# Osama, Saddam, WMD's and the 2004 election



## habilis (May 14, 2003)

First, the good news for Bush in 2004;

1. The war was won quickly and cheaply(in American lives)
2. There have been no new major terrorist attacks on American soil under his watch (which talks to the possibility that the Bush plan against terror is a success.)
3. There are now indications that a stable ground is in place for a bull market to develope in the next year and facilitate major economic rebound. (Bush admin will claim that winning the war quickly and tax cuts helped to create stability and activate the rebound - which isn't far from the truth). In other words, an improving economy under his watch.


Now, the bad news for Bush in 2004;

1.Where the hell is bin Lauden's dead body?
2. Where the hell is Saddam's dead body?
3. Where the hell are the WMD's? (This one being by far the worst issue; Bush's credibility is on the line big time with this one. If WMD's aren't found soon, this is the issue the Democrats - and a large part of the anti-American world out there - are going to forge into a sword and cut his head clean off with.)
4. The doom and gloomer economy & tax-cuts-for-the-rich crowd. (There's nothing new about this democrat strategy of charging Bush and the republicans with giving tax cuts only to the richest of Americans and running our economy into the ground, but they're going to be louder then ever this time. Bush admin will defend, saying it *inherited* the post dot-com crash/tech-bubble burst economy - which again isn't far from the truth.)

Of course a lot will happen before 2004. It will be an interesting comming year.


----------



## Decado (May 14, 2003)

they better make sure that that i fthey find WMD there will be a lot of independent dudes around, or else they will have hell convincing everybody that they didnt plant it


----------



## toast (May 14, 2003)

It is too late to find WMDs now that fights have more or less stopped. GWBush now has to succeed where his father did not: economy. Is tax cut what Americans really need and ask for ? Isn't the main desire of the population security ? And isn't social security a form of security ? What about job precarity after the dotcom crashes ? After the economic spasms and mini-crashes ?

The coming year will be interesting indeed. History rarely repeats itself, and I am curious to know how America is going to get through this Bush 2nd period.


----------



## habilis (May 14, 2003)

Sidenote: An interesting poll in the New York Times today;

The question posed to people who claim democrat as their party was "Can you name 1 democrat presidential candidate?"
66% could not. 33% came up with a variety of candidates from John Carry to Joe Lieberman.

Of course things change in time, but one way to interpret those numbers is that 2 of every 3 democrats out there apparently have no urgent interest in replacing the current president. Another interpretation; the democrats don't have themselves a strong leader.


----------



## ebolag4 (May 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *It is too late to find WMDs now that fights have more or less stopped.*



Why is it too late to find WMDs? Just because the major part of the battle is over, that doesn't mean finding them is no longer important. Now is the time to find them since the fighting is over. Now they have the time to concentrate on searching rather than fighting.

And why is it that the very people who were urging Bush to take more time before going to war are the same people who are in such and all-fired hurry to find the WMDs. These are the people who urged patience, but they have no patience themselves.

If the things are hidden, it's going to take time. I wouldn't doubt if most of the WMDs made it out of Iraq before the first shot was fired. The question is, what do we do about it if they ARE found somewhere else? I don't even want to think about that one, but we must face the possibility.

I, for one, am willing to be patient and let the record show for itself what the future for GW holds. I'm not going to let what MIGHT be happening now determine how I will vote in the future. I'm going to wait and see what DOES happen and then act accordingly.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 14, 2003)

hey toast - if I were you, I'd be more worried about how France will survive under continuous control of Chirac, now that he has successfully alienated your country politically from the big boys (US/UK). 

As for the WMDs, we've found bits and pieces that suggest a lot of them were moved right before the war, possibly to Syria, possibly destroyed. I find it funny that no one seems to think it odd that over 100 Iraqis who looted a suspected  Nuclear facility (read: illegal nuclear facility) now are sick with radiation poisioning. Now, how could that happen if there was no nuclear program?

As for Usama and Saddam... Where are they?  They are both dead. Until I see video footage of either of them with a current daily newspaper, I'm going on the assumption that they are both taking the eternal celestial dirt nap. Even if Saddam survived, he's not in command of his country, and there's no way in hell he or his sons/Baath party officials will ever run Iraq again.


----------



## adambyte (May 14, 2003)

Anybody ever see "Wag The Dog?" Good movie 

Granted, I'm not saying that the war is fake. Lost lives are a real thing. But when you're a lackluster president, you might as well go and be a good commander of the army. This was Bush's way of making an impression on the general population. 

On a sidenote: About the dumbest thing Bush can do for the economy is cut taxes.... which is what he seems dead-set on doing.

btw, Vote for Dean. http://www.deanforamerica.com


----------



## Gnomo (May 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ebolag4 _
> *why is it that the very people who were urging Bush to take more time before going to war are the same people who are in such and all-fired hurry to find the WMDs.*


Hmm...let's think about this.  Why on earth could people want the WMD to show up and in a hurry?

Um...here a shot in the dark: To Prove us WRONG~!

I don't know about all the other anti-war members of this forum or around the world for that matter, but I would love for Junior to prove us all wrong by finding (not planting) a large WMD cache.  It would finally show that this war wasn't just a vandetta against Saddam, and that we actually had some intelligence rather than just propoganda.  Iraq was claiming all along that "We don't have any" and so far it looks like they were telling the truth.

Now, I doubt that too many people in the world are really going to miss Saddam, but this will just add to the reasons that so many groups hate the US as it is.  I mean we already (to some extent) alienated the French, Russians, and China (just to name a few) and we rendered the UN completely worthless (again).  We aren't doing a very good job of making friends and we are upsetting the ones that we have.

If we don't learn our lesson soon and stop being the Bully of the world cramming our "be like us" doctrine down the throats of every other country and blowing them up if they refuse to listen to us (or even if they are and we just don't believe them), there are going to be more terrorist attacks and when there are, we might not have anyone to go crying to for help.

I love my country and I am thankful that I am American, but it is highly time that we realize that we are not Gods gift to the planet.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 14, 2003)

> On a sidenote: About the dumbest thing Bush can do for the economy is cut taxes.... which is what he seems dead-set on doing.



Well, history teaches us that when the Government cuts taxes, people have more of their own money to spend and invest. Small business owners have more money to invest in their companies, usually in the form of adding employees, which in turn produces more jobs.

When JFK cut taxes, the economy took off.

When Reagan cut taxes, the economy took off.

When George Herbert Walker Bush raised taxes in 1991, the economy slid in to recession.

It's a *proven* fact that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth.  But I'd love to hear your rationalization on why cutting taxes is bad.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 14, 2003)

> I mean we already (to some extent) alienated the French, Russians, and China (just to name a few) and we rendered the UN completely worthless (again). We aren't doing a very good job of making friends and we are upsetting the ones that we have.



Reality check:

France had been providing Saddam with intelligence on the US since the early 90's. France had over $60billion in illegal oil contracts with Iraq. 

Russia provided Iraq with much of it's weaponry post 1991. Russia also had illegal business dealing with Iraq to the tune of $8billion.

China also provided weapons to Iraq (Al Samoud missles, among other stuff). Don't forget that China now has several hundred ICBMs targeted on the US now, and please don't forget the intentional downing of our intelligence jet last year. 

These are countries you consider "friends" of the US? I'm not saying they're our enemies, but by their own actions, they remove themselves from the friends label.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 14, 2003)

> This was Bush's way of making an impression on the general population.



Funny, his approval ratings before/after the war are not that far apart. Sure, he got a bump, but nothing huge. The general population already had/have a positive impression of the guy. The only people with an unfavorable impression of GWB are extreme left partisans. There is noting GWB could do, short of curing AIDS or giving every American a $1 million check  that would change these people's minds.



> Anybody ever see "Wag The Dog?" Good movie



Anybody remember the way in which Clinton handled Iraq? The day of his testimony in the Paula Jones case he decided to lob a few cruise missles at some non essential targets in Iraq.

Wag the dog - indeed.


----------



## edX (May 14, 2003)

> _from habilis_
> Another interpretation; the democrats don't have themselves a strong leader.



that's the one i would go with. right now the democrats don't have a 'name brand' candidate. Lieberman would probably be the closest, but i doubt he would stand a real chance. Unfortunately, some of the best democratic choices are women. while i would still vote for them, i don't think average america is quite ready. perhaps as a VP, but even that seems optimistic.



> _ from serpicolugnut_
> The only people with an unfavorable impression of GWB are extreme left partisans.



no, there are still plenty of others who don't have favorable impressions of him. i know you probably consider me an extreme liberal, but the truth is i'm very middle-of-the-road. i even know republicans who don't like him and didn't support the war. so, again, please don't try and reduce things down to categories and labels. it doesn't help your argument any. essentially you are saying "if you don't agree with me, this is what you are."  

as for the whole tax cut issue, i think tax cuts would be great. only they need to be for middle class americans, not for corporations and millionaires. reagonomics proved that money doesn't 'trickle down'. it flows upwards. if the guy at the bottom doesn't have any money to spend, there won't be anyone buying the products and services, hence no new jobs and increased productivity. no one is going to invest in creating jobs if they can't expect to profit from it. which leads to the wealthy retaining as much of their money as possible in order to maintain and/or increase their wealth. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. even the middle class gets poorer.  

the fact is that i wish trickle down economics did work. it sounds great in theory. but all too often it becomes a protection for maintaining corporations and businesses that really don't have a product to compete with. in the end, no matter which direction you butter the bread from, what's really needed are innovations and shared confidence from both ends of the spectrum. better education and skills development are essential. and realizing that social services are also an important part of the economy. cutting out the jobs in that area effects the overall economy just like any other sector of it.  there is no reason to sell out the future to the present. small adjustments are what are needed, not big headline gathering promises of a better economy thru tax restructuring. personally, i would rather see more changes in how those tax dollars get spent than on how they are collected.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 14, 2003)

> that's the one i would go with. right now the democrats don't have a 'name brand' candidate. Lieberman would probably be the closest, but i doubt he would stand a real chance. Unfortunately, some of the best democratic choices are women. while i would still vote for them, i don't think average america is quite ready. perhaps as a VP, but even that seems optimistic.



As a Bush supporter, I sincerely hope Lieberman gets the nomination from the Dems. Seriously. He's a good man. If I had to a live under another Dem pres, I would hope it would be Lieberman. 

As for the other contenders... Edwards has no real ideas. Kerry seems to think that just because he was in Vietnam he's qualified to be President. Dean's antiwar/anti-military views are out of step with the majority of America. Al Sharpton is definitely the most charismatic of the bunch, and definitely has the biggest ideas (none of which I agree with, unfortunately). 

So which women do you think to be most qualified Ed? Surely you don't mean Hillary - do you?



> no, there are still plenty of others who don't have favorable impressions of him.



If by "plenty" you mean around 30-35% of the American public, then you are correct...


----------



## Cat (May 14, 2003)

> France had been providing Saddam with intelligence on the US since the early 90's. France had over $60billion in illegal oil contracts with Iraq.


Insert proof here -->

Didn't the US supply most of the WMD Iraq had?



> Russia provided Iraq with much of it's weaponry post 1991. Russia also had illegal business dealing with Iraq to the tune of $8billion.


You mean those highly dangerous and threatening old army trucks, left over from WWII, that were nearly falling apart?



> China also provided weapons to Iraq (Al Samoud missles, among other stuff). Don't forget that China now has several hundred ICBMs targeted on the US now, and please don't forget the intentional downing of our intelligence jet last year.


And where does the US point its ICBMs right now?
China intentionallt shot down the intentionally illegally spying US spy plane, which was intentionally illegally spying. You have a problem with that? Would you like a chinese spy plane reading your license plate?

By the way, if your economical reasoning doesn't get beyond "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" then it's not worth much ... there are tons of data to be taken into account and `rebound' and `recession' are to be used with great care. What was the emplyment rate before and after the tax cuts / raises? What were the house prices? What were the average wages, rents, gas costs? What were the long term credits? The interest rate? etc.

In different economical climates tax cuts nad rises have very different effects. Bush just generate a huge loss for the economy and is goint to aggravate that by reducing the state income. This could turn out to be a wise investment, or a potential disaster. It's very hard to tell, but on short term it doesn't really look good. Either way, he gets four more years to make up for it (or be blamed for the bad economy) or his rival will have the task to clean up after him.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 14, 2003)

> Didn't the US supply most of the WMD Iraq had?



From what I've read (and feel free to provide resources to prove me wrong), the US provided Iraq during the 80-88 Iran/Iraq war with Sarin and Mustard gas. The reasoning behind this was that Sarin and Mustard don't keep all that long, and Iraq was an ally at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20, but Reagan clearly thought hedging his bets against Iran was a good thing.

Iraq developed most of it's WMD on it's own (Anthrax, VX, Botulin Toxins). Germany has been shown to have a hand in their nuclear programs, as did France. Remember - France provided Iraq with a small nuclear reactor in the early 80's, that thankfully, Israel was able to destroy before it went online.




> You mean those highly dangerous and threatening old army trucks, left over from WWII, that were nearly falling apart?



No, I mean the Scud missles that were lobbed in to Kuwait (that exceed the UNs limits on missle range). I also mean the RPGs, the SAMs, and other solider's munitions. 



> And where does the US point its ICBMs right now?



