Cairo if I remember correctly earlier this year there was allot of blather about this admin finishing the work of bush serious, to which bush sir angrily replied that he had done all he had set out to do - the specific reason for not invading all of Iraq and removing Saddam was that backing Saddam into a corner would be very dangerous and his replacement, or the collapse of Iraq as a nation state would be far worse. I really don't see what's changed since then. I mean when you have serious figures in the military opposed to the war and many republican elders questioning the wisdom of such a move, you really have to wonder don’t you?

Except for an admin desperate to create a concept of a perpetual war against an abstract enemy to allow draconian rule and political maneuvering space, the second coming of McCarthyism. Very interesting Washington post article a couple of days ago about the shadow legal system being created to deal with 'terrorists', all sounds kind of familiar...

and laws eh? That’s kinda funny. So does the US, at least in diplomatic practice.

So does Israel. The number of SC Resolutions that Israel violates by controlling the occupied terrritories is more than the 16 that Iraq does, yet we have made no intention of invading Israel to liberate Palestine.

I'm not an Israel-hater, I'm just using it as a point. Many, many countries violate UNSC Resolutions and they do not get threatened with war like Iraq does. (OK, so Israel's been attacked a few times, and part of the justification from Syria, Egypt, et al. was their violation of 42, 61, 242, etc. - but not the US.) Consider that when you're developing your theories about UN's takeover of the world.

And Cairo...the Gulf War did end. Conflict may continue, but, as Jaguar said, it's low level conflict. There is a huge difference between full-scale war (I'm sure you could try to argue that legally there wasn't a war in the first place, so the conflict is the same, but, in modern warfare, the declaration of war is no longer required.) and low-level conflict. So I'll make a quick little ladder, since Jag's off watching Simpsons.

Ok, let's say someone insults you. Do you respond with a full-out nuclear response? No, you insult him or her back, and conflict continues at the same level. Or you turn the other cheek, and it de-escalates. Or you throw a punch, and suddenly, the level has escalated.

Similarly, what we've been doing since the Gulf War (and it wasn't directly after the Gulf War that the no-fly zones were established; they were put in after the Kurds in the North and the Shi'ites in the South couldn't handle Iraq's Republican Guard, despite our claims that we had completely demoralized them. They were established by Britain, France and the US to protect those groups from Hussein's revenge - ie. his destruction of Halabjel after the Iran-Iraq war.) has not been actual conflict by today's standards. We bomb a few buildings here and there, ensure that noone is flying where they're not supposed to - and that's about it. Occasionally, Hussein targets our planes, so we bomb those installations too. Fine. Conflict is kept at a relatively low and consistent level.

In all that, however, there is no indication from Iraq of a direct threat. Besides the attack on former President Bush in 1993 (which, I might add, is 9 years ago) and the withdrawal of inspectors in 1998, there have been no indications of a need to escalate the conflict to the level that the chickenhawks suggest. So, then, it is pre-emption. If conflict is on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being nuclear war and 0 being America and Britain, then pre-emption does not necessarily mean you go from a level of 0 conflict to 8 or 9 overnight. You could go from, say, a 3 or 4 to an 8 - and it's still pre-emption. Also, look at the argument that is being made - that Hussein needs to be stopped before he attacks us - that are all about pre-emption.

It wasn't just Powell that was calling for an end to the Gulf War. Much of the coalition agreed, and many of the military establishment did as well (they, of course, didn't want to go to war in the first place, but that's a different matter).

In addition, I wouldn't call Hussein an idiot. He's outlived an attack and a resulting animosity from the most powerful nation in the world. His positioning inside the country to become President is a case study in totalitarianistic politics. I've seen it compared, on a lesser scale, to Stalin's rise. None of that means he's a good person, it just means that rejoicing in calling him stupid is ignorant in itself. Same goes if you're Canadian or German.

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Even the harshest armchair generals can't admit to Hussein currently having nuclear weapons. Instead, they usually just incorrectly quote a report about his capabilities before the Gulf War and ascribe it to the present day.

You go learn a little history. SA is none too pleased with the American presence in their country, esp. lately. The reason they let Americans in in the first place was because they thought they were next on Hussein's list. One of the most contentious issues in Saudi Arabia today is the presence of troops.

It's a good thing you don't run the country. We are not an empire. Get that through your head. We may be economically and militarily superior to every other nation in the world, but that does not give us the right to act that way - especially when it's not in our interests to do so. You don't want to invade a country that has successfully painted us as the bad guy on the world scene (ie. sanctions) and use the "oh, I thought they were going to attack us" line. It doesn't fly in international relations. It a) infuriates the surrounding countries, some of which act scared, others of which become havens for terrorists, and b) tells other countries that it's OK to invade another country for no reason.

Look up the idea of a nations sovereignty, and their right to it. We constantly argue that we can not sign any human rights treaties because the transparency inherent in them makes them a violation of our sovereignty, yet we completely flubb that rule when it comes to Iraq.

Ok, I may have wandered a bit. But the point is that you can't view two nations in a vacuum. You need to understand their relations with the rest of the world in order to act coherently on the international scene.

If you want me to list the other reasons why we need UN support to invade Iraq, just ask. I'll do so in another thread.

If they did that on Tuesday, by Thursday Palestinians would make a pre-emptive strike on Israeli territory, justifying their re-occupation -- except this time with no UN oversight or involvement at all.

Where are the aluminum tubes you bought?
- What aluminum tubes, we don't have any aluminum tubes.
The aluminum tubes on this invoice.
- Oh, yes, we did buy aluminum tubes, but not for making nukes. Those aluminum tubes were for making baby milk.

jaguar,
You say,"I really don't see what has changed since then."
Well then, it seems that you and the Afghani's are the only ones in the World who didn't!
The difference is, the Afghani's have a reason...
they were oppressed!

Socialists always whine and cry,"McCarthy" when they see their Communism being choked out, not even close, Bud.

Most of us heard and responded to the wake up call of 9/11...others are intent on hitting the snooze button until the mushroom cloud hits their bed.

But that wouldn't be pre-emption now would it? It would be retaliation.

Don't get me wrong, the whole Israel/Palestine conflict is a mess, and neither side is any more or less justified. And I don't want to get into a discussion about that right now.

Cairo said that Hussein was exploding nuclear weapons, which is absolutely not the truth. He may be trying to develop them (and yes, most of the items on the sanction list are used in hospitals as well as weapon making, thus the outcry against the sanctions), but he has not tested any yet. I was pointing out incoherency in Cairo's post. Here's another batch of it:

where he somehow tries to tie in Afghanistan's oppression under the Taliban with jaguar's opinion that ousting of Hussein is just as bad of an idea now as it was in 1991. Unfortunately, Cairo doesn't seem to realize that a good portion of the world shares jaguar's opinion. His broad generalization is, in fact, useless. I'll get more into that in the next post.

A lot of libertarians think McCarthyism was a dark period in American history. I'd say that anytime the government engages in a witch hunt, things are awry. Funny how you have no problem with this kind of a witch hunt, but a huge one if your 'right' to own an assault rifle is infringed upon. (Right is in quotations because there is disagreement as to whether or not that is a right. I do not choose to endorse it as such.)

And by the way, socialism != communism. They are two different ways of approaching the same problem. Don't equate the two.

What? Repond by not capturing bin Laden? How about not being able to deal with asymmetrical warfare, instead continuing to endorse ideas like national missile defense, as if it could do something against a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon. Or how about continuing to misunderstand the emerging nature of conflict inherent in the very real threat from al Qaeda, and, instead, focusing on a supposed threat (and, as yet, unsubstantiated - when was the last time Iraq attacked the US?) from another nation?

Just like McCarthy - Cairo will go to any length, rewrite any history to prove his extremist position - the world and facts be damned.
First attack the messenger. OK. He's done that. Then reinvent history.
If the Gulf war is not over, then what was that surrender as signed. What are all those Iraqi weapons that were destroyed. Where are the onslaught attacks of Iraqi armored columns? I don't even see a guerilla war. Just some foolish anti-aircraft guns firing and getting immediately destroyed. Even the DMZ in Korea remained just as hot long after the Korean war completely ended. Or have you not rewritten the history book on Korea yet?

