The above statement is the excuse given by warmongers in the US to invade, bomb, or otherwise engage in wars in distant countries. It is argued that if we do not suppress whatever the perceived threat is on its home turf, then those same people will invade our shores and threaten us at home, ignoring the counter-argument that it is our war making that is either causing or exacerbating the problem.
This has always been a poor argument when applied to those whom the US government labels as terrorists. But when it comes to infectious diseases like Ebola, the same argument is actually sound. The best way to combat the threat of infectious diseases is to fight it at its source, thus preventing it from spreading all over the globe.
Of course in the bizarre world that we live in that is dominated by the warped thinking and ridiculous posturing world of US politicians, we do the opposite. The same warmongers so anxious to fight overseas, when faced with the threat of Ebola, reverse the argument and act like the best way to fight the scourge is to withdraw and close ourselves off, by banning people from coming here and taking steps, like strict quarantine even for asymptomatic people, that will actually discourage health workers from going there to stop the disease in its tracks.
Like Cuba, which currently has sent hundreds of medical personnel to West Africa (thanks to Lassi Hippeläinen for the link), we should be sending doctors and nurses and supplies to that region. Even the New York Times has noted the difference.
The New York Times October recently praised Cuba for sending health workers to West Africa to fight Ebola. “Cuba stands to play the most robust role among the nations seeking to contain the virus,” the Times said, adding that “Cuba’s contribution (…) should be lauded and emulated.”
More than that: “[O]nly Cuba and a few nongovernmental organizations are offering what is most needed: medical professionals in the field.” Indeed nations “with the most to offer” have held back.