Actually, most US ICBMs are sophisticated enough that they don't require any hard programming like in cold war days. They can be targetted in seconds. I would guess the older ICBMs are still targeted at Russia. 



> China intentionallt shot down the intentionally illegally spying US spy plane, which was intentionally illegally spying. You have a problem with that? Would you like a chinese spy plane reading your license plate?



Every story I read said that the US plane was in *international* air space - but if you have a different source, please provide it (I could be wrong). I have no problem with a Chinese spy plane reading my license plate, if they can do it from International Air Space. Chinese spies working within a corrupt Democratic administration to obtain the technology to actually target ICBMs on the US is something I do have a problem with (as should every American). 



> By the way, if your economical reasoning doesn't get beyond "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" then it's not worth much ..



Hey, I'm just providing examples of when tax cuts have worked in stimulating the economy, and where tax hikes have not. If we want to deal in minutia I can provide stats with regard to inflation, housing prices, fuel prices, stock market, employment, etc... But the overall statements are true. In the situations listed - taxes were cut, and the economy (job growth, corporate earnings, lower inflation, increase in new home sales, etc) improved.



> Bush just generate a huge loss for the economy and is goint to aggravate that by reducing the state income.



With regard to increasing Federal deficits - I can understand running them in the short term. Even though the deficit now is quite large in monetary terms, it's still a small part of the GDP. However, I would like Bush to layout a plan to reduce them soon, and return to a balanced budget.

As for the states income... If taxes are cut, the states benefit just as much as the Federal government does. People spend more, and states with sales taxes benefit tremendously from that. Companies hire more employees, and the states with income taxes benefit there too. More people buy houses, and the state benefits there as well...Most of the states facing money problems are due to over spending on their part, not decreased federal subsidies.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 14, 2003)

> i know you probably consider me an extreme liberal, but the truth is i'm very middle-of-the-road.



Nah, Ed - I don't consider you an extreme liberal. Left leaning, definitely... But even for a left leaning guy, you seem pretty level headed.


----------



## toast (May 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ebolag4 _
> *Why is it too late to find WMDs? Just because the major part of the battle is over, that doesn't mean finding them is no longer important. Now is the time to find them since the fighting is over. Now they have the time to concentrate on searching rather than fighting.*



Some people were doing this before the UN had to evacuate them. Remember ? Hint: one was called Hans.

More seriously, WMD are the excuse for this war. They embody the legitimity of it all: WMDs are dangerous for unprotected states, the US is an unprotected state, WMDs are dangerous for the US.

It would have been very interesting for M. Bush to find some WMDs during the war. "You see ? I was right, the had some ! This pre-emptive war was a right one." The war being over, where is the need for legitimacy ? The whole legitimity process is now concentrated in the American ability to turn Iraq into a democracy. That would be a unique move in this part of the world, and in a Muslim country of this type. I have very little hope this happens, but there is _still__a slight, slight chance.


----------



## Arden (May 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *First, the good news for Bush in 2004;
> 
> 1. The war was won quickly and cheaply(in American lives)
> ...


5. Where the hell is all our money?

Bush must improve the economy he tore down in the first place.  Remember what the economy was like under Clinton?  Lots of jobs, people spending money, a _surplus_... and the first thing Bush did after *ahem* stealing the office was to spend the surplus on tax breaks for the rich, who are not going to give it up.  Now we are deficit spending, increasing the National Debt dramatically (although not as much as Reagan did, thankfully), and people are out of jobs, prices are skyrocketing, states are cutting oodles of programs to balance their budget (far too many from education), and everything it seems is just spiraling.  That's why I'd rather have a Democrat in office: he won't give away all the peoples' money to his rich friends.



> *Of course a lot will happen before 2004. It will be an interesting comming year. *


Straight up.


----------



## toast (May 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *1. hey toast - if I were you, I'd be more worried about how France will survive under continuous control of Chirac, now that he has successfully alienated your country politically from the big boys (US/UK).
> 
> 2. As for the WMDs, we've found bits and pieces that suggest a lot of them were moved right before the war (...) Now, how could that happen if there was no nuclear program?
> ...



1. If you think one disagreement about one 3-months punctual event can alienate an international order built on 60-yrs old multilateral (UN, NATO) and supranational (EU) relations, then I suggest you think back of other conflicts such as Chechnya where disagreements were much more stronger and which have not broken the half-century-old bonds (esp. economical ones) between European or Western countries.

2. WMDs are not the only source of radiation on Earth. Iraq had an energy nuclear program, as most countries in this region of the world have.

3. Usama may be dead, Al Qaeda is not (eg: Saudi Arabia events this week). Saddam may be dead, 'Baathism' is not.


----------



## toast (May 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *It's a proven fact that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth.  But I'd love to hear your rationalization on why cutting taxes is bad. *



- Redistributive social justice suffers from tax cuts.
- NASDAQ just lost 0.3% tonight. USD/Euro: -0,16% (1.14). I don't see any stimulus.


----------



## toast (May 14, 2003)

> From what I've read (and feel free to provide resources to prove me wrong), the US provided Iraq during the 80-88 Iran/Iraq war with Sarin and Mustard gas. The reasoning behind this was that Sarin and Mustard don't keep all that long, and Iraq was an ally at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20, but Reagan clearly thought hedging his bets against Iran was a good thing.
> 
> Iraq developed most of it's WMD on it's own (Anthrax, VX, Botulin Toxins). Germany has been shown to have a hand in their nuclear programs, as did France. Remember - France provided Iraq with a small nuclear reactor in the early 80's, that thankfully, Israel was able to destroy before it went online.



This is the official weapon trading you are quoting. Non-official armament may present another version of those (so-called) facts.

Mustard gas and sarin were provided as molecules. Which means Iraq has been able to synthetize it since, no matter how old the original American delivery is.

BTW producing mustard gas or sarin (or any attack gas) in forbidden by the First Geneva Convention.


----------



## edX (May 14, 2003)

> So which women do you think to be most qualified Ed? Surely you don't mean Hillary - do you?



God no!! that would be worse than Bush. i was never really much of a Clinton fan and actually kinda hoped he would get removed from office even though i never saw a real reason for it. I only voted for him because of Gore who is about the only politician i have been enamored with since Jimmy Carter. he's very middle of the road with a strong environmental concerns - a lot more like Teddy Roosevelt than GW will ever be. and this despite the idea that Tipper as first lady seems very scary to me. my knind of president is the kind that is capable of reaching a strong and workable compromise - which generally involves pissing both sides off.

my first inclinations would towards California's Diane Feinstien and Barbara Boxer. Both are well known here for listening to their constituients and acting accordingly. both have shown some degree of co-operation with republicans despite working towards progressive solutions to social issues. i would guess that Feinstein is more well known nationally but perhaps neither of them are any more than local icons. i haven't left the state in awhile and really don't know anymore. i have seen other women's names doing things that impressed me over the last year as well but don't recall any of their names right off the top of my head.

it is really too early for any major agreement on an oppossing candidate. ask again in late december and i'm sure a few will have emerged. i think we are going to see enough opportunities between now and then for someone to take some actions that will catch the attention of the average american. if not, then GW will likely look like Nixon did in the re-election year.

and yea, i'll cop to leaning left on a variety of issues. especially the environment, war, and social services. probably on international relations as well. but i am certainly not in favor of any kind of major shifts in basic paradigms to accomplish these things. slow changes make more sense than drastic one. 

to roughly quote an old TV show (Knot's Landing) - "elections are generally a contest between dope #1 and dope #2."  at this point i don't know enough about any of the contending dopes to even care. i would never go so far as to say any of them would be better than Bush, but i think there must be some more reasonable choices somewhere. maybe even among the republican party. Bush might not even be so bad if he paired up with somebody other than Cheney. i am beginning to see Cheney as being alot like Spiro Agnew - a ghost of a vp who is pulling a lot more political strings than meets the eye.


----------



## adambyte (May 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Anybody remember the way in which Clinton handled Iraq? The day of his testimony in the Paula Jones case he decided to lob a few cruise missles at some non essential targets in Iraq.
> 
> Wag the dog - indeed. *



Agreed. I never called Bill Clinton a saint. Granted, a little better at being president in general, but still no saint. I'm just tired  of politicians pulling crap that isn't good for the human species so they can look good on paper.



I just realized how pointless this is.... hell, WE have weapons of mass destruction, right? Why should WE be trusted? Granted, we're not wholly evil, but we've been known to do dumb things, just like any other country. It's a wonder all of Europe hasn't joined forces so they could collectively kick our ass and install their own kind of government here... 

This is exactly what I was worried the 9/11 attacks would do: create a knee-jerk reaction which not only sent us hunting down the guys who did it (which is just fine, I guess... an eye for an eye)... but now has sent us to Iraq because they may have harbored terrorists? Hell, if we're going to attack every country that harbors terrorists, we should attack damn near everbody.... including ourselves.

Guess what: Nobody really "knows" who is right and who is wrong... Christians, Islamics, Tree-huggers, war-mongers, people who like to make whoopee with the lights on, people who like to make whoopee with the lights off.... it's all relative anyway. Respect thy neighbor and shut your trap.

Can you tell I enjoy my philosophy class?

P.S. Don't shrug off the above as mindless rhetoric. Beneath the extreme sarcastic statements lies my point. 

P.P.S. Even I don't know what my point is. Dammit.


----------



## Arden (May 14, 2003)

I do!  Wait, no I don't.  Wait, I don't care.  Ah hell...

Toast:  The fact that there is radiation *at a nuclear-f*cking power plant* means the plant is active.  What possible use could Iraq have for a nuclear plant?  Power?  *HA*rdly.  Muhammed J. Simpson?  I would never watch that show.  Nuclear weapons?  Bingo!

I think it's funny how France has suddenly taken a great deal of interest in Iraq, or what's left.  France didn't want to fight Iraq, but they want a hand in rebuilding it... sure, here's a box of toothpicks.  Have fun.

I know what's right:  Allowing the greatest possible number of people to live safely and in comfort, without having to worry about wars, terrorists, or the next meal.  This includes Americans (of any Americathere's not just one), Europeans, Israelis, Iraqis, Kurds, Chinese, Koreans, Taiwanese... basically everyone.  What's wrong: any situation not providing for this, or our current state of the world.


----------



## Arden (May 14, 2003)

By the way, serpico, do you think, now that the fighting is over, maybe it's time to restore your original avatar?


----------



## habilis (May 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Bush must improve the economy he tore down in the first place. *


The economy was already in the process of tumbling off a cliff when Bush first took office. Do you actually believe that if Gore was in office right now the economy would be shining? Gore would still have to contend with the lasting effects of market destruction rought by 9/11, consumer confidence at an all time low and scared to spend money, and a total implosion of the tech/dot-com industry (which is what drove the 90's economy to the stellar high that it was, not Clinton - _although Gore did invent the internet_).


----------



## toast (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Toast:  The fact that there is radiation at a nuclear-f*cking power plant means the plant is active.  What possible use could Iraq have for a nuclear plant?  Power?  HArdly.  Muhammed J. Simpson?  I would never watch that show.  Nuclear weapons?  Bingo!*



The fact that there is radiation at a nuclear-f*cking power plant does not mean it is active, have a great time reading a bit about radiation on the Web and post again.



> _Originally posted by arden _
> *I think it's funny how France has suddenly taken a great deal of interest in Iraq, or what's left.  France didn't want to fight Iraq, but they want a hand in rebuilding it... sure, here's a box of toothpicks.  Have fun.*



I find it logical. I'm not President but if I were I would act just the same.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 15, 2003)

From toast:


> The fact that there is radiation at a nuclear-f*cking power plant does not mean it is active, have a great time reading a bit about radiation on the Web and post again.



But it does mean that it WAS active at some point, or at the very least prepped to be active.

Hey, look - I can understand you being comfortable with Saddam being a nuclear citizen. After all, it was your pres, Chirac, who (then as mayor of France) sold his good buddy Saddam a nuclear reactor back in 1980. 

Thankfully, the rest of the world community didn't feel the same way, and Israel had the cojones to take that sucker out before it went active. Just imagine if Saddam had a nuclear power plant back in 1980 to reprocess spent fuel rods in to uranium for bombs. Not only would he probably have succeeded in 1991 in invading Kuwait, he probably would have gained control over the entire Gulf region. 

And toast - I'm not suggesting that France is now an enemy of the US, but the divisions are deep. And I suspect the information that will now come to light about France and Iraqs close ties will only deepen them. I don't think you have to worry about General Tommy Franks and the US military paying your country a "house call" any time soon, but I also wouldn't expect the US to do France any favors for the remainder of this administration, and probably the next. France's duplicity was more serious than the situation with Russia/Chechnya. You can whistle past the graveyard if you like, but the actions and words of the administration show that France is on the shi-ite list, and isn't getting off any time soon.

From adambyte:


> Hell, if we're going to attack every country that harbors terrorists, we should attack damn near everbody.... including ourselves.



The key word is harbor. We don't "harbor" terrrorists. Terrorists may live/operate here, but we don't support them, and we don't protect them. We don't knowingly allow them to set up training camps. Once someone/some group is found to be a terrorist (organization), they are dealt with. That wasn't the case in Afghanistan. That wasn't the case in Iraq. It's not the case in Syria (although they look like they might be getting the message). It's not the case in Iran. In Pakistan, which is a hotbed of Islamic terrorist activity, the government has been active in routing them out, and assisting us in the search for Taliban/Al Qaeda. Surely you can see the difference...?

