Peace prize [Archive]

homer13j

Oct 9th, 2009, 02:51 PM

Should the comittee have picked him? Yes.
Does he deserve it? No.

I think the comittee was right to award it to Obama. They were sending a message that international diplomacy is a better way of solving the worlds problems than sending in the jets and Obama has, undoubtedly, become the icon of that message.

I'm having trouble following your logic here. How can it be right to award it to someone who doesn't deserve it?

What really bothers me is the number of people who think it is perfectly fine to use the prize as a political tool in order to deliver political smacks to politicians that a bunch of Norwegians don't agree with. The original intent of the prize was not to "send a message" but to reward those who genuinely work for peace and the betterment of mankind.

I will agree that Obama has done nothing to deserve the prize.

Let's take a look at the losers and you can decide for yourselve who you think really deserved it. Note that Sima Samar would have never even had the chance to reach her current status if the Taliban was still in charge:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/meet_the_people_who_were_passe.asp

Sima Samar, women's rights activist in Afghanistan: "With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women's Affairs."

Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.

"Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence."

Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: "These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon."

"Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for 'inciting subversion of state power.'"

"Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China's communist system. He now lives in the United States."

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 9th, 2009, 05:45 PM

Oh, I dunno. Obama has apparently resurected the World Events forum, and that is looking pretty miraculous these days. Two more, and he could be nominated for saint hood.

FunkyDexter

Oct 10th, 2009, 06:03 PM

I'm having trouble following your logic here. How can it be right to award it to someone who doesn't deserve it?Oh, come on, it's really not that difficult to follow and I suspect you choose to not understand it because you don't agree with it rather than being incapable of understanding.

The purpose of the prize is two-fold and neither of these is political:-
1. To reward those who work for peace
2. To promote peace in and of itself
In this case the committee has concentrated on the latter because they feel the that the benefit to world peace of the Obama iconography outweighs the actual work done by any other candidate. So has he actually earned it by any actions he's carried out? No. But is the goal of the prize achieved by awarding it to him? Yes.

demotivater

Oct 11th, 2009, 05:52 PM

Which one was the committee concentrating on when they gave it to Yasar Arafat?

Again, laughable and incredulous.

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 12th, 2009, 05:32 AM

the Nobel committee lost any and all credibility when they gave the prize to the murderous hatemonger Yassir Arafat in 1993

Not that i am exactly a supporter or believe that he should have got the Noble peace prize, but that's a bit one sided statement isn't ? or are Sharon, Netenyahu, Bush Snr & Jnr, Reagan, Thatcher, in fact pretty much most major political figures that have been involved in a wars defending there countries "murderous hatemongers"

Arafat whatever his flaws, was basically fighting for his people, you might dislike his methods but what alternatives did he have ?

Having your country split in half with the bigger half given to some other people, leaving you with not only no proper country but also ruled by those that have been given your land would leave anyone a bit pissed.

Valleysboy1978

Oct 12th, 2009, 06:26 AM

I'm sorry but the Nobel Peace Prize should be given for actions that an individual has taken to resolve a situation peacefully.
Clinton must be reeling at this after bringing peace to Ireland (after years of bitter wars) yet Obama gets it this soon into his presidency??

Let's be honest though. When was the last time you cared about who won this prize? Perhaps this is why they've given it to Obama. Extra publicity to the prize

DeanMc

Oct 12th, 2009, 07:04 AM

Clinton didn't bring peace to Ireland. They where still baiting the heads of each other long after he left just not in any way that would have gained international news but the Republicans and the Unionists where still murdering each other brutally, albeit in smaller numbers. The real peace brokers where Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair. As they where the ones who urged both sides to talk to the lay person and quell the idiocy.

FunkyDexter

Oct 12th, 2009, 07:18 AM

Clinton didn't bring peace to Ireland.Amen. In addition to Ahern and Blair, I'd also cite John Major for being willing to at least start talking again after Maggie had created such a huge divide in the 80s

abhijit

Oct 12th, 2009, 07:42 AM

Most of the prizes were won by Americans, this year.

Today I read this article.
Here is a look at this year's winners and their work:

___

_ Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine to Americans Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak for discovering how chromosomes protect themselves as cells divide, work that has inspired experimental cancer therapies and may offer insights into aging.

_ Nobel Prize in physics to Americans Charles K. Kao, Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith. Kao was honored for discovering how to transmit light signals long distance through hair-thin glass fibers. Boyle and Smith received the prize for opening the door to digital cameras by inventing a sensor that turns light into electrical signals.

_ Nobel Prize in chemistry to Americans Venkatraman Ramakrishnan and Thomas Steitz and Israel's Ada Yonath — the first woman to receive it since 1964 — for creating detailed blueprints of ribosomes, the protein-making machinery within cells, research that's being used to develop new antibiotics.

_ Nobel Prize in literature to Germany's Herta Mueller, a Romanian-born writer honored for work that "with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed."

_ Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." The Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision drew praise, derision and plenty of puzzlement.

_ The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to Americans Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson for their work in economic governance. Ostrom was the first woman to win the prize since it was founded in 1968, and the fifth woman to win a Nobel award this year — a Nobel record.

DeanMc

Oct 12th, 2009, 08:05 AM

Amen. In addition to Ahern and Blair, I'd also cite John Major for being willing to at least start talking again after Maggie had created such a huge divide in the 80s

I agree, John was the first alright. Its such a shame that Ahern left over a scandal and Blair never found those bombs. It must be a nightmare to have such a lifes work marred!

Valleysboy1978

Oct 12th, 2009, 08:27 AM

Indeed so, but then that is the way politics works. They are never remembered for all they achieved, only the scandals

FunkyDexter

Oct 12th, 2009, 10:10 AM

only the scandals In Major's case, the fact that he liked a good curry;)

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 12th, 2009, 10:23 AM

Not that many of our American friends will get that reference, but a good Curry! are you sure you meant a good curry ??? and not a bloody awful curry :D

DeanMc

Oct 12th, 2009, 10:24 AM

dadumdumtish

abhijit

Oct 12th, 2009, 10:46 AM

In Major's case, the fact that he liked a good curry;)

Are you referring to food or the Minister? :confused:

DeanMc

Oct 12th, 2009, 12:00 PM

The food of course!

nemaroller

Oct 12th, 2009, 02:01 PM

Totally undeserved.

Gorbachev was integral in ending a 40-year running cold war between two nuclear superpowers, and Obama goes to work 2 weeks and wins a peace prize for refocusing war efforts to Afghanistan? This just solidifies how bought and sold the Nobel peace prize is.

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 13th, 2009, 04:44 AM

What funny about this peace prize award is that it was awarded to an American and the only people complaining about it are Americans !

There was a new report on the other day where they were in various middle eastern countries and people were all fairly happy with the award going to Obama.

It seems your President is more liked and appreciated abroad then at home !

Valleysboy1978

Oct 13th, 2009, 09:06 AM

In Major's case, the fact that he liked a good curry;)Baaaaaahahahaha, nice one!
Gotta be said though...
eeeewwwwwwww:lol:

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 13th, 2009, 09:09 AM

Clinton must be reeling at this after bringing peace to Ireland (after years of bitter wars) yet Obama gets it this soon into his presidency??

Clinton did get a piece prize.

Or maybe I got those words mixed up. In any case, you'd probably have to be drunk to get that (or at least to agree with it), and I'm not.

If the rest of the world sees the very fact of the Obama election as being a major turn in the right direction for the country that can make or break the world financially and militarily, well, I tend to agree with that.

HanneSThEGreaT

Oct 13th, 2009, 09:12 AM

To be honest, I think Morgan Tsvangirai deserved the prize much more than Barrack Obama.

I usually don't get involved with politics, but comparing these 2 on what the have done Should've been taken into consideration.

nemaroller

Oct 13th, 2009, 10:04 AM

Clinton did get a piece prize.
If the rest of the world sees the very fact of the Obama election as being a major turn in the right direction for the country that can make or break the world financially and militarily, well, I tend to agree with that.

Oh hold up... you are in the US so you should be more aware of what is actually going on.

Barack is waging a war in Afghanistan (same as Bush).

Barack has agreed with spying on US communications. (same as Bush)
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit

Barack has kept open Guantanamo Bay (same as Bush). He blames Congress, but his own party is in majority power, so they are dragging their heels on purpose.

Barack has paid harsh words to Iran but conducted no military action (same as Bush).

Barack supported the bank bailout, and the auto bailout. (same as Bush).

So outside of the appearance of being more diplomatic to some foreign leaders, nothing has changed.

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 13th, 2009, 11:02 AM

Oh hold up... you are in the US so you should be more aware of what is actually going on.

Barack is waging a war in Afghanistan (same as Bush).

Mainly because he has no choice, now that they are there, pulling out without enabling the Afghan government to have the power to rule & not succumb to the Taliban would not be a good thing to do.

Barack has agreed with spying on US communications. (same as Bush)
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...bama-sides-wit

If that's the case then it's a pity as that legislation should never have been law in the first place.

Barack has kept open Guantanamo Bay (same as Bush). He blames Congress, but his own party is in majority power, so they are dragging their heels on purpose.

Actually the main problem here is what do they do with the prisoners after they close the place down. And to say that its just the Democrats dragging there heels is a bit of a simplistic view of this one. Obama would close it if he could but various legal & political issues have arisen which they have to deal with first. Saying that hopefully it will be closed soon though.

Barack has paid harsh words to Iran but conducted no military action (same as Bush).

Now that's rubbish Obama's position is completely different, Obama has actually come out and tried to talk to Iran, offered them talks with out pre-requisites (which Bush wouldn't do) and also has got Russia on his side and China Abstaining in the International negotiations so that they can actually carry out more sanctions on Iran (again something Bush never managed as Russia always Vetoed)

I actually think the most positive thing he has done internationality are his dealings with Iran. If you think that going to War is the answer your wrong it would be disastrous. Hopefully with Russia & the US an the same page on this they can actually sort out the Iran issue.

Barack supported the bank bailout, and the auto bailout. (same as Bush).

Again i don't see what the issue is here, he didn't exactly have much choice, events were already in motion. what you have prefer that he let the bank go to the wall ?

So outside of the appearance of being more diplomatic to some foreign leaders, nothing has changed.

Give the guy a chance, is it because some people seem to think he is some sort of saviour that you dislike him ?

I can understand being sceptical he has really done much yet, but he has been in office barely a year. Bush had 8 years to mess everything up !!!

The reason the rest of the world likes him so much is you inflicted George 'W' Bush on us all for 8 long years and basically he is not Bush !!!!

nemaroller

Oct 13th, 2009, 12:03 PM

I was going to respond to your answers in turn, but the only point you disagreed with was his position on Iran. There isn't a big difference between Bush's policy and Barack's policy when it comes to Iran. The issue is still the same - and the resolution so far has been the same. Barack has done nothing but repeat the same demands Bush made.

Give the guy a chance, is it because some people seem to think he is some sort of saviour that you dislike him ?

I can understand being sceptical he has really done much yet, but he has been in office barely a year. Bush had 8 years to mess everything up !!!

The reason the rest of the world likes him so much is you inflicted George 'W' Bush on us all for 8 long years and basically he is not Bush !!!!

I voted for Gore, so I didn't inflict Bush upon you. I thought he was an incompetent speaker during the New Hampshire primaries - long before anyone paid attention to him.

However, before 9/11, all Bush did was pass some tax break legislation and then went on vacation. Bush's approval rating was average for any president - and skyrocketed past 80% after 9/11.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/bush/legacy/timeline/

I can see that media reports have shaped your view of his presidency, and as you pointed out, Barack has done nothing notable as of yet.

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 13th, 2009, 03:39 PM

Oh hold up... you are in the US so you should be more aware of what is actually going on.

I do live in the US, and am aware of what is going on. Interesting that I see it so differently.

Barack is waging a war in Afghanistan (same as Bush).

Not the same as Bush. Bush STARTED a war in Afghanistan that Obama has inherited. Does anybody seriously think that an abrupt withdrawal is in anyway beneficial to anybody other than the Taliban?

Barack has agreed with spying on US communications. (same as Bush)
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit

I doubt Sweden cares much, but I do. Once again, Bush instituted, and Obama inherited. Having said that, I seriously dislike Obama's position on this, as I disliked the Bush position. However, it is a VERY rare president who reduces any powers that were in place when they were elected. I'm not sure that it has ever happened, and that is not a good thing.

Barack has kept open Guantanamo Bay (same as Bush). He blames Congress, but his own party is in majority power, so they are dragging their heels on purpose.

Once again, Bush creates, Obama inherits. What alternative does he actually have? Congress is acting to forbid moving any of the inmates into the US, while Obama had to bribe a country to take some clearly innocent inmates (whom I can't spell, but you probably know who I'm talking about). We won't allow them into the US to try them, but nobody else will take them. It's a heck of a spot to be in.

As for Congress being controlled by Obama's party....well, that's technically true, as Obama is a Democrat and Congress is nominally controlled by Democrats, but that's about as far as it goes. The Dems won't vote as a block, so the majority mostly matters in being able to control the flow of debate, not the outcome.

Barack has paid harsh words to Iran but conducted no military action (same as Bush).

Bush was like a golfer with a full bag of clubs who always chose to use the pitching wedge, whether on the tee, in a trap, or on the green. Time after time he went for the stick when a carrot would have suited better. This can be seen in his loss of the senate in his first term, his treatment of North Korea (who are annoying gits, but they KNOW that the stick is nothing more than a bluff, so it gains nothing), and on and on. The difference with Obama is that he has made it clear that he is offering both the stick and the carrot, and doing so openly. That approach has a chance of working. Might fail, too.

Barack supported the bank bailout, and the auto bailout. (same as Bush).

So? Does that have anything to do with the Peace Prize, or are you just looking for similarities? If it is the latter, you might also mention that they are both educated, tall, and male. As for the bailouts, there were some details I disagreed with, but I generally agreed that something had to be done by both of them.

So outside of the appearance of being more diplomatic to some foreign leaders, nothing has changed.

The willingness to consider all possible tools is a welcome change.

tome10

Oct 13th, 2009, 09:01 PM

Reagan: If freeing the whole Eastern Block is not Worthy. I don't know what is, and as a result of Spineless ' in the world we will never know peace.
Bush: If freeing millions from an Evil Dictator, "the type not seen since Hitler", Spreading Democracy to the Middle East, and freeing Women Oppression in Afghanistan is not Worthy. I don't know what is, and as a result of Spineless ' in the world we will never know peace.
Peace is not the Absence of Conflict, but the Presence of Justice.
Whoever that was that posted that the Israilis took the land from the Palestinians is a complete '.

What funny about this peace prize award is that it was awarded to an American and the only people complaining about it are Americans !

There was a new report on the other day where they were in various middle eastern countries and people were all fairly happy with the award going to Obama.

It seems your President is more liked and appreciated abroad then at home !

We like our Awards, and Country to mean something to be Valid Not Demeaned or Destroyed. To stand for something and we don't give a ' about what the ' think. This man is an Embarrassement to Harvard and the US.

Valleysboy1978

Oct 14th, 2009, 05:55 AM

I wonder if the Iraqi people who have lost relatives due to Bush's actions would agree with you? I seriously doubt it. I hope Bush goes down as the true incompetent that he really is.

I for one don't agree Obama should have got the Peace Prize as he has, as of yet, not achieved any lasting peace. However that said I would agree that he is making good progress towards it.

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 14th, 2009, 06:49 AM

I can see that media reports have shaped your view of his presidency, and as you pointed out, Barack has done nothing notable as of yet.

No Media reports have had nothing to do with how i view Bush's presidency.

As a non-US citizen i would say the biggest issue with Bush is how he treated the rest of the world politically with contempt.

Obama has come in an actually tried to Engage with the rest of the world, and include them in negotiations.

Bush told people what he was going to do and you were either with him or against him, at times he seemed deliberately antagonistic.

What i was trying to do with my response is be balanced, Obama is not some Saviour as some people seem to believe but i agree with Shaggy, he has inherited a large number of issues from Bush, we need to give the guy more time before we judge him on his record.

I don't get those that automatically hate or dislike Obama any more than those who worship the guy.

tome10

Oct 14th, 2009, 10:53 AM

I wonder if the Iraqi people who have lost relatives due to Bush's actions would agree with you? I seriously doubt it. I hope Bush goes down as the true incompetent that he really is.

And the relatives of the Millions buried in Mass graves? I ask your take on how they feel since you are so astute and in touch with the Iraqi Psyche.
Since we are peering into the Psyches of others I will make an observation of the Liberal Mind. It is only the casualties of a conflict that Brings Justice that is scorned. The Casualties of truly Evil people who ordain the absence of justice is left to their ways with not a bat of an Eye from the Liberal and therefore is his Enabler. That is the reason we will never have peace without real men who believe in the presence of Justice. Reagan-Thatcher, Bush-Blair.

As a non-US citizen i would say the biggest issue with Bush is how he treated the rest of the world politically with contempt.

More like how a Man treats a Child. Grow up the world is dangerous and you enablers aren't helping.

System_Error

Oct 14th, 2009, 12:11 PM

I didn't realize you could win a Nobel Peace Prize for wishful thinking. Maybe Carter, Gore, and Arafat will throw down their Peace Prize in protest.

Seriously, this is even funnier than Bush jokes.

DeanMc

Oct 14th, 2009, 12:45 PM

I didn't realize you could win a Nobel Peace Prize for wishful thinking. Maybe Carter, Gore, and Arafat will throw down their Peace Prize in protest.

Seriously, this is even funnier than Bush jokes.

Buuuuuuuuuurn!!!

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 14th, 2009, 04:59 PM

And the relatives of the Millions buried in Mass graves? I ask your take on how they feel since you are so astute and in touch with the Iraqi Psyche.

I think you are confusing regimes. Saddam killed thousands (not counting the war with Iran), not millions. He's not the worst dictator since Hitler unless you are wanting to start a war with him. The Khmer Rouge were FAR worse, and even as we were attacking Iraq we were coddling a dictator who was as bad as Saddam. We needed the air base there for the Afghan war, so we demonized Saddam while turning a blind eye on a dictator who was jailing and killing his own people by the thousands. Of course, we turned a blind eye on Saddam when he was gassing his own people, too, because we needed him for other things.

It's situational rather than absolute, and it always has been.

Since we are peering into the Psyches of others I will make an observation of the Liberal Mind. It is only the casualties of a conflict that Brings Justice that is scorned. The Casualties of truly Evil people who ordain the absence of justice is left to their ways with not a bat of an Eye from the Liberal and therefore is his Enabler.

Nice rant. Totally disproved by even a casual reading of history, but a nice rant.

tome10

Oct 14th, 2009, 06:42 PM

Nice rant. Totally disproved by even a casual reading of history, but a nice rant.

A Total Nice Rant and Totally Confirmed by History.
Althought I admit Liberal in the literal sense meaning Liberty may at some time in the past actually meant something, but like this peace prize has been demeaned by something. By what I am not totally sure. A lack of Courage? What causes the Liberals today put their faith in Dictators? To have the Gall to say Iraq was better off with Saddam still in Power? To casually dismiss the Mass Graves as saying there were not that many? How many is enough to count? Even though I totally dismiss your thousands number.
To be so quick to point to a map and say this guy over here was far worse than Saddam. Ohh look over here this guy over here is really bad. Like you would approve of removing any dictator. Disgusting. All this time Our liberals saying we shouldn't be in Iraq we should be concentrating on Afghanistan. Now the liberals are in Power and what do they want to do? Haha Leave. They never meant that. What a disgusting bunch.
Look at a Map of the Middle East, and you will find Iraq is in the Middle of everything. A real Liberator would say what would happen if a Thriving Flourishing Democracy was right there in the middle of this map.

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 14th, 2009, 09:11 PM

The reason that I pointed out that Saddam hadn't killed the millions that you mentioned was that you had stated that he was the worst dictator since Hitler. He wasn't. There have been others who were far worse than him. Simple enough.

You dispute the thousands? Why? I suppose that your argument would be correct if he had killed sufficient numbers of millions, but I don't think he killed that many even if you include the Iran war dead, which would be a strange addition to the sum.

Do liberals put their faith in dictators? Reagan was in charge when we were assisting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. That was also the time when he was using gas against his own people. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn't know what kind of a man he was? That seems unlikely, but perhaps you have some evidence.

Bush was in charge when we turned a blind eye to that other country (it is one of the 'stans, and I forget which. Fortunately, on this forum, most people probably know which one, and can probably even spell it, which is one of the nice things here) when we needed to stage air strikes out of there. So he was REALLY putting his faith in a dictator.

Some Democrats have done the same, but what liberals? I think you'd have to step back a few decades for that to the time when the far left was supporting folks like Mao.

When Saddam was in power, Iraq was a reasonably stabel, educated, secular society. Some groups (most notably the Kurds) were not well off at all, and have clearly gained. Other groups have suffered considerably. The largest losers would be the Sunnis, who are more numerous than the Kurds, but less numerous than the Shiites. They had power, since Saddam was Sunni. The Shiites have gained some and lost some, but they have primarily gained. The country as a whole has suffered, as they have lost their wealth, lost their educated segment (there was a mass exodus of the educated during the times when they were being killed), and lost their infrastructure. That's a mixed bag. However, I feel that WE are worse off, as we have replaced a secular sunni country with a theistic shiite country located on the border of Iran. If it is stable, it is unlikely to be friendly towards us once they can afford not to be. If it is unstable, we will probably end up with somebody as bad as Saddam, but only after considerable bloodshed. If we have gained a thing for our expense, I don't see it.

Look at a Map of the Middle East, and you will find Iraq is in the Middle of everything. A real Liberator would say what would happen if a Thriving Flourishing Democracy was right there in the middle of this map.

Now THAT's an interesting statement. Are you aware that this was the neocon credo since the end of gulf war I, or did you come up with it on your own? It's the one thing that I have always applauded the neocons for. It proved to be myopic and poorly implemented, but it was a long term vision, which is not all that common in politics. If there was a Thriving Flourishing Democracy, that could really impact the whole area. Of course, there IS a Thriving Flourishing Democracy right next door to it (Iran is a democracy and more highly educated than most of its neighbors), but that democracy happens to oppose us, so you left out the pro-America part, but otherwise it is sound. Unfortunately, the Shiites and Sunni get along with each other as well as Catholics and Protestants did when they were in that state. By "state", mean the situation of the people. As long as people self-identify more strongly with their faction than they do with the state, conflict arises. Even the USA killed and persecuted catholics in the early decades (which led to the non-establishment clause in the Constitution). Once people self identify more strongly with the state than with a faction within the state, then the civil strife dies down (there are ALWAYS fanatics). The neocons mistakenly believed that secular, educated, Iraq would self-identify with the country, when, in fact, they identified with the religious faction.

I'll pass over the comments about afghanistan. Though dripping with a feined contempt, you project a simplistic outcome that lacks dimension.

tome10

Oct 14th, 2009, 11:23 PM

I'm sorry who's been worse than Saddam? And what did the Dictator/Despit Laden UN do about it?
Over 5 Million have been estimated in the Mass Graves. But the number isn't the point unless you are attempting to demean the arguement through Liberal Relativism. A stark contrast of counting every fallen American Soldier with Bated Breath to try to ensure our failure.
Reagan did put his faith in Saddam. No thanks to that iddiott Carter for not supporting the Shaw. So again an iddiot Liberal messes up History and we're still suffering the consequences.

So Iran is a Democracy huh? That was a really stupid statement.

Some Stan country? I vaguely remember Something with the Russians? So what are you saying? You want us to meddle some places? But not others? And the Not others are the ones with the Mass Graves? This is like Hearding Cats. What did your Dictator Friends in the UN do in this situation? I'm sure they were helpful.

When Saddam was in power, Iraq was a reasonably stabel, educated, secular society. Some groups (most notably the Kurds) were not well off at all, and have clearly gained. Other groups have suffered considerably. The largest losers would be the Sunnis, who are more numerous than the Kurds, but less numerous than the Shiites. They had power, since Saddam was Sunni. The Shiites have gained some and lost some, but they have primarily gained. The country as a whole has suffered, as they have lost their wealth, lost their educated segment (there was a mass exodus of the educated during the times when they were being killed), and lost their infrastructure. That's a mixed bag. However, I feel that WE are worse off, as we have replaced a secular sunni country with a theistic shiite country located on the border of Iran. If it is stable, it is unlikely to be friendly towards us once they can afford not to be. If it is unstable, we will probably end up with somebody as bad as Saddam, but only after considerable bloodshed. If we have gained a thing for our expense, I don't see it.

What is this? Wishy washy I seem to know enough to throw their names around these people were alright, these over here not so much Secular Society Saddam was alright. Some had wealth some didn't. I'm afraid of the Future. When they get their wealth back they may not like us. Geeesssss...
Because you Liberals are such morons that you couldn't stand strong and not Politicise the war. You linguini spined '. You have blood on your hands.
But unlike you I have Faith in Free People to make better choices than Evil Dictators. Ohh yes, I saw all the Purple Fingers Because I watch Fox news. They just had elections not too long ago. I have Faith. Freedom took a huge hit due to all the Politicising you guys did. The Evil People are feeling spry thanks to you guys. Stark Contrast compared to the day we pulled Saddam out of that Hole. Caddaffi said here ya go I was working on this nuclear thing, but I'm afraid Bush will come after me so here ya go. Seria: Scared """"... Iran:Trembling. Lady Liberty was banging on that Bell!! Freedom was on the March!!! And you guys and your Politicising disgust me!!! What? We can't have an evil Dictator Disposed of? I mean who would the UN consist of if no Iddiot Dictators? What the heck is this? The Matrix, and we have to have a certain amount of Suffering?
This last Paragraph another long Bloviating all over the Place Statement. But I have a Cat i'm pretty good at hearding.
Neocon, Poorly implemented. Yea because Progress in Interrupted by Iddiot Liberals who think if we just talk it out we can all go to disney land together.
Iran is not a Democracy it is ran by the Mullahs. You know the Men behind the Curtain. The ones that determine which Puppet is going to win the election this time. I saw a lot of Iranians demonstrating and getting Killed by that Democracy Begging Lady Liberty to shine her light on them. To at least acknowledge their pleas for Freedom. There was Crickets Chirping in the White House. Not a Peep. Meddling in Israels affairs of settlement expansion. Crying Foul when a south american country disposed of a wanttobe Chaves. They could not Meddle with Iran and people crying for Freedom.
Establishment Clause? Catholic Persicution? Another Blame America Liberal Relativism for her Past Transgressions to demean and set we are no better than the Dictators yea yea I get it. We're the Evil ones.
Establishment Clause was because of King George declaring himself the Church, and all the Colonies were basically different Sects of Christianity. Masons+Catholics?