Saudis only permit a small US force remain to meet conditions of the no-fly-zone and to defend military stores. The US is most definitely not there to defend against bin Laden! Are you obtuse? When did you rewrite history? Bin Laden was not even relevent until over 5 years after the Gulf war - ended.

The Royals said nothing to the UN nor begged anyone to build bases. The Saudis contracted and constructed military bases for decades before the Gulf war in case they required military support. One base that made Israel angry was built in the NW corner - long before Saddam of the UN was involved in the region. You just made that UN base nonsense up, right? Yes. Its 'Cairo fiction'.

In short, one paragraph intended to insult me as being ignorant of history instead cannot be correct due to chronological errors. More 'Cairo fiction'. Cairo invents history as he needs it to justify his extremist ideas. Cairo invents history to justify his hyperbolic politics.

Nothing in his post has credibility. However hermit22 probably says it best. This is quoted because of its accuracy:
Unfortately Cairo is too young to look in a mirror and see McCarthy. Both used same reasoning to justify their extremism. Cairo even promotes this long since denigrated McCarthyism: socialism = communism. This is the guy that's going to teach me history? First get a history education outside of the "Radicals are Us Institute". Fiction is not history. For the long list of your historical errors, start with hermit22's posts. I can't be bothered with how you think history should be written.

Well hermit22,
Since you insist on mistakenly accusing me on History because you're either too lazy to look it up yourself, or afraid to find out I'm correct. I thought you deserved answers from a real Right Wing Republican who happens to teach History,
Allow me to introduce my husband, INDEPENDENCE01,
He thinks your "points" are nubbed.

Israel has always submitted to UN resolutions that carried the threat of force. In 1956 it was UN resolutions issued under article 7 that kept the Arab Confederacy from being completely destroyed.
The only UN resolutions that have been issued under article 7 were largely to get the arabs asses out of a sling.
Point of fact is that if the UN had kept out of the War for Independence, Israel would have fought a decisive victory against those who would bring her harm. The subsequent Nasser inspired follies of 1956 and 1972-74 would never have happened.
During the Battle of the Bulge, do you think the US should have followed a directive by the League of Nations to cease fire were it to have been issued? After all, Germany hadn't directly attacked any US territory, and our Normandy invasion was clearly an act of aggression against soverign German territory.

Israel has fought only defensive wars.
1948-49: Wars for Independence
1956: Sinai Campaign
1967: The Six Day War
1968-73: The War of Attrition
1973: The Yom Kippur War
1976: Entebbe the beginning of the War Against Terrorism
1981: Operation 'Peace For Galilee'
Try reading Chaim Herzog's THE ARAB ISRAELI WARS, a definitive read by someone who was there.
The subsequent UN Resolutions since Security Council Resolution No. 338(imposed cease fire on the IDF's 1973-74 push into Egypt), have all been issued under the auspices of Article 6 of the UN charter. Article 6 resolutions, no matter how eloquently worded or long winded, carry no weight of force. They are in effect, official suggestions; nothing more. SCR-338 carried the threat of UN 'peace' keepers in the form of arab allied soviet forces getting involved on the arab side. These current resolutions of which Israel is supposedly in 'violation' have no weight of force.
You see, it helps if you stayed awake during World Government back in high school.
The only way the UN Security Council can issue Article 7 resolutions is unanimously. The US, and usually the UK, for all purposes almost never support an Article 7 issuance against Israel. Since all it takes is one vote to kill a Resolution, Art 7's are rarely issued against Israel.
The only time the US supported Article 7's is when it looked like the russkies were about ready to walk out of the UN and wage war by themselves: 1956, 1967, 1973-74; all resolutions imposing a cease fire were initiated by russia.

If you are bemoaning western interference with the jordainian/syrian/palestinians situation.
Consider that the West is responsible for this in the first place. Not Britain or the US for creating Israel, but Rome for destroying Israel in 72 AD.
In 72 AD, western invaders(the Romans) destroyed all of Israel, and enslaved the citizens of Israel.
The population of Israel was scattered throughout the farthest regions of the Roman Empire.
Israel ceased to exist as a nation.
But,
the people through their faith endured and survived. Their religion endured.
Now the arab squatters and merchants were not the targets of Rome's wrath. Do you really think that they were going to just leave Israel uninhabited until they finally came back? Consider that no other people have ever survived such a scattering of their culture. And yet some would say miraculously, Israel endured to arise once more.
In 1948, the children of Israel returned to their ancestral home to find it inhabited with all sorts of vermin.

There are no palestinians mentioned in the Bible. If anything contemporary interpretations of the time viewed palestinian and Israeli as one in the same. Since palestine was part of Israel, it could mean nothing else to a first century writer.
Perhaps you are thinking of the PHILISTINES who inhabited the area at one time. Before they were exterminated by the Israelites.

I would give you that in that form there would be a philistine/palestine similarity as Israel will exterminate the jordanian outcasts who currently claim the name 'palestinians'.

...As a matter of fact I do own the road.

No we aren't an empire, I never said we were.
But we have a position of strength that must support our voice of authority. History is littered with the ghosts of nation/states that talked a big talk but grew loathe to use their armies. A weapon unused, becomes a useless weapon.

Our interest in Iraq can be rooted firmly in their violations of the 1992 terms of surrender. It's as simple as that. The terms didn't stipulate that additional SCR's would be needed. It was the completion of an executed Article 7 directive, the surrender fell under the force provisions of that section of the UN charter. All this foot dragging by the EU is typical for that cowardly bunch who don't seem to be good at killing anybody but their own citizens. It is the demsocs here in the US that have bought Iraq over 8 years of developmental time.
Hmmmph clinton's peace dividend consisted of pakistan, n korea, and to a lesser extent iran and iraq, in joining the nuclear club.
China got ICBM technology in exchange for campaign contributions.
Carter got a Nobel for aiding in nonproliferation in N Korea.
Arafat got one for Middle East Peace .
I think Pol Pot is overdue one for population growth.

The US is the de facto keeper of this motley planet. If we won't do it, then nobody will.
The moon has been around as long as we can remember.
But the US wasn't even 200 years old before we went and stuck our flag in it(forget that "all mankind"
PR crapola). It was 1969, we could have just as easily planted a UN flag. But traditional rules of right of claim require we mark our claim with a marker or flag with our symbol on it.

We feed, clothe, shelter, educate, employ, provide welfare and common defense for millions of people besides our own citizens. That's how blessed we truly are.
I'm able to hammer out a pin head online with a Mac with a DSL connection while savoring any luxury I wish.
It beats eating bugs with a dirty floor staring at a dung fueled fire.

It's too bad we can't help everyone, but why should we stick our necks out that far? NOBODY antes more cash to the needy than WE do. Does that get US respect?
Flood, famine, hurricane, earthquake, friggin volcanoes; if they hurt anyone POOF we're there helping anyone who needs it. Any appreciation? Hell no, those nations are so destitute they can't even afford that.
As I said it's too bad we can't help everyone, but as you interjected, we are no empire. We help who we can when we can, rarely asking for anything other than friendship in return.
It's unrealistic to even think you could everyone. As the Christian prophet Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you.". The aramaic word for always pretty much means always, so I think any person with a mote of intelligence knows you can't help everyone.

As for the maligned Senator Joe McCarthy, as bad a rap as he got, he was right about his general assertion just off target on his "list".
Communism had indeed infected significant portions of the US political body. Since we were at a cold war with the russkies(whom were mislabeled commies for some odd reason, considering they were in practice hard line fundamentalist socialists of the highest order) the leftists here had to call themselves socialists then liberals(to greenies and now "centrists") in order to practice their political philosophy without being run out of town on a rail.
McCarthy was used to give the very idea of rooting out socialists a bad name. It's become unamerican to hunt down unamericans in effect.
I grant that McCarthy could have done a better job, but he wasn't that bright a character and I genuinely believed he was completely overwhelmed by the purported evidence that was undoubtably shown to him in private. Just who was able to influence him will always be a mystery, as it is no doubt some insider demsoc rat, but he must have carried some authority in the eyes of old Joe.