From arden:


> By the way, serpico, do you think, now that the fighting is over, maybe it's time to restore your original avatar?



Probably, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was before the war. I'm trying to find a new one. Unfortunately, MACOSX.com limits the avatar to 50px, whereas all the other VB boards I post to use 100px avatars.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 15, 2003)

> - Redistributive social justice suffers from tax cuts.



Ah, you mean your countrys watered down attempt at communisim/social utopia/socialism? Yeah, we don't subscribe to that philosophy (at least not the majority of americans, at least not yet). However, the social programs we do have in place are quite safe from tax cuts. I understand that being a citizen of France you probably don't pay attention to much more than the headlines about American government, but if you have looked at the figures from the budgets since Bush has taken office, you will see that not only are most of the social programs safe from any of the tax cuts already in place - but most of them have gotten increases in funding.... Even the outrageous progams like the "liberty tattoo removal" program in California have gotten bumps in funding.



> - NASDAQ just lost 0.3% tonight. USD/Euro: -0,16% (1.14). I don't see any stimulus.



And the DOW has gained around 8% since before the war started - what's your point? You don't judge an economy by looking at what the stock market does in one day. If that was the measure of record - any day the DOW gains 200-250 points, we could say "Hallelujah-the economy is stong again!". 

The stock market is just one area of the economy. It's not even the most important. Back in 1996-97, when we were supposed to be in the middle of this huge economic boom - the DOW was in the neighborhood of 5000/6000 points. Now it's around 8500. Does that mean this economy is better than the one in 1997? By your account it does.

You look at several factors. Inflation. Consumer Confidence. Unemployment. New housing sales. Corporate earnings. They are all tied together, and together, are all factors in what makes up the economy. 

And while we are discussing economics, let's put the notion that we are in a recession to rest.

By definition, a recession is "two consecutive quarters of negative growth". Since 2001, we have only had one quarter of negative growth - the quarter in which 9-11 happened. Since then, the economy has sputtered along. Some parts have been quite strong - for example, the housing market in 2001-2002 had some of the best quarters in years. Inflation is extremely low and under control (and deflation hasn't been a concern as of yet).Coprorate earnings, while not stellar, have been pretty good as of late. Unemployment is at about 6%, which is a bit high though (although this is a lagging indidcator, and reports are that by summer, it will show about a 5% figure).

So, while it's not a blockbuster dot-com-goldrush-20-year-old-CEO-million-dollar-IPO economy, it's not as bad as some people think (if I was unemployed, I would probably have a different perspective though). 

Funny though - a big part of the economys problem over the last 2 years has been companies who artificially inflated earnings during the last years of the Clinton admin. So the "boom" we experienced in the late 90's might have been more of a fake then we originally believed.


----------



## ebolag4 (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *So, while it's not a blockbuster dot-com-goldrush-20-year-old-CEO-million-dollar-IPO economy, it's not as bad as some people think (if I was unemployed, I would probably have a different perspective though).
> 
> Funny though - a big part of the economys problem over the last 2 years has been companies who artificially inflated earnings during the last years of the Clinton admin. So the "boom" we experienced in the late 90's might have been more of a fake then we originally believed. *



That's exactly what I was thinking as I was reading your statements serpico. Sure, there was an economic "boom" during the Clinton regime, but it was more of a "false echo" than anything else.

The dot-com boom, as we all now know, was a fleeting shadow of economic prosperity that had nothing to do with anything Clinton and his cronies did. (Unless you take into account that Gore tried to claim that he "took the initiative in creating the internet." What a crock that was!)


----------



## toast (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Ah, you mean your countrys watered down attempt at communisim/social utopia/socialism? Yeah, we don't subscribe to that philosophy (at least not the majority of americans, at least not yet). However, the social programs we do have in place are quite safe from tax cuts. *



The public financing part of health is about 40% (6% of the GDP) and seems to be increasing. Cutting taxes makes pub. fin. decrease, sic.

And I feel the same way about Saddam having nuclear power than about Sharon's Israel having 200 nuclear heads.

You wrote "It's a proven fact that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth". I am not so sure the US economy is stimulated right now, hence I posted an example of recent stock evolutions.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 15, 2003)

> The public financing part of health is about 40% (6% of the GDP) and seems to be increasing. Cutting taxes makes pub. fin. decrease, sic.



I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say/referring to. Please restate in a clearer sentence.



> And I feel the same way about Saddam having nuclear power than about Sharon's Israel having 200 nuclear heads.



Really? Has Israel ever gassed their own people? Have any mass graves been found in Israel? Isn't Israel a democracy, while Iraq under Saddam was a dictatorship? Do you really feel that way?



> You wrote "It's a proven fact that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth". I am not so sure the US economy is stimulated right now, hence I posted an example of recent stock evolutions.



Obviously, it's not stimulated... We haven't had the tax cut yet! The last tax cut was (June 2001), was small and backloaded. And of course, it was cancelled out due to the economic devastation of 9-11.

That's why a tax cut is necessary....

But wait-why the #%$* am I even trying to convince a citizen of France the benefit of a US tax cut? You don't pay taxes here in the US, and your country's taxes are quite high compared to ours, mostly due to you governments social programs.

I guess I'm just bored today....


----------



## Arden (May 15, 2003)

There goes Toast, being a ******* ***, just like all French people.

But then that would be making a generalization based on a combination of stereotype and very little observation, not at all like what Toast is doing himself.  Maybe I shouldn't judge him based on what he puts here, just like he shouldn't judge our economy based on only a couple indicators.

I'd rather Ariel Sharon have all the nukes in the world than Saddam have 1 and rule Iraq.  Sharon rules a democratic country, the only in the Middle East, and he treats his people well, even those who hate Israel (the Palestinians).  He is constantly looking out for the welfare of his country while trying to keep alive as many people (Israelis and Palestinians both) as possible.

How often did Saddam do any of that?


----------



## Cat (May 15, 2003)

> Isn't Israel a democracy, while Iraq under Saddam was a dictatorship? Do you really feel that way?


You are stretching the definition of democracy here, by applying it to a country living, like the US, in such a deep fear of anything outside it's own borders. While being ruled by fear, a country is hardly democratic. Peace with Palestine would be in the best interests of both, but  neither seem determined to make concessions, which is a blame to them both. Israel is no inch better (or worse) than Palestine in this respect. However, Israel has a very advanced army and is an organized police-state. Palestine is hardly a country at all, more a gathering of factions and very disorganized. The terrorism inflicted by Israel on Palestine, heel even on refugee-camps, is inexcusable, because it is perpetrated by a sovereign nation, while the suicide (or homicide) bombers are individuals. If they are crazy, so is Israel as a whole.


----------



## Arden (May 15, 2003)

www.honestreporting.com

Everything you need to know.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 15, 2003)

> You are stretching the definition of democracy here, by applying it to a country living, like the US, in such a deep fear of anything outside it's own borders. While being ruled by fear, a country is hardly democratic.



What a load of hooey! By your definition, during WWII, we were "hardly a democracy" because we lived in fear of the Japanese and Germans. 

Israels leaders are held accountable. If the public (or their cabinet) feels they aren't getting the job done - elections are held. Hence the succession of different, democratically elected Israeli leaders - Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, Perez. Funny, every time the palestinians hold an "election", Arafat seems to win. Hmmm. I wonder how that happens. I guess Arafat learned from his buddies Casto and Saddam Hussein how to have an election and win each time.



> The terrorism inflicted by Israel on Palestine, heel even on refugee-camps, is inexcusable, because it is perpetrated by a sovereign nation, while the suicide (or homicide) bombers are individuals.



Do you really want to go there?

First of all, the land that Israel now occupies that the Palestinians claim as theirs was obtained (mostly) during the 1967 6 day war, in which Israel defended itself against the Arabs who sought their destruction. Israel decimated their forces in record time, and as a result obtained all of Jerusalem, The Golan Heights, Siniai, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank.

In short, Israel didn't ask for the fight, but when push came to shove, they dealt the Arabs a humiliating defeat.

The citizens of this land were denied admittance to the countries that lost it, and were left as refugees by them - not Israel. Many have integrated themselves peacefully in to Israeli society and are productive citizens. 

Now imagine, if some Mexicans living in Texas demanded that Texas become an independent, sovereign state of Mexicans. It was their land before it was ours, right? Shouldn't we give it back? What about most of the US? The indians were here first. We should return it to them, so they can have their own sovereign country. 

Yes, the Homicide bombers are individuals, but they are nothing more than tools of the Arab nations that seek nothing less than the total destruction of Israel. They are taught to hate Israelis without question, and they are taught to kill without question. These leaders do not want peace with Israel. They have been offered deals time and time again (Camp David, Oslow, etc), the last of which (under Clintons tuteledge), had Barak giving Arafat 95% of the land that the Palestinians claim as theirs - and they turned it down. Why? Because they are not interested in peace. Their only desire for a Palestinian state is so they will have a base to which better inflict casualties on Israel.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 15, 2003)

> I'd rather Ariel Sharon have all the nukes in the world than Saddam have 1 and rule Iraq. Sharon rules a democratic country, the only in the Middle East, and he treats his people well, even those who hate Israel (the Palestinians). He is constantly looking out for the welfare of his country while trying to keep alive as many people (Israelis and Palestinians both) as possible.



Amen, brother!

Well said!


----------



## edX (May 15, 2003)

> What a load of hooey! By your definition, during WWII, we were "hardly a democracy" because we lived in fear of the Japanese and Germans.



well, at least in the case of our fear of the Japanese this is true. We rounded up our own citizens of Japanese descent and put them in concentration camps and stripped them of all their property and rights. perhaps you forgot this part of american history.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 15, 2003)

> well, at least in the case of our fear of the Japanese this is true. We rounded up our own citizens of Japanese descent and put them in concentration camps and stripped them of all their property and rights. perhaps you forgot this part of american history.



Now how could I forget that - my family is of Asian descent.

We were still a democracy though...

And, as distasteful as the internment of the American Japanese was, I shudder to think what would have happened if they weren't protected and removed from the rampant bigotry and anti-Japanese sentiment that was so pervasive during that period. Hindsight is 20/20, and I'm sure that in our world of openess and diversity, we can't fathom how this happened. But it wasn't to punish them, it was to protect them. They were returned to their homes after the war, and in most cases, were compensated. It hardly excuses it, but in a less-civilized era it was a less-civilized solution.


----------



## toast (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say/referring to. Please restate in a clearer sentence.*



Yor health system is largely depending on public budget. If you cut taxes the public budget goes down and the depending budgets too, unless you rebuild spending indexes. 'Sic' may have worried you, sorry - that's Latin for 'thus'. I'm not sure you use it in English.



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Really? Has Israel ever gassed their own people? Have any mass graves been found in Israel? Isn't Israel a democracy, while Iraq under Saddam was a dictatorship? Do you really feel that way?*



No. But that wasn't my point. You're speaking of Iraqi and Israeli national politics while nuclear weapons were/are a weapon of international balances of power. I think that possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is just the same as (hypothetic) possession of nuclear weapons by Iraq. And anyway, all the Geiger counters in the world are not sufficient evidence to prove this. I personnally think that, if Iraq had had nuclear power, he would have used it already against Ame. troops, and he hasn't so he didn't have any nukes, but this is a very personal reasoning.



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *But wait-why the #%$* am I even trying to convince a citizen of France the benefit of a US tax cut? You don't pay taxes here in the US, and your country's taxes are quite high compared to ours, mostly due to you governments social programs. *



Can anyone from Denmark post here their average income tax percentage as well as their HDI ? Thank you. Highest taxes are to be found in countries with the highest standards of living, but this conversation could go very very far. Plus, I'm playing devil's advocate as my own opinion is too ambiguous to come and spoil this thread


----------



## toast (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *I'd rather Ariel Sharon have all the nukes in the world than Saddam have 1 and rule Iraq.  Sharon rules a democratic country, the only in the Middle East, and he treats his people well, even those who hate Israel (the Palestinians). He is constantly looking out for the welfare of his country while trying to keep alive as many people (Israelis and Palestinians both) as possible.*



Yeah, for sure !
Do you know what's the first thing a Palestinian family receive after their house is demolished by Tsahal tanks ?

- The bulldozer bill. Believe it or not.


----------



## toast (May 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Funny, every time the palestinians hold an "election", Arafat seems to win. Hmmm. I wonder how that happens. I guess Arafat learned from his buddies Casto and Saddam Hussein how to have an election and win each time.*



How easy is it to organize a political opposition when your people cannot eat every day ? Arafat is automatically re-elected because he's respected by foreign authorities. Moreover, how could another candidate get known from the population ? You think they watch TV and look at political debates before lunch ?

At the question "Do you really want to go there", I'd answer no, as my own institute would not let me (we lost one of our students three years ago in a human bomb).



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Yes, the Homicide bombers are individuals, but they are nothing more than tools of the Arab nations that seek nothing less than the total destruction of Israel.*



How can you _dare_ call me an anti-semitic because I spit on fanatical doctrins whereas you assimilate a ethnic group to the behavior of desperate people ?



