. Certainly you are not advocating having them kill anyone and everyone who has come in contact or is part of an Ebola 'cluster'? So if not that, what can soldiers do better than other agencies?

The only effective deployment of the US military would be to quarantine the region/area. Since that is a complete non-starter, there is no role for military to fulfill.

Didn't we send an entire hospital ship to Haiti?

(10-06-2014 09:46 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Didn't we send an entire hospital ship to Haiti?

No. Just half....sorry it was too easy.

(10-06-2014 09:46 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Didn't we send an entire hospital ship to Haiti?

Yes. But what do you expect the hospital ship to do in this situation?

Fuel Air Explosives do work wonders at eliminating jungle areas where the hosts reside.