Though dripping with a feined contempt, you project a simplistic outcome that lacks dimension.

Liberals are Contemptable.

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 15th, 2009, 05:04 AM

More like how a Man treats a Child. Grow up the world is dangerous and you enablers aren't helping.

That's the biggest load of crap, the world is dangerous if you make enemies of everybody in it, which is what Bush certainly went some way towards.

I'm sorry who's been worse than Saddam?

What you would like us to name some, right here you go !

Slobodan Milosovic - former Yugoslavia
Kim Jong Il - North Korea
Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Omar al-Bashir - Sudan
Than Shwe - Burma (Myanmar)

5 Dictators right of the bat that are as bad or worse then Saddam, so why are we not invading them and sorting them out (apart from Milosovic which us lot in Europe did eventually sort out) !!!

I can guarantee you have no answer to that !!!!

Iraq was invaded because of Oil and convenience nothing more, none of this altruist crap about wanting to liberate the Iraqi people

It is also quite obvious from your post that you have absolutely no idea about the rest of the world and how it functions, if you think that just getting rid of Saddam will Fix Iraq then you show a clear lack of understanding of the Politics & religion involved in the middle east what so ever.

The fact that you have this fixation with calling anyone who has a more sensible opinion than your self a liberal is really quite funny, it is clear to me that you try and hide your ignorance of what is actually going on behind insults and basically just talking crap.

It would be also very nice if you could learn to structure a sentence to make your posts readable and resemble english.

I watch Fox news

This explains everything !!

Valleysboy1978

Oct 15th, 2009, 09:09 AM

Well said mate :thumb:

tome10

Oct 15th, 2009, 10:32 AM

Slobodan Milosovic - former Yugoslavia
Kim Jong Il - North Korea
Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Omar al-Bashir - Sudan
Than Shwe - Burma (Myanmar)
And your Dictator Buddies at the UN? What have they done to aleviate these issues?
[QUOTE]
It would be also very nice if you could learn to structure a sentence to make your posts readable and resemble english.

Howabout sticking to the Issues instead of Trying to demean the Message?
Cause you have nothing. You may be able to structure sentences but jibberish is jubberish no matter how well structured.

I watch Fox news
This explains everything !!

What does it explain? That I choose to get my Information from non approved sources? In a free country there are Approved Sources and Non Approved? Cause the Journalists at Fox actually do their Job? You would fit right in down in Venezuala with the Gov controlled media. Are you a Proud Communist? Or still in the Closet?

Well said mate

An Aussie of all people to condone the Enablers of Dictators and say America is the Problem not the Solution. What a sad time in History it is.

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 15th, 2009, 11:33 AM

And your Dictator Buddies at the UN? What have they done to aleviate these issues?

Dictator buddies ?? have you any idea what the UN does and who is part of the UN ?

Also what has that got to do with anything ? you were the one saying that Saddam was the worst Dictator since Hitler, i have given you a list of 5 others at the very least equally as bad and most probably worse, so why invade iraq and not Sudan, Burma or North Korea ? you tell me !!!

How about sticking to the Issues instead of Trying to demean the Message?

Ok i will stick to this issues, will you ? will you actually reply to my points ?

What does it explain?

Well that fact that you watch Fox News and seem to be a Fan says a lot actually. It has nothing to do with approved or non-approved sources, just your choice of news says a lot about you, particularly if you take any and i mean any single news provider as the truth and ignore other sources.

Are you a Proud Communist? Or still in the Closet?

again i refer to my previous comment, just because i don't agree with you i am apparently a communist. Do you accuse everyone who holds a world view that doesn't require us to be at war with most of the rest of the world a communist ?

An Aussie of all people

Erm he's Welsh actually but i suppose you wouldn't get the Vallysboy reference.

You seem to be of the view that unless someone is in favour of going to war on Dictators they are communists or whatever other derogatory term you wish to use, and yet their have been dictators around for centuries.

Generally unless they are committing genocide or start to go to war with there neighbours the rest of the world rightly or wrongly tends to leave them alone.

Shaggy made the point earlier that in fact the US has supported a number of Dictators in the past when it has been in there interests in fact during the Iraq / Iran War the US provided Saddam with weapons & funds so that he could defeat Iran, your government has also funded other dictators including Gaddafi which is a bit hipocritical when you then decided that actually maybe we shouldnt have given them all that money after all and instead lets invade them and remove them.

I would most definitely prefer to live in a world without any dictators, but am old enough to have seen the mess we often make of invading countries and trying to enforce our democracy on them.

In Africa for instance where the British tried to bring democracy to a number of countries and take them out of there tribal system we tried to implement the idea of a ruling party and of the opposition, but one of the problems with this is that at the time the word and concept for opposition in many of these African countries was the same as Enemy. So whoever got in power would just try and kill the opposition / enemy.

This was just 1 example of the unintended consequence of our actions of interfering in countries that we don't understand.

The world is a very big and complex place often it takes more than the sledge hammer approach to fix major issues like Iraq.

Maybe if you listened a little more to other points of view instead of declaring us all communists

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 15th, 2009, 12:06 PM

[QUOTE]
You may be able to structure sentences but jibberish is jubberish no matter how well structured.

I've gotta preserve that line, it is TOO classic.

I would list the Pol Pot regime above any of the groups previously mentioned. Whether they were technically the worst is a bit hard to say. Burma might be in the running, as well. The 'stan I mentioned was Uzbekistan, and it really doesn't appear to match up in body count to the genocidal regimes listed, but is still probably worse than Iraq was. When we needed a base, though, we gave them a bundle of cash and turned a blind eye to the human rights abuses. After sufficient pressure from human rights organizations, the US offered a mild rebuke, and were summarily thrown out by the Uzbekistan government. We didn't invade, and the dictator is still in power, though we did make him slightly richer.

I have no problem with thwaping dictators. My objection is that the US ONLY thwaps dictators when they are A) Powerless, B) Unnecessary, and C) Posess something that we want. Political expediency has caused some horrific crimes at national, regional, and local levels in pretty much every part of the world. Still, political expediency, does have its purposes, and I don't object to it per se. What I object to is lying about it. We didn't go into Iraq as part of a noble crusade against dictators, we went there because some people in the leadership felt we had a long term strategic reason to do so.

zaza

Oct 15th, 2009, 03:17 PM

I'm not sure that trying to come up with a Top 10 of Evil Regimes is necessarily productive. They've all done some pretty terrible things, and nobody's even mentioned Idi Amin, Hastings Banda, the guys in Rwanda... For more lasting effects than simply murder, look at apartheid-era South Africa or the Israelis. Nobody's blameless, and we're complicit in many of the atrocities that go on about the place.

We in the West tend to adopt first the tactic of bribery (if you seriously think Gadaffi was "terrified", you must be out of your mind. He knew the US couldn't get involved in another war on another continent, and he seized the opportunity to extract the maximum price for cooperation) and then the threats. We rarely try the dialogue; we tend to leave that to the UN, and then only because the Russians and the Chinese always do the opposite to the West as a matter of principle so there isn't a lot of choice.

But ultimately, the argument proposed by the likes of tome10 boils down to one question; what gives the US or anybody else the right to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation? That is warmongering pure and simple, no matter how you put it, and the flimsy evidence tossed in the air to persuade a sceptical public that it was all about self-defence just hasn't washed. I don't like the necessary politicking that goes on at the UN any more than the next man, particularly when nations such as Russia and China use poorer nations as bargaining chips to extract concessions in return for their abstention on the vote. But without the agreement of the international community as a whole, arbitrary action is simply dictatorship in another guise. After all, wasn't World War II about Lebensraum from a certain perspective? Defending a particular way of life. etc.

The only alternative is to act as the world's policeman all of the time, and I suspect that fewer people would have a problem with that if the policeman was even-handed and seen to dispense justice even when at its own detriment. But of course, that's never able to happen while politicians, who are accountable solely to their electorate, are in charge, and certainly not if they run the Policeman.

tome10

Oct 15th, 2009, 06:24 PM

You guys are just too long winded for me. I've said my peace. I will close with this.
But ultimately, the argument proposed by the likes of tome10 boils down to one question; what gives the US or anybody else the right to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation?
Unlike this Bubblegum Machine worthy Nobel Prize we actually care if the UN gets Demeaned.
I am tired of the US being the Worlds Police trying to keep the UN Honest it is exhausting to see the rest of the civilized world allow Seria to be in the Human rights Council or all the other Aholes running around in those Hallways. I wish you guys would wake up kick all dictators out of the UN and let the Organization Live up to the Charter it was founded for. We don't want to act unilaterally, but when you enablers send wishy washy bloveating Liberals to the UN it gets Corrupt and Impotent. Then you cry foul when we do act unilaterally. What am I to say to that other than Iddiotts?

This is my rebuttal to a lot of the Bloveating reasons we went to war with Saddam since you guys all agree he was not that bad. The UN had 17 Resolutions to Disarm and whatever. All not just the US all Intelligence agencies thought he had WMD and the mere fact we had 2 buildings down 3000 Americans killed. Our Constitution that Bush swore an oath to Defend from all Enemies Foreign and Domestic. That ' was not going to be in power or live long enough to pass anything off to anyone. I know you Liberals would have Cried Foul if he hadn't went to war with someone. I remember all the Dems Bloveating leading up to the war, and then in the Middle of it Change sides. Disgusting! Aholes!
As far as not having any wmd I've heard reports of trucks escorted by Russian Diplomats and others of aircraft heading to Seria. Nobody lied to you iddiots. That's just you enablers Politicizing the War. Why did you never Mention the 17 resolutions? Because it didn't fit your Bash Bush mentality. That's the same crap our media pulls that's why Fox dominates. As far as it was for the Oil. Where is it? Last I checked I don't have any Barrels in my Back Yard, and it's kinda Expensive at the Pump. That's another Liberal Lie. If Bush Lied about anything it was that Iraq's Oil was going to Pay for the War. Iraq is Selling it and we are still footing the Bill for Rebuilding.
Frankly I don't have to Justify the war. He was a bad man and needed to go. Good Riddance, and you guys Crying Foul is absolutely Insane.
That's why I think it is Laughable you putting that List of other Dictators who you believe is Worse. Your such an Iddiott to even Spam my Rants with that Tripe. Like I said in my first Post. "Like you guys would approve of any Dictator being Removed".
Warmongering? There's already going to be a backlash due to another Carter in the Whithouse. These Liberals are proving to be a Insane Lot and honestly I think we are Waking up. I pity the fool who hits us again. We are Sick of Obama running around Apoligizing for us. He was not elected to Apologize for anything. I'm sorry that's just the way it is.
You want me to Apologize for Bush getting Rid of Saddam? Not a chance in '.
I asked if you were a Communist, because it seemed you were suggesting there is an Authorized Media Source and I shouldn't be watching anything else. Only people I know that have authorized Media Sources are Communist/Dictator Regimes, and to suggest such a thing should be going on in America is Blasphemy. But it seems our Media has committed itself to the Liberal Agenda, so I choose to watch Fox as is most of the Country. I find it disturbing that you would suggest me watch anyone other than Fox, as the others have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and Dishonest. So you sir may need to find other Sources. May I suggest a few Books as well? I'm sorry, you Liberals controlling the Media is Over.

Ok i will stick to this issues, will you ? will you actually reply to my points ?

What points? You seem stuck on the Dictator list. As I said in my first Post and other times. "Like you would approve of Removing any Dictator. This Liberal Tactic of pointing to other Dictators on a Map and say he was worse, look over here he was worse. We should have Invaded this guy. Freakin Rediculous. Who else did the UN have 17 Resolutions to disarm? Who else was giving 25,000 bucks to Suicide Bombers Families? Who else had Ties to Alqaeda? Don't you freakin Dare say he didn't! Yea Yea I know he was such a Beloved Citized of the World Community. Gags. Rediculous! Your Rediculous!

Dictator buddies ?? have you any idea what the UN does and who is part of the UN ?

Yes, do you? Moron. A bunch of Corrupt Liberals responsible for the Oil for Food Scandal that only Fox reported on, an Incompetent Disarmament of Saddam, numerous other Scandals that only Fox or Nobody Reports. A bunch of US/Israil Bashing by Liberal/Marxist/Communist/Dictator Aholes. How is that for a sum? Why do you insist on asking such stupid questions? I'm not the one who thought Iran was a Democracy. Remember? Or that Catholic Persecution was responsible for the Establishment Clause. Seems you should stop worrying about Structure and More on Substance.

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 15th, 2009, 09:38 PM

Banda

Banda? Ai! Run!

And with that, I believe I have just made the most obscure pun in the history of VBForums.

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 15th, 2009, 10:12 PM

You guys are just too long winded for me.

We sure are, but you joined us with this post, which is kind of cool.

I've said my peace.

Anything but;)

... the UN and let the Organization Live up to the Charter it was founded for.

It never will. The idea that it could enforce peace seems a little quaint. It was started as the cold war began, and was used as a means for the US and the USSR to talk...indirectly. It actually did serve as a means of arranging peace after the Six Days War and the Yom Kippur War, but once again it was mostly a means because it gave the US and USSR a platform to achieve their internal interests (supporting clients, in each case) without appearing to collaborate.

This is my rebuttal to a lot of the Bloveating reasons we went to war with Saddam since you guys all agree he was not that bad.

Actually, we all agreed that he was bad, but technically you are correct, as we were agreeing that he was not as bad as the bar you set as "the worst dictator since Hitler".

All not just the US all Intelligence agencies thought he had WMD and the mere fact we had 2 buildings down 3000 Americans killed. Our Constitution that Bush swore an oath to Defend from all Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

How many Iraqis were involved in the 2 buildings down and 3000 Americans killed? Zero. How was Iraq involved with 9/11? It wasn't. Bush stated that there was no link. So who supplied most of the terrorists? Saudi Arabia. Did we attack them? Not a chance!!

As far as not having any wmd I've heard reports of trucks escorted by Russian Diplomats and others of aircraft heading to Seria.

Actually, according to our own WMD specialists, Iraq lacked the technology to stabilize WMD, which meant that the chemical agents they used would have gone inert around 1997 at the latest. One of the lead inspectors from Lawrence-Livermore discussed that point in a talk at the City Club of Cleveland. He stated that only a small set of countries (the leading beligerents in WWII, basically) had the technology to keep weapons grade chemicals stable.

Nobody lied to you iddiots.

Actually, it's both heavily and exhaustively documented, and should come as no surprise. Every wartime president (and probably every other president) has lied to the public at times. 'Honest' Abe has many, well documented, lies.

Why did you never Mention the 17 resolutions?

Yup, we hate the UN, but they passed 17 resolutions and we HAVE to act on them. Of course, we don't act on any resolutions they pass that we don't actually approve of.

As far as it was for the Oil. Where is it? Last I checked I don't have any Barrels in my Back Yard, and it's kinda Expensive at the Pump.

Yeah, and it was such an effective, efficient, war, with no instability afterwards, that we were able to get right in there and rebuild an infrastructure that had never really been working (oddly, Iraq has never produced much oil, as they have been involved in wars or embargoes almost continually since oil was discovered there). Oh wait, I got it wrong. The war was a fiasco that led to extensive acts of sabotage both from people looting metal fixtures for scrap, as well as attempts to disrupt anyone from pumping oil.

That's another Liberal Lie. If Bush Lied about anything it was that Iraq's Oil was going to Pay for the War. Iraq is Selling it and we are still footing the Bill for Rebuilding.

Hunh? Bush made the statement, so now it's a liberal lie?

I shouldn't be watching anything else.

You shouldn't be getting ANY news from the TV. They all suck royally.

Who else had Ties to Alqaeda? Don't you freakin Dare say he didn't!

Bush said he didn't. If you won't believe us, will you believe him?

I'm not the one who thought Iran was a Democracy. Remember? Or that Catholic Persecution was responsible for the Establishment Clause. Seems you should stop worrying about Structure and More on Substance.

That's true, you didn't say it, I did. I have no idea what you mean by the last sentence there. You started getting a bit incoherent, but what's this about? Were you unaware of the anti-catholic activities in the early days of the US? The hangings, persecutions, and what not? There were anti- groups against a few protestant groups, as well, and these things led to the anti establishment clause being added to the Bill of Rights. How is that not substance? On the other hand, how is that structure? I guess it does add value;)

Aside from the pun, do you object to Iran being called a democracy because they elect their representatives? Technically, they are no more a democracy than the US is, as a true democracy would not have representatives, but that's unworkable above a village level.

tome10

Oct 16th, 2009, 12:01 AM

How many Iraqis were involved in the 2 buildings down and 3000 Americans killed? Zero. How was Iraq involved with 9/11? It wasn't. Bush stated that there was no link. So who supplied most of the terrorists? Saudi Arabia. Did we attack them? Not a chance!!

I'm sorry, I don't care what Bush Said there were ties found. Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time even if there weren't.
But since when do you believe our Intelligence? You guys are unbelievable. On one hand you Scorn the Intelligence, and on the other you praise it's accuracy.
Using your Logic why did we go to war with Hitler? He didn't attack us? Iraq was just a theater in the War on Terror. It was the possibility of him passing something off to Someone else. But you know that, your just being a good little Liberal.
They may have been from Saudi, but Saudi was not responsible.
I rephrase: If Bush Lied about anything, it was that Iraq's Oil was going to Pay for the War. Iraq is Selling it and we are still footing the Bill for Rebuilding.

Were you unaware of the anti-catholic activities in the early days of the US?

I was aware of strife between the Colonies on Religious beliefs. To it's extent I don't know. So I suppose if I say the Establishment Clause was due to Colonies Practicing different sects, and some Colonies were Catholic. I suppose we are both correct. I am/was unaware of actual Bloodshed, but those guys Killed people they thought were witches. So I won't put it past them. Forgive me, I forgot the Point?
We are a Democratic Republic. Iran is what? I don't know a Religious Oligarchy? I guess I'm at least a Village level. However due to Liberals subscribing to Big Government for the means of Solidifying their Power Base we are somewhere between an Oligarchy and well Oligarchy..

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 16th, 2009, 05:04 AM

What points? You seem stuck on the Dictator list

No my point was Saddam is not the worst dictator since Hitler, there are worse dictators that we leave well alone. Why do you think we went to war with Iraq but not Burma, Sudan, or any of the other world countries which have dictators ?

I'm not sure that trying to come up with a Top 10 of Evil Regimes is necessarily productive.

That wasn't my point, just that it is ridiculous to suggest that we went to war because Saddam was a Dictator or that he was any more dangerous then a number of other countries, i was asking Tome10 to explain if this was the case why are we not fighting all the other dictators out there.

All not just the US all Intelligence agencies thought he had WMD and the mere fact we had 2 buildings down 3000 Americans killed

If you cant tell the difference between why we went to war with Afghanistan and Why we went to war with Iraq then that is very sad.

To even suggest the Iraq was involved with 9/11 is just plain wrong headed. Which country did the US go to war with in the immediate aftermath ? Iraq or Afghanistan. Listening to you, you would almost think that they are the same country.

As far as it was for the Oil Where is it?

Iraq has the 3rd largest oil reserves on the world, under Saddam that oil rarely found its way into the open market, now after the war it is opening up its oil fields to foreign companies.

It wasn't about going to Iraq to take there oil that is to simplistic way of looking at it, it was about 2 things; getting the Iraqi oil on to the open market, and ensuring that American and British companies got the contracts.

I'm sorry, I don't care what Bush Said there were ties found. Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time even if there weren't.

An what kind of statement is that, "Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time" this just clearly shows your complete ignorance of the subject.

I asked if you were a Communist, because it seemed you were suggesting there is an Authorized Media Source and I shouldn't be watching anything else. Only people I know that have authorized Media Sources are Communist/Dictator Regimes, and to suggest such a thing should be going on in America is Blasphemy.

I said nothing of the sort, i disparaged your choice of news because it is 1 eyed and not particularly accurate, and suggested that you might get a more balanced picture of the world if you looked past 1 news source.

I in no way implied that there was authorised/unauthorised news just that your choice of news wasn't particularly good. It was a critical comment nothing more.

What the hell has blasphemy got to do with it ?

Using your Logic why did we go to war with Hitler?

Well because he started invading all his neighbouring countries mainly, even then America did not get involved in world war 2 until 2 or 3 years later after the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese (Japan were allied with Germany in WWII in case you were unaware), until that point America had been officially neutral.

To say America went to war with Hitler's Germany because he was a dictator again is just plain rubbish, they got involved after America was directly attacked.

Big Government for the means of Solidifying their Power Base we are somewhere between an Oligarchy and well Oligarchy

Do you know what an Oligarchy Is ?

nemaroller

Oct 16th, 2009, 09:32 AM

tome10

Oct 16th, 2009, 09:53 AM

I've said my peace.
Anything but

Peace through Strength. Either we have to be strong, or the UN. If you say the UN won't then I suggest no more Jimmy Carter rehashes. Then again you Liberals can't figure out which team your on and keep siding with the Enemy. Gee thanks.

It wasn't about going to Iraq to take there oil that is to simplistic way of looking at it, it was about 2 things; getting the Iraqi oil on to the open market, and ensuring that American and British companies got the contracts.

I'm sorry, I don't believe your Liberal Tripe. I have explained the Conservative point of view. It was security reasons. If the oil contracts were the case we wouldn't have waited for 17 UN resolutions. We would have just went straight in during Gulf War 1.
Maybe it was a Byproduct, but wasn't the Oil Contracts negociated by Iraqi's and didn't they go to France and someone else? So what we should get them for getting that Ahole out of there and freeing Iraq.
Your so off.... He was an Ahole making a Mockery of the UN and the world community and I'm sorry you miss him, but good riddance.

An what kind of statement is that, "Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time" this just clearly shows your complete ignorance of the subject.

It is what it is. Did you not understand the Point? If you have Two people who Hate America that Badly, it is enevetable that they will make an aliance on the simple fact that the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend. Why wait to be hit? We got hit all through the 90's as Clinton treated it as a Criminal matter to be investigated by the FBI. That didn't work. What do you Liberals want to do just let them Hit us? Just come on in and get your free attack on the US like a Dunking Booth kinda thing?

I said nothing of the sort, i disparaged your choice of news because it is 1 eyed and not particularly accurate, and suggested that you might get a more balanced picture of the world if you looked past 1 news source.

[QUOTE]I in no way implied that there was authorised/unauthorised news just that your choice of news wasn't particularly good. It was a critical comment nothing more.

I'm sorry you don't think they are accurate. They report on things the Liberal Media would hide and not report on, and that may make you Cringe being a Liberal, but Citizens of a Nation should be Informed on the Issues, and not be Lemings.

Quote:
Using your Logic why did we go to war with Hitler?

Well because he started invading all his neighbouring countries mainly, even then America did not get involved in world war 2 until 2 or 3 years later after the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese (Japan were allied with Germany in WWII in case you were unaware), until that point America had been officially neutral.
To say America went to war with Hitler's Germany because he was a dictator again is just plain rubbish, they got involved after America was directly attacked.

no no, you didn't use your Logic... Your logic dictated we go to war with Japan and Leave Hitler to whatever he was doing in Europe. After all Hitler didn't Attack us Japan did.

To say America went to war with Hitler's Germany because he was a dictator again is just plain rubbish, they got involved after America was directly attacked.

That's not what I said. I was just pointing to your logic. As explained in the last statement.

Do you know what an Oligarchy Is ?

http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/machan/machan1.html
Frankly, I'm quite tired of your smug Liberal Condescension. You are an iddiots Iddiot. You liberals Destroy everything you touch. School System is nothing more than an Indoctrination program. Your Social Engineering has all but Destroyed our Economy. And this man you guys somehow got elected is a straight up Marxist.
Surrounded by people who the FBI had to be rolling their Eyes during the Vetting Process. Who is writing the Speeches? That's the real president.. Move on? Soros? Appolo Aliance??? That Ivy leage Education has done nothing for his intelligence. Like the Ivy destroys buildings Liberalism is trying to Destroy America. This looks like Invasion of the BodySnatchers. Bunch of iddiots running around Destroying things.
As far as your Smug question Goes:

[edit] Modern democracy as Oligarchy
Main article: Iron law of oligarchy
Some authors, such as Zulma Riley, Keith Riley, Mathew Marquess, and Robert Michels, believe that any political system eventually evolves into an oligarchy. This theory is called the "Iron Law of Oligarchy". According to this school of thought, modern democracies should be considered as oligarchies. In these systems, actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an 'acceptable' and 'respectable' political position, and politicians' careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites. Thus the popular phrase: there is only one political party, the 'incumbent' party.

So the Authorized Media "Other than Fox". It's all about the Left and Far Left. If your a Moderate Conservative or just straight Conservative. You are Labeled as a Right Winger or Neocon. If your a Communist or or Straight up Marxist your labeled as a generally nice guy. I'm sorry... Wherever the media Says I should be I'm going to be way way the other direction. I'm frankly tired of you guys framing the Debate. I'm an American, and all that other stuff is UnAmerican.

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 16th, 2009, 10:09 AM

Bush is only truly hated by non-Americans. For he was the right president during 9/11. The Iraq war was a success, we captured Saddam. We removed the Taliban that was ambivalently providing cover for Bin Laden and Al Queda.