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *They have been offered deals time and time again (Camp David, Oslow, etc), the last of which (under Clintons tuteledge), had Barak giving Arafat 95% of the land that the Palestinians claim as theirs - and they turned it down. Why? Because they are not interested in peace. Their only desire for a Palestinian state is so they will have a base to which better inflict casualties on Israel. *



Same remark as above. Plus, you really should look back at who refused what agreement, and make parallels with Israelian elections for example !


----------



## Cat (May 15, 2003)

> By your definition, during WWII, we were "hardly a democracy" because we lived in fear of the Japanese and Germans.



Yes that is true, by my definition you wouldn't be. I accept that, it does not refute my argument. I'll even go a step further: you are hardly a democracy now. I am not referring to the elections, but to the fact that while driven by fear, more and more power is being given to the ruling authority. I posted it elsewhere and will repeat it here: giveing special powers to your president and to the law enforcers disrupts the fine balance of a democracy, which depends on the separation of powers. This step (special powers in time of war) is the first to dictatorship since Roman history. I dearly hope the US will prove me wrong. I do not want to mindlessly provoke a hyperreaction, I am genuinely concerned about the developments.


----------



## brownidj (May 15, 2003)

Let's assume for the moment that the Iraqi WMDs really do exist. Ok, you've got WMDs, you've got a madman (Sadaam) and you got the hated US invading and about to kick his assssss and then some. So you don't use the WMDs... You destroy them, hide all the evidence or ship them to Syria. Now I really believe Sadaam is crazy... Give me a break.

If the US doesn't find some that will just make them incompetent. Or maybe Bechtel didn't get thee contract to ship them in


----------



## edX (May 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> And, as distasteful as the internment of the American Japanese was, I shudder to think what would have happened if they weren't protected and removed from the rampant bigotry and anti-Japanese sentiment that was so pervasive during that period. Hindsight is 20/20, and I'm sure that in our world of openess and diversity, we can't fathom how this happened.



you mean like the anti-arabic/anit-muslim sentiment so prevalent in the recent past and even right now - the one that has arab and muslim americans afraid to leave their homes at times. 



> But it wasn't to punish them, it was to protect them.



no, it was to protect the US. it was one of those 'national security' things. they were willing to forgoe the rights of many innocent americans on the premise that some of them might be spies and enemy fighters.



> They were returned to their homes after the war, and in most cases, were compensated. It hardly excuses it, but in a less-civilized era it was a less-civilized solution.



i'd like to meet some of the ones that had their homes returned to them so as to verify the truth of your claim, because all of the ones i met from families that went thru it, did not get their property back. there are several families in the south bay of LA that were leasing the land they once owned to farm on. not because they couldn't afford it, but because it was taken from them during the war. i knew them back in the 70's so i can't claim that they've never regained it as i don't know. but last i was there, many of the farms were being replaced by condo developments, so i doubt that it ever passed back into their hands.

i just worry and wonder about how much longer till we do something like this again with arab americans in the name of 'protecting' anything - be it us or them. i hope we can say we learned from the mistakes of the past, but the current adminstration doesn't seem too keen on history unless they were involved in it personally.


----------



## Arden (May 16, 2003)

Where's RacerX in all this?   I'm sure he'd have something significant to contribute.

Just because a country has state-sponsored benefits like health, doesn't mean they are the best programs.  What is the quality of health care in France?  Denmark?  Germany?  the U.S.?  Here, we have to pay for health care on our own, ensuring that we have the best coverage and care possible, because we don't want to spend our money on crappy service.  When you pay for something with taxes, you the citizen have a hard time dictating how you want that money to be spent, including on training.


----------



## Ugg (May 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Where's RacerX in all this?   I'm sure he'd have something significant to contribute.
> 
> Just because a country has state-sponsored benefits like health, doesn't mean they are the best programs.  What is the quality of health care in France?  Denmark?  Germany?  the U.S.?  Here, we have to pay for health care on our own, ensuring that we have the best coverage and care possible, because we don't want to spend our money on crappy service.  When you pay for something with taxes, you the citizen have a hard time dictating how you want that money to be spent, including on training. *



Ahh, methinks, Arden that you haven't had much personal experience with the glories of the US health system.  

First off, how can you say that we get the best coverage and care possible when ~30% of Americans don't have health coverage?  Or do you mean that only the people with money get the best possible health care?  If the last, then yes, we do have the best health system in the world, but only for people who can pay.

If, one day, you decide to start up your own business here in the US and want to buy insurance for yourself and employees, you will find that because you are such an itty bitty customer, the insurance companies are going to charge  you a small fortune.  Then, when somebody gets sick and actually has to use the insurance and it costs a fair amount of money, there is a good chance that they will drop you.  

Germany has a quasi-public health system.  Not unlike most public utilities in the US whereby the company is privately owned but closely regulated by the governement.  In Germany everyone has health insurance.  The employer pays part, the employee pays part.  The insurance company offers different levels of insurance that have different pricing levels.  There is also a government run insurance plan for those who are old, disabled, poor, on unemployment, students, etc.

It is a proven fact that countries that have broad insurance coverage have lower health costs and needs.  In the US one of the biggest costs to hospitals is the emergency room.  Americans are guaranteed medical attention at virtually any emergency room anywhere in the US.  Therefore people without insurance flood the emergency rooms for routine health care.  Emergency room health care is by some estimates 40% higher than if a person went to a regular doctor's office.  People going to emergency rooms are also likely to wait until the condition is critical rather than acute.  Critical health issues cost far more to deal with than acute ones.  Also, having a regular doctor and regular check ups is much more likely to catch serious health problems before they become costly and deadly.  Therefore, socialized medicine is by definition preventative rather than reactive.  

It has been suggested that the best cure for the health care crisis in America is to require everyone to have health insurance just like we're required to have liablity insurance on our autos.  That way everyone would be contributing more or less equally and would have access to the preventative aspects of the health system.  That last part alone is the most important aspect of health care.  

How to achieve this?  Good question.  Despite my faith in socialized medicine I do believe like you that you end up with a better product if it is handled by private industry.  

1.  Everyone is eligible, nobody is denied for any reason.  That is one of the greatest failings of our system today.  The people who need it most are denied access.

2.  Preventative medicine needs to be the greatest priority.

3.  Affordability.  Who pays?  Both employee and employer need to share the burden and it needs to be shared across the board.  

4.  New technologies need to proven before they are used.  There was a study recently that measured the effectiveness of a certain type of knee surgery.  Those who had a "placebo" surgery did just as well as those who had the real surgery.  American Medicine is as full of quacks today as it was 100 years ago.

5.  The industries that have the most adverse effect on a person's health should have to contribute a "death" tax to fund those too ill, old, disabled to work.  

Sorry I'm rambling on but what we have isn't working.  Health care costs continue to skyrocket and fewer people are covered.  America is a land of extremism.  There is no doubt that we have some of the best technology available to us, but it is only available to the rich.


----------



## toast (May 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Just because a country has state-sponsored benefits like health, doesn't mean they are the best programs.  What is the quality of health care in France?  Denmark?  Germany?  the U.S.?*



[France]Doctor + medicine = zero euros. Citizens suscribe to a national health service.[/France]


----------



## edX (May 16, 2003)

arden - you've obviously never worked in the healthcare industry. and you've yet to have to fight with an HMO over anything major. 

our 'private system' sucks. even people that have coverage can't get adequate health care much of the time. 

and as for quality of care, try working in a hospital some time. you'll find that not every doctor finished at the top of their class. not every nurse cares if you suffer. their is no reason to believe that the healthcare available to the average american is any better than in other modern countries like france, denmark, etc. in fact, there are is a lot of important healthcare research coming out of european countries - try reading some of the professional journals sometime. what you claim was probably true 30 years ago but the rest of the western world has done a lot of catching up and sometimes surpassing us. 

Ugg - the best point you made was about being preventative instead of reactive healthcare. we are just starting to accept the advantages of being proactive. it is far cheaper and provides better health in the long run. insurance companies are just starting to realize that accepting certain long term costs to prevent hospitalizations is more cost effective than paying for recurrent hospitalizations.  it will take a while for this to change for the best, but it is happening.


----------



## Cat (May 17, 2003)

Very good post Ugg. This kind of social, pre-emptive and shared insurances & healthcare are the norm in most of europe  combined with (semi-)privatized or with state-owned insurance companies.


----------



## toast (May 17, 2003)

It seems the conversation has gone completely off-topic, but this last Ugg post was interesting indeed


----------



## brownidj (May 17, 2003)

To imagine that private health care = best possible health care is laughable. Actually, quite often patients doen't know what constitutes the best possible care. If we did, I guess we'd all be doctors (; In the US it is common practice to run a barrage of tests even when often there can be no possible benefit to the patient as a result of some of the tests. The doctors are afraid of litigation and are protecting their asssssses and making some money to boot - does this constitute 'best possible care'?

In other countries' private health care facilities it is common practice not to have certain personnel on-site but to call them in as required. And I am not talking about out in the boonies... Recently I witnessed a woman in labour with an epidural who started suffering from foetal distress. It took 12 telephone calls to get the appropriate doctor to come and sort her out (she needed a Caesarian immediately - not 40 minutes down the track - the baby was at severe risk). This was simply because the private (and very well respected hospital) did not want to pay to have obstetricians and anaesthetists on-site overnight, and not many of the private anaesthetists could be arsed to get up that late and come in.

All healthcare systems, public and private have a downside... And by the time you found out what that was and so can make an informed choice not to partake of their services in the future, you will already have suffered the consequences. That's life!


----------



## habilis (May 17, 2003)

Toast: shouldn't there be a Godwin's law about health care?


----------



## Ugg (May 17, 2003)

My above post is not totally off topic in that education and health care are two of the most pressing concerns to voters today.  

Whether you love Hilary or hate Hilary at least she was wiling to begin a national dialogue on health care.  That is something that this country needs more than anything.  It is only a few short years until the boomers begin retiring en masse.  We as a nation are living longer and demanding increasingly expensive technology to lead full and happy lives.  Something needs to give.

The companies that do offer insurance in this country are subsidiizng those that don't through higher health care premiums.  It's time that the walmarts and mcdonalds of the world begin paying their fair share of the burden.  Its no wonder that walmart has seen such phenomenal growth when it has totally avoided paying for health care for its employees.   Ok, not totally but the percentage covered is miniscule in comparison to the other mainstream retailers.  Doesn't this constitute and unfair market advantage?


http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/business/3498963.htm

"The United States spent $4,000 per person on health care in 1998, compared with $2,860 by Switzerland, the nation holding the No. 2 ranking on spending. Yet Americans live an average of 77 years compared with the Swiss life expectancy of 80 years. Canada spends only $2,363 per person, but Canadians live an average of 81 years, as do the Japanese, who pay only $1,763 per person."
The extra costs point to inefficiencies in the U.S. health care system that likely arise from the private insurance system, said Christopher Thornberg, senior economist for the UCLA Anderson Forecast. Patients have few financial incentives to tame their demand for health care products. That results in overconsumption. Likewise, doctors have little need to curb services or offer cheaper alternatives because they know consumers pay little or none of the costs, he said."

"The United States spent $1.3 trillion on health care in 2000, about 13 percent of the gross domestic product"

Universal health care coverage would easily cut 20% off the total price (my guesstimate)


----------



## toast (May 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *Toast: shouldn't there be a Godwin's law about health care?  *



Very true indeed ! 

Some English teacher I know just offered me her collection of Time / Newsweek / The Economist yesterday. I've finished organizing them this morning, that's what I have:

- All Time publications from year 1990 to 1997
- All Newsweek publications from year 1990 to 1995, a few from 1996 and 1997
- All The Economist ublications from year 1991 to 1996, a few from 1997
- A few antiquities: some Time and Newsweek issues from year 1973 to 1989 ! Some issues about the Shah, some about the '84 Reagan election...

I'll certainly find some stuff about the US health system in all that (five big cardboard boxes outside of my place).

---

BACK to topic, I would like to recommend a very good book about Israel / Palestine. Here's the French URL: http://www.librio.net/isbn/2-290-32143-5/.

The book is an efficient portrait of both the Israelian and the Palestinian sides. Clear difference is made between what the extremists thought and what the population thought at such or such moment of the conflict (the book stops at year 2001). Media tend to merge those opinions, whereas the truth is very different.

This book was edited by Yves Marc Ajchenbaum, Jewish geopolitist, in collaboration with Le Monde, our French equivalent of The Times. I hope it has an English translation !


----------



## chevy (May 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Reality check:
> 
> ...
> ...



And who empowered Saddam Hussein in the 70's ?
Who empowered Ossama Ben Laden in the 70's ad 80's ?

Let's now create the future. This first thing to build is peace (i mean real peace, not occupation) in middle east. That's the job all should work on.


----------



## brownidj (May 18, 2003)

Well, that woud have to start with an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, at the very least. Unfortunately the current Israeli government, and probably most of its citizens, prefer a degree of violence whilst there is the possibility that they can use the resulting 'fluid situation' to annex more territory and establish eretz Israel. Until they give up this notion, peace is not very likely.

The alternative for the Israelis is to work out how to ethnically cleanse the OTs - but so far they haven't found a quick solution. So they just work at picking away at the Palestinians, hoping that eventually enough of them will flee to Jordan/Egypt to make annexation more internationally acceptable. As a result, the region will continue to be very unstable.

