Posted on 10/05/2005 10:51:13 AM PDT by tjbravo
"The answer to everything lately is "the military". True Americans should be very alarmed at this"
Ah! A glimmer of light. Very,very refreshing
People did not travel on planes back then. It could be spread in just a few hours to many parts of the country.
They may not be. However what does the law state? You do it once, the next time another excuse is given you will have no ground to stand on protesting it.
BTW, the US Army lost more soldiers to influenza in WW I than were lost in combat. At Camp Devens in Massacheusetts, over 100 previously healthy 18 & 19 y/o soldiers
Your point? Why should how many soldiers lost to disease affect the fact that US Armed Forces have been specifically ordered by law not to operate on US soil?
If H5N1 mutates to infect by person-to-person contact, NO ONE will be safe from it. NOT using the military to help would be an act of madness.
Except you just stated that 100 soldiers were dying a day for over two months. If no one is safe from it, what's the point of putting forces on the ground that will be just as suspectible to the disease as I am? If they have been immunized against it, I would rather private industry provide me the same vaccine at what they feel is market price. I'll choose to protect my land and property myself without the 'help' of armed troops thank you.
Operator, won't you help me please?
My question is if they consider it dangerous enough for that then why arent they doing something about the appalling lack of antivirals and flu vaccines available.
"It disturbs me that so many that consider themselves conservative would be willing to hand any portion of control to the military on our home soil"
For quite some time I thought the differentiation between conservatives and neo-conservatives was a figment of someone's inmagination, a wedge to divide us. Observing the discussions on FR lately, I am beginning to think that there is a difference and not a small one.
Why does that matter?
What is wrong with our country, as a whole, at all levels, discussing the problem and the possible solutions?
There is really only one organization in the country that can perform on the national level cohesively to enact a policy of quarantine and humanitarian medical assistance. That is the military. That does not mean that the military is the best answer. That's what the discussion is supposed to explore, and a lot can be learned from the military on how best to implement a national policy.
The discussion that is to take place is to help clarify the capabilities of the military, the possibilities of non-military responses, and how best to save lives and preserve our nation in the face of an infectious outbreak.
Bush posed the questions. He didn't propose a solution. He just mentioned one of the options.
I lost two homes and a business in Katrina. I have experienced Local, State, Private, and Military aid. While I appreciate all of the people lending support, the Military rises far above all others. When shown appreciation for their help, these fine people will bend over backwards to do whatever they can to help. They do it in effficient military style also!
LLS
Sorry but I don't think your arguments are rational. The US military is NOT the enemy of US citizens in times of dire straits.
The military is fine, but the military is controlled by the politicians (both plusses and miuses on that subject).
They won't have to quarantine me.
I will be hiding in the bunker waiting for spring.
And that, is what it will come to if such a devastating thing were to happen. I would think the military personal would be quarantined AWAY to protect THEM, so they can be available to protect the nation after the epidemic passes, and against any foriegn threats which may try move in. Police action is done by the national guard in each state if needed, right?
Why is the same discussion taking place in Australia, Italy, and the UK for entirely different reasons--all within the last month? Source: Vox Day.
I did not know this, but it would not be surprising. Oops, my hat may be showing.
The reasons that Australia and the UK are giving for extraordinary military control are not "humanitarian." Blair and the Aussie PM are using different reasons for reaching the same outcome in their nations: extraordinary military control.
But if Bill Clinton had proposed this, the thread would be 1,000 posts long or more by now.
To die of it.
It's not conspiratorial. This is just current thinking.
Taking one look at the make up of our country, the Federal system, and our military - your fear is misplaced.
I think your fears for the UK and AU are also misplaced paranoia.
Your timing is impeccable. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.