Nemaroller, I agree with pretty much every point you made. Every point could be, and perhaps has been, made by both sides. Except for this statement. Of course, it would be kind of silly to point out that every public figure is truly hated by somebody, so ignoring that, was he the right president for 9/11? He was THE president during 9/11. I seriously doubt that anybody else would have done anything that would have prevented 9/11. However, I think that many would have done better afterwards. He hit the photo ops, which his father might have been too stiff to have handled well, but ANY articulate politician would have done at least as well. Politically, W was an idiot, and even he got the statements right. Clinton would have done better, Reagan would have done better, Obama would have done better, and even Nixon might have done better, yet W did well. Some softballs are so easy to hit that NOBODY can miss them.

As for the wars, Afghanistan was botched. W stated the parameters for winning before it began. The first goal was capturing Osama. Remember W saying that he wouldn't attack Afghanistan if they would just hand over Osama? That goal failed, probably at Tora Bora, but the failure was strategic. The second goal was to catch Mullah Omar. That failed, as well. The third, if you could call it that, was to replace the Taliban with a stable government. Unfortunately, the last election showed that the person we pinned our hopes on, has turned out to be pretty bad. I think it was a good try, but it didn't work out. Our options now have been exposed as being rather unsavory.

As for Iraq, the goal was a stable, secular, democracy. Saddam had to be deposed along the way, but that was never more than the first step, and a foregone conclusion at that (the Iraqi army has never performed well against any reasonable opponent). At this point, I would say that the house of cards is standing, and we are slowly pulling our hands away watching to see if it will collapse. Any nascent democracy goes through that period where somebody challenges its right to exist (see Shays Rebellion). The answer is not yet known, except that any democratically elected government in Iraq is going to be Shiite. If it stays secular, we might be ok, but we have replaced the Sunni buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran with a Shiite government. There are so many ways that we can come to regret that. On the other hand, it may work in our favor regarding our relationship with the Saudiis.

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 16th, 2009, 10:23 AM

Obama did nothing concrete to win this award.

1) He has continued the war in Afghanistan.

2) He has not pulled troops out of Iraq.

3) He has not closed Guantanamo and relocated its prisoners to a federal civil prison cell on US soil.

4) He agreed with then president Bush during the decision to bail out the Banks before he was president.

5) He has continued the domestic spying program.

6) He has continued and even increased the massive spending from Bush's administration.

I believe that we have already discussed these points in previous posts so i will just concentrate on the last bit.

Bush is only truly hated by non-Americans.

I think you know or should know that that is not true. He is certainly more hated around the world then in America but of course there are Americans that hate him, half the country voted against him during the election in which he won his second term.

Of course i am sure there are also lots of Americans that like him to as the other half voted for him.

he was the right president during 9/11

We certainly disagree on this but it is probably pointless arguing about it

The Iraq war was a success, we captured Saddam.

I would beg to differ, yes we caught Saddam that bit was a success but we have ended caught up in a stupid war that we didn't need to get involved in spending massive amounts of money in the process, and we still haven't managed to leave Iraq in Stable condition even now how many years later ??

This is not my definition of success.

We removed the Taliban that was ambivalently providing cover for Bin Laden and Al Queda.

Removed the Taliban from where ?, the Taliban were never in Iraq, and we certainly haven't removed them from Afghanistan were they are currently more active then ever (just look at the recent attacks in Pakistan)

In fact our tactics of destroying poppy fields has in fact backfired on us, as all the farmers and villagers that used to derive there income from it have now gone across to the Taliban either by joining or by asking for protection.

But notice how the destabilization and massive violence that took place in Iraq did not occur in Afghanistan.

You are kidding right, Afghanistan is far more dangerous than Iraq and the government there is in control of very little outside of a few major cities, the destabilisation there is still happening, also there have been more US & UK casualties in Afghanistan then Iraq

the Iraq war ended in 2003 when Saddam was removed from power. The Iraqi Sunni and Shi ite war which occured shortly after was far more devestating and bloody

What you are trying to say that this was a separate war ? , it was quite clearly part and parcel of the whole invasion. It would never have happened had we not gone to war with Iraq, and the Sunni and Shi ite's were not just fighting against each other they were quite clearly also fighting against the UK & US Forces.

and the rest of the world unfairly blamed Bush and America for that

They blamed Bush & Blair for going to war based on dodgy intelligence in the first place. But actually as far as i am concerned (and most of the rest of the world) they are the same war and so yes Bush & Blair are to blame !

Let's see if the world blames Obama for the upcoming increase in violence in Afghanistan:

Once again you are very quick to tie Obama to War that he has inherited from Bush. If we hadn't gone to Iraq in the first place and actually stayed in Afghanistan and sorted it out in the first place maybe we would have these problems now.

Also if it is Obama's fault for us staying there, is Bush at fault for taking us there ? you cant have it both ways.

I actually am really quite interested in just why you are so anti Obama ? i can understand that if you a republican you are not going to be his biggest fan but he is still the president of your country right ?

Also as i have said before surely the time to judge someone on there record is after they have one not before, give the guy a term and see what he does over the 4 years, that will give a much clearer indication of whether he will be any good or not.

Afghanistan always has been and remains the big problem. If we can sort out Afghanistan then the whole region would become more stable, unfortunately we have spread our resources very thinly trying to conduct 2 wars at the same and and spent a lot of money. Also the general public's appetite for this war is falling by the day so whether we will be able to truly fix the issue i don't know.

nb - Nemarolla i have to say it is actually been quite fun arguing with you, at least you have a solid position and try and back it up with solid argument without just resorting to insults

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 16th, 2009, 10:59 AM

Did you not understand the Point? If you have Two people who Hate America that Badly, it is enevetable that they will make an aliance on the simple fact that the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.

My god that is too funny i cant even reply to this it just cracks me up !!!

no no, you didn't use your Logic... Your logic dictated we go to war with Japan and Leave Hitler to whatever he was doing in Europe. After all Hitler didn't Attack us Japan did.

Do you know anything about World War II, Japan along with Italy were Germany's allies during the war, after the attack on Pearl Harbour America joined the war against the Axis (term used to describe the alliance of Germany, Japan & Italy and a number of other smaller nations)

So in effect yes America did end up going to war with Hitler's Germany due to the attack on pearl Harbour by Japan.

My point on this was that the reason that you went to War on Hitler is one of his allies attacked you, not because he was a dictator.

Frankly, I'm quite tired of your smug Liberal Condescension

That's quite rich from you since your post are littered with Condescension and put downs.

As far as your Smug question Goes:

Well you still haven't; shown you know that it means just that you can copy a definition down

I'm an American, and all that other stuff is UnAmerican.

Brilliant, just Brilliant that is the single best argument you have come up with yet !!

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 16th, 2009, 11:27 AM

Man, I missed Tome10's latest. Bummer.

My first thought was this: Who just wrote that? The difference in language is so striking that I'd have to conclude that Tome10 is two different people. There were virtually no typos, almost no insults, and actual content. Tome, either you were drunk yesterday, or you're drunk today, or a different person wrote the last post.

The only two statements I would comment on would be these:

If you have Two people who Hate America that Badly, it is enevetable that they will make an aliance on the simple fact that the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.

I have never been convinced that Osama really hates America. He needs an enemy because he leads a non-state organization. I would say that what actually gets his knickers in a knot is much closer to home. Attacks on America bring in the money and recruits, but his goal is imposing his form of Islamic fundamentalism in the Islamic states that he considers his home. He's not trying to overthrow America any more than Nasser was back in the late 60s. Instead, he is using enmity with America as a recruiting tool with the intention of overthrowing Pakistan, and any other Islamic states that he can get a solid foothold in. In that way, he hated Saddam FAR more than he hated America, because Saddam was inherently secular rather than Islamic. Saddam stood in his way, while America was nothing more than a means to an end.

Second: What's this statement about?

We got hit all through the 90's as Clinton treated it as a Criminal matter to be investigated by the FBI.

There was WTC bombing #1 in 1993, where all involved were caught, convicted, and remain in prison. The other notable terrorist attacks in the US during the 90s were the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Both of those were conducted by white christian conservatives. You could possibly be refering to foreign attacks, such as the bombing of the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings in Africa, but that would be kind of silly, since once you open up that standard, then the level of attacks has gone UP since the attack on Iraq or Afghanistan, not down, which would suggest that Clinton had the better approach (though in fact either statement is based on a statistical falacy).

Aside from that, the WWII thing seems to be getting bollixed. It is my understanding that we declared war on Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbor, and Germany promptly declared war on us. We then returned the favor.

It's pointless anyways, as Roosevelt was clearly favoring Great Britain prior to the declaration of war. We sat out the first several years, but nobody doubted which side we supported.

System_Error

Oct 16th, 2009, 12:17 PM

Iraq was invaded because of Oil and convenience nothing more, none of this altruist crap about wanting to liberate the Iraqi people

The Iraq invasion was 10% oil and 90% personal vendetta. It was going to happen with or without 9-11.

he hated Saddam FAR more than he hated America

Did Saddam support Israel more than America did/does?

nemaroller

Oct 16th, 2009, 04:08 PM

I've been involved in far too many Iraq threads in the past 7 years, so I won't address the world laying blame on an inarticulate ex-president for all their problems.

The purpose of this thread was to argue whether or not Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Price. Certainly, Obama has done little to progress peace in the world. If he had finally ended the Palestine Irsraeli conflict, then hats off, he would have deserved it. But simply mixing up polite words means little. There are no significant actions that have taken place to deserve such an award. Obama has simply resumed pre-Bush foreign US policy. He has already ordered drones to do hits in Pakistan - violating a soverign country - so how is this a change from Bush that warrants a peace award?

People have argued the Nobel peace prize has been politicized over the years and therefore has lost its meaning, and I certainly can agree with that argument.

Unless someone wants to stick put forth a solid reason why Obama deserved to be awarded, simply comparing him to a previous administration which had to deal with THE WORST terrorist attack on US soil, and giving an award based on administration change - which happens in a democracy anyhow - is not a reason for an award.

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 16th, 2009, 04:43 PM

He has already ordered drones to do hits in Pakistan - violating a soverign country

You can't imagine the image that....well, actually, you probably can, but it was still pretty funny.

I thought the choice of that prize was odd, but not excessively odd. They give it out every year, and there are dozens of people who have done something. Figuring out who is #1 in peace in any year is worse than the BCS in college football. I can certainly understand this move, as I can understand Arafat. With an excess of choices, and no quantifiable metric, there's a HUGE amount of emotion involved. Sometimes a prize will be used not for what was, but as a prod for what will be.

tome10

Oct 18th, 2009, 05:17 PM

Shaggy, you can write, I give you that. But I think your a Sham Artist, and you would be a good Snakeoil Salesman. I reject all of your points as they were simply unknown at the time. All of that Shoulda Coulda, Woulda crap. You couldn't hold W's Jockstrap. I simply do not care what Bin Laden was thinking when he attacked. I don't care what Hitler wrote in mein Kompf. Evil is evil, and I and my Brothers are here to Deal with them on an as needed Basis. There are consequences to Attacking America. Me and My Brothers Arms are the Consequence. I simply do not want Obama to Pull out. The last I checked we are still In Europe 50 years Later.. Why do you not want to pull out of there? There is no need to be there. Why your Rush to pull out of the Middle East? Why does Europe want us to Pull out of the Middle East? Which is Absolutely what the Peace Prize is all about? A foreign entity wanting to bribe Obama in Pulling out with a worthless Trinket. We simply should not Leave until the whole Area is Passified!!!!! Then we should Remain Just as we did In Europe. Would you have called the Years after WWII in this same Matter. The passification Lasted for Years. Europe wants us to Fail. You Liberals want us to fail.. Why is that? If we Pull out We fail and you Liberals can blame us for Failing, and all of my Brothers would have died in Vein. You would Love that wouldn't you *****.. Do you Doubt we can Succeed? Or you don't want us to try? Which is it you Liberal *****?

Atheist

Oct 18th, 2009, 05:38 PM

I haven't joined in on this debate, but I've been reading with great amusement.
Word of advise tome10; calm down. That attitude won't get you anywhere.

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 19th, 2009, 10:30 AM

Shaggy, you can write, I give you that.

Thanks.

But I think your a Sham Artist

Actually, I think of myself more as a Shamwow (I don't even know what that is, and I don't know that I spelled it right, but I think it's some kind of super absorbent cloth).

and you would be a good Snakeoil Salesman

Hey, I tried. Just couldn't get any out of the snakes, no matter what I tried.

I reject all of your points as they were simply unknown at the time.

The relationships between Osama and Saddam were well known. If they weren't well known, they were at least predictable. Osama is a fundamentalist, Saddam was a secular leader. The two factions have never gotten along well in any system.

All of that Shoulda Coulda, Woulda crap.
Very true. Hindsight is always much more clear than foresight. Frankly, I think they had a chance in Iraq of doing what they wanted, but a stable democracy held the seeds of its own destruction right from the start in that the Shiites would have to win, being such a majority, and a Shiite dominated country on the border of Iran holds much peril...and some promise. As it was, they dropped the ball when it counted. We may get something good out of this, still.

You couldn't hold W's Jockstrap.
I wouldn't get near him OR his undergarments.

I grew up listening to debates in the state house in NH. I really like politics. I'm certainly partisan, but politics is about strategy and tactics. If it is well done by either side, I admire it. W was terrible at it, and was surrounded by people equally bad. The reason he was so bad was explained very early in his administration, and probably comes from his priviledged business background. He never worked his way up, so he never knew how to build coalitions. He started at the top and expected others to fall in line behind him, wherever he led, which is how it works in business. In business, you either fall in line with the boss, or you leave. You can only disagree with the boss as far as the boss is willing to tolerate the disagreement (the latitude allowed for initiative, which varies from company to company and boss to boss). The boss has the right to keep you in line, and you have the right to leave. That's not how politics works. Nobody gets elected to any high office unless they are very much sold on themselves. Nobody takes over a country unless they are sold on themselves, too. This makes the game more delicate. Bush used a total stick approach to negotiations. People hate that (unless they have certain fetishes), and strong willed or proud people never forget it, even if they have to temporarily get in line. This was Ws mistake that cost him the senate in his first term, caused the rift with North Korea, and caused all kinds of mischief around the wars and Katrina. To his credit, he learned from his mistakes in both the senate and North Korea, but he had to make the mistakes before he learned from them, and he kept on repeating them. That's why he was a fool.

I simply do not care what Bin Laden was thinking when he attacked.

Later on you mention your Brothers in Arms. That would suggest military. If you have not read Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, it is most likely that the top brass have. Know your enemy. That's the key rule for most great military strategists (Napolean may have been more of a "know yourself" kind of guy).

Evil is evil

No! As much as we'd like that to be true, evil is in the eye of the beholder. There is no limit to the range of atrocities mankind will commit for a cause. The only consistent rule is that the ones who perpetrate the atrocities always justify their actions as necessary for some kind of greater end. Even in the US, slavery was good for the slaves, accoring to its suppoters. Those who can't change their minds on that are still with us. Osama doesn't see himself as evil, and neither did Hitler. They think of themselves as saints, and their means just. In truth, it's just a conflict with many massacres. The winners will write the history books, justifying the killing they did while condemning the killing the others did. The trick is to win. You can win without understanding your opponents if they are easily crushed, or indifferent to their cause. We have now ruled out both options, so we had best understand what motivates and what supports our opponents. Calling them evil and writing them off as being supported by the devil, would both be counterproductive. They ARE supported, and that support is most likely weaker than the leaders themselves.

I simply do not want Obama to Pull out.

I didn't either, as far as Afghanistan is concerned. Now, once it has been clearly established that the govenment is plenty bad....well, I'm open to new alternatives.

Why your Rush to pull out of the Middle East?

We can't. We haven't been able to for decades, and nothing has changed. There is a chance that Iraq will truly stabilize in a way we can live with, I just feel that it is more likely that it will not. However, that 'not' could still result in a good outcome for us, but not a benign one.

worthless Trinket.

I'd take it. That would buy me a few more computers.

You Liberals want us to fail.. Why is that?

You can't define success. Every stated objective has been restated once the original became unattainable.

If we Pull out We fail and you Liberals can blame us for Failing, and all of my Brothers would have died in Vein. You would Love that wouldn't you *****.. Do you Doubt we can Succeed? Or you don't want us to try? Which is it you Liberal *****?

It just isn't Tome if there aren't asterisks. Why do the soldiers get blamed for the failings of the leadership?

As for dying in vain: We all die in vain. Get over yourself. No victory you win with your blood ends the struggle. At best it reshapes it. I suspect that you'll misunderstand that. I don't mean to suggest that it is worthless to try to do what is right, or even to die for what you believe in. What I mean to say is that it is conceit to think that your life sanctifies the cause. Just because a person dies for an objective doesn't make the objective necessarily more correct.

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 20th, 2009, 05:52 AM

Translations

Shaggy, you can write, I give you that. But I think your a Sham Artist and you would be a good Snakeoil Salesman

Shaggy you have a fine use of vocabulary, and your arguments are better then mine so instead of arguing with you i will just call you names.

I reject all of your points as they were simply unknown at the time.

I reject all of your points as they disagree with my own ideology which must not be questioned.

Evil is evil, and I and my Brothers are here to Deal with them on an as needed Basis.

America F*** Yeh . Team America world police was not a film but a statement of what is to come.

The last I checked we are still In Europe 50 years Later

Many European countries are very nice holiday destinations, which many Americans visit every year.

We simply should not Leave until the whole Area is Passified!!!!! Then we should Remain Just as we did In Europe.

If we could just get rid of some of the more troublesome locals, Iraq could also be a very nice holiday destination for Americans.

You Liberals want us to fail.. Why is that?

I disagree and dislike all people who are not as right wing as myself and suspect them of the kind of dirty tricks that are supposed to be our speciality.

Davadvice

Oct 20th, 2009, 09:45 AM

I haven't joined in on this debate, but I've been reading with great amusement.
Word of advise tome10; calm down. That attitude won't get you anywhere.

Have to say I agree and have been doing the same.

NSA and Shaggy have conducted themselves in an exemplary manner.

tome, I think your insults weaken anything you have said.
I particularly detest the word stupid being used in terms of referring to another’s opinion unless it’s yours..NOW

tome10

Oct 21st, 2009, 12:02 AM

Yea, I agree I sometimes get a "Little" Carried Away. ;-) You guys have been extremely Professional. I appologize. Sincerely.... I agree with a lot of what all three of you said. I think.. I simply disagree with your assessment of Bush. I mean go figure of course.. I don't see Bush's detriment as being the one who says everybody else fall in line behind me. If you see that I need an example.. Maybe as a Southerner go figure again... Maybe I can assess what you are seeing that suggests that. I mean are we that different??? That man's Detriment if anything is his total Loyalty to his Friends/Cohorts. You guys Demonized the whole administration from the Getgo... You dislike him because he didn't CowCow to that iddiot Kim Jung Ill every time he said come wipe my nose, and ohh can you spare some change. This isn't Burger King for goodness sakes.. What exactly did you want him to do? Agree to something just so you can find out a few years later he didn't fillow the agreement.. Ala. the Clinton Admin and <Gags> that Peanut Farmer.. <ProjectileVomet> I simply DISPISE THAT MAN!!!!! He was and is a total Failure and you guys try to Raise him up to such Stature.. It's as if you guys Condone Failure.. You simply take for granted the Media will always tow the line for you. That man was a Failure, and from what I have determined a total Ahole Failure.. When all else fails and I am simply down to my last arguement, I can always say two things and you should just simply agree.. Reagan was Right about everything, and Jimmy Carter is a Failure...
How can you even say your of the same Mind as that man.. I would just change Parties.. Matter of a Fact why are you guys Liberals. You guys seem very smart.. How am I so wrong? Can I be wrong? How does a good man Know he is Wrong? How does a good man know when to Kill, and for what reason? How does a good Man know when to Lay his Sabre at his Enemies Feet? What level of Intelligence do I need to Determine these Questions? I know at one time we thought of the Germans as our Mortal Enemies. I have been with them during Numerous Exercises, and have fond Memories, and do not recognize them as my enemy. I have a Soldiers Heart, and It just seems to know these things. You guys say you don't want to leave Afghanistan, and so maybe I can get some sleep.

I disagree and dislike all people who are not as right wing as myself and suspect them of the kind of dirty tricks that are supposed to be our speciality.

What dirty tricks do you refer? My sources say you guys passed Social Security simply to Secure the Democrat Voting Block.. To take us on the path we are on today.. My sources tell of a Quote from somone from that era saying they "the people" will be Voting Democrat for 50 years. Which is exactly what happened. That is too long for one Party to be in power.. I don't want either side to have that much control? What is wrong with you guys? If you think that way you are simply foreign to me........ At some point after the Sham of SS someone put those funds into the General Funds.. The whole system is a Ponzy Scheme. It seems to me the goose is finally Cooked. There is no account that goes with My SSN.. That would be something an actual account that I can put Money in.. My money.. That Sham Statement I get.. You guys are absolutely Insane... It was always about Control.. The Voting Block... Medicare Medicaide is the same way, and you guys need Obama to Force this latest Healthcare crap down our Throats because the Ponzy scheeme is finally about to collapse.. Wasn't back in 94 or so the first time in forever the Republican ran anything? You guys ran the show. And you talk to me of Trickery.. I admit the Republicans of the last few years spent like crazy. But you know what? Sensible People knew you guys would be way worse...... That Medicare Prescription thing wasn't big enough for you guys. Nothings big enough for you guys. You guys are Insatiable...
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Franks.. Those are your guys? Those are the Smart ones? That's your Team? That's Pathetic.. These guys don't know Economics, or Civics.. Your Liberal Eutopia California 50 Billion in the Red. Most of your Dem Controlled States are Failures.. At what lengths will you go for Control of my Liberty? The fruits of my Labor? This Marxist Socialist stuff causes all to suffer.. But that is what you want it seems. For the Votes.. It's all about the Votes, the Power.. The Oligarchy.. And you call Me a Trixter?

abhijit

Oct 21st, 2009, 08:32 AM

tome10,
You make compelling arguments.
Could you please format your paragraphs and if possible, run a spell check?

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 21st, 2009, 09:57 AM

Tome10,

Hey it good to see a post without personal attacks i agree we can all get carried away sometimes when we think we are right, i can see that you get angry about things but just remember what is so great about America and all elected Democracies is that we have choice in our elections. You don't have to like the other guy but you should respect them.

I would just like to answer a few thing.

Firstly we are probably never going to agree on George W, but that's to be expected i don't hate the guy, i don't even question his sincerity or the fact that in his opinion he was doing what he thought was the best for his country, i just disagree with many of his policies.

As for Iraq in my opinion our time would have been better served staying in Afghanistan the whole time, this is were the real problem is and i think that our time would have been better served not getting involved in Iraq at all and concentrating on the Taliban.

And yes i agree that we should not be leaving Afghanistan it is completely unstable. Until we can put in a government that has the power to rule and not succumb to the Taliban as soon as we withdraw we should not leave.

Secondly i certainly do not hold up Bill Clinton as some perfect example of a president either. He is a flawed man and i for one am not raising him up to anything

I don't see Bush's detriment as being the one who says everybody else fall in line behind me

When you are dealing with other developed countries this is a bit of an issue.

Imagine for a second that the world had another super power that was a lot bigger than America and had a much larger military would you be happy if they were to basically tell America what to do without discussion ? make decision that effected the whole world and yet not take American interests in to the equation ?

This is what many western developed countries felt under Bush, instead of trying to deal with other major nations he seemed to just want them to follow his agenda.

The problem with this approach is it can make it a lot harder to get thing done internationally if you don't have at least some of the other major nations on your side, also consequently you are not going to be very well liked.

Matter of a Fact why are you guys Liberals.

It was you that called me a liberal not me, yes i am liberal in some senses but not all, a guess i consider myself more of a pragmatist that kind of dislikes War.

I know at one time we thought of the Germans as our Mortal Enemies. I have been with them during Numerous Exercises, and have fond Memories, and do not recognize them as my enemy.

That is great truth you have come upon there, Germans are no longer your enemy because they never were. It was the fundamentalists (Nazi's in this case) who got into power who were the enemy. I have been to Germany many times it is a nice country with good beer and no country that makes good beer can be to bad :0)

It the same in Afghanistan, the average person there does not go around planning how to crash planes into buildings, but the fundamentalists did and it is them gaining power which is the great danger.

You guys Demonized the whole administration from the Getgo... You dislike him because he didn't CowCow to that iddiot Kim Jung Ill every time he said come wipe my nose

Trust me when i say that i have no liking for Kim Jung Ill, he represses his own people while he lives a life of luxury. The problem here is neither the US nor anybody else is going to do anything about North Korea while they have Chinese support.

My sources tell of a Quote from somone from that era saying they "the people" will be Voting Democrat for 50 years. Which is exactly what happened. That is too long for one Party to be in power.. I don't want either side to have that much control?

I find that highly unlikely if you look back at the history of the USA and other democratic nations power rarely stays with 1 party longer than 3 terms or so.

Medicare Medicaide

No i know you may not agree with me here, but i personally think that the universal health care bill is nothing but a good thing.

I live in the UK where we have the NHS which contrary to some reports generally does a really good job.

My Partner was out of work last year (mainly due to the recession and the fact that she had worked for a mortgage broker who closed down) when she was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, she is only 36 years old.

If we had lived in the USA she would have had no medical insurance and there is no way we would have been able to afford treatment. She was in constant pain and even with medication now still suffers. My point is on the NHS she was able to get that treatment when she needed it.

This Marxist Socialist stuff causes all to suffer

I am not a Marxist, and i don't think that your Democrat party is Marxist either however i can see you have an aversion to social policies. I know traditionally big government in the USA is not seen as a good thing.

The thing is in my opinion some social policies just make sense, and some do not it is about balance.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Franks.. Those are your guys? nope they are not my guys i don't support an American political party as i live in the UK, hell right now i don't even know which British party i support.