It would be great to see what people's ideas are on how to build peace.


----------



## toast (May 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by brownidj _
> *1. Well, that woud have to start with an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, at the very least.
> 
> 2. Unfortunately the current Israeli government, and probably most of its citizens, prefer a degree of violence whilst there is the possibility that they can use the resulting 'fluid situation' to annex more territory and establish eretz Israel.
> ...



1. This is, at the very least, impossible. No diplomat has achieved this in the last 50 years.

2. Wrong. It is very little known in what state of *pure terror* the Israelian population lives. Israelian adults need qualudes to sleep normally, and their children are of the most tortured by the most obscure thoughts. Ask them ! Watch missions by NGOs and IGOs, ask people from there, go there... You'll realize what true terrorism terror is. But it's not only terrrorism: Tsahal is everywhere, Israel is a military country. Its male inhabitants spend 2 years in the army, and this is a very telling fact about the general atmosphere. Some of them consider Tsahal almost as a militia, a bit like those extreme-right paramilitary Rangers you can find in the southern states.

3. Peace is not very likely anyway in this region of the world. Some analysts have developed a strange vision of the conflict: *this region is diplomatically doomed*. Idea est, you can't do anything for peace there. The conflict will never end. This is not what the majority of analysts think, but some defend the point that a human paradox has been reached in Israel/Palestine: this conflict is capable of never ending. Which is a very, very worrying perpective.

4. Careful with your language, you'll raise some voices against you. Also, it is awkward to speak of 'Israel'. I can't imagine a more divided state: on one side, its army. On the other, its politicians, themselves being divided. Last but not least, its civilian population. There is no Israelian global entity.


----------



## brownidj (May 18, 2003)

> 2. Wrong. It is very little known in what state of *pure terror* the Israelian population lives. Israelian adults need qualudes to sleep normally, and their children are of the most tortured by the most obscure thoughts.



In what respect am I wrong? If I were wrong, why do the Isralis accept a government that is hell-bent of prolonging the conflict? Or do you thing th notion of eretz Israel is a figment of my imagination? The only way Israel can expand its territory is by conflict - ergo it tries to prolong a state of low-level conflict which it will eventually use to justify annexation. Secondly, if you think the Israeli population lives in fear, can you imagine the level of fear amongst the Palestinians, never knowing when an Apache helicopter, an F16, a tank or a sniper might strike? They live in a statee of terror brought about by an illegal occupation...  As someone else has pointed out the Israeli Occupation Force is very well equipped, trained and brutal. Way beyond what the Palestinians can muster with the 100 or so bombers who have blown themselves up. Most of the Palestinian 'terrorists' are armed with stones.



> 4. Careful with your language, you'll raise some voices against you. Also, it is awkward to speak of 'Israel'...[/B]



I speak of the state of Israel - I do not claim it is a homogenous entity. Very few states are. There are even a handful of Israelis who can see that the position of their government is wrong and who can see what would be required to end the conflict with the Palestinians. I was simply pointing out that the Israelis have a problem about how to resovle the conflict with the Palestinians, and an even bigger one as they grapple with how to annex the land they so desire - because there is a Palestinain populationn living there... From a common Israeli perspective, it would be better if the Palestinians removed themselves to Jordan. The current Israeli government, supported by most of the Israeli population, would like to see this happen - so they look for ways to make this more likely. And, please, I know there are exceptions, not least the Arabs living in Israel.

Look, as we say, downunder. At the end of the day, Israel is engaged in a brutal and illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The sooner Israel ends its occcupation the sooner there is a chance the violence might end. Bottom line.

Way off topic, but related I suppose.


----------



## toast (May 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by brownidj _
> *1. In what respect am I wrong? If I were wrong, why do the Isralis accept a government that is hell-bent of prolonging the conflict?
> 
> 2. Or do you thing th notion of eretz Israel is a figment of my imagination? The only way Israel can expand its territory is by conflict - ergo it tries to prolong a state of low-level conflict which it will eventually use to justify annexation.
> ...


 
1. Your previous post mentions the fact that a mojority of civilians probably prefers a certain degree of violence. Well, I think this is wrong: most Israelis are convinced that electing Sharon is a means to benefit from a legitimate self-defense against Palestinian terrorism. The Israelis are not more or less violent people than any other in the world: they are only the resultant of what fear can create when applied to a state.

2. Could you or anyone else explain what 'eretz' means please ? I don't not know this term.

3. You are making an unwanted comparison that I carefully avoided. This conflict is not a competition for telling which one of the two protagonists is the most afraid from the other, and which one should be. This is too much ingerence for exterior observers. You should consider the Israeli population is as scared as the Palestinian one, even if this fear is helluva lot more irrational and illegitimate to your eyes.



> _Originally posted by brownidj _
> *1. I was simply pointing out that the Israelis have a problem about how to resovle the conflict with the Palestinians, and an even bigger one as they grapple with how to annex the land they so desire - because there is a Palestinain populationn living there...
> 
> 2. From a common Israeli perspective, it would be better if the Palestinians removed themselves to Jordan. The current Israeli government, supported by most of the Israeli population, would like to see this happen - so they look for ways to make this more likely. And, please, I know there are exceptions, not least the Arabs living in Israel.*



1. Again, you are making generalizations, even though you tried to state you were not. "The land they desire so" is a biased opinion: many Israelis don't give a fcuk about expansionism, even if their government does.

2. It is true this move to Jordan has been priviledged by many polls. Unfortunately, the Israel/Palestine conflict is decided by politicians, often hawks, and not by populations. Hence, looking at what the population thinks is a bad indicator for learning more about the Israeli politics. What the government wants, if you look more closely to its politics, is _no migration_. Too complex, too risky, too costly for a government. If I recall well, Sharon favors a 'corridor' state (little bits of land joined by 'communication tunnels', ie narrow pieces of land equipped with broad roads).



> _Originally posted by brownidj _
> *Look, as we say, downunder. At the end of the day, Israel is engaged in a brutal and illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The sooner Israel ends its occcupation the sooner there is a chance the violence might end. Bottom line.*



In the 1920s, after WW1, a new paradigm emerged in international theories: realism, opposed to Wilsonian/Kantian idealism. Idealism was about world peace and end of alliances between countries; realism answered: "Open your eyes. This is not going to happen."

I would like to answer as a realist (or even neo-realist to be correct): evacuation of troops do not happen for nothing. West Bank and Gaza strip are occupated for the moment and will be, for long. That's my bottom line.


----------



## Arden (May 19, 2003)

brownidj:  I think you are showing bias against Israel, as many people, including those in the media, show and have shown for years.  An end to the Israeli occupation will not bring about peace because the Palestinians do not want peace.  They want the destruction of the state of Israel.  The only reasons the Israeli army (which, I might add, is composed entirely of almost all its citizens at one point or another, so the line between the military of Israel and the people of Israel is very blurry) might strike at Palestinians is either to defend themselves or others from attacks or to search for terrorists (homicide bombers and the like).

I'm not sure what you mean by having a "fluid situation."  The current war is very bad both for Israel's name and its people.  Whenever an altercation goes down, many portray Israel and the IDF as aggressors and monsters when usually they were defending themselves or acting in a humane manner.  (Join www.honestreporting.com for many examples.)


----------



## brownidj (May 19, 2003)

So, toast, your bottom line is simply that Israel is more likely to annex the Occupied Territories, than not... Exactly my point. And then, what to do about the Palestinian population?

I look at what people/populations actually achieve by their so-called democratic processes. That is is a good indication of what they want, and an excellent indication of what they do not object to. 

I think I made my point. Ty for the debate.


----------



## toast (May 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *brownidj:  I think you are showing bias against Israel (...) the Palestinians do not want peace.  They want the destruction of the state of Israel.  *



Wait a minute. Who are you to tell brownidj he's biased ? After all, he's only giving his own opinion. He's not hiding the fact that what he writes is tinted by his own personality.
What about you and this bit I quoted in red ? Isn't that *biased* ? This generalization of yours is astounding. Are all Israelians little Sharons ? All Palestinians islamist bomber squads ? How far does your knowledge of this region of the world go ?

I have nothing against you (nor anyone) here, but I don't think (and this proverb seems very appropriate in this conversation !) you should throw stones when living in a glass house. Just like the poeple in your own country are torn between a multitude of ideologies, of social objectives and conflicts, the Israeli and Palestinian people are torn between war and peace, between bellicism and pacifism, between fear and security, between reconciliation and aggression.

 I find it sad some people bring back the Israel / Palestine conflict to simple remarks like 'Poor Jews, all killed by Hitler and now persecuted by Bin Laden friends' or like 'Israel is fascist, this land is not them'. I mean, this conflict is the most complex conflict of the 20th century, and you think two sentences can get it summarized ?

You also wrote:



> The only reasons the Israeli army (which, I might add, is composed entirely of almost all its citizens at one point or another, so the line between the military of Israel and the people of Israel is very blurry) might strike at Palestinians is either to defend themselves or others from attacks or to search for terrorists (homicide bombers and the like).



I think this passage contains two errors.

1. Tsahal is composed of professional soldiers. These soldiers are obviously all of Israelian nationality. But this proves nothing: the army (and especially Tsahal) is not a representative democracy, the soldiers have no decisionary power. Hence, saying that Tsahal thinks and acts like the Israelian population as both are composed by the same flesh and blood is false. Tsahal has no women, and genders do not think the same in Israel (women are far more moderate and far more afraid of terrorism at the same time). Tsahal has means the population does not always conceive. Last, Tsahal soldiers live a life most Israelians do not live: Tsahal is in contact with the Palestinian population all day, whereas most Israelians have strictly no contact with them.

2. Also, Tsahal is not only the defensive or pre-emptive army you are speaking of. Yasser Arafat is evacuating his HQ tonight, as he's expecting Tsahal reprisals. Actually, Tsahal also replies to terrorism, and this is a offensive behaviour. I personnally think the first step in a policy of appeasement would be to brake Tsahal from responding to human bombs. At the same time, I know I'm dreaming when I write this 

---

BTW, I hope I'm not offending you by any ways, if I am, tell me, I'll bend my sentences and make them more polite.


----------



## toast (May 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by myself, toast _
> I personnally think the first step in a policy of appeasement would be to brake Tsahal from responding to human bombs. At the same time, I know I'm dreaming when I write this



... And my point has just been backed up today by this event. Sometimes dreams come true, but you need many of such acts to build a serious appeasement policy.


----------



## Arden (May 20, 2003)

I'm sorry if my comments came off hypocritical... I did not mean to generalize _all_ Israelis and _all_ Palestinians; *in general*, and I know this doesn't apply to everyone, the majority of Palestinians have a deep hatred of Israel and only want to see it destroyed.

What exactly _is_ Tsahal?  As far as I know, the Israeli government is called the Beit K'nessit (Hebrew doesn't transliterate well into English), and the army is the IDF.  Also, I believe "eretz Yisrael" means "the land of Israel."


----------



## toast (May 20, 2003)

Tsahal is the common name used (maybe only in France ? I don't think so, though) to describe the Israeli Defense Forces.

Thanks for translating _eretz Israel_.


----------



## brownidj (May 20, 2003)

Eretz Israel = 'greater' Israel. A large number of Israelis, including most members of recent governments, believe that Israel extends far beyond even its current borders (up to the Litani river in Lebanon, virtually to the gates of Damascus in Syria, to thhe Jordan rivers (and in some cases east of the Jordan) in the east, and to roughly the line of the Suez canal in the south. It is not just 'the land of Israel' - it is far more politically charged than that.

This is why no Israeli government will actually agree where Israel's borders are! And that's official! The problem is, in this day and age, that out and out land grabs, even during the course of a war, are not permissible in International Law. So how Israel can be expanded? The only possibility is during armed conflict. first you occupy, then after a decent interval, you annex.

Once you realise this, it explains why the Israelis are not unhappy with a 'fluid situation' as I called it, brought about by a level of conflict and threat. By that remark, I don't mean people are happy about the violence which affects them on a personal level. I take it as obvious that even in a so-called just war, people do not relish having violence inflicted on them. My point is that in order to allow for the possibility of territorial expansion, Israeli politicians are content to maintain a certain level of conflict, and that a proportion of the Israeli population goes along with this.

Arden has no real basis for his remarks about what the Palestinians think - that is just the standard Israeli belief and one of the justifications for the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the daily brutal repression of the people living in those areas.  If s/he wants to get into what people think, perhaps s/he would care to comment on how many Israelis believe that all arabs should be expelled to Jordan...

Just having the IOF withdraw from one town in Gaza is not really much more than a crumb - what needs to happen is for the real issues to be addressed, on both sides. One can argue that it is a small step, but bear in mind that that leaves the rest of the Israeli Occupation Force in place.

If anyone is interested, we can get into a debate about what really is required, but maybe it should be the subject of another thread.


----------



## toast (May 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by brownidj _
> *Just having the IDF withdraw from one town in Gaza is not really much more than a crumb - what needs to happen is for the real issues to be addressed, on both sides. One can argue that it is a small step, but bear in mind that that leaves the rest of the Israeli Occupation Force in place.*



Peace processes in ME are but a succession of 'crumbs'. I obviously agree with the rest of your thought. I am not sure I am competent to judge what should be done and what may be done, as I have never been there nor digged the topic deeper enough.


