Printable View
The Iraq invasion was 10% oil and 90% personal vendetta. It was going to happen with or without 9-11.Quote:
Iraq was invaded because of Oil and convenience nothing more, none of this altruist crap about wanting to liberate the Iraqi people
Did Saddam support Israel more than America did/does?Quote:
he hated Saddam FAR more than he hated America
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.
You can't imagine the image that....well, actually, you probably can, but it was still pretty funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
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.
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 *****?
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.
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by tome10
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).Quote:
But I think your a Sham Artist
Hey, I tried. Just couldn't get any out of the snakes, no matter what I tried.Quote:
and you would be a good Snakeoil Salesman
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.Quote:
I reject all of your points as they were simply unknown at the time.
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.Quote:
All of that Shoulda Coulda, Woulda crap.
I wouldn't get near him OR his undergarments.Quote:
You couldn't hold W's Jockstrap.
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.
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).Quote:
I simply do not care what Bin Laden was thinking when he attacked.
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.Quote:
Evil is evil
II 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.Quote:
simply do not want Obama to Pull out.
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.Quote:
Why your Rush to pull out of the Middle East?
I'd take it. That would buy me a few more computers.Quote:
worthless Trinket.
You can't define success. Every stated objective has been restated once the original became unattainable.Quote:
You Liberals want us to fail.. Why is that?
It just isn't Tome if there aren't asterisks. Why do the soldiers get blamed for the failings of the leadership?Quote:
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 *****?
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.
Translations
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.Quote:
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 disagree with my own ideology which must not be questioned.Quote:
I reject all of your points as they were simply unknown at the time.
America F*** Yeh . Team America world police was not a film but a statement of what is to come.Quote:
Evil is evil, and I and my Brothers are here to Deal with them on an as needed Basis.
Many European countries are very nice holiday destinations, which many Americans visit every year.Quote:
The last I checked we are still In Europe 50 years Later
If we could just get rid of some of the more troublesome locals, Iraq could also be a very nice holiday destination for Americans.Quote:
We simply should not Leave until the whole Area is Passified!!!!! Then we should Remain Just as we did In Europe.
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.Quote:
You Liberals want us to fail.. Why is that?
Have to say I agree and have been doing the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
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
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.
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...Quote:
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.
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?
tome10,
You make compelling arguments.
Could you please format your paragraphs and if possible, run a spell check?
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
When you are dealing with other developed countries this is a bit of an issue.Quote:
I don't see Bush's detriment as being the one who says everybody else fall in line behind me
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.
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.Quote:
Matter of a Fact why are you guys Liberals.
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)Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Medicare Medicaide
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.
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.Quote:
This Marxist Socialist stuff causes all to suffer
The thing is in my opinion some social policies just make sense, and some do not it is about balance.
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.Quote:
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Franks.. Those are your guys?
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)
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.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by tome10
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.Quote:
I don't see Bush's detriment as being the one who says everybody else fall in line behind me.
Yup. He put in people who suppressed science, and that was pretty much all it took.Quote:
You guys Demonized the whole administration from the Getgo...
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.Quote:
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.
.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.Quote:
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..
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).Quote:
Reagan was Right about everything,
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.Quote:
Matter of a Fact why are you guys Liberals. You guys seem very smart..
You can't. We are all guessing in every way. The worst things can result from the best of intentions.Quote:
How does a good man Know he is Wrong?
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.Quote:
My sources say you guys passed Social Security simply to Secure the Democrat Voting Block..
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!!Quote:
My sources tell of a Quote from somone from that era saying they "the people" will be Voting Democrat for 50 years.
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.Quote:
At some point after the Sham of SS someone put those funds into the General Funds.. The whole system is a Ponzy Scheme.
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.Quote:
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..
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.Quote:
Most of your Dem Controlled States are Failures..
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.Quote:
At what lengths will you go for Control of my Liberty?
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=zaH8W...eature=related
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.Code: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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tome10
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.Quote:
I can't really format my writing very well as I am from Arkansas..
IWe 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.Quote:
mean it's terrible Mexico can't be better to it's Citizens, but when California welcomes all comers to free this, free that.
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.
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.Quote:
Now Most of those names on that Dictator List was way Before my time, but Apparently that guy Killed 70Mil people.
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.Quote:
But you have to admit that Oil For Food thing was just Incredible. How many countries threw out their officials for that?
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).Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
It is strange that the NE states are such blue states.
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.Quote:
Why are the far right wingers the ones who want to stop the Gov from getting any bigger?
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).
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:Quote:
Always having to have Liberals on the Supreme Court to simply thwart the Constitutions Firewalls I find very strange
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
I mean why can’t we buy it Like Car Insurance?
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.
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.Quote:
Obama says he can save 900 billion or something by reducing Fraud. Alright go ahead. If you can reduce Fraud..
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?"Quote:
Here is what Reagan Has to say.
Reagan sure could speak.
Haha i didn't know that..Quote:
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?"
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=1RZVw...789&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_...eature=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.
tome10,
I am sorry, but I didn't get the Arkansas reference.
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.Quote:
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.
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 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.Quote:
I mean why can’t we buy it Like Car Insurance?
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.
Hehe that's the funniest thing that been in this whole thread !Quote:
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 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.