An finally i wasn't trying to say you are a trickster, i was talking more about suspicion and people being suspicious or other peoples motives, and how sometime people question other peoples motives because their own are less then pure. And i was talking about the right in general not about you personally. :0)

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 21st, 2009, 01:22 PM

Yea

There's enough rudeness on the web. One of the things I really like about this forum is that people rise above it. I'm glad you're here, because, while I am fully capable of arguing with myself, it's kind of boring.;)

I don't see Bush's detriment as being the one who says everybody else fall in line behind me.

There are times when that's essential. There can only be one captain of a ship, for instance. However, politics doesn't work well that way. Everybody at that level believes they are the captain, and there is no law that says otherwise. To get something accomplished, you can't order, but must persuade. It is often inefficient, but the alternative is only acceptable if you happen to agree with the person giving the orders. We have rejected that model when we rejected a king.

You guys Demonized the whole administration from the Getgo...

Yup. He put in people who suppressed science, and that was pretty much all it took.

You dislike him because he didn't CowCow to that iddiot Kim Jung Ill every time he said come wipe my nose, and ohh can you spare some change.

I agree with your feelings on NK and Kim Jung Il. The situation there makes me ill, but we really don't have a good alternative. NK is one country that can, and will, sell nukes to terrorists, which has got to be considered the worst possible scenario we can imagine. We can't attack them unless both China and S. Korea agreed, and neither of them will, so that isn't an option. We can't embargoe them...because they simply can't BE anymore isolated than they already are. And whenever we try to turn out backs on them we suffer for it. Therefore, here again, progress rides on a hearse. We waited for the father to die in hopes that the son would be better. Now we wait for the son to die in hopes that the next leader isn't willing to starve his people, or doesn't want to be a pariah. In the meantime, we pay them off so that they don't make our worst nightmare come true. It's a terrible position, but it is the only one that is actually possible.

. the Clinton Admin and <Gags> that Peanut Farmer.. <ProjectileVomet> I simply DISPISE THAT MAN!!!!! He was and is a total Failure and you guys try to Raise him up to such Stature..

To tell you the truth, I barely remember Carter. I was in single digits at the time, and wasn't paying attention to much internationally. However, politics was VASTLY different in those days than it is today. Consider that Nixon enacted more liberal policies than Clinton. The "right" in his day was to the left of the present "left". The leadership was more liberal than the public it represented. Currently, the leadership is more conservative than the the public it represents.

Reagan was Right about everything,

Including paying off terrorists by trading arms for hostages? I would think you'd be totally pissed over that (though, to be fair, it is standard operating procedures for multinational corporations).

Matter of a Fact why are you guys Liberals. You guys seem very smart..

The institutions that conservatives complain about as being too liberal are also the institutions dedicated to the spread of knowledge and dissemination of information: Universities and media. The stereotypical liberal, in this country, is an intellectual. Go figure.

How does a good man Know he is Wrong?

You can't. We are all guessing in every way. The worst things can result from the best of intentions.

My sources say you guys passed Social Security simply to Secure the Democrat Voting Block..

Technically, that's true. No politician votes for a bill specifically to ensure the wrath of their constituency. They voted for a measure with the understanding that they had the support of their constituency.

My sources tell of a Quote from somone from that era saying they "the people" will be Voting Democrat for 50 years.

YES! Whether it was done with the expectation that it would swing the country to the democratic party for a few decades is debatable, but the various acts of Roosevelt are thought to have had that effect. One of the current points that I tend to agree with is that lots of Republicans are opposed to ANYTHING that Obama does (especially health care) because they recognize that if he is seen as very successful, they will not see power again for a couple more decades. That's a very cynical view, but when it comes to humans, if you are cynical, you are rarely wrong. If this is even partially the case, then the Rs can't vote for any health care bill because only the president and the majority party ever get credit for anything passed, regardless of whether it was bipartisan. That's a raw deal!!

At some point after the Sham of SS someone put those funds into the General Funds.. The whole system is a Ponzy Scheme.

Yup. People keep talking about putting those things into a lockbox. Only problem is, they have the keys, and that is a prize too rich to pass up. When the alternatives before you are 1) Raise taxes, 2) Cut services that somebody wants (somebody wants EVERY service out there), or 3) Raid a juicy target that nobody will complain about until after you have retired....well, since the first two can amount to career suicide, it's not a surprise that elected leaders opt for #3. This happens at the state level, as well as the federal level.

Medicare Medicaide is the same way, and you guys need Obama to Force this latest Healthcare crap down our Throats because the Ponzy scheeme is finally about to collapse..

My views on health care can be summed up in this way: Both sides are desperately trying to focus the debate on how to rearrange the deck chairs, because the ship is sinking and NOTHING can prevent it. The debate is a sham. Both want to get people riled up about one option or the other, because they know the truth, and the truth is this: The day is coming when you will only get good health care if you are in the top few percent of incomes, and the rest of us will be very explicitly excluded. Since no politician wants to talk about that, they are getting people to talk about something else. I explained that view in a different thread, but it is basically composed of this: As science advances, we are able to extend lives more and more, but only by doing increasingly expensive things. This has happened only in the last 100 years, as we are at about the 100 year anniversary of the first drug that actually cured a disease rather than (possibly) treating a symptom. Only a few decades back, cancer was a death sentence, diabetes killed you quickly, and so on. Now, many cancers will not actually kill you, but the treatment is too expensive for any average person to afford. The insurance model will break down under this scenario, as we will ALL have health issues at some time. As the insurance model collapses, the only alternatives are to kill the sick (the Logans Run solution), or to cover the cost as a fundamental piece of society. Ultimately, if science continues to advance, the second alternative will become to expensive to sustain. That day is decades off, but if you look at the last century, you will have to wonder just how many decades? What happens when the medical costs of the average person are in the vicinity of $500,000 over the course of their lifetime (it may be there now)? How about a million? Two? The cost of medical care will dwarf the lifetime gross earnings of the average person. I'll leave it there. I'm not optimistic.

Most of your Dem Controlled States are Failures..

How about the Rep controlled states. I have lived in two of them. NH had no sales tax and no income tax (and is turning into a blue state). The property tax was sky high, though. Now I live in ID (about as red as it gets), where we have a fairly high sales tax, a hefty income tax...and a property tax which people complain bitterly about, despite it being not all that impressive to me. Which party controls a state doesn't have nearly as much to do with how the state is doing as the history of that state and its fundamentals does. What is your tax base? What is your population base? That has a greater impact on state policies than political party does. CA is a mess for a whole lot of reasons (for one thing, it should probably be two states), and having a Republican at the helm for a decade hasn't solved a thing.

At what lengths will you go for Control of my Liberty?

And you as well. Conservatives are not different than Liberals in that they want the government to regulate certain behaviors. The only difference is in which behaviors they want to regulate.

tome10

Oct 21st, 2009, 08:01 PM

I don't know where I can disagree with any of you guys with anymore.. You guys are simply A+ in my book. You could have easily stooped to my level, and I am simply sorry.. The news is totally depressing these days. I can't really format my writing very well as I am from Arkansas.. I watched Clinton Speak numerous times as a Kid. My English Teacher told me Ain't wasn't a word and I was disinterested from then on.. My fury at California and the Democrats in General is the Immigration debate. I mean it's terrible Mexico can't be better to it's Citizens, but when California welcomes all comers to free this, free that. It is unsustainable. The Federalist system allows for Experimentation with different SocioEconomic whatevers at the State Level.. If said experiments work they can be replicated to other States. The Citizens can simply Move to another state if he or she feels it is good practice or not. When you start Experimenting at the Federal Level with that Knowledge it Simply has to be Sinister. I feel my country is being taken over by something, and it has it's roots back in the 60's. Whatever those guys were talking about Revolution, I believe it is here In my Government. I have a Communist or something Van Jones as the Green Czar. I saw a Video of Annita Dunn WH Communications Director saying she turns to Mao Tse Tung for Inspiration. Now Most of those names on that Dictator List was way Before my time, but Apparently that guy Killed 70Mil people. Is fox news bad for America for shedding that light? I mean I don't want a person like that in the Whitehouse. It's bad enough they're at the UN. What really should tick you off is the fact that the media is a Willing Occomplice in all of this.

I was Raised under Reagan. I have Memories of my Great GrandMother Wailing at him through the TV. I didn't know what that Iran Contra Affair was all about back then, but in Hindsight, I think I will give Him a Pass.. Just because I know he was a Good Man. I give Clinton the Same Deal. Considering I believe he Reduced defense spending a lot. I was there. How much of our Intelligence got Lost I do not know. Our Presidents can't be perfect. The other world Leaders need to know they are not Perfect, and it pains me to see such Rifts between us and the European Leaders. But you have to admit that Oil For Food thing was just Incredible. How many countries threw out their officials for that? I mean come on..
On California.. Arnold is not much of a Republican. But Wait.. I don't even like Republican. It has to be Conservative for me. When was the Last time you heard a Democrat talking about Liberty? or the Constitution? The Constitution is all but a Dirty word to those guys. If they don’t like something about it go through the Process and have it changed. Good grief.. It is strange that the NE states are such blue states.. I mean you guys have the heritage of being the ones who created it. Why are the far right wingers the ones who want to stop the Gov from getting any bigger? I mean the States Ratified it. Would they have given Birth to it knowing it would grow up to consume them? Do you guys look to it as a child you wish to grow? I just think there is a line we should not cross with it. Always having to have Liberals on the Supreme Court to simply thwart the Constitutions Firewalls I find very strange.. Just on Principle that should not be. I am not a religious person, I just view it as a Contract. I’m afraid the More the Firewall is Breeched the More Convoluted we become. All things you guys wish to do can be done through the Process.. Gov just can’t be the only answer for Healthcare. I mean why can’t we buy it Like Car Insurance? There has to be a way to get the Gov out. I believe everything the Gov touches makes it more Expensive anyways. Healthcare just wouldn’t be so expensive if the Gov was out of it. Obama says he can save 900 billion or something by reducing Fraud. Alright go ahead. If you can reduce Fraud.. Do it… We shouldn’t let that much fraud run amuck anyways. It has to be about the power.. No sooner than you guys turned from Thwarting Constitutional Law by Breaking the Bond between Chrysler and it’s Bond Holders did he Jump to Healthcare. Why so Fast. I mean come on let me in on the Secret? Why would anybody want to do this? Here is what Reagan Has to say. I beg you to Listen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaH8Wwg9BDA&feature=related

tome10

Oct 21st, 2009, 08:21 PM

And you as well. Conservatives are not different than Liberals in that they want the government to regulate certain behaviors. The only difference is in which behaviors they want to regulate.

These things are a little Trivial I think.. Considering we're talking about some pretty heavy stuff. What Behavior do you refer? Drugs? I mean Bill Oreilly put it well Last night talking with John Stoccil. There is like 70% abuse Rate with Parents using drugs and kids are getting Harmed. My Father came home from Vietnam, and back then no thanks to John kerry's Lies and all that stuff. He drank a Lot. I do not Drink as a result so clearly people can make choices. I believe pot should be Legal because it grows Naturally, and I have never seen a Plant out in the Wild. I think it would be neat. But Oreilly made a Point that People were getting the Pot from the medical Marijuana place and selling to kids for money and then using the money for Harouine. Whatever. I mean I really don't care, because that's one less person out here competing with me in the Workplace.
Gay Marriage.. I am against. I know this is a Malicious thing. Marriage is a Religious thing. The Gov. Shouldn't be in Marriage anyways. As far as the Gov is Concerned we should all be Civil Unions. Leave Marriage with religion, and just don't be an ass. Abortion.. I think the Liberals use this as a Wedge. There is obviously no connection to the Constitution without a liberal Judge inventing it. So it should be debated in the open. Someone once said that England handled this correctly by debating and passing through Legislation.

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 21st, 2009, 09:58 PM

Yeah, I was talking about sex. The social conservatives really want to limit how, where, and why that takes place. Banning birth control is bizarre.

Abortion, however, is a wedge issue for all sides. It is a topic where there really isn't a middle position, and this will probably get worse. Basically, up until a couple decades back, when life began was kind of irrelevant, as babies who didn't gestate in the womb for the full term were clearly not alive (and often took the mother with them). At some point, it will probably become possible for a baby to be carried to full term mechanically. That'll be interesting.

Another problem is what happens when people wake up to the techniques that have already been demonstrated, such as cloning, and the ability to extract the nucleus from a cell and inject a different one. We may already be at the point where a human could be born without ever having a father (because we don't contribute much of anything other than some DNA). If an egg can be turned into a human without being fertilized in any normal way, is menstruation murder?

Science appears likely to blurr the lines so badly that distinctions about life will have to be made in court, because they won't exist otherwise.

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 21st, 2009, 10:50 PM

The news is totally depressing these days.

Amen. What's to be done about Afghanistan after that election. Do we back a guy who clearly cheated and has created a terribly corrupt government? That would be similar to Vietnam. Or do we bail out, knowing the Taliban will take over again? Is there a third choice? I don't see one.

I can't really format my writing very well as I am from Arkansas..
Yeah, but that's about the most addictive accent in the country (actually, I think Gatlinburg TN is worse). It's hard not to join in.

I mean it's terrible Mexico can't be better to it's Citizens, but when California welcomes all comers to free this, free that.

We do that, too. Not as many services, cause we pay all the taxes, but don't seem to have much to show for it. Migrant labor is big wherever agriculture is king, and that certainly describes the southern half of Idaho.

I have had some Mexicans work for me when I ran crews a few years back. One thing I will say for them is that they are darn good workers. The jobs we offered were lousy. Low pay, inconsistent hours, difficult, tedious work. The only thing we could really offer was that we treated people well, and that was appreciated by the migrants. We also had Bosnians, who were a wild group. They were good, too, but NOBODY speaks that language.

Now Most of those names on that Dictator List was way Before my time, but Apparently that guy Killed 70Mil people.

I hadn't thought of that, but it is quite possible in the cultural revolution. The thing with China is that their population is so large that when they have any nationwide, murderous, turmoil, the death toll is liable to be massive...and yet almost overlooked. The funny thing about Mao is that he was a better ally to us in WWII than the wildly corrupt Chiang Kia-Shek government. Mao and Chiang both fought, but Mao fought the Japanese, while Chiang fought the chinese. If you read the history of that front, you can't help but be infuriated. We were played, though we probably had no choice.

But you have to admit that Oil For Food thing was just Incredible. How many countries threw out their officials for that?

Nah, didn't surprise me a bit. In game theory, as in biology, whenever you set up a rule, there are always cheaters. As long as there is some advantage to cheating, there will be some who try. This is true among fish, so it might as well be true among politicians.

heard a Democrat talking about Liberty? or the Constitution? The Constitution is all but a Dirty word to those guys. If they don’t like something about it go through the Process and have it changed.

You've gotta be kidding. Is there a politician who doesn't wrap themselves in the flag? As for changing the Constitution, that is a slow, painful, and often unsuccessful process. You probably remember the Equal Rights Amendment, as it died in the 80s. It would have given women equality under the Constitution (which only mentions men).

By the way, if you think that women don't need that, it is likely because of all the discrimination suits during the last couple decades. Those suits came about due to the Civil Rights Act extending protections to women. The oddity is WHY the Civil Rights Act was extended to women. The clause was inserted by a southern congressman who thought that adding that ammendment would surely make the whole act so abhorent that it wouldn't be enacted. So women have that legal protection because a congressman thought he could kill a bill by even offering them protection.

It is strange that the NE states are such blue states.

Actually, VT and MA are blue, and have been for a long time. NH was staunchly Republican, though it is a fiscally conservative state and not a socially conservative state. NH had Warren Rudman as a senator for several terms. You may remember him from the Graham-Warren-Rudman act that was an attempt to force a balanced budget and drive down the deficit. Rudman retired in disgust sometime late in the Clinton administration when the Republican congress was busily weakening the act. I think it was finally disposed of completely under Bush, but it may have died under Clinton. In either case it was certainly expiring before Bush was elected.

Why are the far right wingers the ones who want to stop the Gov from getting any bigger?

I'd be more conservative it that statement was true. Reagan ran the deficit higher, faster, than anybody prior to him. Clinton actually dropped the deficit, and quietly implemented policies to reduce spending. Since he did it quietly, he was able to get bipartisan support, since neither side was claiming any credit for it. Under Bush, the deficit exploded. In fact, he presided over the greatest expansion of government since at least LBJ (he added an entire department). The fiscal conservativism championed by Rudman were jettisoned in favor of rampant spending.

In the early 90s, the conservatives blasted the liberals for "tax and spend" policies. For a time, it appeared that they would rein in government spending, and Clinton worked with them in that regard. Bush started out with surpluses, which he turned into tax cuts. That policy is in keeping with conservative policies. What would have happened had 9/11 not occurred is hard to say, but what did happen was that "tax and spend" was replaced with "borrow and spend". The spending went higher than ever, the taxes went down. Now, China owns us (though we also own China, cause all their investments are tied to dollars).

Always having to have Liberals on the Supreme Court to simply thwart the Constitutions Firewalls I find very strange

Naturally, I don't see it that way. I recognize that the conservative wing has suggested that their interpretation is "strict", and by doing so, they have grabbed some key ground, but they are interpreting vague language just as much as any others, they are just giving it a conservative spin. Consider the 2nd amendment (and note that I work for a hunting organization, so the right to bear arms is fine with me). The language is this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What the heck does that mean? It doesn't talk about what kind of arms. Heck, that could mean anything from swords to RPGs (which are not allowed for use in deer hunting in ID, in case you were wondering). And the first part strongly implies that there is a specific reason for keeping and bearing arms. Yet that reason is no longer valid. At the time the document was written, a well armed citizenry could oppose the government. Not any more. Military hardware is VASTLY superior to anything that the average person could possibly "bear", let alone afford.

I mean why can’t we buy it Like Car Insurance?

Because in car insurance, the lucky pay for the unlucky. I have never had an accident...but I could the next time I go out. My car insurance is a contract. I make payments to the company, and they will pay out a certain amount if a calamitous event occurs. Even if my car was to be flattened, the cost of replacement is a fraction of a years salary. Burdensome, to be sure, but bearable. In the case of health care, you WILL be unlucky, you just don't know when. Unless you die suddenly, you will definitely incurr costs that will dwarf your annual income, and can easily dwarf your entire lifetime income.

A friend of mine just had a terrible birth. The mother was in the hospital for a month or so before the baby was born waaaaay premature. Three decades back, that baby would have been dead, and the mother might well have died, too. With modern medical technology, both are alive and well. The cost, however, is so great that it is unlikely that the parents will make that much money in their entire lives. Yet 80% of the total medical costs for the average person will be paid out in the last two years of their lives. For my friends, they still have their greatest expenses ahead of them, and they have already used up so much money that the rest of us are supporting them with our premiums, and they will NEVER pay in enough to make a dent in what they have taken out.

So in car insurance, the lucky pay for the unlucky, and the costs are modest. In health insurance, we are all unlucky, and the costs are exhorbitant, growing rapidly, and will continue to grow as long as science advances.

Obama says he can save 900 billion or something by reducing Fraud. Alright go ahead. If you can reduce Fraud..

Everybody says that. It never works, but as long as it is the easy answer, you will hear the same statement run out by both sides whenever asked how they will pay for something.

Here is what Reagan Has to say.

By the way, did you ever hear what Reagan had to say about W? The quote was: "What's his qualification? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"

Reagan sure could speak.

tome10

Oct 22nd, 2009, 02:47 AM

By the way, did you ever hear what Reagan had to say about W? The quote was: "What's his qualification? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"
Haha i didn't know that..
So when my guys say that Reagan Cut Taxes and Cap Gains and set the Stage for Growth, and my assumption was that all of the growth in the Clinton years were actually directly related to Reagans Policies which Grew the Economy, and when Newt took over with the Contract with America started reducing the Defecit. I just stared paying attention after 911, and I have seen some spooky stuff from the Dems. Nevermind the absolute Furvor they joined with the enemy's propaganda during the war. John Murtha, John Kerry.. OMG I simply will never vote Dem.. Other than all that, Every time I saw Bush doing Domestic spending on something Prescription Drugs for example. My side was like no way no more Entitlements. The Dems seemed to suggest it didn't Spend Enough, and wouldn't join in unless it was way bigger or something. The dems that I see are absolutely reckless. I have seen nothing to support your claim the Dems are Responsible with anything nevermind Money. I have seen a video that illistrates the Community Reinvestment act established under Carter, and Expanded by Clinton as the Direct cause of the Housing bubble and our current mess. I'm not suggesting someone is lying to me, but the only Liars I have seen is the Media and the Dems. Sorry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&annotation_id=annotation_918789&feature=iv
You can try to convince me the above video is not true, but this video below shows the Dems Defending Fannie and Freddie with such vigor it just has to be true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related
So I ask who is lying to me? I just simply have seen nothing from the Dems to suggest they are Honorable in the Least.

abhijit

Oct 22nd, 2009, 07:45 AM

tome10,
I am sorry, but I didn't get the Arkansas reference.

NeedSomeAnswers

Oct 22nd, 2009, 09:35 AM

Amen. What's to be done about Afghanistan after that election. Do we back a guy who clearly cheated and has created a terribly corrupt government? That would be similar to Vietnam. Or do we bail out, knowing the Taliban will take over again? Is there a third choice? I don't see one.

There is no choice here, we will quite clearly back the corrupt government. Karzai will get into power after the run off, and as there is currently no other choice but his government or the Taliban then his government will be backed.

We cannot expect Afghanistan to be truly democratic just because we they now have elections. Currently a large portion of the population cannot vote due to the fear of being maimed or killed by the Taliban for one thing, and another is that it normally takes time for a country to become democratic and a shift change in how a country is run so that no single person can grab power again and move back to being a dictator, part of that is to with the independence of the military as well.

I mean why can’t we buy it Like Car Insurance?

I have to say i agree with shaggy that we can't run it like car insurance but not on the fact that Medical cost will just continue to go up and up.

What i see happening is that those who's lifestyle choices greatly effect there health will have capped treatment for anything connected to those lifestyle choices.

In the UK it is estimated that it costs the NHS something like £5 billion a year and rising to treat obesity related conditions. I can see a point coming were if people are obese they will only have a certain amount of treatment for any obesity related issues.

Now that is just 1 example but a big one, imagine this policy carried across to other health issue which are to do with lifestyle choices.

I am not sure whether i agree with it or not but i can see something like this happening along with an education campaign telling people that certain lifestyle choices could potentially risk there lives.

By the way, did you ever hear what Reagan had to say about W? The quote was: "What's his qualification? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?

Hehe that's the funniest thing that been in this whole thread !

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 22nd, 2009, 10:27 AM

Reagan was colorful. After a particularly difficult legislative battle gettings something passed, he was quoted as saying something bland, yet dignified. His actual quote was "I feel like I just crapped a pineapple." Frankly, that is nearly perfect rhetoric. Nobody has ever done that, yet EVERYBODY understands that.

abhijit

Oct 22nd, 2009, 12:02 PM

By the way, did you ever hear what Reagan had to say about W? The quote was: "What's his qualification? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"

Reagan sure could speak.

That was Ron Reagan, the former President's son (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/15memo.html?ex=1087876800&en=e72eb6da38c65642&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE). :blush:

Shaggy Hiker

Oct 22nd, 2009, 04:10 PM

Ah. I feel fairly certain that I heard the quote attributed to Ronald, because I remember thinking at the time that Ronald Reagan would have been hard pressed to make such a statement due to the timing (Bush was probably still an obnoxious drunk while Reagan was in office for his first term). Perhaps I heard Ronald when it was actually Ron, or perhaps I heard the quote misattributed. It's still a pretty funny thing to say, regardless of who said it, and about whom.

The pineapple quote was never actually recorded, but it sounds right. Here's a relevant quote, which is probably as accurate as anybody will ever get:

"Asked for President Reagan’s reaction after winning a hard-fought 1981 vote in Congress authorizing the sale of AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia, the White House aide Michael Deaver told reporters the president exclaimed, 'Thank God!' What Reagan actually said, according to someone in the room, was, 'I feel like I’ve just crapped a pineapple.'”

If I had said something like that, I would certainly want it to be recorded properly.

tome10

Nov 7th, 2009, 01:53 AM

Abhijit,
The Arkansas Reference.. How would I explain.. I guess you can say we have our own English, and no Teacher is going to tell us proper.. When we're young and stupid that is. When we grow up we realize we should have paid more attention.

Alright, A while back you referenced that we had dealt with Mao Tse Tung. I assumed as some sort of Moral Relativism reference. Maybe I read it wrong. It stayed with me, and I looked into it and read the guys Bio. We sided with the opposition Party and tried getting them to talk and stop the Bloodshed. We lost and those guys ended up Fleeing to Tiawan which is why we have some sort of unspoken defense pact. Mao is the reason both my Grandfathers were in Korea. My family and my Country have been fighting the Communist forever it seems, and I'm supposed to be ok with 2 or 3 in the Whitehouse? Communism is Death and Destructions.
As far as Bush being a Drunk. I suppose only Liberals are allowed to change their ways and be honored for it. At least Bush didn't Drive off a Peir and Kill someone.
Bedroom. I draw the Line at Insest and a few other things. Come to think of it. Your whole saying about a no Moral Society whatever. Most if not all Laws are based on Some sort of Morality. Should we just abolish all Laws?
All that petre dish parenting and Bio Weapons programs. It probably is coming, but i'm not sure I want clones and stuff running around. I wouldn't want to be born with no Parents or Grandparents. What would be the Point? Harvesting for Body Parts? Being Slaves?
Healthcare. First off the Government is allowing the cost to rise by not combatting fraud probably on purpose so they have an excuse to take it over and enslave us. If we could putchase Healthcare over state lines and foster a little competition would help but they're against that too on purpose I suppose. They're all about the interstate commerce clause when it suits them. Tort Reform. That is a huge cost probably the single best thing they could do. That's if they were interested in anything other than their agenda. You guys are amazing.. I'd rather the mean ol Insurance companies tell grandma she has to die than the Government. That would mean our Gov is no better than the Communist Regimes that do it every day. Ohh I forget there is no Bad, Good, or Evil. It's just.. Who's John Galt.