----------



## brownidj (May 20, 2003)

Hey, toast, let's put it like this. are we any less competent than the current protagonists? At least we're not killing people...


----------



## brownidj (May 20, 2003)

In fact, if they are competent, then let me be incompetent for the rest of my life! (; Actually, to be serious, although it is only those who live there, and I no longer do, who can implement the solution, it is perhaps beholden on those on the outside to suggest a way forward and to oversee the critical steps.

When I've got a few minutes I will start a new thread and put forward some suggestions based on a paper written by an Israeli government advisor, someone who has thought some of the stuff through. Geeeez, at least he is not easily accused of hating jews/anti-semitisim etc.


----------



## toast (May 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by brownidj _
> *Hey, toast, let's put it like this. are we any less competent than the current protagonists? At least we're not killing people... *



Nobody's bombing my buses or bulldozing my house at the moment.


----------



## Cat (May 21, 2003)

Concerning generalizations, there is a asymmetry here: On the one hand, we ahve the army of a sovereign nation, which illegally invades and occupies territory that according to the UN does not belong to it. This is an illegal act, committed by a democratically elected government. On the other hand, we have single fanatics, appartaining to non-governmental fundamentalist organizations, which do not officially represent by election any people or government.

This is not the crisp and clear situations which we would have if this was a war between the official military of two sovereign nations. It rather closely resembles the independence struggles of Chechnia, as far as I can tell. One nations terrorist, is the other nations hero and freedom-fighter.

It is probably very easy, in a certain sense, to look at the conflict from outside and judge it, but indeed, if my house were bombed or teared down by bulldozers, I am quite certain I would think and behave differently.

However, not so objectively, my sympathy in this conflict goes out to the underdog, the palestinians, precisely because of the asymmetry outlined above.


----------



## Arden (May 21, 2003)

You want to talk about asymmetry?  The asymmetry lies in the Israelis constantly being portrayed as the aggressors and the Palestinians as the "underdogs."  Who go out and blow themselves up in crowded public areas like buses and shops?  The Palestinians.  Who throw stones, molotov cocktails, or bullets at the other, without provocation or good reason?  The Palestinians.  Who promise peace in English and death to Israel in Arabic?  The Palestinians.  On the other hand, who act humanely during conflicts, tending to injured on both sides?  The I*D*F.  Who go door-to-door, looking for terrorists, at the risk of life and limb, instead of carpet-bombing an area (think Jenin)?  The IDF.  Who do not fire their (far superior) weapons unless specifically provoked?  The IDF.  The Israelis.  The Jews.

As it is, Israel acts very carefully to protect the lives of its people and those who would see it torn down.  You may know something I don't about the "occupations," and feel free to fill me in if you do, but the way I see it, Israel is protecting the settlers in lands the Palestinians willingly gave up, and now they are demanding them back.

How do I not have basis for my remarks about the wants of the Palestinians?  Do they not continue to blow themselves up in the names of Allah, Jihad, Arafat, and the destruction of Israel?  Do they not manipulate the media to come out as the ones being oppressed when the solution is quite simple?  _Do they not hate Israel?_  I stated this before, and I'll say it again: I know that not all Palestinians think this way.  There are those who would rather people keep themselves alive and find a peaceful solution.  There are also Israelis who want to see all Arabs burned to the ground.  But those are not the majorities, on either side.  Much of what I have heard from Israelis is for a peaceful solution to the benefit of all parties, while many Palestinians blame Israel and the IDF for their own follies, initiate violence to bring down Israel's hand to say "No," and show a constant disrespect for the lives of Israelis and their own people.

I have received many communiques from www.honestreporting.com about the conflict and the media's portrayal therof, and I believe they are honest and factual.  I will post them (there are at least 25) if you need more convincing; I have saved every one, for about a year, and they show telling trends in the behaviors of Israel, Palestinians, and the media.

FYI, I am a "he."


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 21, 2003)

Well said Arden...


----------



## toast (May 21, 2003)

Don't get tricked by names. The IDF is capable of offensive moves (such as reprisals) just as they are capable of pertinent defensive moves.

Plus, quoting www.honestreporting.com makes little sense when you know the exact replica of this site exists for the Palestinian side (it's not a website but a book, I'll post reference if you like).

Is Charles Enderlin known in the US ? He is here in France, for his documentary about the 1995-2001 peace process failure. He's a good lecture too.


----------



## Arden (May 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Don't get tricked by names. The IDF is capable of offensive moves (such as reprisals) just as they are capable of pertinent defensive moves.*


Well, sure, but capability does not equate action.  I am capable of punching people in the mouth, but I won't do it unless someone punches me first.


> *Plus, quoting www.honestreporting.com makes little sense when you know the exact replica of this site exists for the Palestinian side (it's not a website but a book, I'll post reference if you like).*


Of course there is.  However, I would probably question the validity of this book because much of what the Palestinian media, or those sympathetic to their cause, puts out is propaganda, not necessarily based on truth or the entire truth.  HonestReporting does not claim to be pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian, but only interested in portraying Israel in a truthful light, as they are often not (I suppose that could be considered pro-Israel, but they do not hesitate to point out the mistakes Israel makes, as well as others).  Most of what HR does is point out bias in the media, opposed to facts from well-researched, valid sources, whereas the Palestinians and their friends often distort the truth to meet their own ends.


> *Is Charles Enderlin known in the US ? He is here in France, for his documentary about the 1995-2001 peace process failure. He's a good lecture too. *


Never heard of him.  If you can find any of his material online, post a link and I'll have a looksie.


----------



## Ugg (May 21, 2003)

Arden, I just checked out the website and after reading about 20 different articles, it was apparent that the reporting is anything but honest.  To begin with in the about section, there is no mention of who provides their funding, hardly an "honest" tactic.  The section on Rachel Corrie basically blames her for her death.  Since Israel no longer allows "outsiders" into the occupied territories there is no way to independently verify what is really going on.  

IMO, honestreporting is little more than a propaganda machine for the current Israeli government.  I don't doubt that the press is polarized on this issue, but promoting news analysis that is so obviously biased does little to help the situation.


----------



## brownidj (May 21, 2003)

Arden, which bit of the OTs did the Palestinians give up willingly? Israel is in illegal occupation - are you surprised when the inhabitants of that area fight back? What would you do in a similar situation? Try to forget for a moment that it is Israelis, Jews and arabs...

To think that the land in Israel proper was all given up 'willingly' is to misuse the word 'willingly'. Yes, some of it was sold, but much of it was simply grabbed. Many Palestinian refugees still have the keys to their houses that they evacuated and the title deeds to the land they occupied, and sadly, a lot of them still hope to one day return. That is a problem Israel will one day have to get to grips with.

In fact it is a myth that the IOF makes every effort to avoid casualties;  one the Israeli government likes to perpetrate. If you have been reading any reporting of thhe situation, you will know that. There are hundreds of examples. If it is so hard, let me give you a clue. F16s and Apaches don't do door to door.

Perhaps it also explains why theh Israeli government is very reluctant to allow outside observers in - and don't just tell me everyone is biased against Israel and jews. That is the same sort of argument the white South African government used to cover up the fact that what they were doing was fundementally wrong and immoral.   

The problem with much of the stuff I am seeing posted re this conflict is that it is straight out of the Israeli government press office - ie it is tainted by propagandists trying to put a particular spin on it... 

Try to look beyond that and see what is right and what is wrong in the situation. Try to get to grips with why what is being done is being done. Look under the covers. We all have a duty to do that to keep governments in check and it applies very much to both sides in this case.


----------



## toast (May 22, 2003)

Chaarles Enderlin: http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/events/enderlin/enderlin.html


----------



## Cat (Jun 7, 2003)

*cough*

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/


----------



## toast (Jun 7, 2003)

[Precision: this was written by a columnist. It's no news, it's an op/ed.]


----------



## brownidj (Jun 7, 2003)

All 'news' is an op/ed to some extent (;. If you don't believe me, just look at how the same story is reported by different news agencies/journos...


----------



## toast (Jun 7, 2003)

AP and Reuters are no op/eds and they are the basis of all media I know.


----------



## brownidj (Jun 7, 2003)

Hmmm, they are as objective as maybe it is possible to get, but that doesn't mean that opinion doesn't creep in - it does. I just don't take anything as gospel - and I don't have a Reuters or AP feed. So everything I see is filtered...


----------



## toast (Jun 7, 2003)

Get a Reuters feed > www.reuters.com free email edition.

News is never gospel, but gospel news would have no value:

_Certains historians find certains periods of history nothing intelligible, and call them dark ages_; but such phrases tell us nothing about the ages themselves, though they tell us a great deal about the persons who use them. _

R. G. Collingwood, "The idea of history", 1946


----------



## Cat (Jun 7, 2003)

> [Precision: this was written by a columnist. It's no news, it's an op/ed.]


 Fairly obvious, but I should have said that. 

There's also a blog somewhere with a list of all the war-propaganda .. sorry: "facts" ... that were claimed and stated before and during the war, and how they are trying to water them down now ... 
now where have I put that link ...


----------



## toast (Jun 7, 2003)

This is quite off-topic, but the historian technique, objectivity, those are huge questiosns to anyone interested in social/human science.

I really recommend Collingwood to all of you. His books are on Amazon. The Idea of History is a masterpiece; when finished reading, yu doubt about your own capacity to question history or present. And this is, in my humble opinion, the first quality of all historian or analyst.

For French-speaking people: Collingwood is discussed on the very scientific www.revues.org website, a must-read site. More knowledge than you can throw a stick at. Search for Collingwood.


----------



## Ugg (Jun 7, 2003)

The American public has so bought into the myths that gw has created that I wonder if they will be able to accept that he lied.  The American press is finally starting to question this issue although there are an appalling number of articles and editorials that are saying it doesn't matter.  Americans' ability for self-deception is legendary and they have bought into almost everything gw tells them.  I don't know where this is going to end but gw has lied to the world and he should pay.  The fact that this guy used the word treason is astounding.  Clinton's shenanigans with Monica pale in comparison to gw's lying to the public.


----------



## Arden (Jun 7, 2003)

Those quotations sound like what the Iraqi Info Minister has said.  Could this be political suicide?

[side note]I'd be suprised if he managed to pronounce "mujahideen" correctly. [/side note]


----------



## toast (Jun 7, 2003)

He's still alive ?


----------



## habilis (Jun 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> Americans' ability for self-deception is legendary and they have bought into almost everything gw tells them.


Don't forget about people like me, who aren't that much different then GW, who think liberation was more important then WMD's. We American's aren't as stupid as you think. I don't care if that megalomaniac Stalin-wanna-be had nothing but sticks and stones in his arsenal  I prefer that he's dead, and no longer torturing and killing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of innocents. I don't care what opinionated factset had to be presented to the lumps in this country to get the job done, and I don't think the Iraqi's mind either.


----------



## Ugg (Jun 7, 2003)

The news coming out of Iraq about mass graves and bodies with hands tied behind their back and bullets in the backs of their heads is appalling.  Few Iraqis will miss Saddam or the Baathists.  It was easy to gloss over the brutality of his regime, now the truth is out.  I rejoice with the Iraqis that he can no longer do this.  

The truth is often difficult to accept but lies damn those who tell them.  The president of this country and the prime minister of GB lied to not only their own citizens but also to the UN and to the people of the world.  It wasn't just a misunderstanding or a matter of using terms like "I have been advised" or "to the best of our knowledge", it was "I Know".  They preyed on our fears of another 9-11 in order to achieve their political gains.  Had they said, Saddam needs to go because the people in his country are paying a terrible price and then backed it up with what we are now seeing, I might have been ok with it.  I'm honest enough to say that I hate gw.  But I, like many others out there am a softie when it comes to seeing human suffering.  

He chose to downplay that and instead convinced 40+% of Americans that it was Saddam who was behind 9-11, that Saddam and bin Laden were buddies in crime.  When in fact there is not even the merest shred of evidence that they were linked.  

He cares so much about the Iraqi people that he failed to ensure that nuclear waste facilities were secured although the Iraqi oil ministry building, not the facilities mind you, but the administration building, is the only government building in Baghdad that was not bombed.  He cares so much about the Iraqi people that before the US went in there was no plan for ruling post war Iraq even though it was clear from the time he became president that he wanted to do what he did and began to plan for it over 17 months before the war began.  

Saddam is gone and the world rejoices along with the Iraqi people.  GW is now there and the Iraqi people continue to suffer and die at the hands of their liberators.  Is that freedom?


----------



## Arden (Jun 8, 2003)

Of course there's a link between Osama and Sodama:  they're both Arab!  And they speak Arabic!  And claim to be Muslim!

Drip drip drip...


----------



## Cat (Jun 8, 2003)

Habilis: It is truly a honorable effort to try tto rid the world of dictators and terrorists. Nobody disputes that Dictators and terrorist are bad, evil, etc. Nobody disputes that getting rid of them is a Good Thing.

However, what is desputable by all means are the methods employed in achieving these goals. The american government lied and deceived in order to bring war to a country while unprovoked and under no actual clear and present danger or threat. The first two points can be seen as high treason (manipulating information and misusing the intelligence services) the second two points are a violation of international agreements.

I would not like to find out what could happen when these methods would be applied to less honorable goals (like e.g. controlling the world's oil supply and price). 

