I can tell you that I am struggling to understand the decision to send our military personnel to West Africa to become involved in fighting Ebola. In an exclusive report on WND.com, some of our most decorated and retired Military Generals are grappling with this decision, too. Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin and retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely both question the decision by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to put 4,000 boots on the ground.
Although U.S. officials want us to believe that our troops' exposure to the deadly virus will be "limited", this seems to be a very rushed and anything but comprehensively planned mission. We are told that "the soldiers would be responsible for command, control, logistics, civil affairs and medical assistance." Should that really be their role? Doesn't that sound like duties that should be carried out by the Center for Disease Control?
In fact, the CDC Foundation website describes the role of the CDC in case of a contagious outbreak as follows: If a pandemic should occur, CDC would conduct an investigation and provide technical assistance to cities, states or international partners dealing with the outbreak. This assistance would include consultation, lab testing and analysis, patient management and care, tracking of contacts and infection control (including isolation and quarantine). CDC’s primary goals would be to determine the cause of the illness, the source of the infection/virus/toxin, learn how it is transmitted and how readily it is spread, how to break the cycle of transmission and prevent further cases and how patients can best be treated. Not only would scientists be working to identify the cause and cure of the outbreak, but CDC acting with other federal and international agencies would send medical teams and first responders to help those in affected areas. Scientists in the labs of CDC would work to develop a vaccine to combat the virus and then distribute and administer it to public.
So why aren't they doing their job and going to West Africa, instead of sending our troops to do jobs they aren't qualified for? As General Boykin points out, "At a time when our military has been at war for 13 years, suicide is at an all-time high, [post-traumatic stress disorder] is out of control and families are being destroyed as a result of 13 years of war, the last thing the president should be doing is sending people into West Africa to fight Ebola ... That's not what the military does."
In the WND article, Boykin goes on to point out that there will be no inoculation for Ebola prior to troop deployment. Defense Department spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said that the only preparation service members will receive before heading to West Africa will be briefings on the disease. How would you feel if your son, daughter, husband or wife was assigned this deployment? Will that information help you sleep at night?
And as I look at these young people boarding a transport plane in the accompanying photo, I can't help but think, "What are we sending them into? How will we protect them, and how will we contain this disease should, God forbid, one of them contract it? Are they just a face without a name to the DC politicians?"
Then there is this to consider ... the CDC wanted us to believe that our nation's hospitals were briefed and prepared to deal with any potential Ebola patient that showed up on their doorstep. Yet, it is clear to us all that the so-called medical experts botched it in Dallas. Are we really expected to believe that we can send 4,000 soldiers into the heart of the beast and no one will become infected? And can they guarantee that all these heroes will be better monitored than one man was in Dallas -- so that they do not endanger their loved ones at home, or deploy to other units and spread the disease?
And like General Boykin, I want to know, "Where is the U.N. or other African nations?" Why are our troops once again on the front lines? You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to figure out that this doesn't make sense, and defies logic or common sense. The administration spokesmen can insist all they want that our troops won't be exposed to the virus; but the fact that they are in West Africa places them in harm's way.
Then there is information provided in another WND article, written by Joseph Farah. He reports that "The Defense Department is planning to spend at least $1 billion on the effort. That represents a commitment of $333,333 for every soldier deployed. Just imagine how many more local citizens could be hired for this assignment?"
Farah's article also mentions the ambiguity of Defense Department spokesman John Kirby, when he said, “But there’s no – there’s no intent right now for them to have direct contact with patients.” Do you trust the safety of our troops after that ill-defined statement? And here's what I don't get ... Kirby very clearly states that this "is not a military operation ... The mission is to do some training, to build these units and do some logistics, some transports, the movement of materiel." So, if it's not a military operation, why are we sending soldiers?
You know, it seems to me that we actually have some real missions that better suit our soldiers right now ... like stopping the growing threat of Islamic radicals in Syria and Iraq... or how about protecting our own country from a myriad of threats at our southern border? That's what our troops are trained to do! They are warriors, trained to fight and win wars ... this is one mission they should not be called to answer.
Psalm 91:9-10 "Because you’ve made the Lord my refuge, the Most High, your place of residence—no evil will happen to you; no disease will come close to your tent."
Agreed, it is *NOT* the US military mission to eradicate ebola. It *IS* one to secure borders to not allow it in in the first place....ReplyDelete
Different topic - please feel free to remove if need be. Today is Erev Sukkot - Evening of the start of Feast of Tabernacles.... Let's take a look as to why we should celebrate this Feast as believers:
Deut. 16:10 You shall keep the feast of weeks to Yahweh your God with a tribute of a freewill-offering of your hand, which you shall give, according as Yahweh your God blesses you:
Deut. 16:11 and you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your man-servant, and your maid-servant, and the Levite who is within your gates, and the foreigner, and the fatherless, and the widow, who are in the midst of you, in the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there.
Deut. 16:12 You shall remember that you were a bondservant in Egypt: and you shall observe and do these statutes.
Deut. 16:13 You shall keep the feast of tents seven days, after that you have gathered in from your threshing floor and from your winepress:
Deut. 16:14 and you shall rejoice in your feast, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your man-servant, and your maid-servant, and the Levite, and the foreigner, and the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your gates.
Deut. 16:15 Seven days shall you keep a feast to Yahweh your God in the place which Yahweh shall choose; because Yahweh your God will bless you in all your increase, and in all the work of your hands, and you shall be altogether joyful.
Notice you "shall" keep the feast.... in verse 10.... like a command. and *IF* you do so, you *WILL* be blessed in your work, and you *WILL* be altogether joyful... God *WILL* bless you in your increase.... Verse 14 says who should keep the feast - it's everybody - Foreigner means gentiles whom are with you......
Sure, you have a choice to celebrate, not out of legalism, but out of honor to God, and He says If you do - he *WILL* bless you....
I'm signed up for as many blessings as I can! For me and my house.....
Just as Christ's First Coming coincided with the Spring Feasts, so shall His Second Coming be on the Fall Feasts. The Feast of Tabernacles is a foreshadowing, or "dress rehearsal", if you will of when God will once again Tabernacle with us, as He did with the Israelites in the wilderness. It is a time that we should be looking forward to, and praying for. I am eagerly awaiting that day!Delete
I thank you for your assessment of the military being sent to fight Ebola. I had just finished writing and sending a letter to some family and friends and then found this in the Prophecy Updates that I get daily and it sounds almost like the letter I had just sent.ReplyDelete
I have had info that these soldiers would not be armed. What would stop al-queda from approaching them and capturing our soldiers. This is a really bad idea. We are not the world's police force.ReplyDelete
Our troops definitely DON'T need to be policing the Ebola in Africa! Yes, what about securing out borders and fighting the ISIS people? And Obama couldn't send troops across to Libya for the Ambassador and the others to save our own people, but he sends troops to fight Ebola?? How many more idiotic moves will he make. No!!! Our troops should not be there for that!ReplyDelete
Research the Great Influenza ofReplyDelete
World War I, how it began with one soldier from Kansas and spread throughout the military worldwide, because they "did everything wrong" in containing it. There is a wonderful book called The Great Influenza that everyone should read, but you can just Google the subject and find out the truth. Also, research the number of US military bases worldwide plus those in this country, plus the number of Vets hospitals here, and see if it comes close to the 4000 troops that have been sent over there. I think you see where I am going with this?
I believe bho is using the Mil to infect the rest of the Mil and the USA rendering both a disaster.ReplyDelete