Deployment of Soldiers for Ebola/ISIS

We are currently sending Soldiers to Liberia to help handle the ebola crisis over there. There are many people who say "why is the president sending them there instead of somewhere to fight ISIS?" Guess what people, sending them to either accomplishes nothing.

First let's talk ISIS, we can send troops to fight ISIS, but where do we send them? The whole thing about ISIS is that they are people who support an IDEA. This IDEA is already here with people in the United States. Sending troops to go fight and die somewhere else to supposedly make us safer here is a ridiculous plan.

Now for the ebola crisis. We can send troops to Liberia, to help contain the outbreak or whatever you want to call it. The thing is, it has already spread to other countries, including the United States. So sending troops to Liberia in no way makes the U.S. any safer, it only puts troops in more danger.

There you have it, sending troops to take care of everything you can think of is the wrong answer.

I agree. ISIS and Ebola are both two boogeymen Western governments have managed to use to shift money around and keep the goyim occupied.

a reply to: 2wheelvet

ISIS is not an idea, its a CIA-Mossad joint operation. We wont do anything to hinder ISIS until they try to back their own independent currency with a commodity....its the same case as with Qadaffi, Saddam, and Hilter. Right now, they are thriving on American and Israeli resources, if/when they bite the hand that feeds, then you will see reall action against ISIS.

Ebola...who knows what's going on with that?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: 2wheelvet

ISIS is not an idea, its a CIA-Mossad joint operation. We wont do anything to hinder ISIS until they try to back their own independent currency with a commodity....its the same case as with Qadaffi, Saddam, and Hilter. Right now, they are thriving on American and Israeli resources, if/when they bite the hand that feeds, then you will see reall action against ISIS.

Ebola...who knows what's going on with that?

I didn't get into any of that craziness here. There are many more threads already started that include what you are talking about(alphabet agencies being responsible for everything). You completely missed my point. There is a lot of criticism going on regarding resources being sent to take on ebola and supposedly not enough heading in the direction of threats from ISIS. The President is being blamed for such nonsense. I thought I made a very clear point that neither are worth sending Soldiers overseas for...

originally posted by: 2wheelvet
We are currently sending Soldiers to Liberia to help handle the ebola crisis over there. There are many people who say "why is the president sending them there instead of somewhere to fight ISIS?" Guess what people, sending them to either accomplishes nothing.

First let's talk ISIS, we can send troops to fight ISIS, but where do we send them? The whole thing about ISIS is that they are people who support an IDEA. This IDEA is already here with people in the United States. Sending troops to go fight and die somewhere else to supposedly make us safer here is a ridiculous plan.

Now for the ebola crisis. We can send troops to Liberia, to help contain the outbreak or whatever you want to call it. The thing is, it has already spread to other countries, including the United States. So sending troops to Liberia in no way makes the U.S. any safer, it only puts troops in more danger.

There you have it, sending troops to take care of everything you can think of is the wrong answer.

Do You fully comprehend that the United States is going to an outbreak while England and China and Germany do aboslutely nothing but watch!

^^^^^^ Let's crap on my husband some more ^^^^^^

See if we have to have an outbreak of our own while the elites among us are evacuated and fate is hurried sooner then expected.

I mean for those sleeping what is the Universe screaming at you right now?