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 9th, 2009, 09:43 AM

I'd have to look back through the last two pages to find the reference to Mao, and I don't want to. I don't think we ever worked with Mao during WWII, and I don't know the history after that. However, we did work with the other guy, and I assume that is what you were reading about. If you look into the history of Stilwell in China during WWII, you can see that Chiang Kai-Shek (or however you spell that) was no prize. He basically kept blackmailing the US to supply him with weapons to keep him in the war against Japan, but he never used the weapons against Japan. Instead, he stockpiled them for use in internal political squabbles (that seem to be decided by the rule: 'He who has the most toys wins.'). Had he been a leader, we would have a considerably different relationship with China today (as well as avoiding the Korean War, most likely). We certainly backed him, he just wasn't worth backing. Meanwhile, Mao fought against the Japanese, and was occasionally successful. We couldn't have made a different choice, but the choice we made did not turn out very well.

I am also deeply ambivalent about the petri dish biology. Its time is now, and we have not looked into the ethics sufficiently. The potential impact on society is not just large, but unexplored. "O brave new world, that has such people in it."

Don't believe in "reducing fraud and waste", no matter who says it. That mantra has only been in vogue for the last three decades (I think). You hear it at state and federal level whenever a politician wants to gin up some savings when none are available. Cutting fraud and waste comes at a cost, and you have to make a hard-nosed assesment as to whether the cost of curbing what abuse is there is greater than the cost of allowing it.

I liked the interstate competition component that the Rs wanted in health care, until I saw the downside. To see what can go wrong, just look at credit cards. A large majority of credit card issuers are based in S. Dakota. Why? Because S. Dakota has lax oversight laws. The same would happen to health insurance. All companies would move to the state with the weakest laws. The sate would benefit from the influx of good paying jobs, and the health insurance industry would benefit from being allowed more predatory practices with less oversight. The only losers would be the people. There are ways to prevent this loophole. If the Rs dealt with it effectively, their position would be more appealing to me. Otherwise....it is counterproductive.

Tort reform is an obvious one. However, I have loads of friends who got ignored by insurance companies until they threatened to lawyer up. Some companies are good because most people are good. Unfortunately, plenty of companies determine that they are better off withholding payment because some people won't seek legal action. If legal action is prevented or ineffective, then those companies will abuse the holy heck out of people. There are frivolous lawsuits, and a certain amount of tort reform, such as a cap on damages, or a penalty for a suit that is frivolous (perhaps if it goes to court, then both sides would be defendents), but that's not what I am hearing from the R proposal. Actually, I'm hearing nothing other than the phrase "tort reform" from the R proposal.

My point with health care, ultimately, is this: Health care was essentially ineffective until 100 years ago. Hospitals were the poor persons waiting room for the graveyard, as few people were ever cured of anything serious (rich folks died at home). Health insurance came about during the depression or WWII, primarily as a sales tactic to get people to seek more medical treatment. If the cost for a procedure was really high, and not all that effective, people would treat it the same way they would treat buying a new car: If they could afford it, they'd do it, otherwise they'd delay. Insurance was a means of spreading the payment out into small monthly chunks so that people would not see the cost as one big lump sum, and would be more likely to use it. Then, in WWII, when wages were frozen for the war effort, and companies couldn't compete by wage inflation, the companies began offering health benefits in place of wages. After the war, tax law was changed to say that health benefit offerings were non-taxable, which made them a highly attractive form of compensation for companies and individuals. Of course, health care was still relatively cheap, and largely ineffective by todays standards.

You and I have grown up in a time when health care was highly effective, and is becoming more and more effective with each new development. Now the cost of procedures is sky high and rising. I just went to see a doctor about a problem with my foot. I wasn't sure what it was, but having dropped both a rock and a 45lb weight on my foot in the last two months, I figured it could be anything from nothing to cancer. As it turned out, my options were:

1) Do nothing. The problem was 99% likely to be insignificant, and it might or might not get better on its own.
2) A cheap procedure that would be far more accurate, but had an only moderate chance of success.
3) An MRI, which would cost thousands, be 100% accurate, and would have no other impact.
4) Surgery, which would cost thousands, be 100% accurate, and would have a high chance of curing the problem.

I opted for #1. However, all of these options cost about the same for me, as I have reasonably good insurance. The best analogy I have heard is to consider what you would do if food was handled like health insurance. Suppose your employer entered into a contract with the local grocery store such that you could only shop for groceries there, but you would only pay a flat (and minimal) cost, and could take anything you wanted. I don't know what you would do, but I'd be eating lots more fish. Part of my diet is determined by what I like, part by what is healthy, and part by the cost. Take the cost part out of the equation, and there are loads of items that I really like, and which are quite healthy...but they cost quite a bit more than what I eat now.

Then imagine that the grocery store began stocking the shelves with the occasional gold bar.

This is pretty much the health care situation that most people engaged in the debate grew up in. We have a feeling that the way it is, is the way it has always been. That's not true. Effective health care is barely 100 years old. Expensive health care is far younger. Yet it is easy to see the trend. X-rays were all that were around when I was growing up. They are cheap, but they are also only effective for certain types of injuries. MRIs are massively expensive, and massively useful, but they have only been around for a few decades. What will come along next? That I can't say, but I can assure you that it will have a computer interface, and be exorbitantly expensive, all else is in doubt.

My basic view is that the cost of health care procedures will keep rising. If people get whatever they want for the same flat fee, they will tend to ask for increasingly expensive alternatives, and the cost of health care will keep rising. Who caps it? It doesn't matter. If increasingly effective health care is created, but at costs that rise as they have been rising. Eventually, every extraneous profit has to be squeezed out of the system, which includes health insurance companies, and any other middle men that exist. None of that will fix anything, though, so eventually we will reach a level where your life can be extended to hundreds of years, but only at a cost that can be born by an increasingly tiny percentage of the population. This will lead to the point where the super rich are exceedingly long lived, and the rest of us are explicitly left to die once we have reached some fixed limit on the amount we can spend. The trend lines suggest that that day is coming (in a few decades, to be sure, not immediately). None of the proposals deal with that in any way, nor is there a solution. The current proposals only attempt to put off that day when society must deal with an unsustainable cost.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 9th, 2009, 10:56 AM

This will lead to the point where the super rich are exceedingly long lived, and the rest of us are explicitly left to die once we have reached some fixed limit on the amount we can spend.

Yes i agree, this is very possible.

There could be a new class separation based on how long you can afford to live !!

nemaroller

Nov 10th, 2009, 09:42 AM

(apart from Milosovic which us lot in Europe did eventually sort out) !!!

Lol, yea, right , it was NATO with the force of the Americans that came a-bombing. That's exactly when things got sorted out in a jiffy wasn't it?

You can pretend all your European negotiations and plea deals work, the fact is, the only reason Sebia and Russia didn't smack you Europeans silly is because you have a huge Western power like the US to back you up.

It's easy to say you have taken the high road, when you have a buddy who is willing to take the low road for you.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 10th, 2009, 10:45 AM

You can pretend all your European negotiations and plea deals work, the fact is, the only reason Sebia and Russia didn't smack you Europeans silly is because you have a huge Western power like the US to back you up.

We were actually doing pretty well until you lot decided that the only action was to bomb the hell out of everyone, Its estimated that the Nato Bombing campaign killed more innocent people then the actual conflict itself.

You can pretend all your European negotiations and plea deals work, the fact is, the only reason Sebia and Russia didn't smack you Europeans silly is because you have a huge Western power like the US to back you up.

Are you kidding here ? Serbia never had anyway near enough military power to bother any of the major European countries, the reason that we hadn't bombed or intervened earlier (rightly or wrongly) is that this was an internal War and strictly speaking it was Illegal to intervene.

Russia is another thing altogether but they didn't really care one way or another, and certainly were not a reason that we didn't go to war.

It's easy to say you have taken the high road, when you have a buddy who is willing to take the low road for you.

No its easy to take the Low Road, that's the point, it very easy to say there's the enemy lets blow the hell out of them, but it doesn't always work, look at Vietnam look at Afghanistan.

Anyway why take 1 small comment out of context and pick on that, my point was about inconsistency of policy. If the Iraq War was about removing a Dictator then why aren't we currently at War with Burma or North Korea for instance ?

North Korea are much more Dangerous then Iraq ever was.

homer13j

Nov 10th, 2009, 01:46 PM

Its estimated that the Nato Bombing campaign killed more innocent people then the actual conflict itself.

Estimated, eh? :rolleyes:

homer13j

Nov 10th, 2009, 01:56 PM

No its easy to take the Low Road, that's the point, it very easy to say there's the enemy lets blow the hell out of them, but it doesn't always work, look at Vietnam look at Afghanistan.

Vietnam (and soon Afghanistan) proved that any war can be lost if you allow it to be administered by people who insist "the war is lost (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niPmXym7u3g)" and backed up by talking heads who tell us we are losing (https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/cronkite_1968.html) despite the actual events on the battlefield that prove otherwise.

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 10th, 2009, 02:18 PM

Vietnam (and soon Afghanistan) proved that any war can be lost if you allow it to be administered by people who insist "the war is lost (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niPmXym7u3g)" and backed up by talking heads who tell us we are losing (https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/cronkite_1968.html) despite the actual events on the battlefield that prove otherwise.

Do you believe Vietnam was winnable? Under what definition of "win"?

nemaroller

Nov 10th, 2009, 03:51 PM

We were actually doing pretty well until you lot decided that the only action was to bomb the hell out of everyone, Its estimated that the Nato Bombing campaign killed more innocent people then the actual conflict itself.

See? You actually still think you were accomplishing something by carrying on pointless meetings.

Are you kidding here ? Serbia never had anyway near enough military power to bother any of the major European countries, the reason that we hadn't bombed or intervened earlier (rightly or wrongly) is that this was an internal War and strictly speaking it was Illegal to intervene.

It was illegal, yet the Europeans still did it. How strange how that judgement changes depending on whose doing what eh?
With economic support from Russia, the Serbs could have rolled over any mainland European country. None have a meaningful standing army with any recent military experience.
Russia is another thing altogether but they didn't really care one way or another, and certainly were not a reason that we didn't go to war.

You didn't go to war because without NATO, Russia would have no reason to not cut off your gas supplies, or hike them 1000%, hold a gun to your head, all the while selling nukes to Serbia. Wait, Putin is doing that as we speak. Well, maybe your leaders should sit down with Putin and tell him your friends again, because he didn't get the message the first 50 times!

Anyway why take 1 small comment out of context and pick on that, my point was about inconsistency of policy. If the Iraq War was about removing a Dictator then why aren't we currently at War with Burma or North Korea for instance ?

It irks me that liberal Europeans do not realize their very existence and freedoms are only afforded by the actions of a Western superpower willing to fight for the Western world. All the while, the liberal European will daily denounce that power as an illogical rogue state, undermining, and hazardous to the peace of the world. As I said, it is easy to take the high road (talk the talk) if you have someone to take the low road for you (walk the walk).

homer13j

Nov 10th, 2009, 07:39 PM

Do you believe Vietnam was winnable? Under what definition of "win"?

No. Not because it wasn't possible, but because our own political leaders were far more worried about polls, approval ratings and relentless chanting throngs of pissed-off hippies than actually getting the job done.

During the Tet Offensive the Viet Cong threw everything they had at us and failed miserably losing more than 45,000 troops in the process. Hindsight being what it is we now know that an immediate and thorough counteroffensive could have easily delivered the knockout punch and toppled the North Vietnamese government. That would be my definition of "win." But it did not and was not allowed to happen for purely political reasons.

Throw in the fact that our own news media was lying to us all along. The "most trusted" anchor Cronkite told us following Tet: "Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw." Sure, it was pure BS, but it worked. It turned public opinion solidly against the war and eventually gave the hippies exactly what they wanted: a humiliating defeat for the US.

Today we have elected idiots like Harry Reid openly cheering for another humiliating defeat for the US.

It irks me that liberal Europeans do not realize their very existence and freedoms are only afforded by the actions of a Western superpower willing to fight for the Western world. All the while, the liberal European will daily denounce that power as an illogical rogue state, undermining, and hazardous to the peace of the world. As I said, it is easy to take the high road (talk the talk) if you have someone to take the low road for you (walk the walk).

Irksome, yes, but not at all hard to understand.

European history is full of war and bloodshed that culminated in the two biggest, bloodiest wars in human history inside of three decades. After the second time the US decided Europe could not be trusted to behave themselves so we left a few divisions behind in western Europe to ensure they would play nice together while the Soviets did the same to eastern Europe with the added bonus of instituting communist oppression. Western Europe was quite happy to be relieved of the burden of maintaining standing armies, navies, defense perimeters, etc, but was not happy about the ensuing cold war as peace and stability became the two most important things in the European mind. The cold war standoff was the single biggest threat to peace in Europe. Western Europe could not control what the Soviets did, so they tried their best to influence America...

I remember distinctly when President Reagan gave his famous speech at the Brandenburg Gate calling on the Soviets to "tear down this wall" it sent western Europe into conniptions. Reagan's words were considered to be "inflammatory" and "destabilizing" yet it was those very words that started the chain of events that ended with the fall of that wall and eventually communism itself. Today Reagan is barely mentioned at all during the 20th anniversary celebrations marking the end of the German divide because they just might have to admit he was right about the Soviets all along.

Fast-forward to 2004. Europe saw the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as yet another threat to their own peace and stability. They desperately want a say in US policy to prevent such threats and they get rather agitated when we don't listen. They don't realize (or want to acknowledge) the fact that they have been lecturing us for 200+ years on how we're "doing it all wrong" and like you would do with a nagging wife who won't shut up we Americans have learned to simply tune out whenever the lectures begin yet again.

THIS is what pisses off Europe.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 11th, 2009, 04:35 AM

It was illegal, yet the Europeans still did it.

Err No actually i think you will find that it was the US that started the Bombing.

With economic support from Russia, the Serbs could have rolled over any mainland European country. None have a meaningful standing army with any recent military experience.

Hmmm, Russia were never going support the Serbians in war against any other European country. The Russians really have no interest in going to war with there neighbours who they do most of there business with, And i think you will find that the UK army had plenty of Experience if you care to look it up.

You didn't go to war because without NATO, Russia would have no reason to not cut off your gas supplies

Russia might be supplying more and more Gas to Europe now but i think you will find that at the time of the war in the UK we were still mainly reliant upon our own North Sea oil and Gas supplies. Yes the are now running out but that is well after the conflict.

all the while selling nukes to Serbia

At no point has Russia sold any nuclear weapons to Serbia nor were they ever likely to unless they wanted to start World War 3.

It irks me that liberal Europeans do not realize their very existence and freedoms are only afforded by the actions of a Western superpower willing to fight for the Western world.

It Irks me that so many Americans actually believe that bull.

European history is full of war and bloodshed that culminated in the two biggest, bloodiest wars in human history inside of three decades. After the second time the US decided Europe could not be trusted to behave themselves so we left a few divisions behind in western Europe to ensure they would play nice together while the Soviets did the same to eastern Europe with the added bonus of instituting communist oppression. Western Europe was quite happy to be relieved of the burden of maintaining standing armies, navies, defense perimeters, etc, but was not happy about the ensuing cold war as peace and stability became the two most important things in the European mind. The cold war standoff was the single biggest threat to peace in Europe. Western Europe could not control what the Soviets did, so they tried their best to influence America...

God that's as strange a bastardisation of European History as i have heard.

I suspect the 1 singular difference between Europe and the US is the US has never been involved in a Conflict in the own country. Have your country blown to sh*t a few times an then see if that does not concentrate the minds of people not to want it to happen again.

I think you would see a distinct change in attitude of peoples support for War if you had experienced a couple on your own doorstep.

Fast-forward to 2004. Europe saw the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as yet another threat to their own peace and stability. They desperately want a say in US policy to prevent such threats and they get rather agitated when we don't listen. They don't realize (or want to acknowledge) the fact that they have been lecturing us for 200+ years on how we're "doing it all wrong" and like you would do with a nagging wife who won't shut up we Americans have learned to simply tune out whenever the lectures begin yet again.

No you don't get it at all do you, you really don't understand Europeans if you think that, and to talk of us as 1 entity is just strange Europe consists of nearly 50 countries do you really think that they are all the same ??

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 11th, 2009, 04:42 AM

Fast-forward to 2004. Europe saw the US invasion of Iraq

Oh and i think you will find that most European countries saw the US led invasion of Iraq as entirely unnecessary. Only the UK supported you and in the End it cost Tony Blair his job as there was an incredibly small amount of public support for it in the UK.

The war in Afghanistan is different, and as i have stated earlier in this very article if we had not gone to Iraq at all (which would have been sensible) and concentrated in Afghanistan then maybe thing wouldn't be such a mess there now.

Afghanistan and northern Pakistan and the Taliban was always the problem and i find it amazing that anyone at all thinks that we actually achieved something in Iraq other then the largely symbolic capture of Saddam.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 11th, 2009, 05:07 AM

Vietnam (and soon Afghanistan) proved that any war can be lost if you allow it to be administered by people who insist "the war is lost" and backed up by talking heads who tell us we are losing despite the actual events on the battlefield that prove otherwise.

Do you actually believe that we are 'Winning' in Afghanistan ?

FunkyDexter

Nov 11th, 2009, 07:42 AM

NSA, I agree with almost all of what you're saying but, because I'm an utter pedant where history's concerned, I had to take issue with this:-
I suspect the 1 singular difference between Europe and the US is the US has never been involved in a Conflict in the own country. America has actually fought several conflicts on it's own soil, though not in recent history. Also, us Brits haven't really fought on our own soil since 1066 unless you include civil wars and the glorious revolution (I'm including the Irish troubles under 'civil wars') so I'm not sure that's where the difference in attitude comes from. I would point out the historical innaccuracies in Homer and Nema's posts but I wouldn't know where to start and I only get an hour for lunch:rolleyes:.

Historically the US was extremely reticent about getting into wars until the last century and it was only really WW2 that changed that stance (arguably it was actually the cold war that followed than WW2 itself which they only entered under duress) because that's when it became obvious that, in the modern world, there really isn't such a thing as 'someone elses conflict'. We all end up being affectde in some way by any conflict in the world. Personally I think that's a damn good argument for not starting any.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 11th, 2009, 08:30 AM

Although i hate to argue with someone that agrees with me i just had to respond to this.

America has actually fought several conflicts on it's own soil, though not in recent history.

Yes thats true but they were basically civil wars, and not in the era of modern warfare

Also, us Brits haven't really fought on our own soil since 1066 unless you include civil wars

Ah Yes you are right technically, although as they were talking about Europe as one entity so was i.

Here i will quote myself - I suspect the 1 singular difference between Europe and the US is the US has never been involved in a Conflict in the own country

As you can see i did say Europe rather then the UK (disclosure i am also a pedant :))

homer13j

Nov 11th, 2009, 09:47 AM

It Irks me that so many Americans actually believe that bull.

What exactly is "bull" about it?

God that's as strange a bastardisation of European History as i have heard.

It is wrong? Is it inaccurate? What is your problem with it?

No you don't get it at all do you, you really don't understand Europeans if you think that, and to talk of us as 1 entity is just strange Europe consists of nearly 50 countries do you really think that they are all the same ??

I was referring to western Europe, pretty much all countries of which have placed peace and stability above all else and will do almost anything to insure it.

And I'm not knocking Europe or Europeans - I'm merely trying to say that Europe has become vehemently anti-war precisely because of their violent, bloody history. Was I not clear about this? Or if you believe I am wrong, tell me why.

FunkyDexter

Nov 11th, 2009, 10:11 AM

Yes thats true but they were basically civil wars, and not in the era of modern warfareAgreed...
Ah Yes you are right technically, although as they were talking about Europe as one entity so was i. Agreed...
disclosure i am also a pedant And Agreed:afrog: but it is fun isn't it?

I was really just highlighting that the difference in attitude probably hasn't come from a difference in the number of wars fought in home territory or otherwise over the last century or two. In fact, the relative positions switched last century. America used to avoid wars like the plague and Europe used to get into a barney at the drop of a hat.

I think Europe probably did develop a love of peace post WW2 and during the cold war but, to be honest, so did America. Both threw themselves into the founding of the UN etc because we all wanted to avoid world conflicts.

Thinking about it, America's warlike attitude is really a product of the last 3 decades. And that's only if you include the Serbian and Bosnian conflict which did actually have quite a lot of support in Europe. I think you can pretty much write that one off as an abberation. To me, the warlike attitude we're seeing from the US lately is a product almost solely of 9/11. I think it's starting to dwindle pretty fast too, which is a good thing. I see far fewer Americans rattling their sabres now than I did 5 years ago.

It is wrong?Yes
Is it inaccurate?Yes
What is your problem with it?That it's wrong and innacurate.

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 11th, 2009, 10:12 AM

No. Not because it wasn't possible, but because our own political leaders were far more worried about polls, approval ratings and relentless chanting throngs of pissed-off hippies than actually getting the job done.

During the Tet Offensive the Viet Cong threw everything they had at us and failed miserably losing more than 45,000 troops in the process. Hindsight being what it is we now know that an immediate and thorough counteroffensive could have easily delivered the knockout punch and toppled the North Vietnamese government. That would be my definition of "win." But it did not and was not allowed to happen for purely political reasons.

Throw in the fact that our own news media was lying to us all along. The "most trusted" anchor Cronkite told us following Tet: "Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw." Sure, it was pure BS, but it worked. It turned public opinion solidly against the war and eventually gave the hippies exactly what they wanted: a humiliating defeat for the US.

So what is your definition of victory? I have read a fair amount about Tet, and it crushed the Viet Cong, but not the North Vietnamese army. I have never heard anybody suggesting that the north would have quit the fight because of that, but even if that's true, is your definition of victory simply "hanging on until the other one bows out"? Would that really have resulted in a better outcome than what we have now? The south vietnamese govenrment was no prize by any standards. Had we hung on until the north quit, and ended up with a Korea-like solution, we would have been left supporting a corrupt, despotic, dysfunctional, regime, and would probably still be over there with military and economic support, propping up a dubious state with a dubious government in an economic backwater. How would that be an improvement? Would that mean that the USSR would not be quite as powerful today as they currently are? No, the USSR collapsed anyways. Would Vietnam have made peace with it's historic enemy China? Not very likely. More likely, we would have been sucked into the Khmer Rouge fight in Cambodia, just as the Vietnamese were.

We got the best possible outcome. The only way it would have been better is if Truman hadn't tried to return Vietnam to French control so that we avoided the whole war.

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 11th, 2009, 10:26 AM

I suspect the 1 singular difference between Europe and the US is the US has never been involved in a Conflict in the own country. Have your country blown to sh*t a few times an then see if that does not concentrate the minds of people not to want it to happen again.

Actually, that's not at all true. Our Civil War, though it was over 150 years back, still influences us today. The divisions and scars have not disappeared, and keep bubbling back up. What we seem to lack is both an understanding of how much the causes of the Civil War are currently affecting us, and the empathy to recognize that the same will happen in other countries for conflicts that large and divisive.

Interestingly, in the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, documents are coming out showing that the US, along with many western European countries, had deep misgivings about the re-unification of Germany, and the pace of change. Bush (the elder) tried to get together with the remains of the USSR to slow down the re-unification. Therefore, it wasn't just Western Europe that went into conniptions over Reagan's rhetoric. Effectively, even Reagan did. He spoke as he did because he didn't expect his rhetoric to come true. When it did, the US feared the result as much as any other European country, and more than some of them.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 11th, 2009, 10:36 AM

I was really just highlighting that the difference in attitude probably hasn't come from a difference in the number of wars fought in home territory or otherwise over the last century or two

Fair enough, it was just a supposition anyway so i will agree with you on this :D

It is wrong? Is it inaccurate? What is your problem with it?

I have to agree with FunkyDexter, because it is both wrong and inaccurate, and this is the main bit that is both wrong and inaccurate !!

After the second time the US decided Europe could not be trusted to behave themselves so we left a few divisions behind in western Europe to ensure they would play nice together while the Soviets did the same to eastern Europe with the added bonus of instituting communist oppression. Western Europe was quite happy to be relieved of the burden of maintaining standing armies, navies, defense perimeters, etc, but was not happy about the ensuing cold war as peace and stability became the two most important things in the European mind. The cold war standoff was the single biggest threat to peace in Europe. Western Europe could not control what the Soviets did, so they tried their best to influence America...

I remember distinctly when President Reagan gave his famous speech at the Brandenburg Gate calling on the Soviets to "tear down this wall" it sent western Europe into conniptions. Reagan's words were considered to be "inflammatory" and "destabilizing" yet it was those very words that started the chain of events that ended with the fall of that wall and eventually communism itself. Today Reagan is barely mentioned at all during the 20th anniversary celebrations marking the end of the German divide because they just might have to admit he was right about the Soviets all along.

Fast-forward to 2004. Europe saw the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as yet another threat to their own peace and stability. They desperately want a say in US policy to prevent such threats and they get rather agitated when we don't listen.

And I'm not knocking Europe or Europeans - I'm merely trying to say that Europe has become vehemently anti-war precisely because of their violent, bloody history.

This is on the other hand is fairly true, especially The Germans and the French (fairly understandably)

Us lot in the UK however still seem intent on joining in on all the major wars going.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 11th, 2009, 10:50 AM

Actually, that's not at all true.

Ahem yes well, i have just admitted i might be wrong on that one in my last post :)

Interestingly, in the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, documents are coming out showing that the US, along with many western European countries, had deep misgivings about the re-unification of Germany

Yes i have heard recently documents have come to light about Thatchers misgivings.

