Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to veterans, lashed into his opponent for poor military judgment, alleging Sen. John McCain had fixated on Iraq immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. ""Sen. McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and that — as despicable as Saddam Hussein was — posed no imminent threat to the American people,"" Obama said on Aug. 19, 2008. ""Two of the biggest beneficiaries of that decision were al-Qaida's leadership, which no longer faced the pressure of America's focused attention; and Iran, which has advanced its nuclear program, continued its support for terror, and increased its influence in Iraq and the region."" Obama's analysis of the war's consequences aside, we checked the record to see whether he had fairly characterized McCain's views about Iraq after 9/11 and in the run-up to the war. As a military veteran and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain was a prominent voice in late 2001 as the nation grappled with how to respond to the attacks. On Sept. 12, 2001, he appeared on  Hardball with Chris Matthews,  where Matthews asked whether the appropriate response should be ""a legal matter or a military matter."" ""I think it's both,"" McCain replied. ""As — as we stated, the — a nation has the right to defend itself, No. 1. But No. 2, these organizations could not flourish effectively unless they had the help and assistance and safe harbor of these nations. And it isn't just Afghanistan — we're talking about Syria, Iraq, Iran, perhaps North Korea, Libya and others."" That comment was not particularly specific to Iraq. But in an Oct. 18, 2001, appearance on the  Late Show with David Letterman,  with the nation on edge about the anthrax mailings and in the early stages of the campaign in Afganistan, McCain singled out Iraq. After sharing his views about how events were unfolding in Afghanistan, McCain told Letterman: ""I think we'll do fine. The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq."" In January 2002, while touring the flight bridge of an aircraft carrier on the Arabian Sea, McCain shouted: ""Next up: Baghdad!"" He fleshed out his views in a speech at a NATO security policy conference in Munich on Feb. 2, 2002. ""Terrorist training camps exist on Iraqi soil, and Iraqi officials are known to have had a number of contacts with al-Qaida. These were probably not courtesy calls,"" he said. ""Americans have internalized the mantra that Afghanistan represents only the first front in our global war on terror. The next front is apparent, and we should not shrink from acknowledging it. A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction."" We should note that McCain suggested on several occasions that he would prefer alternatives to full-on invasion and occupation as a means of displacing Saddam Hussein, such as on  Meet the Press  on July 14, 2002: ""I have always strongly felt that you must try the option of opposition from within — arming, training, equipping and helping oppositions from within; the Kurds in the North, the Shiites in the South,"" McCain told the late Tim Russert. ""At least try that option before we send Americans into harm's way."" But two days later on  Face the Nation,  he made clear that if it took war to remove Hussein, he was all for it. ""Look, we need a regime change in Iraq,"" he said. ""If we can do it on the cheap by having operations involving just Special Forces and some air power and opponents within, either the Kurds in the south, Shiites in the north [sic], then that's fine. But we have to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to bring about this regime change. I think we also ought to prepare the American public in — in — by way of informing them that Saddam Hussein has these weapons, continues to attempt to improve the — their capability and would not be reluctant to export them to other countries."" He continued, ""So we need to keep telling the American people that as well, as well as basically — if I may be so blunt — frightening them — frightening and scaring them every day."" In early 2003, with calls for invasion of Iraq growing more insistent, McCain's was among the most fervent voices. ""Sept. 11, 2001 showed that al-Qaida is a grave threat,"" he wrote in a Feb. 14, 2003 opinion piece in  USA Today. ""Saddam Hussein has the ability to make a far worse day of infamy by turning Iraq into a weapons assembly line for al-Qaida's network. ... Saddam is an international felon who has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole and is planning further crimes with his terrorist accomplices. He must be brought to justice once and for all."" The record clearly supports the contention that McCain ""was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11"" — indeed he singled out Iraq on  Letterman  — and became a ""leading supporter"" of the war, as Obama said. We find his claim to be ." Claim: Sen. McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of (Iraq).

Answer: McCain's record on Iraq: eager to attack


Question: Paragraph: U.S. Marines of Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines are silhouetted against the sunset during a joint patrol with Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers along Helmand river near the Camp Gorgak in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, July 3, 2011. REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov The study, published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, analyzed medical records of 307,520 children of active-duty Army personnel, aged 5 to 17 years old. It found almost 17 percent of them exhibited mental health problems. “Children of parents who spent more time deployed between 2003 and 2006 fared worse than children whose parents were deployed for a shorter duration,” the study’s researchers wrote. The lead researcher was Alyssa Mansfield, who was at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the time the study was conducted. The U.S. Army reported some 562,000 members in active duty and more than 570,000 children of such members in 2010. Just under two-thirds of all active-duty servicemen and women were married and 15 percent were raising children as single parents. The children whose parents deployed at least once, for an average of 11 months, as part of the U.S. Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan were especially likely to suffer from adjustment, behavioral, depressive or stress disorders than those whose parents never went to war, the study found. Boys were more likely to have mental health problems than girls, according to the report, which reviewed records for patients cared for at military medical facilities and at civilian facilities using military medical insurance. “We used to think about deployment as a single experience: I go, I’m away, it’s difficult and then I come back. Well, it’s a way of life in the military that deployments continue to occur and families have to manage the consequences,” said Dr. Stephen Cozza, psychiatry professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Cozza has studied the issue and wrote an editorial accompanying the report. “These are consequences that aren’t necessarily short-term,” he said. The challenges don’t necessarily end with the final return home, he said, as soldiers may bring back their own mental health issues which affect relationships with their children. Claim: Mental problems of soldiers' kids tied to wars.