That was Ron Reagan, the former President's son. :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
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:
If I had said something like that, I would certainly want it to be recorded properly.Quote:
"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.'”
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.
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.
Yes i agree, this is very possible.Quote:
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.
There could be a new class separation based on how long you can afford to live !!
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?Quote:
(apart from Milosovic which us lot in Europe did eventually sort out) !!!
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.
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Estimated, eh? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Do you believe Vietnam was winnable? Under what definition of "win"?Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
See? You actually still think you were accomplishing something by carrying on pointless meetings.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
It was illegal, yet the Europeans still did it. How strange how that judgement changes depending on whose doing what eh?Quote:
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.
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.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!Quote:
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 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).Quote:
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 ?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
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.
Irksome, yes, but not at all hard to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
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.
Err No actually i think you will find that it was the US that started the Bombing.Quote:
It was illegal, yet the Europeans still did it.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
You didn't go to war because without NATO, Russia would have no reason to not cut off your gas supplies
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.Quote:
all the while selling nukes to Serbia
It Irks me that so many Americans actually believe that bull.Quote:
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.
God that's as strange a bastardisation of European History as i have heard.Quote:
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 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.
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 ??Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Fast-forward to 2004. Europe saw the US invasion of Iraq
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.
Do you actually believe that we are 'Winning' in Afghanistan ?Quote:
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.
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:-
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:.Quote:
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.
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.
Although i hate to argue with someone that agrees with me i just had to respond to this.
Yes thats true but they were basically civil wars, and not in the era of modern warfareQuote:
America has actually fought several conflicts on it's own soil, though not in recent history.
Ah Yes you are right technically, although as they were talking about Europe as one entity so was i.Quote:
Also, us Brits haven't really fought on our own soil since 1066 unless you include civil wars
Here i will quote myself -As you can see i did say Europe rather then the UK (disclosure i am also a pedant :))Quote:
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
What exactly is "bull" about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
It is wrong? Is it inaccurate? What is your problem with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
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.
Agreed...Quote:
Yes thats true but they were basically civil wars, and not in the era of modern warfare
Agreed...Quote:
Ah Yes you are right technically, although as they were talking about Europe as one entity so was i.
And Agreed:afrog: but it is fun isn't it?Quote:
disclosure i am also a pedant
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.
YesQuote:
It is wrong?
YesQuote:
Is it inaccurate?
That it's wrong and innacurate.Quote:
What is your problem with it?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
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.
Fair enough, it was just a supposition anyway so i will agree with you on this :DQuote:
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
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 !!Quote:
It is wrong? Is it inaccurate? What is your problem with it?
Quote:
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.
This is on the other hand is fairly true, especially The Germans and the French (fairly understandably)Quote:
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.
Us lot in the UK however still seem intent on joining in on all the major wars going.
Ahem yes well, i have just admitted i might be wrong on that one in my last post :)Quote:
Actually, that's not at all true.
Yes i have heard recently documents have come to light about Thatchers misgivings.Quote:
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
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.
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.
Hear Hear!Quote:
the ordinary people saw it as an historic occasion to be celebrated
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.
Yes, and the French and the British RAF just stumbled into Yugloslavic airspace, and accidentally ran over 2,000 sorties exploding thousands of munitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
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.Quote:
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.
Which is why the UK was free to think independently - without fear of economic repercussion the rest of Europe faced.Quote:
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.
You realize that was a hypothetical comment. Go ahead and re-read it.Quote:
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.
I will just allude that recent German and Italian interest in securing more advanced missile defense systems from the US is not coincidental.
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.
Yes i agree Russia wont war against Europe. Nice to have something we agree on hey :DQuote:
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.
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.
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 !Quote:
Which is why the UK was free to think independently - without fear of economic repercussion the rest of Europe faced.
Maybe i am missing something but ..Quote:
You realize that was a hypothetical comment. Go ahead and re-read it.
i don't see anything hypothetical about it, you state quite clearly Putin is doing this as we speak !Quote:
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
http://metrogamer.files.wordpress.co...2/facepalm.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AsmIscool
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.
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?
I 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.Quote:
I am all about Socialism "IF" it is for the most needing among us
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.
Hey Tome10, nice to see you back in the thread !
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.Quote:
All you guys in Europe who love your Healthcare. It's fine now. Give it 50-100 years.
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.
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
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%.Quote:
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
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.
In The USA the single biggest government department is the Department of Defence.Quote:
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.
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 ?
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.Quote:
I had heard that the NHS is one of the worlds largest employers
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.
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
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.
This makes the stats on that particular cancer very prone to 'adjustment'. Therefore, I'd want to make extra sure that both sides are talking about detected cancers, are using the same detection procedures, etc., to ensure that the statistics are comparable. I think your breast cancer stats are a more readily comparable set, as that is rarely, if ever, left untreated, and detection is aggressive.
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. The vast majority of US citizens cling to our strange system because it has worked for the majority of us, and the UK shouldn't be any different. My concern isn't about what is happening now, because we could solve the current situation in any number of relatively trivial ways. Instead, my concern is that, if you examine the trend in health care over the last century (and further back, but there was little change between 1000 and 1900), and project forward based on that trend, then health care really WILL eat our economy.
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