I suspect you will find in Europe at least it was the politicians doing the worrying, the ordinary people saw it as an historic occasion to be celebrated and possibly a new era in European history.

FunkyDexter

Nov 11th, 2009, 03:02 PM

Shaggy, not sure if I'm reading you right but are you saying that the reservations about a unified Germany were rooted in America's experience of unification after a partition. If so I'm not sure I'd agree. I can remember reservations being expressed over here but they were rooted in the fact that... well...Unified Germany does have a bit of a bad record on the whole.

the ordinary people saw it as an historic occasion to be celebrated Hear Hear!

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 11th, 2009, 05:11 PM

Actually, in the case of Bush, he wanted to slow down the process. The process was unification, but it wasn't clear that he saw any particular threat in that, or had some other motivation. The detail was in the goal, not in the reasoning.

nemaroller

Nov 11th, 2009, 06:51 PM

Err No actually i think you will find that it was the US that started the Bombing.

Yes, and the French and the British RAF just stumbled into Yugloslavic airspace, and accidentally ran over 2,000 sorties exploding thousands of munitions.

Hmmm, Russia were never going support the Serbians in war against any other European country. The Russians really have no interest in going to war with there neighbours who they do most of there business with, And i think you will find that the UK army had plenty of Experience if you care to look it up.

Russia wouldn't war against Europe... they could just jerk Europe around like they do now. You can't put up an effective defense if you can't even secure your own energy. As far as my original comment about an army with experience, I think you'll find I stated 'mainland' European country - if you care to look it up.

Russia might be supplying more and more Gas to Europe now but i think you will find that at the time of the war in the UK we were still mainly reliant upon our own North Sea oil and Gas supplies. We are now running out but that is well after the conflict.

Which is why the UK was free to think independently - without fear of economic repercussion the rest of Europe faced.

At no point has Russia sold any nuclear weapons to Serbia nor were they ever likely to unless they wanted to start World War 3.

You realize that was a hypothetical comment. Go ahead and re-read it.
I will just allude that recent German and Italian interest in securing more advanced missile defense systems from the US is not coincidental.

AsmIscool

Nov 12th, 2009, 06:41 AM

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 12th, 2009, 06:47 AM

Russia wouldn't war against Europe... they could just jerk Europe around like they do now. You can't put up an effective defense if you can't even secure your own energy.

Yes i agree Russia wont war against Europe. Nice to have something we agree on hey :D

Russia does look after its own political interests agreed but to say that it is jerking Europe around in misleading. For Russia a strong Europe is actually in there interest as it directly affects there own economic development.

As for Energy security, well don't we all have issues ? The USA Imports 60% of its Oil is your Energy Secure ?

The recent issues with energy security are all to do with Russia's dispute with the Ukraine, however the nabucco pipeline being built to bring in competition from the middle east will fix a lot of these issues.

In fact the US has been involved in the Nabucco project as i am sure it would open up a new gas route for you too.

Which is why the UK was free to think independently - without fear of economic repercussion the rest of Europe faced.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that, Russia cant just blackmail major European countries by threatening to cut of there Gas, Energy has not been used (so far at least) as a political tool for Russia against Western Europe it would be disastrous for them Economically, most of there money comes from Gas !

You realize that was a hypothetical comment. Go ahead and re-read it.

Maybe i am missing something but ..

You didn't go to war because without NATO, Russia would have no reason to not cut off your gas supplies, or hike them 1000%, hold a gun to your head, all the while selling nukes to Serbia. Wait, Putin is doing that as we speak

i don't see anything hypothetical about it, you state quite clearly Putin is doing this as we speak !

homer13j

Nov 13th, 2009, 09:58 AM

I have to agree with FunkyDexter, because it is both wrong and inaccurate, and this is the main bit that is both wrong and inaccurate !!

http://metrogamer.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/facepalm.jpg

Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

MasterBlaster

Nov 13th, 2009, 03:36 PM

This has been an excellent thread. But I have always been curious about the American health system. I can get private health insurance here for about $2 a day and you probably know what an Aussie dollar is worth. How much does it actually cost over there? And if I need an MRI scan I just walk into the nearest hospital and get it done for free. If I am not working the medications all only cost $5 and if I'm that sick I am unlikely to be working.

A respectable health insurance policy for a healthy 18 - 30 yo male non smoker can be purchased for around $300 USD per month. Of course, if you are poor and can not afford health care at all, the majority of the individual states welfare systems offer free coverage for basic preventative care and all emergency care.

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 13th, 2009, 08:27 PM

MB, where did you get that figure? I couldn't buy health care for $300/month back when I was mid-20s (which was about 15 years back), despite being in perfect health. I also had to submit to blood screening for AIDS. On the other hand, I haven't been that age for fifteen years, and haven't tried to buy insurance in that time. What kind of coverage are you talking about? Good, or just catastrophic coverage?

Basically, if you have a pre-existing condition, you won't get coverage for any amount of money, which is what the AIDS test is about.

You can walk into any hospital and get treatment. The bill will be pretty stiff, even for a simple consultation (probably in the vicinity of $100 US, or that's what it appears to have been for any consultation I have had). An MRI scan will be over $1000. On the other hand, hospitals are not allowed to turn people away at the emergency room, and will treat major injuries to some reasonable extent. Who ends up paying depends on lots of factors.

tome10

Nov 16th, 2009, 11:11 PM

I just renewed my Health Insurance and Life Insurance. All with the most expensive Options. $800 for the "YEAR" Combined. I was Airborne in the Military. My knees are shot, and I got an MRI last year, and 2 X-Rays for my ancles at different times. I guess I have a $100 deductible because I have to pay $100 per visit to the ER. Apparently it's Arthritis. Now I know and just go for the Ibuprofen. I could go to the VA, but I choose to leave that to the ones who need it. I am all about Socialism "IF" it is for the most needing among us. The people who fall through the Cracks. The Dems push for Gov control is down right Scary.. I wouldn't trust those fools to look at my Sock Drawer much less Arrange it, and they know most of us are this way or they wouldn't be completing Bills at 3am and signing them at 9. So much for Transparency. You guys are always saying the Republicans have no answers. Which is wrong, but as Americans we have to stop you guys' destruction first. Do no Damage.. It's some sort of Political Munchausen Syndrom. You Gremlins in the Basement bring the economy to it's knees and with your can't waste a good crisis mentality, hoodwink the Sheeples and the Ipodders with your Media wing propaganda. Then you say we're here to fix all this damage even though your the ones who caused it.
All you guys in Europe who love your Healthcare. It's fine now. Give it 50-100 years. Wait the corruption sets it, and it will. You will be the Eastern Block. Socialism always Fails when the Producers stop Producing, and the Moochers and the Looters prevail. You better hope America is still America. For who will free you from yourselves?

FunkyDexter

Nov 17th, 2009, 03:06 AM

I am all about Socialism "IF" it is for the most needing among usI absolutely love that sentence and I'm not being sarcastic. It's a perfect encapsulation of what socialism is meant to be about and describes my ideals utterly.

By the way, are you aware that you're pretty much advocating Marxism? Most people (Americans in particular, largely due to the baggage of the Cold War) think that Communism is all about a centralised totalitarian state because that's what actually got created by the Stalinists and Mauists.

Marx's vision, though, was of a system where government would primarily be carried out by collectives at a local level. This was good because it would mean that those who do the governing would be rubbing shoulders day to day with those they govern. It's much harder to exploit someone you meet twice a week down the local for a glass of vodka and a game of dominos. Because the collectives would be governing at a local level they would have been far better placed to recognise who were the most needy and who were the spongers. In fact you'd get far fewer spongers because they'd have to face those they were leeching off day to day. The same social pressures that keep the authority in line work on the individual too. Giving the whole 'from each according to their ability' bit a fair chance of succeeding.

Also, because government was so localised it would be relatively trivial for an individual collective to replace it's leaders and representatives if they were unsuitable - it's a throughly democratic system, possibly even more so that our own where an individual vote counts for almost nothing.

Marx acknowledged the need for a centralised authority but its role was to handle crises (which a totally decentralised system would be unable to do) and then hand power back to the decentralised collectives.

The problem is, of course, that both the major communist systems our world has seen were born out of crisis and revolution (and this is, perhaps, the only way a communist system can be born in reality). Meaning the centralised authority started by having the power and were predictably reticent about handing it over to the local collectives. In the case of the Russian revolution this defined the struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Menshaviks.

I've often wondered whether, if the Menshaviks had prevailed, we might have a far more positive view of Communism today. Probably not because, I suspect, that the first crisis that came along would start an inevitable slide toward centralisation but I'd be curious to find out.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 17th, 2009, 04:47 AM

Hey Tome10, nice to see you back in the thread !

All you guys in Europe who love your Healthcare. It's fine now. Give it 50-100 years.

The National Health Service in the UK was founded in 1948 that's over 60 years ago and it still standing, still working for all the people.

Some social policies can work, they just have to be done right. Maybe you feel that they wont in the US based on past actions of those in charge, well i cant comment on that because i haven't experienced it.

All i know is that with my partners condition (Rheumatoid Arthritis) life would be a whole lot harder without the NHS.

Xanith

Nov 19th, 2009, 08:36 AM

I have seen the survival rates for cancer inside the UK and it’s pretty scary, especially for the more prevalent cancers like prostate and breast cancer. I had heard that the NHS is one of the worlds largest employers, which means a high level of bureaucracy, which in turn means large scale waste and fraud go hand in hand as with any large government system. In the US Medicare system (our version of government health care) there was over 50 billion in waste last year alone, that we know about. Not very efficient.

I am sure the NHS is good enough for most people in the UK, but when you have cancer do you want good enough or do you want the best care in the world?

X

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 19th, 2009, 10:38 AM

I have seen the survival rates for cancer inside the UK and it’s pretty scary, especially for the more prevalent cancers like prostate and breast cancer

Where have you seen these figures ? if you look at Cancer Research UK's figures the current survival rate for Breast cancer is - 79% & for Prostate Cancer - 61%.

Also virtually all the more common cancers have increased survival rates in recent years.

The main problem the NHS has with Cancer is the less common forms such as Pancreatic & Lung cancer where the survival rates are still low.

I am sure the NHS is good enough for most people in the UK, but when you have cancer do you want good enough or do you want the best care in the world?

That is indeed the point, for most people it is good enough and it is free, which means that the poorest can actually get health care they otherwise would not be able to get.

Also just because we have the NHS does not stop anyone taking out Private medical insurance with Bupa or one of the other private hospitals if they so wish.

I had heard that the NHS is one of the worlds largest employers, which means a high level of bureaucracy, which in turn means large scale waste and fraud go hand in hand as with any large government system.

In The USA the single biggest government department is the Department of Defence.

If the size of a government department is the only qualification for having a high level of bureaucracy does this mean that it is guilty of large scale waste & fraud also ?

FunkyDexter

Nov 19th, 2009, 11:23 AM

I had heard that the NHS is one of the worlds largest employers
It's also worth mentioning that it balooned when the government part privatised. The private companies and trusts have installed a masive bureaucratic and administrative burden because their customer wasn't the patient, it was the government, so there was no real incentive for them to keep things lean. They also negotiated ludicrously generous contracts with a government that was keen to off load the bill in the short term and didn't want to think about the long term impact.

I said in a recent thread about this that both nationalised and privatised aproaches can work and have different flaws and merits. Just, for the love of God, don't go with a watered-down, half and half aproach. I personally think our NHS is pretty good (you guys in the States tend to get a pretty biased view of it by the time your media have spun it) but what problems it has are mostly rooted in the fact that we've slowly drifted away from a fully nationalised system without controlling the process.

Xanith

Nov 19th, 2009, 01:12 PM

I only have facts and figures to go on like cancer survival rates, patient satisfaction surveys, and specific stories in the BBC about what to think of the NHS. I am not sure how this constitutes a biased view unless of course statistics have been skewed, and patient surveys about their dissatisfaction with the NHS are biased, or the stories in the BBC are incorrect (which I suppose can be true).

I find a lot of people in the UK defend the NHS because it has always treated them when they needed it. I haven’t had any problem here in the US with health care but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem with it. One persons experience shouldn’t constitute either an indictment or acceptance of the status quo.

I think NSA seemed to be satisfied with a survival rate of 62% for prostate cancer. What if I told you that the survival rate in the US was over 90%? Are you still satisfied with the care the NHS provides?

X

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 19th, 2009, 02:22 PM

Xanith

Nov 19th, 2009, 03:38 PM

The only studies I was looking at was survivability rates for 5 years after initial diagnosis/treatment (which is typical for cancer studies). The only way you were counted as being a casualty of cancer is if it was listed as the cause of death, if you were still living obviously you were counted in the living column. The US by far has the best survivability rates when it comes to cancer. This can be linked to many factors including early detection, greater availability of the latest drugs and surgical techniques, and the quality of the health care professionals.

I can understand why people support their health system, however a majority of health care dollars (or pounds in the UK) are spent in the later years of life, which I do not think any of the people posting here are (at least I hope they are not :)). Which means for most people they have gotten treated for colds or a broken limb or some other minor incidents in their life and the NHS has performed those tasks well. However they haven’t had to personally deal with cancer or other major health crisis yet, and from what I have read about the NHS in the UK it’s not the first place I would want to be if I had to deal with a major illness.

X

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 19th, 2009, 04:57 PM

There are a couple moderators who are older than the rest, though I won't name any names.

For the average person, 80% of your lifetime medical costs will be incurred in the last two years of your life. If you think about that, you'll realize that makes a fair amount of sense, especially these days. The costs are incurred dealing with the issue that ultimately kills you.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 20th, 2009, 06:26 AM

When it comes to prostrate cancer, I would want to know much more about the study. As you probably know, that is in the future for most men in the US, but will kill very few. In fact, for many people, it isn't even treated, as it is not going to be the cause of death.

Shaggy makes a very good point here Xanith, and just picking on one very narrow form of illness such a Prostate cancer isn't really helpful.

I am not sure how this constitutes a biased view unless of course statistics have been skewed, and patient surveys about their dissatisfaction with the NHS are biased, or the stories in the BBC are incorrect (which I suppose can be true).

The NHS is a very political issue over here in the UK so of course statistics are skewed it depends on who is compiling the statistics and this goes both ways.

The only studies I was looking at was survivability rates for 5 years after initial diagnosis/treatment (which is typical for cancer studies)

1 of the problems in comparing this kind of data is in the US you definitely have earlier detection rates than in the UK so from the point of detection, those in the US have longer to live, but not necessarily from the point they contracted the Cancer.

As for your comment about UK defending the NHS. That's pretty insightful. We, as a species, tend to resist change and cling to what has worked.

Yep this is fair comment to some extent, however i would never claim that the NHS is a perfect organisation that doesn't need change, it does.

What i would defend it against is the bashing it sometime gets in the UK & US Media which isn't really fair or accurate.

Which means for most people they have gotten treated for colds or a broken limb or some other minor incidents in their life and the NHS has performed those tasks well. However they haven’t had to personally deal with cancer or other major health crisis yet

Well that's a bit of a naive statement, i have stated earlier in this very thread, my partner has been diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis, which is a pretty serious disease, she is currently being treated on the NHS and treated well.

My Grandma also had a stroke several years ago from which she has made a full recovery, again treated & operated on by the NHS.

On top of this my nephew was hit on the head with a Cricket ball 2 years ago and got a major blood clot about the size of a ping-pong ball pressing against his brain, again he was operated on perfectly successfully by the NHS and they did a great job.

There are 3 examples right there.

One persons experience shouldn’t constitute either an indictment or acceptance of the status quo.

Maybe it shouldn't but it often does, someone personal experience of something will always colour there judgement. If you go to a Restaurant that is highly recommended and yet when you go you have a terrible meal you will form a judgement based upon your experience it is human nature.

from what I have read about the NHS in the UK it’s not the first place I would want to be if I had to deal with a major illness.

From what i have read i would not want to go to New York because i have heard people crash planes into buildings there !!! (i am obviously making a point here)

We can all read a few articles about something and rush to judgement, basically the NHS is not nearly as bad as it is sometime made out in the press, and often those knocking it have a distinct political agenda.

We all know that it is not perfect and there are definitely thing it could do better, there are newer more effective drugs that are difficult to get due to there cost for instance.

A question to you though Xanith, what do those in the US do who haven't got or cannot get Health Insurance which would tend to be the poorest amongst us?

Xanith

Nov 20th, 2009, 10:44 AM

A question to you though Xanith, what do those in the US do who haven't got or cannot get Health Insurance which would tend to be the poorest amongst us?

Well the poorest in the US have access to many types of health care, on the Federal level they have access to Medicaid, which is available to the poorest of people to provide them health insurance. Poor children on the federal level also have access to programs like SCHIP which provide health care to poor children, this program was recently expanded to those families making around 80k a year (which isn’t exactly poor but hey the government loves spending our money). Also on the state level most states have their own health insurance programs that cover the poor, my state does.

So the poorest amongst us in the US does have access to health care coverage if they apply for it. If all else fails however and someone cannot obtain any health insurance through the programs from the state and federal government they can walk into any emergency room in the country and get treated. Federal law prohibits refusal of treatment based on any individual’s ability to pay.

X

homer13j

Nov 20th, 2009, 11:08 AM

There are 3 examples right there.

There are plenty of anecdotal stories on both sides of the argument. There are quite more than a few horror stories about the NHS as well. None of these stories prove anything.

A question to you though Xanith, what do those in the US do who haven't got or cannot get Health Insurance which would tend to be the poorest amongst us?

Most of the uninsured here are uninsured by choice. They are young, healthy and see no need to spend exorbitant sums on something they probably won't use for many, many years.

These are the people specifically targeted for prison time by the house bill. Yes, prison. There will be no more choice if this bill becomes law.

As I stated before, the "poorest among us" already get free health care. And as I also stated before, this bill is nothing more than another giant government power grab that does little to solve our problems except to create yet another giant, powerful, and completely unaccountable government bureaucracy that is solely responsible for them.

I'm curious as to why foreigners (particularly Brits) who will not be affected one bit by this bill want so desperately to see it become law. Why do you care? What is in it for you?

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 20th, 2009, 11:29 AM

There are plenty of anecdotal stories on both sides of the argument. There are quite more than a few horror stories about the NHS as well. None of these stories prove anything.

Yes i agree, that was part of my point, i could probably recount as many good things about the NHS as Xanith could bad things neither my experiences nor Xanith reading a few articles proves anything.

I'm curious as to why foreigners (particularly Brits) who will not be affected one bit by this bill want so desperately to see it become law. Why do you care? What is in it for you?

Personally i couldn't care less whether the bill comes into law or not it really up you Americans what kind of Health care system you want, they all have there flaws.

I believe mainly in my posts that i have been sticking up for the NHS which several posters have been knocking, or using as evidence as to why a national health bill or service or anything of the sort is a bad idea.

All i am saying is the a government run health service in itself is not a bad idea, the implementation of such an idea maybe but that is a different argument.

Also i like to Argue :0)

demotivater

Nov 20th, 2009, 02:22 PM

Also i like to Argue :0)

:lol:

The government has trouble running cash for clunkers, social security, passport program, etc etc etc (the multitude of other government programs that are fubar escape me). Running something as complex as health care? You've got to be kidding me. And mandating it under penalty of jail time and fines? A friend of mine refuses to get health insurance because "he doesn't need it". I disagree, but if all this bs comes to fruition, he'd face jail time and a fine he can't afford (forcing him to get other government assistance no doubt). For a party that espouses freedom of choice (at least when it comes to killing babies), I wonder why they're so against choice in this issue?

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 20th, 2009, 03:07 PM

Yeah, the postal service was a total failure. Air traffic control...what a mess. Rural electrification, we all know how terribly that worked out. Interstate highways...don't we wish. Social security...hasn't kept the old folks from the home. The multitude of other government programs that are fubar escapes me, too.

The point about not needing health care is this: The insurance industry is based on the premise that the lucky pay for the unlucky against the probability that the lucky will BECOME the unlucky. When it comes to health care, we are all unlucky. It's just a question of when. Eventually, the costs for the majority of the population over the course of their lifetimes, will be FAR greater than their contribution over the course of their lifetimes. This is inevitable unless the rate of cost increase was to drop considerably. Eventually, our health will be the single biggest expense in any of our lives. For many people, this is already the case. Perhaps for most of us this is already the case, we just don't know it yet.

I have a friend who's wife had a baby with some severe complications. A decade or two back and they would have died. Now all are alive and well, but they have spent more on that baby than they will make in their lives.

My grandmother has managed to incurr costs that dwarf her total life time income just by living a long, though healthy, life. Suppose I was to live as long. My major expense, currently, is a mortgage payment, which dwarfs all my other routine expenses. That payment will be made for 20 years or so, and in the end I will own a house. The cost of that house would cover a decade (perhaps) in a nursing home (it's not an expensive house, as they go). How many years should I be paying these fat payments to cover my end of life care? Well, none, I suppose, because the govenment will cover me through medi-whichever (I can't keep them straight). How much have I paid into that? A trivial monthly amount deducted from my fictional gross pay. Since I live on my net salary rather than my gross, I perceive that I have paid nothing. Of course, that means that all y'all (at least the US contingent) have paid for my health care via your taxes. It would make more sense that we paid into the fund early and often, because very few of us will avoid a MAJOR medical bill at some point in our lives. Fortunately, the fact that the bill will likely come due in the last year or two of our lives, and the fact that if it isn't paid, we won't be responsible for it (you might have to think that one over a bit), means that we can ignore it for now. We do tend to ignore expenses that will occur in a distant future, even if the magnitude is roughly known. The bill is forcing people to deal with their imminent cost to society. Sure, some will die quickly and therefore will be cheated out of that money, but most won't, and those who are will not care.

demotivater

Nov 20th, 2009, 03:25 PM

Is that the same postal system that is about bankrupt? And social security, are you kidding me? Do you think you'll collect? At least they had the foresight to not increase the amount received by recipients since the cost of living didn't go up this year. :sick:

Support of this debacle is directly proportionate to how far your head is stuck up your rear end.

homer13j

Nov 20th, 2009, 03:52 PM

Yeah, it's always entertaining to hear someone hold up Social Security as something the gov't does right. :rolleyes:

It's nothing but a giant pyramid scheme. And it will collapse eventually as all pyramid schemes do. When this was addressed by congress several years ago the Dems claimed nothing was wrong and it was all a nefarious Republican plot to "cheat granny out of her retirement." And so the debate ended leaving the next generation to clean up the mess - if they are even able to.

If something like SS was attempted by private individuals they would be rightfully imprisoned for fraud.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 21st, 2009, 03:06 AM

Is that the same postal system that is about bankrupt?

Yeah, it's always entertaining to hear someone hold up Social Security as something the gov't does right.

Is there anything your government does right ? is government in America just institutionally corrupt or something ? This is a serious question ?

And what about the other government programs that Shaggy mentioned ?

I know in the UK when we have privatised major Public services for instance the Railways the Private companies have generally made a pigs ear of it, and the cost of using the service has gone up massively, and competition does not seem to be regulating fairs.

Gas & Water services which have also been privatised have had again failed to introduce competition into the Market. Maybe it is these perceived failures of Private enterprise to run major public services which at least in my country makes government run services more popular (at least than in America).

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 21st, 2009, 09:32 AM

The postal system is going bankrupt because of a change in the way we use it. It was a viable and successful organization for a couple hundred years, but you could say the same about all the village blacksmiths, too. Times change. Technology changes. What once made sense, makes sense no more. However, the postal system isn't dead, it's just transitioning to a new model for the new age.

As for Social Security, the concept was good, the law was good, but politicians were given the keys to the lockbox, and can't stop raiding it. This actually happens to every similar system that I am aware of. When some revenue is dedicated to a certain objective, the politicians can't stop dipping into it for other projects. Doesn't matter which party, either. However, in the case of Social Security, to answer your question: Yes, I think I will collect. Perhaps I am older than you think, but Social Security will not be allowed to collapse before I have collected. The piggy bank was raided by the piggys on both parties, but they left IOUs that they will feel obligated to repay for the same reason we pay on the national debt: The alternative is unthinkable to the politicians. The only way that Social Security will be abandoned, and all the seniors who count on it cut off, is if the Rs do it, and they won't.

On the other hand, this is just another case where everybody discussing the issue is too young to have a personal memory of the situation before Social Security. Just like the anti-vaccine people who link vaccination to all kinds of other issues, it's a worry they can fret over because the greater worry that vaccination solved is no longer a concern. In this case, however, most of you know somebody who receives Social Security. Sit down with a group of those people and discuss how their finances would look if the program were to end tomorrow. Then consider what this country would be like without it. If that alternative looks good to you, then either they lied to you, you didn't actually talk to them, or your medication is a bit too strong.

homer13j

Nov 21st, 2009, 11:20 AM

As for Social Security, the concept was good, the law was good,

Both the concept and the law were flawed from the very beginning since SS relies on a constantly growing population. Once that ended it became just a matter of time before the system faced collapse. Yes, both parties raided the SS surplus when it existed, but only one party so far has attempted to reform this mess. The other party has done nothing but stonewall and do their best Frank Drebin impersonation: "nothing to see here, folks. Move along..."

The only way that Social Security will be abandoned, and all the seniors who count on it cut off, is if the Rs do it, and they won't.

Perhaps now, but I am hopeful that someday we may elect politicians with some backbone to do something to solve the problem. But I'm certainly not holding my breath. And like anyone with any sense should do I'm not relying on SS to be there when I retire.

Government entitlements never die. They knew this perfectly well when SS was implemented in 1935.

Then consider what this country would be like without it.

Ah, yes... A country where people actually rely on themselves instead of government entitlements. Where our government does what is constitutionally required and not one bit more and never panders to the populace with handouts and entitlements in order to gain and hold political power. Where people are free to earn and invest as much as they can without interference. Where the burden of big government becomes more important than the handouts received from it. It's quite a wonderful thing to contemplate, actually. It would also mean the end of the Democrat party as we know it.