I for one pity the poor guy, he got a raw deal and I'm sure he came to realize that his action led to the commie socialists being able to act without restraint in this country. If he was a true Patriot, no doubt that broke his heart.

He allowed the wolves to roam free.

In the end McCarthy was a fine american.....and my favorite Beatle.

O.K....*bumps hubby off* My turn now....
Hermit22,
So, you're not an Israel hater, you just love to spread lies and propaganda about them? Hmmmmmm...

Listen up this time, I never disputed the high/low conflicts, so your rant is irrelevant. I said...
Saddam broke the terms of surrender, which puts us back into pre-surrender status of war.
Example: Let's say someone says "Uncle" or I give up, I give up!, then as you walk away they say, No I take it back, I don't give up...In his eyes, he didn't lose, and he will jump on your back! See?

I wasn't calling Saddam an idiot, I was calling tw an idiot...idiot!

Do you have COMPREHENSION problems? I said "trying to"...there is a big difference between trying and doing. Do you deny he is trying to obtain uranium?

You are the slacker who is in need of comprehension and history classes, pronto!

Socialism is the bridge to Communism, the Gateway if you will. Look it up! Stalin was in the Socialist Party but admired and read Karl Marx.
He took the Country towards the ideals of Marx after he murdered Lenin. Look it up!

Fortunately hermit22, you do not determine if or when American Rights are violated...the Courts do!
So you can advocate and defend the Rights of terrorists under the guise of Our Rights all day long, but just know that you are, in effect, infringing on MY RIGHT TO LIFE!
Bin Laden is dead....Dead, Dead, DEAD!
And I know you are not implying that The terrorist network is as organized and funded the same as pre-9/11...that would negate your credibility in of itself! You need to remember that this Administration is capable of doing more than one thing at the same time. You seem to be confusing(having flashbacks?) Clinton's inability to talk and get a blow job at the same time!

The War on Terror is like an octopus, if you keep cutting off the tenticles, they just grow back.
You need to find the body and kill it, then all the tenicles die off for lack of support. Saddam is the octopus body.

Such wit! i'm convinced, ill be hanging this in my window in the morning.

Sorry if i ever stop laughing i might reply properly.

Now, when you say vermin, are we talking about giant locusts and the like?

1992?

Cairo, in your own post, you referred to Bin Laden as "dead." Now, do you mean he is already dead...or that he is going to be dead?

This is to Cairo's husband, the self-proclaimed right-wing Republican history teacher. Seems like her description casts a shadow on his analysis, which, unfortunately, he helps perpetuate.

I refuse to get suckered into a discussion about Israel/Palestine. It's a big mess that would take days to completely debate, and I have finals this week. However, I wish I had your husband as a teacher so I could point out his normative analysis in the middle of class. If this is supposed to be a history discussion, be objective for crying out loud. Don't begin with failings in the inadequacy of your descriptive analysis. My final note on the discussion of Israel: please realize that you completely missed the point - that Israel's violation of SC Resolutions has never garnered talk of a US invasion force. And that qualifier you used about "the threat of force" is ingenius, since, technically, the UN has no right to use force and, as a result, most resolutions do not suggest a threat. Ingenius, two-faced, and misrepresentative of the truth.

I would like to add, though, that it appears you are Jewish. Understand that I completely believe in Israel's right to statehood - I just also believe in Palestine's right as well. I think both sides have lost credibility on the issue. And that's all I'll say.

But the rest of it isn't about history. It is a badly misrepresentative ramble, propaganda so to speak. Saying that socialism, communism, centrism, greenism, etc. are all one and the same is like saying that Christian Identity represents the views of all conservatives. You absolutely cannot claim that the extremists of any group are indicative of the entire group. It's an intellectual fallacy; a debate trick that's used to woo the lesser intellects in the audience. If you associate your enemy with what is percieved as the worst elements of society - even if they have little in common - you have villified and thus discredited them. And if you want to support a witchhunt like McCarthy's that suppresses free speech, then go start your own fucking country. That's about the farthest thing from American patriotism that there is.

But your post is more than that. It's devoid of any understanding of IR theory or the practical application of it - instead, it tries to base its reasonings on a myopic view of the world. You do not realize that there are other nations besides the United States and the enemy du jour. Refer back to my last post, which tw also pointed out for you. And if you want to claim that the best reason is that Iraq broke the terms of surrender, then historical precedent makes that completely irrelevent.

If you want to blame 'demsocs' for Iraq, then you choose to not remember who was president at the time. Was it a 'demsoc' president? No, it was a Republican. And who joined in on criticism of current invasion plans? Most Democrats (with a capital D) were too scared to do so. Several liberal commentators outside of politics did. And, interestingly, former President Bush did as well. So did his National Security Advisor, and some top brass in the military. 'Demsocs,' indeed. And are you unaware of the fact that the current round of bombing was started under a Democratic President?

You also ignore the idea of a nation's sovereignty. It could be easily argued that the United States is, in fact, in violation of the terms of surrender, since we established separatist enclaves inside Iraq's sovereign territory after the war.

Most Scandinavian countries provide more of their GNP in foreign aid than the United States does. Look up the UN Official Development Assistance table. It will show how woefully inadequate the United States' foreign aid is when compared to, say, Denmark. You can't look at straight numbers. The only way to really measure such a phenomenon is through percentage of GNP. You lose a whole lot of credibility when you ignore the facts and claim that the rest of the world is too destitute to help anyone else, let alone themselves.

The point of civilization, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition (the Islamic as well, but we are not a predominantly Muslim nation) is to provide humanitarian support for your fellow man. It is the decent thing to do - to transcend the guilt our morals instill in us for having a better life than anyone around us. But it makes sense in the political realm as well. Poverty breeds resentment, violence, disease. Each one of these affects our foreign policy. The poverty of most of the world has bred anti-Americanism and, in some cases, contributed to terrorism. AIDS is as much a concern to us in America as it is to a starving Bushman. It is in our interest to protect ourselves. One of the ways of protecting ourselves is prevention - simple steps that will ease the threat each of these faces. Invading Iraq is a different type of 'prevention' - the presupposition that one man's behaviour (as opposed to broad social trends that are more reliable) will eventually result in collusion with some of his enemies against us.

You claim that a weapon unused is useless. That's a nice argument for non-proliferation - that the obvious desire to not use nuclear weapons means means that we shouldn't have them in the first place. However, your argument that not using military force has been the downfall of many empires throughout history shows a great ignorance of the many social and economic issues that have plagued these same empires. Often, when an empire is on its last leg, it turns to aggression to take its population's mind off of its own suffering. That's in history too.

Finally, you're right in saying that you can't help everyone. But that does not mean you shouldn't try.

nope. I've researched the topic pretty extensively. My thesis might be on it. I'm not spreading lies or propaganda - just the truth. You can not base any argument against what I've said about the Israeli situation on an objective analysis of the facts. I have an advantage in that I'm not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, so I'm not tied up in the subjectivity of religion. It's unfortunate that people do so, but we're all human. It's in our nature.

You may not have disputed them, but you seemed completely unaware of them. You still are. The world does not exist in black and white. There isn't pre-war state and post-war state, especially in this conflict. Refer to my earlier comment to your husband at our efforts to establish Kurdistan.
And, no, your example actually makes negative sense. I've lost brain cells just trying to figure out which pronouns you ascribe to whom.

You have to give me some slack. Most of your posts are pretty incomprehensible, filled with unsubstantiated and irrelevent claims and random images.
Slacker, eh? I probably have more years of school than you do. I obviously have more of a propensity to do my own research and not rely on what others tell me. That's a slacker alright.
Of course, I'm Gen X, so we're all slackers, right? How 1991.
Go back and look at my post. When did I say anything about uranium? You're the history-unconscious person that claimed Hussein had dropped a nuclear bomb under the assumption that that would solve a problem. You did not say developing nuclear bombs, and the trying was used to qualify the problem solving. If you weren't claiming the historically inaccurate, then try not to appear to do so.