Moreover you may very well ask yourself if it is actually the duty or responsibility of the USA to do this kind of job: I always thought we had the UN for these things ... And if it is the task of the USA to do these kind of things, well, i look forward to the invasion of ... (drumroll) the USA themselves, who are building a death-camp (AKA lager) on Guantanamo bay! Have fun with your civil war ...

Cf. http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6494000^401,00.html

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,963108,00.html


----------



## habilis (Jun 8, 2003)

The burden of poof in this war was on Saddam, not America. He was given every possible chance to give up the goods, give up the documentation on where 2,000 or so pounds of missing anthrax went(which is still missing BTW, and we already know what just one little envelope of this stuff can do), give up the location of the clandestine and mobile labs and the wmd precursors, and yet he still was acting totally defiant and uncooperative and had bugged the inspectors rooms in his obstruction attempts. Again I bring up the intercepted Iraqi communique's that Powell presented at the UN just before the invasion where the Iraqi's were all running around disposing of chem/bio weapons, it was all on tape and I'm sure you can find the audio somewhere. These aren't the actions of an innocent cooperating dictatorship. What about the defected Iraqi scientists that all testified, all of them, that there was still an active weapons program? 

Where's the lie? Who's the liar?

The weapons _were_ there, in small quantities or large, they were there. Long ago I already admitted that this would be an issue the democrats would fashion into a sword, but is this sword really sharp enough to cut off the head of your beast? It all depends on the strength, or lack theroff, an economic rebound in the next year or so. If we have a rebound, GW will win 60-40, if we don't, he'll lose 55-45.
But don't tell that to al Qaeda.


----------



## Arden (Jun 8, 2003)

Yeah, becaue the UN is always *so* useful.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 8, 2003)

Habilis,

Are you forgetting that Saddam (Stalin-wanna-be) was once our friend and ally? He was no better and no worse of a threat to his own people in 2003 then he was in 1983 when he and Rumsfeld shook hands. The war with Iraq was based on the immediate threat to the United States and it's allies.

No matter how you try to spin this, Iraq was of no threat to anyone when we invaded that country. Saddam didn't even have complete control of his own country (and hadn't since the Gulf War).

As for the mobile labs that were found, so far there is still some question as to the actual use of them. On the other hand there is no question that *no* evidence of the production materials needed to make any WMD have been found any where on those units. The time and energy needed to remove evidence if it ever was there to begin with would have had to have been extensive.

And far more damning to the administration and it's motives for the war are it's actions during the post war period. The oil fields and the oil ministry were protected by our troops. Why? A nuclear power plant was left unattended. Why? If we were there to stop terrorism, the oil production of the country should have been second to stopping nuclear material from walking out of that plant. One pound of that material and an explosive strong enough to vaporize it is all that a terrorist needs to contaminate a major US city. We were worried about WMD, but we let enough material lose in Irag (including our own anti-tank uranium shells which we aren't going to clean up) to make enough dirty bombs to hit every major city in North America and Europe.

We have Bush to thank for that.



> Where's the lie? Who's the liar?



*Bush:* _Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. _

What facilities? Finding facilities shouldn't be a problem. Specially given the fact that we have control of the country (and have had control for some time).

*Bush:* _Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent._

That is a pretty hard thing to hide, special if you know what to look for (because you know it is there).

*Bush:* _We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. _

Okay, if Saddam had the weapons, he really should have used them in the war. That is only logical. He had no alternative. We were coming in and he was going to die. Why would he not use them... if he had them to begin with.

*Rumsfeld:* _We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad._

Then what is the hold up? Go get them! 

*Rumsfeld:* _They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer._

If they were destroyed before the war, then wouldn't mean there was no reason for the war? Wouldn't that mean they posed no threat to us?

Either the Administration lied or the Administration has no credible intelligence sources. If they lied, Bush should be impeached for abuse of presidential powers. If they have no credible sources for information, then all current operations should be brought to a complete stop until we find out what we do and do not really know (as intelligence is also our first and most important line of defense against terrorism).

And Ugg, not all of us are like Habilis.


----------



## brownidj (Jun 9, 2003)

Arden - which quotations?


----------



## toast (Jun 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Of course there's a link between Osama and Sodama:  they're both Arab!  And they speak Arabic!  And claim to be Muslim!
> 
> Drip drip drip... *



What a fine piece of humour.


----------



## habilis (Jun 9, 2003)

I don't want to beat a dead regime here but when you have a regime that proudly goes on TV and shows Saddam himself writing out a check for $25,000 to the family of a homicide bomber, any homicide bomber, any killer of jews, as a REWARD for killing entire jewish families, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, an entire cafeteria full of college students, I need not go further then that to find a "link" to terrorism. We don't even need to go into the random Scud attacks on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, that meet the definition of terrorism. The Scuds were used purely as a terror weapon. What do we need a link for when the guy himself is an international terrorist responsible for murdering humans of every walk of life.

Racer, it's true we supplied him with the makins for wmds. But it's like when my parents bought me a pellet gun when I was 12; Everything was cool at first, I was just shooting tin can targets in the backyard, but then I got out of control with it and went around with a small regime of kids that were a bad influence on me, and shot out some windows, caused some vandalism, and even shot a big pigeon right in the chest and killed it(it made me sick and I'll never forget it) and basically went out of control. My parent's found out, and they brought the hammer down bigtime, instead of allowing me to further destroy my environment and myself. At any rate, the mistake of giving Saddam the precursors has been corrected, and the hope is to never repeat it.


----------



## toast (Jun 9, 2003)

I'm glad habilis is okay with shooting Germans in MOH:AA but not with shooting pigeons 

This quite off-topic (but still...): here's a link (in FRENCH I'm sorry guys) to a radio broadcast about anti-americanism. Very instructive. Click here (you need RealPlayer).


----------



## habilis (Jun 9, 2003)

lol. well, yeah, I'm the first to admit I'm totally desensitized to violence. 
And besides that, Nazi's are evil, Pigeons are innocent. (at least that's how ya gotta look at it)
Anyway there's nothing like a good clean headshot from 300 Yards.


----------



## Arden (Jun 12, 2003)

Well, this thread's dead.

browni:  Basically the ones Racer quoted.


----------



## Ugg (Jun 12, 2003)

Ok, so no WMDs have been found although ~40% of Americans think they have been and 74% don't care if they are.  gw's job approval rating is at 62% and falling, expected to reach 50% by mid summer (all stats courtesy of gallup.com) 140,000 troops are in Iraq and there is no timetable for their return to the US.  They are still battling rogue elements of SH's regime.  50% of Iraqis are unemployed.  Lawlessness in Iraq is widespread and clean water is scarce.  The hardliners are already starting to gain power due to a lack of a post war plan for Iraq.

America has defined itself as an occupying power.  Due to the poor condition of Iraq's infrastructure and the effects of SH's dictatorship it will be many years before Iraq is able to stand on its own without US assistance/governance.  This will take many $s and probably quite a few more American lives to accomplish.  Will the American public be willing to reward gw with a second term when they get the bill?  

I don't think so!


----------



## habilis (Jun 12, 2003)

ugg, I understand your frusterations with the Iraq thing but have a little patience.  I hate to go here but look, any success for a conservative is a failure for you guys, so I understand why you have to spin and hype the situation but total upheavals of goverment coupled with revolution sometime take more then a month to mend.


----------



## Ugg (Jun 12, 2003)

There is a serious lack of hype or spin in my previous post.  What I'm stating are facts, conservative projections and at the end, my 4 word opinion.  If the bush doctrine is to succeed then the commitment will have to be long term and will involve tens of billions of dollars.  Americans are traditionally loathe to reward a president that takes the US to war with a second term.  They particularly loathe a president who fails to deliver economic prosperity.  He has had 2.5 years and has overseen 2 million lost jobs and has engineered the largest budget deficit in American history although he came to office with the largest budget surplus ever seen. It has nothing to do with what I think of the guy but everything with his performance as president.  How can that possibly be spin and hype? 

BTW, what revolution are you referring to or did I miss something in the news today?


----------



## habilis (Jun 12, 2003)

Wow, you are seriously pissed at GW. Revolution, well I would call what has happened in Iraq revolutionary.


----------



## Ugg (Jun 12, 2003)

Now that is what I call spin!  War on Iraq is now revolutionary,  hmmm according to dictionary.com

7. (Politics) A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed.

The majority of Iraqis were not enamored of SH and are very happy indeed that he is gone, but they did not get rid of him by themselves or even ask the US to do so.


----------



## habilis (Jun 12, 2003)

it's dead horse, but the people of Iraq just needed a little helping hand.


----------



## Ugg (Jun 12, 2003)

Hast du ein paar deutsches Bier getrunken?  Your posts are a little fuzzy tonight....


----------



## toast (Jun 12, 2003)

Be indulgent


----------



## habilis (Jun 12, 2003)

Ja trank ich etwas gutes deutsches Bier heute abend und also, Sie mein
Freund. I don't speak German but I think I get the gist.


----------



## habilis (Jun 12, 2003)

the thread's dead so nobody will mind this little embellishment.

Aren't the Germans and French well known the world over for being the #1 consumers of alchohol per capita? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact I encourage it. And that also might explain the heavy liberal attitude from that part of the world. If you read my thread about the 2.5 beer buzz and how it turned me into Noam Chomsky you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Ugg (Jun 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *the thread's dead so nobody will mind this little embellishment.
> 
> Aren't the Germans and French well known the world over for being the #1 consumers of alchohol per capita? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact I encourage it. And that also might explain the heavy liberal attitude from that part of the world. If you read my thread about the 2.5 beer buzz and how it turned me into Noam Chomsky you'll see what I mean. *



I think the Russians hold that record,   oops, I was wrong, here is a 1996 assessment of world wide consumption.  Sort of surprising really...


----------



## Ugg (Jun 12, 2003)

I was wrong.  A recent poll gives gw a much lower approval rating:

Link


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2003)

Mmh... If no WMDs are found (and it pretty much seems like it, unless the US, which now have control of the country, _bring_ some), what trial is going to judge the US administration? How was that handled after the second world war, exactly?

Will it be enough to just remove G.W. Bush from the president's seat, or will we have to have measures that further control the US for the next, say, ten or twenty years?


----------



## Arden (Jun 14, 2003)

Amazing how government officials in this country, people we elect to take care of the business we can't necessarily cover, don't necessarily take our opinions into account or ignore what we the people want and need.


----------



## doemel (Jun 17, 2003)

Remember the Iraqi Minister of information (I think that was his official title) who was the laughing stock during the war? Well, it seems like the U.S. counterpart can claim some decent results, too:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6085261.htm


----------



## Arden (Jun 17, 2003)

I really don't think (and I certainly hope, and will do my part to ensure) Bush won't be reelected in 2004.  He threw our economy from the greatest surplus ever to the greatest deficit ever, and he totally bungled the war on Iraq, which we might as well call Iraqgate.  He puts money into building up our national defense (I ask: against whom?) instead of needy causes at home like education and social welfare.

I certainly hope we get a good Democrat for our 2004 nominee, because then we might have a chance of knocking Bush off his pedestal.

I would really like to grill Bush and ask him why he does all this stuff.  I'd interrogate him as to why he forces budget cuts while giving back to the rich, asking if he thinks the rich already have enough, trickle-down economics doesn't work anyway, etc.


----------



## habilis (Jun 17, 2003)

So, let me see, you propose that we give tax money back to people that didn't pay any in? I paid in a small ammount this year, so I get small ammount back. But you want to take this away from me and my family and give it my white trash neighboor who works 15 hours a week, then drinks it all away the rest of the week? Think he'll put my tax money to better use? My other neighbor paid in a larger ammount, so he gets a larger ammount back. I'm not gonna go bash his door in and demand we split the frickin balance. There's another guy I know who started a business 20 years ago selling hardware, and he makes about 10 times what I make because he was smart enough to figure out a way to make a better circular saw blade for cutting sheet metal, anyway he pays in 10 times what I do, so he gets back 10 times what I do. Does this make sense yet? Do you know the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.05% of ALL U.S. taxes while the bottom 50% pay next to none. Do you know the democrat mantra of "no-tax-cuts-for-the-rich" has been used by the democrats for the last 50 years, and is the proletariat any better off today? That's one of the most tired out, dried up, washed out propaganda myths to ever come out of the democrat spin machine. Can't you guys come up with anything new? How bout a plan that actually helps people instead of creating welfare robots programmed to vote democrat or lose the handouts. You call yourselves progressives? That's not progress.


----------



## Ugg (Jun 17, 2003)

Why do the top 50% pay 96.05% of taxes?  Jobs shipped overseas, minimum wage that equals slave labor, too many service jobs with no future, no insurance coverage with many jobs available, these are some of the reasons.  

The tax cuts would reach everyone if wages were more reasonable.  CEO pay has skyrocketed, the minimum wage hasn't even kept pace with inflation.  Is that progress?


----------



## habilis (Jun 17, 2003)

I agree that minimum wage should be higher, more like 10 an hour. Like you said it hasn't followed the the curve of inflation and profit margins since the 70's. On balance, if minimum wage were higher, would everything be slightly more expensive? It's Deep, Too Deep. I'm not wise enough.