It'll never happen. Our population has become too addicted to suckling on the teat of big government.

Is there anything your government does right ?

Well, Shaggy mentioned the highway system which does pretty well despite the occasional catastrophic bridge failure. As long as participating states don't decide to spend all that gas tax money on their own pet projects designed to create more dependence and political power.

is government in America just institutionally corrupt or something ?

Ding, ding ding! You've nailed it right there. And it's not just Washington that's hopeless. Entire cities like Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, St. Louis, San Fransisco or any city in Ohio, New Jersey, Michigan, New York, etc. have become synonymous with corruption.

In other words any state or city government has been dominated by Democrats for more than two decades or so is more than likely institutionally corrupt. :wave:

zaza

Nov 22nd, 2009, 06:35 AM

...which, of course, is completely different to taking your armed forces into an unnamed Middle Eastern country on the pretext of WMD whilst really looking to justify your exorbitant military budget to your own people and hand some fat reconstruction projects to select domestic corporations at the expense of the taxpayer, perhaps with a view to sitting in one or more boardrooms a few years down the line.
Oh, and getting an opportunity to get some good old-fashioned revenge in at the same time.

Both sides are at it, and you know it.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 23rd, 2009, 05:42 AM

The postal system is going bankrupt because of a change in the way we use it. It was a viable and successful organization for a couple hundred years

A similar thing is happening to the Royal Mail in the UK. email & other forms of electronic messaging have decimated its business, and although it is not yet going bankrupt it losing a lot of money and the government for good or bad are looking to part privatise it.

Both the concept and the law were flawed from the very beginning since SS relies on a constantly growing population

Two questions here, why does it require a constantly growing population ? and has the population of the USA stopped growing ? serious questions both.

firstly i know what system we have over here but not the US system, and secondly i know that the UK population is still expanding and is projected to Grow by another 10 million in the next 20 years, so is the US population growth static ?

In other words any state or city government has been dominated by Democrats for more than two decades or so is more than likely institutionally corrupt.

While i didn't agree with it all i actually thought your last post was quite a good post but that's were you lost me, corruption is never limited to 1 side, if i look up Republican corruption in google it returns loads of results on;

Rod Blagojevich
George Ryan
John Rowland
Bob Taft
Ted Stevens

Just to name a few, now i have only ever even heard of 2 of these (ted stevens & blagojevich) but it seems to me that corruption swings both ways.

(i am sure looking up Democrat corruption would yield a similar number of results)

Also how does the love of small government go hand in hand with under George W Bush spending massive amounts on Defence and having 1 of the largest defence departments and (according to Shaggy in a previous post, who am sure is impeccable with his facts :0) ) largest governments in recent years ?

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 23rd, 2009, 09:01 AM

Both the concept and the law were flawed from the very beginning since SS relies on a constantly growing population. Once that ended it became just a matter of time before the system faced collapse.

Not true. The intention was to spend the interest rather than the capital. By raiding the capital the situation has been turned into what you describe, but it wasn't set up that way.

Yes, both parties raided the SS surplus when it existed, but only one party so far has attempted to reform this mess.

You thought their idea of reform was good? Put it all in the market was the idea, which is based on market performance that has only been seen in our lifetimes (well, mine anyways, I'm not sure how old you are). Putting your life savings into stocks is not advised for any but the young because you need a long perspective to avoid losses. For the middle aged and older, stocks should be a declining percentage of investment holdings.

Perhaps now, but I am hopeful that someday we may elect politicians with some backbone to do something to solve the problem. But I'm certainly not holding my breath.

Good thing, as you'd die first if you did. Politicians follow game theory like everybody else. The problems that they actually have to solve are not the theoretical problems that we would like them to solve. As it turns out, it takes lots more than backbone to make decisions that end your career when painless (for you) alternatives exist.

And like anyone with any sense should do I'm not relying on SS to be there when I retire.

Government entitlements never die. They knew this perfectly well when SS was implemented in 1935.

Nice pair of statements. You say that it will never die, but you expect it to die before you retire. I applaud your sense of longevity, but doubt that you can put it into practice.

Ah, yes... A country where people actually rely on themselves instead of government entitlements.

Yeah, go back and look at the quality of life post retirement prior to SS. Don't look too hard, though, as there was no retirement for the majority. You worked until you couldn't work anymore. Then you lived off charity of family or community until you died, which tended to happen pretty quickly as there wasn't effective health care (let alone insurance). Part of the issue today is that people don't expect to die within five years of retirement as they used to.

Where our government does what is constitutionally required and not one bit more and never panders to the populace with handouts and entitlements in order to gain and hold political power.

Right, no roads, no rural electrification, no military to speak of, forget about clean water, food inspection, clean air, or safe and effective drugs. Of course, you covered that. The politicians do what gets them elected, which includes not ignoring the demands of the people.

Where people are free to earn and invest as much as they can without interference.

And that includes any quack, snake oil salesman, or shady investment pusher that wants to work.

Where the burden of big government becomes more important than the handouts received from it. It's quite a wonderful thing to contemplate, actually. It would also mean the end of the Democrat party as we know it.

And even faster an end to the Republicans, as they have built government faster than the Democrats for the last few times they've been in power.

Well, Shaggy mentioned the highway system which does pretty well despite the occasional catastrophic bridge failure. As long as participating states don't decide to spend all that gas tax money on their own pet projects designed to create more dependence and political power.

Mostly, I would agree. The bridges are generally woefully beyond expiration, and are only slowly being replaced. In this state, that is because the Rs have failed to follow the demands of the R governor, but there isn't enough money to replace more than a fraction of the aging infrastructure. Federal gas tax isn't very high, and state gas tax...funds whatever.

homer13j

Nov 23rd, 2009, 09:57 AM

Just to name a few, now i have only ever even heard of 2 of these (ted stevens & blagojevich) but it seems to me that corruption swings both ways.

Uh... Blago is a Democrat very closely associated with Obama. :eek: He was busted trying to sell Obama's open senate seat to the highest bidder.

(i am sure looking up Democrat corruption would yield a similar number of results)

I think you would get quite a bit more than five (four legit) names.

Also how does the love of small government go hand in hand with under George W Bush spending massive amounts on Defence and having 1 of the largest defence departments and (according to Shaggy in a previous post, who am sure is impeccable with his facts :0) ) largest governments in recent years ?

The main reason the Republicans lost power was because they insisted on acting like Democrats. True conservatives stayed home last election when they gave us more of the same with McCain.

Oh, and conservative != Republican.

Nice pair of statements. You say that it will never die, but you expect it to die before you retire.

No, I said I was hopeful. Big difference.

Don't look too hard, though, as there was no retirement for the majority. You worked until you couldn't work anymore. Then you lived off charity of family or community until you died

People used to save and invest for their retirement. The 1929 stock market crash wiped out many people's investments (although the Dow average returned to it's Sept. 1929 levels by the following spring) opening the door for implementation of SS.

And that includes any quack, snake oil salesman, or shady investment pusher that wants to work.

It's not the government's job to protect people from their own stupidity.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 24th, 2009, 09:12 AM

I think you would get quite a bit more than five (four legit) names.

Even if there are more than 4 it doesn't really matter it still shows that corruption is party independent it depends on the man or woman not the party they support.

People used to save and invest for their retirement.

Did they, i know that my grandparents (on my mothers side) worked until they were 65 and then drew a state pension (which isn't a lot) they never had enough money to save anything, they had 4 kids to bring up. You have to remember post war was a lot more austere in Europe than the US.

The stock market is a fairly recent invention what did people do before that ?

It's not the government's job to protect people from their own stupidity.

But it is their job to look after the vulnerable, according to the UK governments own figures - The typical victim of doorstep crime is aged 81, female and living alone

Xanith

Nov 24th, 2009, 10:23 AM

You thought their idea of reform was good? Put it all in the market was the idea, which is based on market performance that has only been seen in our lifetimes (well, mine anyways, I'm not sure how old you are). Putting your life savings into stocks is not advised for any but the young because you need a long perspective to avoid losses. For the middle aged and older, stocks should be a declining percentage of investment holdings.
Actually it wasn’t all in the Stock Market. It was only 10% from what I remember. And you didn’t have to put it in the stock market, much the same way as 401k’s allow several different investment options so would have the retirement plan. You can put the money in a simple CD or even in real estate, you didn’t have to put the money in stocks.
In my 401k as I get closer to retirement I am going to take more and more money out of stocks and put them in safer short term investments like CD’s that earn a more stable return, but generally have a lower return rate. Anyone who is at retirement age and still has all of their money in stocks is an idiot.

The rate of return on SS is only around 1-2%. Where the method of adding money to the market (privatized system) has been tried in such States as Texas and in countries like Peru the rate of return has been much higher. In other words it worked. The problem with a privatized system is that it takes control and power out of the hands of government and gives it to the individual, something which those in power have a hard time giving up.

X

tome10

Nov 24th, 2009, 11:38 PM

This guy Writes better than me. ;-)
http://www.whoisjohngalt.com/2009/11/a-liberal-on-conservatism.html

a liberal on conservatism
Note: This is the third of four posts about my exchange with Justin.
Also see Part 1, Part 2 and Part 4.

Justin writes:

Conservatives are so attached to their precious tradition that when a better idea comes along, they can't see it for what it is simply because it's different from what they already know. I understand the value of tradition, but we cannot continue to use it as a substitute for governance.

The false premise here is that "tradition" is either arbitrary or antiquated when in fact it is neither.

A progressive should recognize that "traditional" American values are highly evolved, originating in a philosophical quantum leap known as the Age of Enlightenment. The lifestyle Americans enjoy is nothing less than Darwin on display: survival of the fittest. Not some zero sum game nonsense of Americans surviving while everyone else perishes, but evolution in the sense that our enlightened freedom displaces the natural poverty that other social and political structures just can't seem to eradicate.

The liberal laments that our prosperity is shackled by so much tradition (property rights, anyone?) without ever recognizing traditional values as the very source of that prosperity.

Every authoritarian government in history has been an experiment in all the same principles of liberalism. Progressives have new theories, but their ideas are neither better nor new.

Progressive income taxation did not work when the king took all the money for himself, and it does not work any better when the elites give it away to their favored interests. Prosperity isn't bound by whether there's a law against poverty -- the problem is that less gets produced when there are laws against wealth. And that's exactly what all liberal policies are, whether imposed by medieval nobility or modern-day elites.

Conservatism is not an impediment to progress; it is the source of progress. America is not what it is because of where it's going -- it's great because of where it's coming from. The individual liberty that "progressives" want to suppress in fact was, and still is, the most progressive idea in the history of human government. It was conservatism, not liberalism, that made America great.

If you want to see what liberalism has brought us, consider the $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that would be necessary to sustain progressive sacred cows like Social Security and Medicare. Or the subprime housing mess, which is a direct result of liberals tampering with the mortgage market.
Justin also says:

...You seem to fear science, which is hilarious to me.

I have no fear of science. Like economics, which I refer to all the time for explanations of why liberal policies don't actually work.

It's religious cults like liberalism that scare me. And rightly so, considering that leftism in all its various forms has killed over a hundred million people in the last century alone.

In fact, if liberals had ever applied the scientific method to their own ideas as they've been tried across history, liberalism would have been declared a failed experiment decades ago.

But liberals continue to hope and believe. That's faith; not science at all.

tome10

Nov 25th, 2009, 12:04 AM

The Video of Reagan on Healthcare he talked about everywhere else exchanging one set of rules for another. But here Our Constitution was written by the Original Radicals. That Based our Society on Individual Freedom and the Rights Endowed by Our Creator "GOD" Not "GOV". Europe has always had Kings and Monarks, and Ruling Elitists. I just don't think you Progressives have totally thought this through. I think we're heading for trouble, and since you guys were unable to take away our guns, and the Military is nothing more than a bunch of Crazies that Pledge to defend the Constitution. Not Dem Not Rep. Constitution. I think you guys need to abandon the Marxist ship.
Ohh and if you say that Marx guy. Who I might add is not an American. So I doubt his ideas truly belong here. But say I allow the premise. So from what you say about his beliefs. He would in fact be against the Gov Takeover of our Medical System. He would be for states rights. I hope he would be against the Demonization of the Rich because they start all these Not for Profit Organizations who help the Community. He would be for Religious Organizations providing Healthcare for the Needy in their Community. Good people Volunteering their Time and Money to the people who need it the most. But that happens only when the GOV isn't taking their money and redistributing it to people who are living better than they are. With that said, I realized you can take your Secular Society and shove it. I prefer our Civil Society, but keep this path and it won't be Civil much longer.

tome10

Nov 25th, 2009, 12:34 AM

Sorry, one more.. This one is good and sarcastic. I love Sarcasm. ;-)

http://www.whoisjohngalt.com/2009/11/condescension-of-a-liberal.html

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 25th, 2009, 12:03 PM

Smoke and emotion, with not enough substance to give it weight.

However, I want to talk about something different. I've been in this world for several decades at this point. At one time, I thought there was a normal arc to the average life, and I didn't really want much more than that. Now that the arc has likely peaked, and I am not likely to live as many more days as I have lived to this point, my view has changed a bit. Whether in small business, government, idealistic non-profit, or anywhere else I have ever been, there seems to be a common thread: Humans seek religion.

I'm not talking about a large organization bent on the worship of a theoretical being, but the adherence to ritual. In the small case, that comes down to doing things because "we've always done them that way." That can be as simple and personal as a morning cup of coffee, or as large as federal regulations. If you think over your day, minute by minute, you will probably realize that the majority of the actions you take are part of a ritual, though you might have dozens, or even thousands, of rituals that you participate in over the course of a single day. The similarity between them all is that you don't think about doing them, you just do them. Nor am I suggesting that they are all, or even mostly, bad.

However, look at large systems like the government. The federal government is the biggest single entity in this country. How many rituals exist within it? The number is uncountable. Since Reagan, conservatives have largely stated that government IS the problem....except for the military, because conservatives have been strong supporters of the military since long before Reagan. Yet, anybody who has been in the military knows that it has more bungling than any other organization out there. Despite that, much gets accomplished, and it generally comes down to one individual taking a specific action to contravene established ritual. Basically, somebody who lacks the explicit authority to do so, "takes charge". I've seen this happen at all levels of society, from small towns to large organizations. The common thread is that somebody makes a decision and either acts on it, or gets others to act on it, despite not having the explicit authority to make that decision. Inertia comes from obeying the ritual.

The thing is, we are all highly trained as social organisms to obey the ritual. To keep our actions within the proscribed boundaries of the social order, whatever the order happens to be for the specific situation. People who stick their necks out expect their heads to be struck (if not removed altogether). In some situations, that is exactly what happens.

I am coming to see that there are leaders, enforcers, and other, with people fitting into different categories at different times, depending on the specific ritual involved, and the individuals perspective on the ritual. The leaders simply break the ritual and try to set up a new one (there is ALWAYS a ritual, even a ritual for how and when to break an existing ritual, the only exception, if you follow cartoons, is Calvin Ball). The enforcers are the ones who beat people down for breaking the ritual. The 'other' category is the vast majority of people who either don't know, or don't care, about the ritual, or the fact that it is being broken.

Under that scenario, change comes only when the enforcers are too weak to prevent the change. They may be weak because they can't actually oppose the leader, or they may be weak because they are too apathetic about the ritual to effectively enforce the rules.

You see this at the national scale because progressives are not always leaders (trying to change established ritual), nor are conservatives always enforcers (trying to maintain existing ritual). Both parties switch roles, or even share roles, depending on the ritual in question. However, I am more interested in this at the local level. I am currently working on a project that has been attempted for twenty years, with almost consistent failure. The only success, and it was partial, was something I did ten years ago, and it was largely successful because nobody knew I was doing it, except my boss, who was a leader. For my part, I was in the role of 'other', mostly, as I simply didn't understand or recognize the greater context that I was taking part in (and the people who DID understand, other than my boss, didn't know what I was doing, either, with the exception of a pair of enforcers who were entirely apathetic). In the case of the current project, my boss (a different guy) is pretty much a leader, as am I, while the enforcers are my user group, who are all people I like quite a bit. It makes for an interesting situation. I realize that success will largely come by thwarting the enforcers, which means doing a job without actually letting the users know that the job is being done until it is too late, yet doing the job without hiding it from them. Kind of an interesting situation.

On the national scale, the bulk of the debate is enforcers trying to pummel people for breaking a ritual dear to them. The arguments are all silly, in the end, because we have an N of 1 in a chaotic system. It is demonstrably invalid to say how the world would have turned out with or without any social policy whether right or left, yet we attempt to do it all the time. The one general constant is compassion, as the industrialized nations have generally moved towards greater social compassion, but we don't have a single example, that I know of, where a society has moved steadily away from social services without also suffering a simultaneous change in an equally significant ritual. Therefore, we can't say whether the results of that change are the result of breaking one ritual, the other, or a combination of both. In the case of adding social services, we are also breaking an existing ritual, but we CAN say how we are right now: And we are mighty fine, thank you very much. We whine about our situation, but that is also a ritual, and one which is rarely, and only temporarily, broken in all of recorded history.

FunkyDexter

Nov 25th, 2009, 03:33 PM

Our Constitution was written by the Original Radicals. That Based our Society on Individual Freedom and the Rights Endowed by Our Creator "GOD" Not "GOV". Hardly radicals I'm afraid. It was based entirely on ideas that came out of Europe, particularly French enlightenists and English radicals. The only revolutionary thing about the American revolution was the revolution itself, not the ideas that sparked it. It's no accident that the American and French revolutions were only 20 years apart, revolutionary ideas were abounding in the whole of the Western World throughout the 17th century and about the only major nation that didn't have some sort of revolution was Great Britain - mainly because we had a pretty equitable and democratic society (we've been consistently ahead of the curve on that one since about the 15th century).

Europe has always had Kings and Monarks, and Ruling Elitists.Not really. England had a government that could hold the king to account to a greater or lesser degree since the 13th century. The Holy Roman Empire was electing it's Emperors from long before that. The Romans had a democratic system that mandated plebian representation in the senate about 500 years before Jesus was or wasn't born (depending on your religious beliefs). They pinched the idea from the Athenians who are generally credited with coming up with the whole democracy wheeze in the first place (though there is some evidence that they nicked it from the Achaemenid Persians (yep, that's right, democracy is probably an Iranian idea originally:eek:)). I don't know what it is about some Americans that makes you think you came up with the ideas of personal freedom and democracy in a world populated by evil European tyrants but it's total garbage, I'm afraid. I suspect it's because you have a very definite milestone (Independence) you can point to whereas Europe staggerred towards in fits and starts over two and a half millenia. Mind you, since that independence milestone didn't abolish slavery or emancipate women and the fact that the Great Britain you gained independence from had long since transferred legislative powers from the monarch to the government I'm not sure it's really such a perfect milestone at all.

that Marx guy. Who I might add is not an AmericanReally?! I had no idea:rolleyes:

So I doubt his ideas truly belong here.Are you saying that the America has nothing to learn from the rest of the world? That would be either incredibly arrogant or just plain idiotic... or possibly both.

He would in fact be against the Gov Takeover of our Medical SystemYour centralised government's takeover, absolutley. He certainly wouldn't have advocated privatisation of it, though, because he recognised that the market is, at best, morally neutral.

I hope he would be against the Demonization of the RichThe answer to that one's actually quite complex. He believed that the existence of the very rich was indicative of a fundamentally flawed society. He wasn't against people being rewarded for their efforts and he didn't advocate a society in which we all lived in uniform tenements eating government prescripted meals. On the other hand he did recognise a society in which the gap between rich and poor had reached the levels it had in late 19th/early 20th century Europe was not healthy. He would probably have reached the same conclusion about a present day America in which some starve while others live in luxury and in which an indivdual's state is rarely predicated upon their worth to society.

because they start all these Not for Profit Organizations who help the CommunityI really don't think he'd have believed that and neither do I. Certainly many wealthy individuals do a great deal for society and the US's altruistic tradition (which is probably the finest in the world) is something I think he would have admired. But to directly link altruism to wealth is demonstrably fallacious. Not all charitable work is done by the wealthy and not all the wealthy do charitable work. In the UK, at least, charitable giving as a percentage of income is generally higher for those on a lower income than those on a higher income. I have no idea whether that's also true in the US but I'm fairly sure, at least, that the percentage will not be significantly higher for the rich than the poor.

To link the above two points, though, I think he'd probably have argued that, from top to bottom, none of us (or very, very few) do as much as we could. Rather, we do as much as we feel we should. That's why he felt there was a place for government in redistributing wealth. The important point, though, is that that government would be local to and directly influencable by the individual. Meaning it's not about some huge and remote beuracracy harvesting off your hard earned pay check. It's about your local community pooling its resources and deciding how to best use them to benefit that local community.

He would be for Religious Organizations providing Healthcare for the Needy in their CommunityHe wouldn't have been for religious organisations, full stop. He famously hated religion. Surely you must have heard the quote "Religion is the opiate of the masses", well that's Marx. He would, though, have been very much for Organisation in general doing so.

But that happens only when the GOV isn't taking their money and redistributing it to people who are living better than they areClearly that's not true. All governments redistribute wealth to a greater or lesser degree (the debate is about the scale and mechanism, not the concept) and yet we do still carry out our altruistic works. He most certainly would have been against redistribution of wealth to "people who are living better than they are" but I really don't think any current Western Government advocates or practices that either. There's a debate about how much should be redistributed downward but nobody seriously advocates redistributing upwards and in suggesting that they do you're really just spouting rhetoric. For the record, though, at the time when Marx was around, Germany (along with many other European Countries) were actually taxing the poor at a higher rate than the rich. I very much doubt you would advocate the sort of system he was criticising.

In truth, if you took the time to learn about his (or any of the enlightenists, really) beliefs I think you'd find that they are actually probably very close to your own with two fundamental differences:-
1. You're obviously religious while he felt religion was harmful to society. I'm closer to agreeing with you than Marx on that point as I personally think more good than evil is done in the name of religion but there's a whole other thread about that in the chit chat section already.
2. You believe (and if I've got you wrong here it's because I'm missreading you rather than missrepresenting you) that a free market leads to a fair society and those who benefit by the labour of others (it being the basis of a capitalist society that some will and, in doing so, improve the lot of those they benefit from) will be naturally inclined to give back to it. He'd have argued that it doesn't neccessarily lead to a fair society and that those who benefit most may be inclined to give back to society but this is by no means guaranteed and they should be made to do so if unwilling. Personally I'm with Marx on this one and will continue to be until nurses and teachers are paid as much as CEOs.

All your beliefs about state rights, small government and the importance of community are entirely in line with Marx's. I'm pointing this out, not because I think your beliefs are wrong, but rather that alot of them are right. I suspect that's true of a great many right wing/republican/conservative (apologies, none of these terms is really adequate but I don't know one that is) Americans. I'd urge you to read his work because I think you'd find it his fundamental moral standpoint is very close to your own and the differences are in the mechanisms he advocates. The problem is that most people equate Marxism with Stalinism and never bother to discover that that equation couldn't be more wrong.

Edit>Something I would point out to my fellow Euros who believe that a nationalised health service would be the perfect fit for the US: We tend to forget that the US is very big. VERY big. Any given state is about the same size as one of our nations and, since that's the level they generally set up and charge for their health programs their system as it stands is actually very like our own. I'm sure most of us Brits would baulk at the thought of giving up our NHS for a brand spanking new European Health Service - nobody wants to share a ward with a Frenchman!

That said, I do find Americans arguing over whether mandatory contributions should be introduced (that is fundamentally what is being proposed) amusing. You're paying them anyway. Whether it's coming out of your state tax, a separate contribution or a mandation to hold a private policy doesn't change that.

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 25th, 2009, 05:04 PM

That said, I do find Americans arguing over whether mandatory contributions should be introduced (that is fundamentally what is being proposed) amusing. You're paying them anyway. Whether it's coming out of your state tax, a separate contribution or a mandation to hold a private policy doesn't change that.

We are, of course, and most people understand that at some level. If they didn't, there wouldn't be the complaints about paying for illegal aliens. Whether for reform or not, or for one type or another, everyone here recognizes that they are paying for health care currently. We often don't know what portion of our payments account for what portion of the bill, nor do I think anybody can tease it apart, but we do know we are paying. The mistake that I see is a belief that everybody gets equivalent care whether insured or not.

FunkyDexter

Nov 26th, 2009, 06:56 AM

We often don't know what portion of our payments account for what portion of the bill, nor do I think anybody can tease it apart, but we do know we are payingYeah, that's probably at the root of most peoples objections to a government run/mandated system. It's impossible to tell that your getting the benefit you're paying for and the breeds a suspicion that the government is either wasting your money or actively ripping you off. A distrust of the government does seem to be a theme amongst the people that object to the reforms.

I found your stuff on our tendancy to obey the ritual to be right on the money by the way. As a natural squeaky wheel I've noticed it in my working life (oh boy have I noticed it :rolleyes:) but I've never really thought much about how it applies to society. Considering the number of times I got beat up for having long hair as a teenager you would've thought it might have occurred to me, wouldn't you?

Thankfully I'm finally at a point in my career where people have to listen to me when I challenge the ritual because that's very much part of my remit. The challenge for me now is going to be to resist becoming indoctrinated into the company culture myself.

tome10

Nov 27th, 2009, 01:14 PM

It seems to me The Caesars were dictators, and Rome's Problem was Mob Rule. Which seems to be what the progressives want to get to Quick Fast and In a Hurry for some reason. I am not religious, but I do believe Jesus at worse was a good teacher "Give a man bread and he will eat for a day. Teach a Man to Fish and he will eat for a Lifetime." Until of course the libs outlaw fishing. In my mind Democracy ceases to exist when the masses learn they can vote themselves Bread. Which is exactly what the progressives want to do. It's like they want to destroy this Country. Speaking of Marx, and Liberals in general, it isn't the policies that are failures, it is the Implementor. In this Case Stalin. In our current communist president (Obama). To me it seems you guys are missing something Called "Common Sense". Rational Thought? As far as teachers go. How much should they make? How much should you have to Pay for your education? What should the Min Wage be set to? What is it now? 7 something? Why not 20? 50? 100? Hell give everyone a CEO'S Salary. Thats the problem not enough sense to know that will only cause things around to cost more, and drive business' out of business, or out of the country. Not helpful. But I know the dems do it just for votes. Or am I wrong and they are really that dumb? Ohh and when you lose your train of thought please refrain from bloviating. I find it annoying when libs Ramble on trying to find a clue.