So...are you trying to imply that Lenin wasn't Marxist? Or that he wasn't trying to take "the country towards the ideals of Marx?" Because that would be pretty funny. About as funny as the claim that Lenin was assassinated, and didn't die of a stroke - the 3rd or 4th one in the final 2 years of his life.
Anything is a bridge to something else. The argument that links conservatism to fascism is incredibly simple. But that doesn't mean conservatism is fascism. It just means that someone who takes it to the extreme could end up in totalitarianistic ideology. The argument that they are one and the same does not hold water.

And when did I do this?

So you skip curent events as well? It was just two weeks ago that the US gov't admitted that he was not dead. From where do you gain the insight on his status?

That really is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. Even Bush & co. don't try to claim the al-Qaeda/Hussein link anymore - because it really doesn't exist. Hussein is the mastermind of all terrorists, huh? Go study terrorism a bit. Even Khadafi and Khoumeini couldn't claim that.

This is another example of the incomprehensibility of your posts. What the hell are you talking about? How is my credibility linked to terrorist networking and funding? Please explain. Keep in mind, though, that the FBI is warning that the level of detected terrorist activity is the same as it was the summer before 9/11. And don't forget the attacks in Kenya last week, and this weekend's warning to Israeli citizens to stay out of Southern Africa or the US warning to American citizens to avoid Yemen.

And my last comment is also on a part of your post that had me on the floor - the claim that Clinton was single-minded in his quest for blowjobs. You're talking to someone who has no problem with the president having sex, just a problem with people trying to claim some sense of puritanical injustice about the whole thing. Meanwhile, Clinton was one of the most eloquent speakers we've had for a President in a while. You can't say the same for Bush, who half the time seems like he can't even talk.

Cliff Notes for the latest chapter of Cairo's book on "Corrective History":
The League of Nations (which no longer existed) orders the US to a ceasefire during the Battle of the Bulge?

The US was the aggressor against Germany even though Germany declared war on the US and attacked US property before even declaring war.

The 1981 invasion of Lebanon in conquering part of that nation in direct violation of the Prime Minister's direct orders was a defensive war? Only if you are the innocent Ariel Sharon who defied all orders and was not court marshalled - just a footnote that slipped through the rewrite.

All UN resolutions that do not carry military enforcement should be ignored?

72 AD Rome is responsible for all Arab-Israeli conflicts?

Israelis who occupied some of the least time in that part of the Middle East have more rights to the land than anyone else?

The EU is a cowardly bunch who are only good at killing their own citizens?

Iran, Iraq, and N Korea now all have operational nuclear weapons?

China got ICBM technology by making campaign contributions to US politicians - ignoring Chinese rockets launched a decade and more previously?

The Nobel peace prize committee does not know what it is doing.

The US is god's chosen people as keeper of the earth.

The US conquered and owns the moon.

NOBODY antes more cash to the needy than the US even though most every Europe country and Japan do more per capita. 90% of US foreign aid is concentrated on Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, and Taiwan(?). The US is very stingy with foreign aid among the G-7. Those poor suffering Israels are clearly so downtrodded as to deserve the largest share of US foreign aid.

The maligned Senator Joe McCarthy got a bad rap? Pity the poor guy because he got a raw deal? Just forget that he tried to destroy more American lives when he tried to do same to the US Army. Left to go on, McCarthy intended to declared the US Army as communist sympathizers. Apparently that chapter was already written out of history.

McCarthy was a fine american? One wasn't fine and the other was not American.

The massacre at Sbrenica was by UN troops so that Milosevick, Mladik, and the Serbians would be blamed. Or are those people still alive?

Clearly the Holocost never happened.

The USS Maine was sunk by aliens.

Magellan was a communist who aspired to be a socialist.

Joe McCarthy was not permitted to tell everything he knew about communists in the American government (because it takes time to write fiction).

Richard Nixon was framed with Watergate by socialists from the Democratic party (or was it those godless Libertarians?).

Cairo fiction is the long overdue rewriting of history. Reality. Where does it go when having so much fun with history?

*patiently waits for Cairo to realise the Nazis were the Nationalist Sociality party and decry us all as anti-semitic communist hitler lovers.*

*claps hermit22* I admire your tenacity even if it is like trying to fill a bucket with a bloody great hole in the bottom.

I was trying to match Ciaro's creativity on Iraq - this was the best i could do: this gem of sanity

Sycamore,
I only asked my husband to weigh in because these clowns have no idea what a true right winger is, or what History before liberal revising manipulation is....I thought they deserved it.

Vermin, I guess, would be unwelcome, uninvited intruders, like cockroaches.

1991, he meant to hit the one.

Our forces killed bin Laden during the attack on Tora Bora. Bin Laden is dead, but Al Qaeda is not.

So, based upon your above statement, are you saying that history as many folks know it (and I mean straight up facts here, e.g. "Israel became a state in 1948.") has been manipulated by liberals?

Hmmm...interesting. Who were the unwelcome, uninvited intruders? Cockroaches? Locusts? Evil Christian missionaries?

Bin Laden is dead?

Are you serious?

Stop playing.

That's some pretty big talk there...I suppose you have the sources to back that up, right?

Go for it...this should be neat.

I'm excited, why the hell didn't our government announce this. It would surly have helped raise support for the current administration. I know I'd be more apt to agree with what Bush says in the future if this was true. Actually accomplishing what he said(first) was the primary reason for the invasion of Afganistan would certainly make him more credible in my eyes.


okay I'm having trouble with my browser, can't seem to get the quote button to work :~(. So anyways

Original posted by jaguar
"I was trying to match Ciaro's creativity on Iraq - this was the best i could do: this gem of sanity"

This was great, much needed humor after a night of studying :~).

Once again Cam, you are being an unamerican SOB. Don't you know that the media is controlled by liberal pukes who would love nothing more than to cover up the truth to try and bring Dubya down?

Damn it, I really do need to move to Canada, It's not that far, and Winnepeg has a pretty good University, and I have family up there, though they live Alberta, one hell of a long drive. I would get free health care, one of my biggest worries, especially with all the fucking loans I'm going to have.

Then again if I move to Canada, it makes my next birthday the same as any other(21). I'd have to actually learn about hockey, not just go to the games and cheer everyone else. I'd never be able to say "canadians are stupid" again(though "americans are stupid" would become a fun phrase). I'd have to learn the words to "O' Canada. And I'd have to learn about the Canadian government(something I really should do anyway).

Well I've listed all the pros and cons I can come up with this close to bed, it's up to you members of the cellar to help me make my decision, Should cam move to Canada, or should he stay right here in the USA.

Hermit22,
Saying,"So does Israel." in response to my assertion that Iraq has broken U.N resolutions that carry a penalty of "use of force" is flat out untrue! In all your "subjective" "unbiased" "fair and balanced" research, you failed to comprehend the difference between Charter 6 and Charter 7.
Charter 6 is non-comparable because everybody breaks Charter 6 resolutions. Israel has never thumbed her nose and disobeyed a Charter 7 resolution...Iraq has!

http://users.otenet.gr/~prof/UNcharter.htm

Truth is black and white, it's either true or it's not. Propaganda and agendas are what drives the cloudy, indecisive, uneducated, ignorant, dissenting, and radicals to make the truth appear grey or unclear when it's not.
Pre-war is getting troops into position and devising a plan or strategy. During war is what we are doing now. Post war is clean up and rebuild.

Hooked on phonics could work for you! Comprehension 101 wouldn't hurt either. You have more years in school? That means only that you have more Liberal Socialist indoctrination and brainwashing than I do...and you're ~bragging~????? Oh, I know, you skipped Comprehension 101 to take How to use a condom 101...Right? Puuulease!

Lenin was a Socialist, he was about to install a Parliment system of Government that would stop the Communist trend, so Stalin had him killed before he did it.

Every time you spread misinformation and lie about the Patriot Act, FISC, or hinder our Government's ability to protect and keep US safe, you are, by proxy, infringing upon the Right To Life of 3,000+ American citizens.