----------



## Arden (Jun 17, 2003)

I'm not saying we should give massive tax breaks to anyone (or that we shouldn't), I'm saying Bush shouldn't have spent our surplus on the rich (and now our deficit) but he should have invested in programs that people need.  Whose fault is it that someone doesn't make very much money?  Usually its their own fault, even if circumstances do take a toll from time to time.  I'm not saying we should compensate them with an undeserved tax break, I'm saying we should put money into public education, our future; hospitals and medicine, our pacemakers and respirators and the people who fix us; Social Security, our past.  What will you do when you finally retire, and you ask for your SS check and they say, "Sorry, we have no more money."?  Will you tell them how much you paid in to Social Security, only for the government to spend that money on weapons and giving back to the rich?

Bush should at least try to find a way to get a surplus again.  We can only go so far into debt before we destroy ourselves.  How far can you, as an individual, get into debt before creditors start coming after you?  We will never pay off the National Debt in the near or even mid future, but we should at least try to keep it from increasing and halt deficit spending in its tracks.


----------



## Ugg (Jun 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Bush should at least try to find a way to get a surplus again.  We can only go so far into debt before we destroy ourselves.  How far can you, as an individual, get into debt before creditors start coming after you?  We will never pay off the National Debt in the near or even mid future, but we should at least try to keep it from increasing and halt deficit spending in its tracks. *



That is a very good point, and the people we owe money to are not Americans.  The US has to borrow $1.5 billion every single day to pay for imports.  That may not be significant in the larger scheme of things but it does mean that the US will only continue to invest here if their investment will pay off and if the US is viewed as a safe place.  Should they decide that the above two conditions haven't been met then they will take their money elsewhere leaving the US with a mountain of debt it could never pay off. Fiscal conservatism is what this country needs, not the profligate spending and deficits and tax cuts that the Republicans demand.


----------



## habilis (Jun 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *I'm saying we should put money into public education, our future; hospitals and medicine, our pacemakers and respirators and the people who fix us; Social Security, our past.*


Amen brother. In fact I want to make a retraction on a series of statements I made earlier on social security; I recently have thought extensively about the long term futue of America, and I now think social security - on a limited level - is a good thing, even though I, in particular as a neocon, reject the principals behind it. 

I think that now is the time if GW wants to live. Now is the time for Bush to put all kinds of money into this social effort you talk about. I hate to hear myself say it, but if I want to be truthful, in the long run America really is doomed unless we start pumping cash into limted social programs and making peace with other countries and the like. 

I think we should still go militarily after brutal SH-like regimes, wherever they hide. Why stop with SH? There's so much injustice out there to destroy.

I have always said in these forums that if no WMD's were found it would be a doomsday event for the GW admin. At any rate, and no matter how much it hurts, the rupublicans need to backpeddal a little, and get themselves into a different formation if they wish to fully recover.


----------



## Arden (Jun 17, 2003)

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.  If we don't find WMD's in Iraq, it'll make Bush look like a complete fool in waging an unprecedented war.  If we do find them, it will probably make us look like we planted them there, also dooming Bush.

I think Bush himself needs to watch his back for Tecumseh's curse.  So far, the only president to escape said curse has been Reagan, and even he took a bullet through the chest.


> _Originally posted by habilis_
> *I think we should still go militarily after brutal SH-like regimes, wherever they hide. Why stop with SH? There's so much injustice out there to destroy. *


Who actually told us it was our place, our duty to go after destructive regimes and keep them from killing their citizens?  If we did that, do you think anyone would try to invade the U.S. for those reasons?  We can claim it's for humanitarian reasons, but we have no real excuse.


----------



## habilis (Jun 17, 2003)

It *is* the place of the man in charge, or should be in the future; if the man in charge denies the exsistance of these attrocities, or sweeps them under the rug, he is also commiting them.


----------



## Arden (Jun 17, 2003)

That still doesn't give us the right to waltz right in and lay down the law.


----------



## toast (Jun 18, 2003)

> That still doesn't give us the right to waltz right in and lay down the law.



Depends who you call 'us'. Most people at White House will agree with you.

However, a few members of the Bush administration may tell you that yes, there are some cases where you have the right to "waltz right in and lay down the law". I am thinking of Paul Wolfowitz in particular, known for being a determined, decisionist straussian. Leo Strauss developed a theory, along with Carl Schmidt, which placed action over right: in a word, straussian philosphy allows action to trespass law in emergency cases such as Iraq. Of course this supposes Iraq was an emergency case, which we could debate further  .


----------



## habilis (Jun 18, 2003)

Some people view it like this: it's not out "Right" to walk in, it's our Responsibilty. 

Let's say your sitting in the comfort of your nice apartment on the 4th floor of a high rise. You're relaxed, maybe listening to music, playin a game on your Mac or whatever. Now you hear screams from outside. You look out, and see a few injured people in an alley on the ground crying for help and an attacker near by that has apparantly assailed them. Are you going to just let it go, and not run down the 4 flights of stairs to help in some way? It's so much nicer in the comfort of your apartment, and you don't want to get involved because pain may come to you. But the right thing to do is help, and you know it.


----------



## doemel (Jun 18, 2003)

_Some people view it like this: it's not out "Right" to walk in, it's our Responsibilty. 

Let's say your sitting in the comfort of your nice apartment on the 4th floor of a high rise. You're relaxed, maybe listening to music, playin a game on your Mac or whatever. Now you hear screams from outside. You look out, and see a few injured people in an alley on the ground crying for help and an attacker near by that has apparantly assailed them. Are you going to just let it go, and not run down the 4 flights of stairs to help in some way? It's so much nicer in the comfort of your apartment, and you don't want to get involved because pain may come to you. But the right thing to do is help, and you know it. _

I know it's just an analogy but what is it anyway that makes you Neocons oversimplify things all the time? I mean, how can you seriously label the whole planet with either "good" or "bad" and other such things? You as a photographer should also know that a black and white photograph doesn't only consist of these two colors but of a rich variety of greys.
To return to your example: What are you going to do about the situation in that alley? I guess, following a hawk strategy you'd pull out your shotgun and kill the attacker, right? In that case, in any decent democracy you'd still have to answer a few questions or you'd even face a charge if you couldn't prove that the said attacker was attacking you. Whereas if you call the police and let them handle the situation things might turn out less bloody.
The hawk in my sequel of your story is the U.S. and the police would be an international organization like, let's say, the U.N. Nobody would seriously question the police's intervention in this case and if the hawk, as an individual would like to take a more proactive role in society, he/she still has the option to join the police forces *and support security by participating in a body created also for this purpose*.
Now, I kept things as simple as I could. Maybe you realize that I'm not so wrong about it or that simplifying things like this analogy just isn't adequate for a discussion on a topic as complex as the Middle East. You choose.


----------



## habilis (Jun 18, 2003)

I wish I had time to fully respond. So, quick answers:



> _Originally posted by doemel _
> ...what makes you Neocons oversimplify things all the time?


Probably the same thing that causes progressives to over-intellectualize things in a world that is not intellectual.



> _Originally posted by doemel _
> ...how can you seriously label the whole planet with either "good" or "bad" and other such things? You as a photographer should also know that a black and white photograph doesn't only consist of these two colors but of a rich variety of greys.


Karl Marx saw grey.  You don't think we actually *believe* that an empire is 'Evil', or 'Bad' do you? These labels are devisive, they serve a purpose. Although I'm not a fan of using any religious language in state oriented politics, it does help us to communicate important ideas to the proletariat that might not otherwise be heard. 
Why black and white? In my mind there's no such thing as an African-American or a Lebanese-American or any other hyphen American. We're all just Americans. Why do liberals need to see color and race? What purpose does it serve besides dividing us and pitting us against each other. So what has over-complexifying gotten us besides more red tape?


----------



## doemel (Jun 18, 2003)

_Why black and white? In my mind there's no such thing as an African-American or a Lebanese-American or any other hyphen American. We're all just Americans. Why do liberals need to see color and race? What purpose does it serve besides dividing us and pitting us against each other._

Sorry, that wasn't clear enough, I guess. I don't think in skin color or "race", so the color example is purely to point out that there's more than two poles or extremes, but that the vast majority of things, peope, states.... are somewhere between the two extremes (represented by the colors black and white in my example). I don't give a flying *&%$ about your skin's color, I categorize people in different ways which relate more to their point of view, expression thereof, ability to tolerante others etc. In this sense I perceive you, habilis (just to give an example), as an open minded Neocon that tries to express his beliefs in a way that's constructive and leads to passionate and hopefully fruitful debate. I have also noticed that you are a good photographer which further enhances my opinion about you. This still doesn't keep me from trying to prove you wrong on points that I disagree about. I'd really enjoy a 1 on 1 conversation with you if I ever happened to be anywhere close to Cleveland 


_So what has over-complexifying gotten us besides more red tape? _


I do agree with you that a government needs a certain degree of simplification when communicating complex matters to the public because the public (or at least the major part of it) just isn't informed enough to grasp the whole picture. From what I've perceived of the current U.S. gov't though, over-simplification doesn't cut it either! Why is it that a lot of people are making fun of GWB's speeches? Because they sound like a friggin' Sunday sermon, because they are repetitive, because they more often than not simplify matters to simple statements that anyone halfways informed just can't take serious. There's no need to treat the public as ignorant and/or stupid even though individual citizens might be just that.
In a debate between more-than-average informed individuals (OK, I'm generalizing here) like this discussion though, there's no need to argue in an over-simplified manner. If anyone doesn't get something they can always ask!


----------



## Cat (Jun 18, 2003)

> Some people view it like this: it's not out "Right" to walk in, it's our Responsibilty.
> 
> Let's say your sitting in the comfort of your nice apartment on the 4th floor of a high rise. You're relaxed, maybe listening to music, playin a game on your Mac or whatever. Now you hear screams from outside. You look out, and see a few injured people in an alley on the ground crying for help and an attacker near by that has apparantly assailed them. Are you going to just let it go, and not run down the 4 flights of stairs to help in some way? It's so much nicer in the comfort of your apartment, and you don't want to get involved because pain may come to you. But the right thing to do is help, and you know it.



First thing, I make sure to memorize the description of the alleged attacker and the circumstances, then I call the police, and then I go down, making sure to assess the situation before acting rashly and smiting the alleged attacker. Maybe he was defending himself and just got the upper hand, who knows? If I hit him, I'll be accused of violence too.
Projecting on Iraq, the US should have layed down their case well, with details of what exactly they accuse Iraq of (the description), inform the UN, and then carefully assess the situation before intervening. Now indeed they are accused of violence and war..

Bush began with a big surplus and now has a big deficit. That's not good. Why? Because he has not invested in long-term future. Not in education, not in internal and international economy, not in social-security and healthcare. These are things the next government, whoever, must give attention to. There will be no money for this, so the tax cut will have to be compensated. How? It's a mistery! Bush is putting a heavy debt on america's future, I cannot see how anyone could vote for him ever again for any public function...


----------



## habilis (Jun 19, 2003)

sorry I have to be quick again, strapped for time.



> _Originally posted by doemel _
> I'd really enjoy a 1 on 1 conversation with you if I ever happened to be anywhere close to Cleveland


The Feeling is mutual. Thanks for the respects.


> _Originally posted by Cat _Bush began with a big surplus and now has a big deficit. That's not good. Why? Because he has not invested in long-term future. Not in education, not in internal and international economy, not in social-security and healthcare.


I can't buy _all_ that. I think that if Gore was in office right now, or any democrat for that matter, he would also be running a deficit. The only difference would be the bill for the war & supporting efforts. At any rate, the bursting of the tech bubble and post 9/11 jitters are more responsible for the current state of our economy. You're correct about the long-term investing in the future though; his plan is to secure our present, to ensure a prosperous future. Security is #1 right now. As soon as the democrats realize that, and capitalize on it, they can win. [shhhhhh]


----------



## Arden (Jun 19, 2003)

I don't think, if Gore were in office, he would keep giving massive tax breaks to the upper crust and spending billions on national defense, which is already better than any other country's.


----------



## habilis (Jun 19, 2003)

Gore is as big a joke as GW. Admit it.


----------



## Ugg (Jun 19, 2003)

Gore has a brain, Bush has personality combined, maybe we would have had a decent president.  9-11 transformed Bush, who knows how it would have affected Gore.


----------



## habilis (Jun 19, 2003)

A Frankenstein president. I like it...


----------



## toast (Jun 19, 2003)

Remember Frankenstein is only the creator in Shelley's novel... Plus, it's an uncontrollable creature... 

This thread is a nice trace of thoughts, opinions, reactions, to what happened those last months, by the way. Reading it again is instructive


----------



## Arden (Jun 21, 2003)

Glad I could help educate.

Oddly (and off-topically), habilis has 378 posts and Ugg has 379.


----------



## toast (Jun 21, 2003)

LOL ! ! !


----------



## Arden (Jul 27, 2003)

Long live Uday and Qusay!

Or rather, whoever managed to remove them from the earth...


----------



## habilis (Jul 27, 2003)

They won't be missed I imagine. But what the "people" really need to see is a cute picture of a dead daddy Hussein, that would be a great facilitator of calm.


----------



## Arden (Jul 28, 2003)

Or incite riots among Saddam loyalists.

Although they'd probably denounce the authenticity of the photos.


----------



## habilis (Jul 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> Saddam loyalists.


After he's dead, there will no longer be such a thing, in fact there never was in the first place, they fear him.


----------