FunkyDexter

Nov 27th, 2009, 02:20 PM

The Caesars were dictatorsThey were. I was referring to the republic. Have you ever read a history book?

Until of course the libs outlaw fishingI'm not aware of the policy.

it isn't the policies that are failures, it is the Implementor. In this Case Stalin.Agreed. Did you actually read my post?

In my mind Democracy ceases to exist when the masses learn they can vote themselves Bread. Really?! In my mind it ceases to exist when they aren't allowed to.

our current communist president (Obama)He really isn't a communist and you're once again just spouting rhetoric.

To me it seems you guys are missing something Called "Common Sense". It's mutual

As far as teachers go. How much should they make? Whatever is in line with their contribution to society

What should the Min Wage be set to?Enough to prevent exploitation

Hell give everyone a CEO'S Salary.Not neccessary, just pay teachers a little bit more and CEOs a whole lot less.

Or am I wrong Yes

please refrain from bloviating Job done?

tome10

Nov 27th, 2009, 03:58 PM

They were. I was referring to the republic. Have you ever read a history book?
No, I can't say I have actually sit down and read a History Book. What would it tell me? A Republic and Dictator can Coexist?
Mob Rule doesn't lead to a Nations Destruction? What would it tell me about Pandering to the masses with Money a Nation does not have? Of Political Promises a Nation can't afford to make. What I know of History is that it is the Liberals who love Dictators, and Mob rule.

Quote:
What should the Min Wage be set to?

Enough to prevent exploitation

If I am a Free man doing my thing. And I Choose to work for 2 bucks an hour. Maybe in order to prove to my Boss I am worth 50. Who is being exploited? Me or my Boss? Why do you worry of such things?

Quote:
In my mind Democracy ceases to exist when the masses learn they can vote themselves Bread.

Really?! In my mind it ceases to exist when they aren't allowed to.

We should explore this.. Because it should not be the Govs place to provide. They should not be allowed to acquire the means of production.
I give you Capitalism. I give you My Philosopher. Ayn Rand.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Quote:
please refrain from bloviating
Job done?

What job?

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 27th, 2009, 04:23 PM

Bloviating is a good word. It might also be younger than you, as it was created fairly recently.

Rambling on isn't always bad. I'm currently working on a robotic brain using some AI concepts I developed over the last few decades. This leads me to contemplate how we actually go about thinking. I have long been fairly cynical about the concept of humans being a sentient race, but we are the only ones handing out prizes, so there is little wonder that we give ourselves the top honors.

Still, thinking about how a robot interacts with its sensors, and the world around it, leads a person to think about how they interact with the world around them. If you actually look at your actions during the course of a single day, broken down into segments of as little as ten seconds a piece, you will be forced to recognize that you actually think about what you are doing only very rarely. If you itch, you scratch, without any conscious involvement. Therefore, it shouldn't be necessary for an AI to think about all of its actions, just as we don't think about all of ours. In fact, we think about only a fraction of a percent of our actions until after we have already performed them (and usually not even then). The vast majority of sensory input is actually discarded by our minds before we even become aware of it. Nor do we (normally) get to say which filter we apply to the sensory input. The input is filtered at a level below our consciousness, and only a small percentage is allowed through to where the brain contemplates it.

I am doing a similar thing with the robot brain, as some of the responses, and much of the input, is filtered out, with only certain items being passed up to the layered neural nets that make up the higher brain. Yet, when we look at all of the actions that we take over the course of a day, and examine the number that were made with conscious thought before hand, and compare that to the number that were made without any conscious thought, it appears that humans have only the most tenuous claim to intelligence, even for the smartest amongst us. At most, we live up to the claim of intelligence for a fraction of a percent of our waking lives.

That's what got me onto the rituals. Every society that I am aware of, has come up with a religion. It appears to be a common, underlying, theme for all of humanity. Yet the only true similarity of the religions is not their content, but their purpose. We readily perceive the chaos around us (technical chaos, following the mathematical definition, not the emotional concept), and our minds seek to organize and tame it. We seek to find patterns, and where true patterns don't exist, we seek to impose patterns on that world. If this drive to seek pattern (ritual is behavior following pattern) is the underlying cause of all the myriad religions, whether they worship the sun, an ephemeral god, or a million lesser gods, why would we not expect to see the same drive at all levels of our lives? And we do. We find some ritual that works for us based on a pattern that is convenient to our lives, and we follow that ritual. Why? Because we have to.

Once we determine that we like coffee, and determine how to satisfy that desire, it can become a ritual. By turning it into a ritual, we no longer need to engage the high brain in dealing with what to do about a particular need. The ritual takes over. In the case of religion, the high brain perceives the chaos of reality, and formulates a purpose. It isn't that we need a purpose, it is that without one, the brain can't proceed. Similarly, in the robot code, I couldn't simply toss all desire into a big pot and see what bubbled up (though I really wanted to). Instead, at any one instant, there has to be desires. Ritual can be formulated to meet the desires. Unfortunately, once ritual has become established, it is very hard to break out of it.

When it comes to politics, we are all driven by fundamental desires that are arguably only semi-rational, at best. We certainly aren't given to thinking through all of the ramifications of any particular position. Worse yet, for positions of any greater significance than choice of meal, or similar trivial views, it is demonstrably impossible to think through the ramifications. Conservatives argue strongly against some kinds of change (that would be the definition, though not always the practice, of a conservative view), while Progressives argue for some kinds of change. Right now, the conservatives in the US are trying to roll the clock back to a time that never was on the principle that every change made away from that time was done for no sound reason at all, and that all such changes have been disasters. They argue that position on computers, while sitting in comfortable chairs with the expectation of working until they can retire, then living for a couple decades in declining health, but with adequate food. It's a silly position, but no worse than any other. We live in a time when all but the poorest live in comfort and luxuries that would have been unthinkable for even the wealthiest of only a century back, and still we gripe. The conservatives gripe that if only we hadn't done X, we would be SO much better off. Prove it. The progressives gripe about a cold-hearted and destructive society that could be fixed if only we did X. Well, progress has been the way things have been for centuries, and the Progressives may eventually see their own X, but it will always fall short, or be sullied in some fashion, which means that if it isn't utopia, we'll always have somewhere to place the blame.

As much as we seek to simplify the reality around us into some form that is manageable to our brain, the signals we see in the chaos may be false. Unfortunately, we are so sold on the concept that we are intelligent, that we believe our own propaganda. The mantra of the right, or the mantra of the left becomes the ritual, and deviating from the ritual brings retribution. So we make our mistakes, and try to yell louder that our side is right, even when a person with Excel, an open mind, and a few minutes, can prove that such a statement can NEVER be known. Instead, we should be whispering that we "think" our position will produce superior results, while acknowledging that we have come a LONG ways, and live in a time of abundance which we may or may not bring to an end for reasons that we may or may not understand.

Meanwhile, my robot will try to take the chaos it sees with its limitted sensors, filter that through filters that can be tinkered with, to pass information to the higher brain, where it will learn to choose an optimal path to whatever it desires by dreaming robot dreams. The dreams will instill patterns onto the web of neural nets, each of which will produce something of a ritual behavior for a certain situation. The rituals can change, it just depends on the experiences of the bot being broad enough to cause a ritual to change when it is proven to be a bad idea, but the proof will come slowly, and the rituals will change only infrequently.

Anyways, I just wonder if I will understand what the robot is doing once it is running.

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 27th, 2009, 04:33 PM

No, I can't say I have actually sit down and read a History Book. What would it tell me? A Republic and Dictator can Coexist?

Hmmm, Periclean Athens might just fit that perfectly.

Mob Rule doesn't lead to a Nations Destruction?

Probably it would show that whenever the mob gains sway, it is quickly co-opted by a few individuals who turn the mob towards personal gain. Robespierre and Napoleon are both probably better examples of this than Stalin.

If I am a Free man doing my thing. And I Choose to work for 2 bucks an hour. Maybe in order to prove to my Boss I am worth 50. Who is being exploited? Me or my Boss?

You are, but go ahead, I have no doubt that your boss will support you in your desire.

Why do you worry of such things?

Because history is riddled with examples of mass exploitation leading to bloody civil unrest, from the French Revolution, the mutiny at the Nore, Russian Revolution, the rise of Hitler (which was due to the punitive measures imposed on Germany after WW I), and the labor strife in the US in the 1800s and early 1900s. Some are big, some are small, all are violent, bloody, and unnecessary.

What job?

He meant that he answered your points with few words.

tome10

Nov 28th, 2009, 04:24 AM

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.
-Karl Marx
I just have to conclude that Marx is a Moron. Why would I want to work if I can't keep the fruits of my Labor? The products of my Intellect? However small or Large that may be. So please, stop voting DemonRat on my behalf. My relationship between me and my boss is mine. There are no Slaves in America anymore. Least of not me. There is still a Plantation. The DemonRat Party is the last Plantation. With their Race Baiters, and their Poverty Pimps. It seems they want to Enslave me. Hell, you guys want to enslave me. No Property Rights? No rights to my Own Labor? Morons. And you question my Common Sense. Unbelievable.

tome10

Nov 28th, 2009, 04:33 AM

Ohh and the Bloviating goes for you to Shaggy.

zaza

Nov 28th, 2009, 07:55 AM

I just have to conclude that Marx is a Moron. Why would I want to work if I can't keep the fruits of my Labor? The products of my Intellect? However small or Large that may be. So please, stop voting DemonRat on my behalf. My relationship between me and my boss is mine. There are no Slaves in America anymore. Least of not me. There is still a Plantation. The DemonRat Party is the last Plantation. With their Race Baiters, and their Poverty Pimps. It seems they want to Enslave me. Hell, you guys want to enslave me. No Property Rights? No rights to my Own Labor? Morons. And you question my Common Sense. Unbelievable.

I think you'll find that Marxism is basically about playing the biggest team game around. What you call "keeping the fruits of your labours" he calls "trampling the less-fortunate under your heel in order to aid your own progress up the ladder". The fact that you want to own things mean that you invariably have to acquire them by means of the suffering of somebody else, whether it be cotton-pickers in the South or 500 Bengalis sewing cloth in a 50 sq m factory. The fact that you aren't confronted with the suffering that your rapacious greed causes just means that you get to avoid the consequences of your actions.
On the other hand, if everybody contributes everything to the communal pot, then you aren't working for the betterment of yourself, you're working for the betterment of the team as a whole, that team being human society. Your hard work pays you off, but also everybody around you at the same time. You still have the incentive to work hard, it's just that it's you and everybody else who benefit from it. And with everybody pulling together in this way, avoiding all the infighting and trampling that goes on in the battle for personal profit, that extra energy gets to be expended in improving society and the net outcome is much the better.

Of course, it doesn't actually work in practice, in no small part because it relies on an administration to distribute the pot and there is every incentive for those of a corrupt frame of mind to make sure that they are part of that administration. However, I would dispute that this is a moronic ideal. To the contrary, I would say it is noble. It just doesn't work, through every fault of our own.

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 28th, 2009, 09:28 AM

Ohh and the Bloviating goes for you to Shaggy.

I wasn't confused as to the subject of your comments, I just lost interest.

FunkyDexter

Nov 28th, 2009, 02:58 PM

We should explore this.. Because it should not be the Govs place to provideSurely, if you believe in democracy, the government's place is whatever the majority of the people want it to be. Isn't that rather the point?

I'm also increasingly confused by your use of the word 'mob'. Who are the mob. Do you mean the people?

All in all I'm at a loss as to what you're position actually is. Looking at your posts you've said that your nation is based on rights given by our creator, God and you've said that Jesus was a learned teacher but you've also said that you're not religious. You've said that you've never read a history book (which should not be a badge of honour, by the way) and yet you've drawn conclusion about liberals from history. You've accused liberals (under a variety of insulting names) of wanting dictatorships and mob rule, but I'm not actually aware of a third option - the people either lead or are led. You've said that progressives 'haven't thought this through' but you condemn any attempt to expand on and interrogate ideas as oblivation. You've acknowledged failing (I'm assuming of communisn but I think you've missed how wide a spectrum that actually is) is not in the idea but in the implementor and then gone on to call the creator of that idea (widely acknowledged as one of the 20th century's greatest thinkers) a moron. In truth, all you've done is pour forth a torrent of political catch phrases while providing absolutely no indication that you've bothered to think about their meaning.

The closest you've come to expressing a position of your own is to quote Ayn Rand verbatim but you've not explored her ideas one bit. She argues that the only job of government is to protect it's citizens from physical violence. How? That will require a police force of some description and that must be paid for. That means taxation. And taxation requires a beuracracy to administrate it. How is that circle to be squared?

Her position of only protecting citizens from physical violence would not preclude someone from burgling your home while your away or stealing your car. Shoud those things be legal. If they're illegal but not to be enforced by the government then who are they to be enforced by? You? If so who is to judge whether the means you use to do so are fair and just?

Where do the congenitally sick fit into this system. Many people are born with conditions so severe that they are unable to look after themselves. Do we leave them to die?

What happens in cases of dispute over ownership. If the government cannot pass judgement then who does? A panel of peers? But is that not a form of government?

On her page one of the quotes you missed is that she believes the moral argument for capitalism is not that it achieves the common good but rather that it is the 'only system consonant with man’s rational nature'. Why? Why are other systems not consonant with man's rational nature? Given that they're a product of man's rational nature that statement needs some justification.

She goes on to say that capitalism does achieve the common good but as a secondary by product. How? How does it improve all of our lots?

What, really, is your position? Let's examine it. Let's see what lessons we can learn from it. At no point have I or Shaggy (we seem to be the two you're currently having a problem with) dismissed your ideas. We'd actually be quite keen to explore them if only we could get the faintest hint of what they were.

Zaza, great distillation of the ideals of communism. One thing I'd offer a bit of debate on is that the reason it wouldn't work is because it relies on a administrion that must inevitably become corrupt. I'm not sure that's true. It's just that every communist state the word has seen so far has relied on that. If you look at the marxist model the administration is at a very local level and is extremely democratic. He hated the idea of a remote centralised beuracracy (though he acknowledged a need for one in times of crisis) because he felt that it would lead to exactly the sort of corruption you talked about. On a local level where administrators are in constant contact with the people they're administrating for and can be easily replaced I imagine that corruption is actually far less likely to creep in than it is in the sort of remote democracies most of us live in today. The problem with remote administrations is that it's very easy for them to view people as numbers (Stalin famously said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic", I think that pretty much sums up that effect) and that make's it far easier to be corrupt. I think if a full marxist model could be introduced (which is by no means certain) it might actually work for quite a long time.

That said, I agree it would probably ultimately be doomed to failure. Even Marx ackonowledged the need for a centralised beuracracy in times of crisis. I suspect that that administration would be very unwilling to give it's powers up again after the first crisis. Mind you, there have been a few examples in history of leaders doing just that, most notably Gorbachev

Shaggy Hiker

Nov 29th, 2009, 02:10 PM

The bible gives us another example. The original Israelites didn't have a king, but had judges, instead. Basically, they chose a judge to lead them and make decisions in times of crisis. Eventually they appealed to Samuel to give them a king. He griped about it, then went out and chose Saul. And so forth.

There are a few other examples of civilizations that only chose leaders for times of crisis. I think one was Sumeria, but I can't quite remember. In all cases that I am aware of, there came a time when the leader chose to remain the leader after the time of crisis was over. This created monarchies.

zaza

Nov 29th, 2009, 03:11 PM

The trouble with a more localised democracy is that it is not too far from tribalism. Sooner or later, people realise that they will be much better off by combining resources and effort with a group from a neighbouring "local democracy", whether that be done by force or by mutual cooperation. That new, enlarged "local democracy" then needs some form of administration to head it up...etc. Eventually you just end up with another country.

At what point does "local democracy" within the bounds of a nation-state actually function? We have local elections in the UK, and look how poorly represented they are, both in terms of quality of candidate and turnout. People don't like to be too involved in their democracy; that's why we elect people to do it for us. But even then, we struggle to turn out in significant numbers even for a General Election.
A further problem with too much local democracy is that it hampers redistibution of wealth. If people are sufficiently independent that they think they would be better off going it alone, then those subsidised parts of the nation may see little alternative but to go to war to preserve their share of the resources. The governing body of the nation needs to be strong enough to hold it all together, which means that the local democracies cannot be given too much power. They also cannot be given too much control over the funding; it needs to be paid centrally and then re-allocated. Hence you need a central beaurocracy to administer it....

etc.

NeedSomeAnswers

Nov 30th, 2009, 06:23 AM

We have local elections in the UK, and look how poorly represented they are, both in terms of quality of candidate and turnout.

Is that not because in reality local councillors don't actually have a great deal of power in the UK and just follow the party policy. The public know this and generally are apathetic as any change at a local level probably won't make much difference.

But even then, we struggle to turn out in significant numbers even for a General Election.

I would say when there is a clear choice between the candidates you get greater turnouts, when it is unclear what the differences are between the parties policies you get lesser turnout because people don't feel they are being given a choice, and also they don't have anything to strongly vote against.

Shaggy Hiker

Dec 1st, 2009, 11:58 AM

I would say when there is a clear choice between the candidates you get greater turnouts, when it is unclear what the differences are between the parties policies you get lesser turnout because people don't feel they are being given a choice, and also they don't have anything to strongly vote against.

That may account for the low turnout in local elections in the US. Few people are greatly impacted by the positions being filled, and few significant issues will be decided by those people. When you get somebody running who really does want to shake things up, the turnout increases.

NeedSomeAnswers

Dec 2nd, 2009, 09:46 AM

That may account for the low turnout in local elections in the US. Few people are greatly impacted by the positions being filled, and few significant issues will be decided by those people

That's the biggest problem with Local government, it rarely has the power to do anything about local issues that people care about, they normally straight jacketed by party politics.

Most local governments don't have much devolved power, they cant do anything with schools (for instance) in there area because Education is party politics and the party want their advocated approach to be used everywhere.

Schools are just 1 example, but you could apply that to virtually any area of policy were there is Big Party policy, so Crime, Education, Health, Environment e.t.c.

I believe that politics might be a better place with more devolution of power so different Cities or States / Counties don't have to all have the same approach to everything.

Obviously you still need central control of somethings, but i think a bit more devolution of power would be a good thing.

What does everyone else think ? would you prefer more devolution of power and if anything what power would you like local government to take on instead of central government.

honeybee

Dec 11th, 2009, 10:59 AM

It's obviously a political move. For the simple reason that the prize is supposed to be given on achievement, not for just dreaming up a vision. He has hardly just come into office, before that he was a nobody, and suddenly he wins the Nobel Peace Prize??! It's so disgusting on the part of the Nobel committee I can't even discuss it here.

.

tome10

Dec 17th, 2009, 12:45 AM

Nice..

Soon after the American Revolution, John Robinson, a professor of rural philosophy at Edinburgh University in Scotland and member of a Freemason lodge, said that he was asked to join the Illuminati. After studying the group, he concluded that the purposes of the Illuminati were not compatible with his beliefs.

In 1798, he published a book called Proofs Of A Conspiracy, which states:

“An association has been formed for the express purpose of rooting out all the religious establishments and overturning all the existing governments.... The leaders would rule the World with uncontrollable power, while all the rest would be employed as tools of the ambition of their unknown superiors.”

tome10

Dec 17th, 2009, 01:15 AM

My next book
The End of Money and the Future of Civilization

The fraudulent nature of our monetary system should now be obvious to everyone. But, it's not. However, the damage it causes is obvious and people are starting to realize the problems don't simply happen. They happen because fraud is built into the system.

When a very junior senator with one of the all-time worst voting records (F ratings from the citizen watchdog groups) can be "elected" to the Presidency of a nation staggering from massive debt illegally amassed by the two previous administrations and then push through a massive pork barrel spending plan, you know something is very wrong.

And you know that further debasement of a currency that lost 50% of its value over the last two decades is a given. This sorry state of affairs, however, is only a small part of the total fraud picture. There's more. Much more. And you are paying for it.

What's going on, that the criminals behind this sort of theft are not prosecuted? In a word, ignorance. During the 2008 "election" for President, the only candidate to talk about real issues was vilified and marginalized by the mudstream media. That candidate, of course, was Dr. Ron Paul. One of the things Dr. Paul advocated was an end to the Federal Reserve, also known as the Frauderal Reserve. Did he advocate that because he's the crackpot the mudstream media made him out to be? Or did he advocate that because he knows a few things that all Americans should know?

One way to answer that is to dust off an unused document called the U.S. Constitution and compare Dr. Paul's platform statements to it. Suddenly, he does not look like a crackpot, unless you consider all of our Founding Fathers to be crackpots. Four of our Supreme Court Justices do, but that's something other books explore. This book explores the colossal fraud conducted via our monetary system. By the way, we did have a functioning (as opposed to malfunctioning) system during our nation's history as late as 1863. Read about Andrew Jackson to learn more.

To understand this book, it helps to read many other books on money (which I have). I'm not talking necessarily about books written by activists or others with an axe to grind. On the reading list are many books that are just historical in nature and with no political agenda. What if you haven't read those books? The author provides enough background that probably you will "get it." He also provides basic analysis of money in action, by following money through various types of transactions. So, he's not talking abstract theory but he is explaining how things work.

For example, his discussion of what really goes on when banks charge "interest" (their word for it, but it's not actually interest in the real sense of the word). You follow the flow of wealth, and you see "interest" isn't wealth at all. It's money created out of thin air. Interest doesn't need to be like that, but it's how we do it today. This misapplication of the concept of interest has the same effect as adding water to milk. Or in this case it may be more appropriate to compare this dilution to the way a crack dealer cuts drugs to rip of his clientele. Same thing with "interest." Especially when it's compounding (growing exponentially). Even a cursory look at this situation shows it's unsustainable, yet we victims of this system permit this chicanery to go on.

The underlying problem is our system is based on debt instead of on credit. That isn't credit in the sense of "credit cards," but I won't explain it here. The author does an absolutely fine job of explaining the difference, and that explanation is a key feature of this book. When he explains how an existing mortgage system (not of Western culture) based on credit instead of debt works, you cannot help but ask, "Why don't we do it that way?"

We don't do it that way, because our debt-based system enables the most psychopathic of us to benefit at the expense of everyone else and they aren't comfortable trying anything that is win-win. Actually, we don't do it that way because, on the whole, we are ignorant of how a sensible monetary system should work and what we have instead. This book can correct that, one reader at a time.

Greco is a recognized expert on money, currency, and finance. He does an international business in speaking (at conferences) and advising on these topics.

This book does contain his opinions, but he explains those as such and justifies them in a fairly balanced manner. To do this, he draws on an astounding amount of the literature. The book is well-researched and the author is quite rational. I was impressed that the book contained no leaps of logic and that the quantitative analyses were good. After completing the book, I read his bio. Like me, he's been an engineer and entrepreneur and has an MBA. That could explain the orderliness of his thought process and presentation, plus his excessive research to make sure he has his facts right. Not all engineer/MBA types fit that profile, but most do. Unlike me, he's also been a college professor. Anyhow, the word "rigorous" is considered a compliment among types like us, and Greco deserves that compliment.

I also appreciate the fact that he explains why "backing the currency with gold" (redeemable upon request) would be disastrous and would not fix what's actually wrong anyhow. His explanation is "must read" stuff for people who are rightfully disenchanted with the way our monetary system cheats people.

This book consists of twenty chapters and an epilogue. It has two appendices, extensive notes, and one heck of a bibliography. While not formally divided into parts, the book does have three parts:

One. An explanation of the problem. What's wrong with our current system, what it's done to us, and where it's taking us.

Two. Explanation of money, currency, value, wealth, debt, and credit. And how they relate to one another and to a society.

Three. The solution. This is much more complex that the other two parts of the book. For me, it was harder reading because it was new material with new concepts. I'm not sure I grasped them all. I don't think I understand everything I know about it. One reason for my problem here is Greco doesn't trot out a slap-on bandage. There are nuances here, and by exploring and explaining them he is going to lose some readers along the way. But that's fine. If we all understand the first two parts, then we have solved more than half of the existing problem already. This third part is really for people who are ready to do something about the problem. And it's for policy makers so they can begin to grasp what a real currency would look like. It seems that right now they have no idea.

It's bothered me that in each of the federal "elections" in my lifetime, the Demopublican candidates have steadfastly refused to talk about any issues of any substance whatsoever. People see the election as a contest between the Crips and the Bloods, rather than as a choice between candidates who actually offer something other than more of the same criminal pillaging. Ron Paul offered that in 2008, but unfortunately ignorance defined the debate and he was forced out. Perhaps in four years, the American people will actually vote instead of wasting their vote on a Crips vs. Bloods contest. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Real voting would be for candidates like Dr. Paul instead of yet another spendaholic Demopublican. But people who don't understand the real issues don't do real voting. Which is why we keep getting more of the same fraud perpetuated on us. Wars, inflation, mass unemployment, the IRS, and other pestilences are completely avoidable.

If this nation survives the damage inflicted by the current misadministration over the next four years, perhaps enough people will understand the money scam and vote in a legitimate, law-abiding government. One that can motivate people with respect, instead of fear.

In my lifetime, this country has gone from being the greatest nation on earth to being the poorest in human history. The primary tool of our demise has been this fraudulent monetary system. Now it would be a major feat for us to rise to third world status on some key metrics. That is a very sobering thing.

Read the book. Become informed.