That tape was not bin Laden. Or do you limit your current events to only one source?

The Czech Republic says there is an Iraqi/Al Qaeda link. And everybody agrees there are many Saddam/terrorist links.

Your credibility in debate is linked to my interest to keep replying to you...if all you have are lies or ignorance to bring to the table, I lose interest and become bored(as I have with tw). It's just not fun to debate with an un-armed man.

I never said "single-minded", again, comprehension is key! Oh, you have no problem with having an impeached President so morally bankrupt that he refuses to be accountable and step down. Who looks into the eyes of the American people and lies when he didn't have to. Who committed perjury and obstruction...and people like you keep begging for more! No wonder he thought he was above the law and could get away with it, your ilk make it easy!
HA! Eloquent L I A R !
Well, if you think talking down to you is more impressive than talking to you, you must love Algore! Personally, I'm more of an actions speak louder than words kinda gal.

Sycamore and Cam,
How lovely! I really hate to pull you two apart from this little tongue in each other's cheek fest you've got going on....

BUT, revisionary History...I'm sure you've heard of it? Such as revising the Bible so it's more gender friendly, revising Texas History so it doesn't hurt hispanic children's feelings, revising that Thomas Jefferson raped and produced children with a slave, when DNA proved otherwise...the anti-Israel and "Palestinians" falsehoods stated on this board alone is proof of liberal manipulation as most people know it.

I can tell you how I reached my opinion that bin Laden is dead...
Bin Laden's signals and messages are very important to the survival of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden speaks and shows his face, recruitment goes up and money flows in. After the Tora Bora attack moral and recruitment fell, Al Qaeda needed bin Laden to energize the base as he always did. Bin Laden is too smart, too egotistical, and too "pay back time" oriented to pass up the biggest opportunity of his life to plaster his face all over the media announcing to the world and his followers that the US infidels are no match for Allah, and as Allah protected him and made the West miss him, so shall He protect them. The West didn't miss him, so we heard nothing. Now, Al Qaeda has had time to fake that moment of importance, but in reality, the moment has passed.
Also a captured member of Al Qaeda slipped up and referred to bin Laden in the past tense, he quickly recovered, but the initial acknowledgment was his thought.
Some in the US Govt. think the tape is real, some think it's a fake, France, of all people, thinks it's fake, as does countless voice experts.

Yes Cam, you really should learn about the Canadian Government...their "healthcare" is not free, but it is bankrupt and outdated. How about the freakin' 70% of your income they steal? Try figuring out how you're going to live, eat, survive on 30% of your hard earned dollar...maybe you could just live in the Hospital using your "free" healthcare!!!! LOL...

That is utter and complete bullshit. You want to argue legal without knowing what you're talking about? I'm not an expert in international law, but I think I can find a few things in just a few moments.

So which article of Chapter 7 are you referring to? Would it be article 39, which points out the right of the United Nations to determine the status of peace. Now let's take a Resolution at random from the list of resolutions that involve Israel. I was originally going to use the Litani River Project, but I figured that you would apply your ridiculous 'liberals rewrote history' whine. So I'll stay contemporary. I'm going to focus on SCRes 1402 for you, which called on both sides to take steps to end the escalation in conflict. It specifically called on Israel to withdraw its troops from Palestinian cities, but Israel did not comply in anything like an expedited manner.
You really do not understand the difference between Chapter 6 and Chapter 7, do you? Chapter 6 deals with "disputes," Chapter 7 with the "breach of peace." Go ahead and try to argue that there have been no Security Council Resolutions regarding Israel that deal with breaches of peace.

Of course, I do think it's amusing that a right-winger, who theoretically should disdain the liberal institutionalism that established the UN (you know, the whole realism vs. liberalism idea), uses the UN as a justification, even if they're wrong in their argument.


Fair and balanced would be the lying mantra of your side's media network. But hey, repeat it enough and it's true, right? Isn't that what you're saying happened before the liberal corruption of history? Apparently it is fair and balanced to call an entire population vermin. Whatever. Go look up the etimology of the word Semitism, and you'll realize you're an 'anti-Semite.'

Too bad you're proving yourself to be colorblind.

Oh right. There's only 3 phases to any conflict. How would you describe Kashmir? How about Columbia? Has Israel been at war since 1967? Can you see how ridiculous this assumption is?

Of course, this does assume that every action a state engages in has something to do with war. No peace here.

Hooked on phonics would work for me? Ok, I'm insulted. I guess that English minor I picked up when I was an undergrad was meaningless. Thank you for pointing it out. With that, and your revelation about bin Laden's life, it seems that your insight is so incredible that there's no way I could fight its power.

Yup, I'm bragging about having more school. I'm bragging about trying to become an active member of society. I'm proud of my accomplishments. Of course, you don't know what I studied as an undergrad, the quality of the education, or the political leanings of my professors (or if that was even a relevant issue). I was a Computer Science major with a Creative Writing minor. After graduation, I jumped into a National Security Studies master's program in which most of the professors (4 of the core 5) are lifelong Republicans. So the "brainwashing" by the "Liberal Socialist" system would be difficult to prove.

Maybe you should get some more education. It might open your mind up a bit. And have you forgotten that your husband had to be "indoctrinated," as you call it, in order to become a teacher?

Your "Comprehension 101" comment made me laugh, though. There's no way you could have known that I got over a 700 on the reading portion of my SATs. (I don't remember the exact score as that was probably 10 years ago.) Of course I'm not going to instantly comprehend everything I see - no one does. But I think more of the problem lies in your ability to communicate effectively.

At least I know how to protect myself from HIV and the risk of helping increase the world's overabundant population.

Uh no. One of the things Lenin wanted to do was give the Kazakhs, and a few others that were revolting and being oppressed, some autonomy. (Unusual, of course, for Lenin to have a problem with mass murder. He read as much Heinzen as Hitler. And it's a lot more complicated than that, but I don't care enough to be more specific.) You may be talking about his expansion of the Central Committee, or the granting of legislative powers to the Central Planning Commission - both of which already existed and were not an establishment of a new Duma.

I'm pretty sure I've never mentioned the Patriot Act or FISC in this discussion.

So are only 3,000+ citizens worthy of the right to live (and yes, I notice your thinly veiled reference to the abortion debate, and I think it's preposterous). I realize that you are trying to make a reference to the deaths on September 11 to sensationalize the matter. But you don't have any substance - assuming of course that you realize you are essentially advocating the elimination of freedom of speech (not forcibly, but by some sense of guilt or shame).

Nope. I'm well aware that a Swiss lab says that there are problems with the tape - which you didn't bother mentioning in defense. Instead, you merely claimed, without calling upon any source for proof, that you knew that bin Laden was alive. However, when the US government claimed that the tape was bin Laden (which it was not alone in doing), it mentioned that the tape had been transferred over a telephone line, which could be responsible for the wave analysis problems the Swiss lab found. I don't know; I don't claim to be an expert in such manners. But I would posit that more signs point to bin Laden being alive than dead. That whole no body thing is a big deal. I equate it to a murder investigation. Police don't assume that a suspected murderer (and before you jump on me for saying suspected, realize that I'm relying on a social convention, not an assumption that bin Laden is not guilty. It would be unsurprising to see you attempt to distort that into some frm of collusion with terrorists or some other bs.) is dead simply because they attacked his hideout, burnt it to the ground, and couldn't find any trace of his body in the ashes. They especially don't drop the investigation when a tape recording claiming to be him is confirmed to actually be him by their own crime lab.

Everybody, huh? Who constitutes this everybody? And do you really think that the Bush administration would not be beating the war drums of an al Qaeda connection if it was there? They dropped it as soon as reporters began investigating their claims, which was that a lone Iraqi official met with a single member of al Qaeda in Prague. It didn't hold water then, and trying to bring it up now does not either.

Well, your credibility is linked to your ability to respond without basing your argument in insults, generalizations without any substance and misrepresentations of the truth.