Answer: The longer U.S. soldiers were deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, the more likely their children would be diagnosed with mental health problems, according to a study published Monday.


Question: Paragraph: The World Health Organization on Wednesday made the emergency declaration for the year-old outbreak, a rare move that usually leads to more global attention and aid. More than 1,600 people have died in what has become the second-worst Ebola outbreak in history. Health experts worry about what would happen if Ebola reaches South Sudan as the shattered nation tries to recover from a five-year civil war that killed nearly 400,000 people and displaced millions. Many health facilities were badly damaged or destroyed, and unrest continues in parts of the country despite a fragile peace deal signed in September. Last month a 41-year-old woman was discovered with Ebola in northeastern Congo, just 70 kilometers (43 miles) from South Sudan. She had traveled 500 kilometers from Beni, the epicenter of the outbreak, despite having been exposed to the virus and warned not to travel. South Sudan has sent a health team to strengthen surveillance at one of its busiest border posts, Kaya in Central Equatoria state, near where the woman’s case was confirmed. Hers was the closest confirmed case to South Sudan since this outbreak was declared. “The risk of cases of Ebola coming across the border into South Sudan is very high,” said Sudhir Bunga, South Sudan country director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “A person who comes into contact with a confirmed case of Ebola in (Congo) could travel to South Sudan, or any neighboring country, undetected during the 21-day incubation period and spread the disease once contagious.” That recently happened in neighboring Uganda, a more stable country with a more developed health system and experience with past Ebola outbreaks, as millions of people flow across borders in the densely populated region. Three people died in Uganda before other family members were taken back to Congo for treatment and Ugandan officials quickly declared the country was again free of the disease. Ebola’s spread into South Sudan would pose more of a challenge. Even though Ebola preparedness, including vaccinations for some health workers, began several months ago the current phase of the country’s $12 million response plan is just 36% funded, according to a report this month by the country’s health ministry. Fighting in places such as Central Equatoria has hampered efforts to prepare for Ebola. The United Nations’ migration agency manages 15 screening sites along the border but three others have yet to be established in part because of access challenges. Many South Sudan communities lack the basic resources to respond to one of the world’s most notorious diseases. The phone network in Central Equatoria is limited, meaning most people cannot call the emergency help line. Many hospitals don’t have staff trained to deal with the virus or the isolation wards needed to control its spread. The country is about 60% ready to deal with a potential Ebola outbreak, Richard Lako with South Sudan’s national Ebola task force has told The Associated Press. But he expressed concern about the border: “There are forest areas between communities in South Sudan and the Congo and these people can’t be screened from the other side. It’s a big worry if those people sneak in and we have a case. It’ll take us time to get in and control the issue.” South Sudan’s prevention efforts include educating communities to dispel myths about Ebola that have posed a major challenge for disease responders in Congo. Health workers in South Sudan’s border towns are going door-to-door trying to inform people, with support from WHO and people who responded to West Africa’s devastating outbreak in 2014-2016 that killed more than 11,000 people. At one animated training session earlier this year in an army barracks outside Yei, a major city in western South Sudan near the Congo border, two U.N. staffers playfully bumped elbows, showing how to greet others without shaking hands. Ebola is spread via close contact with bodily fluids of those infected. “Don’t touch each other, don’t play with saliva, yours or someone else’s,” a WHO staffer from Sierra Leone said. This month diplomats and other officials made a special visit to Yei, one of the hardest-hit cities during South Sudan’s civil war, to observe Ebola preparations. “It is really the most important place in South Sudan right now,” U.S. Ambassador Thomas Hushek said, according to the U.N. mission in South Sudan. “This is where we are most worried about what might happen.” ___ Follow Africa news at https://twitter.com/AP_Africa Claim: War-weakened South Sudan tries to prepare for Ebola.

Answer:
With the deadly Ebola outbreak in Congo now an international emergency , neighboring South Sudan and its war-weakened health system is a major concern, especially after one case was confirmed near its border. Health experts say there is an urgent need to increase prevention efforts.