Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "3 Reasons the US MILITARY Should NOT Fight Ebola" video.

If you need to be armed to provide help, maybe you shouldn't be there in the first place. But I digress. This isn't just what we might think, it's what they might think. Who's to say we're able to convince them it's not an occupation and it's not politically driven? Some aid workers were attacked because some people think our doctors and nurses are the ones to blame for Ebola. Many still believe in witch doctors. So no matter our opinions on it, not everyone will be happy over there.
1
Okay. But doesn't that sound like we're going to resort to displays of force? Come on, people will feel there's an aggression and if they only "behave" when under an implied threat then let those countries' militaries oppress their own folks, no need to bring America into that kind of dirty work.
1
Ike Evans If you need to protect yourself (in the context of international relationships) then you shouldn't be there. Whatever a government asks you that leads the people to be hostile, by accepting the invitation you are getting caught up in government-populace attrition. And if there's a danger of attack, then you can't claim we're in a position to help. Another issue is that of course it will be the taxpayer footing the bill.
1
Ike Evans Thanks for misinterpreting my argument. Of course I support carry rights and the right to protect yourself. But does an intruder have the right to carry arms in (say) your home? Does he have the right to defend himself if you try to stop him? By going abroad, you're the outsider. You don't have the right to defend yourself in other's land. >"Because of the military, conflict will be less likely, not more" Except both contemporary and historical evidence say the opposite. You can't apply "good guy with a gun" logic to a situation of military intervention. Military intervention leads to conflict. The longer the US stayed in Afghanistan, the more people were willing to join the Taliban. Heck, Afghanistan asked for the Soviet Union to intervene and pacify the country. What happened? Rebellion. Then the US supported the Mujaheddin against the Soviets. More outside intervention - what did it lead to? Civil war. What did American and Pakistan intelligence do to stop it? Create the Taliban and send them to rule Afghanistan. Do you understand that for every action there is a reaction? By sending the military, even with the approval of local governments, you are automatically picking the government side, It just may happen that people don't like it. Even if conflict doesn't happen initially at one point the military will leave and then what? >"Meanwhile the doctors can get around to not only saving the lives of thousands of people in Africa" You can only be healed if you consent. Thanks to the bastards who spread around rumours that white people created Ebola and other beliefs stemming from religion or tribal traditions, more lives will be saved by allowing the people from Africa to provide security and everything else is needed to get the people who do consent to be treated away from those who don't. The more outsiders we send there, the more it becomes neo-colonialism and the harder it becomes for treatments to be administered. >"but also preventing a further outbreak that could pose a threat to our own national security later on" Or we could be sending American citizens to be unnecessarily killed or infected and start an actual outbreak on US soil. Didn't the origins of Libertarianism make it pretty clear that getting involved in other countries' bullshit is wrong and costly?
1
Ike Evans >"First, we are not invading thses countries. We are there with the permission of the existing governments of those regions." 1. Like the locals give a damn. Would you enjoy the Chinese or the UN being all up in your shit at the invitation of the US government? 2. Again, their governments are not to be trusted and for all we know pre-deployment, it's possible for military presence to cause a rift between government and populace. Are you on the side of the people or the side of the government? 3. It will still be the US taxpayer footing the bill. >"Second, the military doesn't always lead to more violence, especially when the mission is peace keeping in nature. " Afghanistan and Iraq are really peaceful now. >"He said, "the military showed up and everyone stopped fighting."" Because the fighting had already started. If you arrive at a tense but peaceful situation with a foreign military force you release the tension into violence. The Balkan situation was a far cry from an African Ebola outbreak. >"My point is that after the invasion was complete, whatever measures of peace was attained was the result of the us military presence, no despite it" Except there wasn't real peace. Were insurgent/taliban activities suppressed during the invasions in the middle east? Sure. Did it cause the number of people willing to join to drop? No. Did it prevent them from simply rolling back and gaining the control they were losing? No. Which leads me to the next point: >"nothing is happening" Hindsight is 20/20. It could have just as well resulted in a shitstorm and for all we know the US might be using this as a bargain tool for African resources (not necessarily for the US but as favours for other countries) or strengthening America's foothold in the continent. What if it causes a shitstorm when the US leaves? Maybe not getting involved was the best option to begin with. >"We have our guys over there providing security for the doctors while they save lives" Africa has soldiers and guns, you know? Why does it have to be the Americans? If the doctors need protection, does it mean the doctors are wanted there? This neo-colonialism thing got old really fast.
1
Ike Evans >"The US is not trying to colonize Africa." 1. Neo-colonialism has the prefix "neo" for a reason. Both France and the US are known offenders. 2. Tell that to the locals who the doctors need protection from. Doesn't matter if it's not true as long as enough people believe it. "Yes, we are footing the bill. But there are two things to keep in mind. 1) We are saving potentially thousands of lives." No such thing as a free lunch. How many will die from whatever the US demands as trade for the help? Can you prove that if someone else did exactly the same thing more people would die? If lives need saving, non-governmental agencies should run the show. I don't trust them more than the government, but the least involvement the better. >"2) The cost of sending troops (peacefully) over there will cost pennies on the dollar compared to the amount of money we have to spend if the outbreak crosses into our borders because we didn't deal with it in Africa." Like we had to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. They might spread over. Fearmongering BS is BS. Sending Americans to become in contact with the disease sounds riskier than not getting involved at all. Higher cost on your own borders is morally superior to cheaper - but by intervening militarily.
1
Ike Evans >"The US has really no meaningful trade interest with Africa. But even if it did, trade would only be good for Africa." Like I said, ease of deployment in Africa or trade with US allies (the US wouldn't get the resources, that would be too obvious) is a big deal. Southwestern Europe is dependent on African natural gas. And no, major powers exploiting corrupt governments is never good for Africa. Jesus, look at the historical evidence supporting what I just said. >"the military's mission is to protect doctors while they save lives" If doctors need protection, are they in the right place to begin with? Plenty of countries have military forces in addition to police. Why the US? What right do we have to perform acts of aggression/invasion in the name of the "greater good"? That's liberal BS.
1