If comprehension is key, then you threw yours away long ago. My point was that Clinton is a better speaker than Bush will ever be, which you didn't bother to refute (mostly because it would be too difficult, I'm assuming.) The great thing about Clinton is that he did talk to you. The bad thing about Bush is that he acts like he doesn't have to be bothered to learn the speech well enough to deliver it to the public. And that's even worse than talking down to me.

Yes, I like Al Gore - I have no complex about an intelligent man. I'm not sure he should run for President again, but I like many of his political ideas. And I view the entire Lewinsky fiasco to be an example of the character assassination certain political forces were engaged in. They could not get the American public to respond to much of Clinton's inadequacies as President (and yes, I believe there were many), so they tried to overblow a relatively trivial, and definately private event; a moral indescretion that he was not alone in committing.

I can't pass up this opportunity to show you the inadequacy of your association of extremists with the mainstream.

"Actions speak louder than words" is practically a direct quote from Carlo Piscane, who was influential in Brousse's development of the idea of "propaganda by the deed:" the idea that revolutionaries can not rely simply on words to spread their propaganda. India's HSRA followed this with the "philosophy of the bomb," which said that the best action to use was the employment of bombs. And modern terrorism was born when the Narodnaya Volya incorporated these two ideas.

So does this mean you're a terrorist kinda gal?

The examples of Cairo's propensity to base her arguments on insults abound.

Nice misrepresentation of a few examples. Revising the Bible to make it gender neutral (not gender friendly) does not change the meaning. I would argue that it enhances God's image, because it places God above the differences in gender. I'm agnostic and I can see that.

IIRC, the Texas history that was revised demonized Santa Anna and his men, and did not explain the situations surrounding the war for Texan independence. Revising the textbooks to reflect the truth is generally not a bad thing.

The Jefferson thing made me laugh. Do you realize that you contradicted yourself? History hasn't taught that Jefferson fathered children with any slaves. Evidence arose to the contrary, and the debate that began was whether or not to [i]revise[/] history to include this fact. So which is it? Do you like revisionism or hate it? Also, where's your proof that Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves? You don't know that he didn't have a relationship with a slave. Or were you there too?

I'm tired of talking about I/P to you.

That's possible, but maybe he expected that reaction? Without him taking front stage, the West may ease its dilligence in trying to prevent terrorism, which will make his goals easier. In addition, no one is really sure what the power arrangement is inside al Qaeda. Maybe bin Laden is engaged in a power struggle that has stopped him from putting his face on television? Or maybe he's just in hiding? I think there are simply too many unanswered questions to claim knowledge of his status.

Hmm...according to Yahoo Canada, the high end of the progressive tax scale is 29%. This is actually pretty comparable to the US tax scale. Care to revise your assessment?

I'm guessing one would get a stronger readership by breaking one's points up into smaller posts, too.

And avoiding all the name-calling and whatnot

Thankee

My Uncle that lives in canada seems to have no trouble eating. He doesn't work at any great paying job either, I believe he's driving trucks at the moment. My uncle also had open heart surgery in Canada, survived, and is doing fine. So obviously their outdated health care system isn't that bad.

Also your blatent statement about Bin Laden being dead, which I'm sure sounded like a stated fact to anyone who read it was a complete cairo deducation. You have no sources to back it up, just what cairo thinks. Which by the way seem to be how you back up all your arguments.

<h5>Hermit22</h5>
:mad: Your posts are too long!!

Note: This is a joke. The irony of this comment is that I make rediculously long posts and should never comment on how long someone else's might be. This is not to be taken seriously, it is not intended to incite harsh replies. This is humor. :)

Slang, you crack me up. :)

Re: Who Supports the War(s)
 

First off the Christian Science Monitor is hardly a reputable and valid news source. Second Why would kids be cynical after growing up in the clinton years? I wasn't aware 8 years of unprecedented economic boom that had nothing to do with the previous president was something to be cynical about.

And people ARE cynical and don't believe a war mongering idiot like GWB who has yet to provide a single link between Al Queda and Iraq. Thus far Iraq has never attacked American soil, never helped anyone else attack American soil, never paid anyone to do it, and never harbored or supported those who have and not one shred of evidence has ever been given to the public to the contrary. And this is despite the fact that in 1991 America launched an unwarranted and illegal attack on Iraq and subsequently starved their people to death and kept life saving medicines from them. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't answer to any other sovereign nation including America. America has no authority beyond our own borders and we aren't the boss or police of the world.

If GWB wants to send Americans to fight he MUST provide actual proof. And why is GWB so hot to start a war when he himself pulled every string he could to stay out of the Vietnam war? It’s because he's a hypocrite. When he does drugs it's a "youthful indiscretion" but when other people do it they must be locked in jail forever. When he's going to fight in a war, it must be avoided at all cost, but when he's not the guy in the trenches, it's just fine.

Iraq poses no threat and never has. Why isn't GWB going after Korea who just said they've got nukes? Why doesn't he go after an actual threat? Because he's a bully and like all bullies he wants to go after the weak.

I served in the military and I would never fight in this war or the one in 1991.

Actually Canada pays more money for their healthcare than America and they get substandard healthcare for their money. Many Canadians come to America for their serious operations because they don't want to wait long periods for lower quality medical care. Socialism is a failure each and every place it is tried including the holy grail of socialism...Sweden.

For the price people pay in Sweden for healthcare, I could get a new kidney every year in America.

Let's share some truthful information about the so-called Patriot act. It's the most blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation in the history of the united states. It practically erases the 4th amendment, it allows the government to spy on our own people even though they are not allowed to do that in the constitution. It's a violation of everything that America stands for. If you support the patriot act you support terrorism against Americans.

The patriot act doesn't defend anyone's "right to life". It UNCONSTITUTIONALLY infringes on the rights that make our lives worth living.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Hmm. Last figures I saw showed that the United States spends 14% of the GDP on health care, while Canada only spends 7% of theirs on health care.

According to this website the percentage of the GDP spent on healtcare is 9.3%

Let's use this FACTBOOK the GDP per capita in Canada when adjusted for purchase parity is $27,700. When we take 9.3% of the GDP per capita we get $2695.21 per individual per year on healthcare. That comes out to $224.60 per month. Most Americans pay half this amount if they've got a job that has healthcare and dental insurance. Even less if there's a family plan.

So yes, Canadians pay more money for healthcare, and they've got substandard healthcare when compared to America which has the best doctors on earth. Thank god for Capitalism. (not that I believe in god)

Then again the majority of Americans always have to worry about their insurance companies, changing their policies or refusing to provide coverage in certain instances.

That's the beauty of having a lot of insurance companies to choose from. It keeps most of them in check from going too crazy with what they charge and from changing benefits all the time.

Competition keeps costs down and services up. Healthcare is far too important to let government mess around with. So is retirement, charity, education, and many other things.

Actually, I think healthcare is far too important to leave it to the free market. Just difference in philosophy I guess. Strictly free market philosophy seems, to me, to have failed, and that is precisely because companies raise their rates and lower their coverage, or risk going out of busines. In addition, there isn't really the free market choice when your job gives you the selection of only one health care company.

Also, people pay more than just their insurance rate for health care. There's also things like Medicare, co-pays, and prescription drug costs, and when your employer offers insurance, they have to pay the company a fee. I'm a healthy 23 year old, non-smoker, don't get sick, etc. and I pay $160 per month for just health insurance (no dental). When you throw in some of these additions, and substitute for a less healthy individual with more risk factors, I think the cost would be comparable, if not greater, than Canada's.

The other failing of our system is that I can't change jobs and retain my health insurance. Even if I could find a job that fits my schedule and offers insurance, the insurance wouldn't kick in for some length of time, often 90 days. So if I needed to change jobs like that, I would be hampered by my lack of health insurance. Or I might be only able to find a job that doesn't offer insurance. Either way, there would be a period of time where my insurance would be out unless I found a temporary solution elsewhere.

Actually, you can keep your insurance through COBRA, for up to 24 months, IIRC; however, you are responsible for the full cost of the insurance.

When I left my last permanent job a year ago, I was paying $17 a week through the company. When I left, I had the option of keeping it...at $269 a month.

:p

I have an idea that many will surely hate.


Why dont more people scrap all this medical insurance nonsense and get a high deductable catastrophic insurance plan (that costs about 20 bucks a month) and take the extra money you would normally pay to the insurance assheads and put it into an acct you only use for catstrophic medical problems. If you need to see a doctor, pay cash. The doctor will probably charge you a lot less and give you only what you need, not what your plan will pay for. If he recommends something you must actually pay for you will have the money to pay for it, if it's really needed. If you have a catstrophic event. you're also covered by the plan.

Putting the responsibility on the individual also promotes better health habits. If you're going to smoke crack (or whatever will eventually kill or disable you) why in the fuck should I have to pay for your lack of common sense, self discapline or ignorance?

What does the current system encourage? Political bullshit. I dare say that the majority of people make themselves sick.

Earth to the American people.......take care of yourself....or the government will take charge of that too.

<B>Sure, I love to smoke, drink whiskey straight from the bottle, sit watching tv for years on end, eat nothing but KFC (with lotsa gravy) and run with scissors just as much as any other guy. The reality is though if you take care of yourself, chances are you wont be at the mercy of any health care policy. And then we can remove this bogus issue from the political table and move on to more important second ammendment issues.</B> :)

COBRA is at least a net, but then your new policy may not cover any preexisting conditions. I know some people, diabetic, cancer survivors, who cannot take the risk of changing jobs. My brother in law is a frustrated doctor in Canada and I know full well that their system is far from perfect. But for low-income, small business, and self-employed persons such as the warch crew it looks pretty good. Ok, six month wait for maintenance treatment, vs in the US roll the dice and hit the emergency room when you blow. We have employer coverage now, but spent most of our 20s with no coverage. We lucked out in Texas by finding a doctor that would treat us on a way sliding scale or even barter. But it was always the (poor) fall back plan, if all went horribly wrong- pack up your bloody carcass and head for the border.

Just a few of my personal thoughts on the concept of national healthcare:

--I live in the greatest country in the world. I'm willing to work hard, pay my taxes, and be the best American I can be. I'm entitled to be taken care of by my country, since I help take care of it.

--People who have health coverage may be more apt to go see a doctor when they do not feel well...rather than try to wait the illness out. This will get them on the road to recovery faster, and will result in more productivity, which helps the company work better, which helps the economy work better, etc.

--Regarding "healthy lifestyle" choices, everyone will pay for people's bad habits in the end, one way or another. In fact, people's bad habits actually help our nation. For example, without people dealing drugs and what not, there would be no DEA. Those people are employed thanks to stupid choices. Here in PA, had the tax on cigarettes not been raised, the commonwealth would be deeper in the red than it already is. Deep red means cuts in jobs, departmental budgets, etc. So light up smokers of the commonwealth! Your tax money just helped get a child get into a vital social services program. :)

Coupla thoughts ...
 

I know, both personally and have seen news reports, of more than one Canadian who has come south to self-pay for procedures, up to and including cardiac bypass surgery. One of my mom's friend's granddaughters was here for arthroscopic knee surgery a couple years back.

Recently I've seen several news reports on doctors who are not accepting insurance for medical care --- straight pay only, and they've significantly reduced the amount of time they spend dealing with paperwork generated by the managed care system (which manages cost, incidentally NOT care ...) and are devoting that time to actual doctoring.

I spend a lot more of my day (evening) arguing with insurance companies than I do seeing patients. One thing that's good about my facility, though, is that we treat REGARDLESS of insurance status, and worry about how we're getting paid afterwards ... also, if we have a patient that we think need treatment, we admit, despite what some care manager in an offiice 1200 miles away thinks about the needs of someone they haven't even seen. We're usually successful on an appeal of the initial denial of care (okay PAYMENT for care), and if not we either get funding through the county or medical assistance or just eat the cost.

Especially small kids. Eatting dirt and pickin' their noses and stuff.

Don't forget eatting dead frogs. They can't be left to eat these sorts of things.

I'm assuming you're bringing this to my attention as an exception, children. I'll agree that most kids arent responsible for their own cancer, chronic illness etc.

Do you agree that most adults make themselves sick?

Health too important to be left to the free market: what, like food, clothing and shelter?

Actually healthcare is not in the hands of the free market in the US. 50% of the healthcare is bought by the government to begin with. That screws up the market like no tomorrow.

If the first customer in the china shop is always a bull, the second customer ain't gonna get good prices or service.

:) forgive me. I think I'm funny

The free market never fails to provide the best products and services at the lowest cost. The reason health care costs have gone up isn't because of the free market, but because of government intervention. The most expensive health care on earth are in the most socialist and communist nations. The more they embrace socialism or communism the more people pay for healthcare, and other substandard services provided by the government.

The government is like King Midas, except instead of gold, whatever they touch turns to shit. Government is NEVER as good as private enterprise at providing any product or service other than killing. Private enterprise can get 6 pounds of oil across the world for less than it costs to send a letter across the street.

Read this article


Slang: Your idea isn't new. That's the way healthcare used to be in America when we had the best system on earth. You would only require insurance to pay for serious problems....broken legs, surgery, etc. But for your common colds, flu, etc. you would pay to see a doctor.

COBRA is a backup plan just to help you out between jobs or until your new job benefits start. It's reasonable to assume if you're leaving one job for another the new job pays more. Most people move up rather than sideways. So it's reasonable to assume you can afford Cobra for 1-3 months until the new insurance starts. Most company insurance costs about $100 per month for one person and that includes medical, dental, and vision.

You're paying taxes to fund unconstitutional social programs. And it's not your duty to take care of the government. It's also not the place of government to provide healthcare, retirement, education, or charity to the people. The ONLY VALID ROLES of governemnt is to DEFEND our borders, to regulate commerce, and provide a judicary. Nothing else.

Yes, people with health insurance are more likely to see a doctor every time they get the sniffles. And they keep the hospitals crowded and force the price of medical care up.

Fortunately, I think you're funny too ...

(don't make me come up there and kick your ass ...)

(after my doctor lets me drive and after the roads are clear enough that I won't risk smushing my new car).

I'd rather they caught that case of crabs when they first noticed the little buggers crawling around. Seriously, though, preventing a disease, or catching it in its infant stages, is a much better approach than trying to deal with it later, when you've already spread it, and the treatment has to be harsher. You know - that whole ounce of prevention line.

Oh, like the recording industry? How about the software biz?

When you're dealing with something like people's lives, I don't think you can focus entirely on the cost. You need to focus on the effects - who has the healthier citizens. That would be a nearly impossible survey to conduct, because how would you account for all the variables in society - people's diet and exercise habits, etc?

I think that at this point the choice is between which system offers the most benefits. Each one offers a level of services to all people; the difference is where that level begins. I believe that level should not be 0 (as it is now), but it should be set at a reasonable level to discourage overuse and bad behavior, and not discourage universal health. I'll be the first to admit, however, that I have no idea what that level is.

i just dug my kids brand new crayons out of his molars.

~james

Funny you should mention those. Software is cheaper now than it was 20 years ago. So are computers. And the government doesn't regulate either of them. Also a CD right now costs less of a percentage of your income now than a record did in the 60's.

No, you also have to focus on the quality of healthcare provided and the United States without question has the best doctors on the planet. Nobody would dispute that point.

That's more of a question of culture rather than healthcare. Americans have more money, fast food, etc. We drive cars instead of riding bicycles, etc. That's hardly a relevant comparison to determine who has a better healthcare system.

Our level isn't 0. Anyone in America can walk into any emergency room and get care even if they're homeless. That's far from being at a 0 level.

I'm all for encouraging exercise, better eating habits, and other healthy habits. But I'm also for getting rid of laws that prevent people with medical training from providing medical assistance simply because they aren't a doctor certified with the AMA.
There are people from other countries that live here and haven't gone through our medical training system who know a lot. But the AMA and the FDA keep medicines and treatments out of the hands of people that need it.

There are plenty of people who can administer first aid, know how to treat a cold, the flue, broken bokes, or other treatments besides AMA certified doctors who specialize in symptomatic rather than preventative medicine. If these people were allowed to help others, medical treatment would be far cheaper and you wouldn't even need insurance except for serious problems like a heart transplant or something.

It is 0 if you can't afford it. You may be able to walk in and be guaranteed service, but if you can't afford the bills you're going to receive from this, you're going to avoid it at all costs.

You want to discredit our medical system? Allow any quack to fool the average American into using unproven medical techniques? That would be a horrible situation. It would undermine our faith in the system that you claim is the best in the world, or, at the very least, has the best doctors. Funny how you want to undermine that. Of course, great doctors don't necessarily mean a great system.

Just because they're cheaper doesn't mean they're the lowest cost or the best products. I know there are many people on this board who are less than pleased with both industries.

(Apologies to those that read this earlier before I revised it.)

The Bible may be a book of history to you...it's a book of faith to me. The Bible is incredibly subjective, depending upon the religion and the person, so it's unfair to include it in this argument.

I've found in my own studies that the US pulled some neat stunts in taking Texas. The Gadsden Purchase was slick too. Oh, and don't forget Hawaii. You can call it "revisionism" if you like; I call it "looking at a situation from multiple perspectives and coming to a reasonable conclusion."

Even if the revisions are being done so that the information "doesn't hurt hispanic children's feelings," we can all benefit from multiple perspectives of history...whether you like it or not, it can only enhance your knowledge. A perfect example of this is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Next you'll tell me how romantic Manifest Destiny was...

I've never heard it described as a rape, though I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

And while I have heard some say that the deed was done (though I only saw some minor media attention given to the outcome of the DNA tests), the only definite link is that a male descendant of Sally Hemings has the same Y-chromosome DNA as the Jefferson males.

I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise." The DNA tests didn't prove that Tommy Boy was the father of Eaton Hemings, but he can't be ruled out.

The folks that run the Monticello say this: "The Thomas Jefferson Foundation stands by its original findings - that the weight of evidence suggests that Jefferson probably was the father of Eston Hemings and perhaps the father of all of Sally Hemings' children" (Source)

All in all, I'd say it certainly deserves some historical mention, just as the Clinton-Lewinsky deal does as well.

Whoa! Hold on here...

I don't know what they taught you in school, but most people would call the above quote a statement of fact. There is no "I think," "I believe," etc. in your statement, which would then make it a statement of opinion.

So, are you now saying that it is your opinion that bin Laden is dead?

If it seems like I'm not taking you seriously Cairo, it's because I don't. You come across like Ann Coulter or Jerry Falwell, both of whom are out-of-touch nutjobs, IMO.

You are more than welcome to embrace hard conservative views with open arms if you wish...that's your right. However, understand that almost everything here at the Cellar is subject to incredible scrutiny. Particularly when "outlandish" claims and statements are made. Hard lefters get their asses checked too, so don't try and cry a liberal bias.

It's not 0 ever. Even if you can't afford it you will get service. You can be a homeless drunk and walk into an emergency room and get treatment. If you don't pay the bill you can keep going in and still get treatment.

No I don't want to discredit the medical system. I just want to discredit the AMA and FDA. Our doctors are the best on earth and I'm all for doctors getting certified and still being the best. But I think doctors should be privately certified and other people with medical training shouldn't be prevented from giving care. If they harm someone they will be responsible as any other doctor would be.

Who says the medical techniques are unproven? Most Eastern medicine has been used for thousands of years. It couldn't be more proven. But many of those techniques and medicines are outlawed in America.

I'm not saying everyone should see these people for every problem. What I'm saying is that if someone chooses to see someone like that they should be able to see anyone they want, especially if they've got a small problem like the sniffles, a rash, etc.

It wouldn't undermine anything. It would provide more faith in our health care system because less people would be waiting in emergency rooms, insurance would be cheaper, and we'd still have the best doctors on earth. And you're correct, the best doctors don't necessarily make the best system. America once had the best healthcare system on earth until the government passed the HMO act, started medicare, and otherwise meddled with the free market medical care system.

You're barking up the wrong tree here pal. I've been a computer programmer and network engineer for 17 years. Software now has more features and does more with less effort than ever. Even development is easier. It's also cheaper. So are computers. So is long distance service. And so is music. Music is also digitally mastered and provides superior quality.

A highly flawed one at that. It's full of holes.

Nothing in the bible is factual. It's a book of fairy tales and nobody with an IQ with 3 digits can possibly expect anyone to accept it as historical fact.

What do you suggest as an alternative? Have the government set price ceilings on CD's? Have the government fund all software development? What exactly are you advocating here?

I have server sitting 10 feet from me that's running free web, email, FTP, SSH, database, remote access, LDAP, and backup services, all on a free OS. All I paid for was the hardware, and the time it took me to get it all configured. How could it get any better than that?

I also have a little free time in the evenings, and so I'm helping to adapt said backup software to use a database backend. I'm giving back to the community because it helps others, yes, but foremost because it helps me. That's free market for ya -- take care of numero uno, and you accidentally help others.

How could the government possibly improve on that system?

I wholeheartedly disagree. You aren't <I>entitled</I> to squat, except life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A man named Jesus Christ was born in a town called Bethlehem. That is a historical fact.

He was also killed by crucifixion. Again, historical fact.

Whether He is the savior of men, or the Son of God, you may disagree with. But saying "Nothing in the bible is factual" is incorrect.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell all Christians. PROVE IT!

Show me his bones, dna evidence, some prove of the actual man. And not fake evidence like the shroud of turin which has been dated 600 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

There may or may not have been a man named Jesus of Nazareth. But the bible is a book of fairy tales designed to help people with a set of values. It has a lot of social and historical relevance itself. But what's in it isn't historically accurate until we have actual physical evidence.

I don't recognize the accuracy or authority of the bible. I've read it 3 times and know it better than most Christians. The teachings of the character "Jesus of Nazareth" are enciteful and wise and were also taught long before the life of Jesus assuming he actually was alive.

And it's sweet that you use linux. I like to play with it when I can but I've only got one box so I use Win2k. I'm a MCSE, MCT, A+, CNA, CNE. I'm not married to any OS but I like open source and I like linux. I have yet to see a web server better than apache. When I build my next box I'll probably make this one Linux. But there are a lot of flavors to use. The last one I used was Redhat and it installed in a snap. It recognized all my devices and had drivers for them. It required hardly anything to set up. Even easier than MS OS's

You're an MCSE? Really? Wow. I never would have guessed.

D00d... j00 r liek s00p3r-3|33t! G0t 4ny w4r3z? Pr0n?

*sighs*
I leave for a compel of days to get take little pills and pound my eardrums and look what I have to come back to....

Radar. Yes, the bible is full of holes. On the other hand it is also full of verifiable historical fact backed up by archeological research. I am an atheist. Jesus being born etcetc is far more questionable, but you cannot dismiss everything in the bible as rubbish out of hand.

You really want to say that in public?

The freer the market the freer the people my fucking arse.

It is an issue of moderation and control.

It is undeniably true a free market can create a great spirit of competition that in theory benefits customers, and often does, but once a field is established it can be close to impossible for new players not to be squeezed out by force of simply economies of scale, which leaves entire markets ripe for exploitation by price fixing cartels, formal or informal. Direct intervention into the market by government should, IMHO as limited as possible but powers should be in place to make it possible for the govt to really, and I mean really, slap down anti-competitive practices, My own little dream scenario/social experiment would be to have a very, very small government, entirely free economy and a small group of overseers who could at discretion intervene, to keep things fair. Don't bother pointing out the flaws, just a nice experiment of sorts.

Health systems.....
I’m not sure of the details of the system in Canada but from memory it is not too different to ours. I have a Medicare card, its government issues. I can walk into any doctor that does bulk billing, swipe the card and the govt picks up the tab, I can d the same @ public hospitals. I can also get private health insurance, independent of my employer and use private hospitals and doctors as well as specialists at my discretion. Personally I think it's the best of both world. Everyone has access to health care, free of charge, and those who wish can have private care. Personally I do have private health insurance, it helps pay for things like contact lenses.