The Military and The Media

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by steeljack

Is this the same Bill (I did not have sex with that woman)(I am barred from practising Law, because I perjured myself)(I support socialized medicine)Clinton , sorry Bullseyebarb but I think your sense of moral judgement needs retuning.

Please don't get me started on Bill. I've had quite enough of him as well. I would never rely on his account alone, for obvious reasons. Nothing wrong with my sense of moral judgement, pal. And, by the way, haven't you mentioned on this site on more than one occasion that you favor "universal healthcare" for Americans? Well, what do you think that means? The government would definitely be calling the shots on that - ergo, socialized medicine.

Carter was a dismal failure as president. Even The Camp David Accords, (for which he received much acclaim), was not his idea. It happened in spite of his misjudgement because Sadat and Begin did an end run around him.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Please don't get me started on Bill. I've had quite enough of him as well. I would never rely on his account alone, for obvious reasons. Nothing wrong with my sense of moral judgement, pal. And, by the way, haven't you mentioned on this site on more than one occasion that you favor "universal healthcare" for Americans? Well, what do you think that means? The government would definitely be calling the shots on that - ergo, socialized medicine.

Carter was a dismal failure as president. Even The Camp David Accords, (for which he received much acclaim), was not his idea. It happened in spite of his misjudgement because Sadat and Begin did an end run around him.

Ok Bullseyebarb , you've made a couple of digs at me about wanting "socialized/universal" medicine to be introduced here in the U S , if you care to look at the situation we do have in fact have a form of socialized/healthcare here , but only if either you are a Federal/State/County/City employee,(h*ll even the town rat catcher has better benefits than the average working joe) or if you are indigent (read also illegal), in both cases they have cradle to grave coverage, otherwise, if you are lucky your employer provides it , and fewer do every year citing rising costs, If you switch jobs you lose your coverage until you are picked up by your new employers policy holder unless you make COBRA payments (good luck if you have a wife and kids or God forbid a pre-existing condition) .
Surly if we can afford to provide healthcare to all the pigs at the trough we should be able to provide something to the actual workers (taxpayers) who are producing the wealth and paying for it.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by steeljack

Ok Bullseyebarb , you've made a couple of digs at me about wanting "socialized/universal" medicine to be introduced here in the U S , if you care to look at the situation we do have in fact have a form of socialized/healthcare here , but only if either you are a Federal/State/County/City employee,(h*ll even the town rat catcher has better benefits than the average working joe) or if you are indigent (read also illegal), in both cases they have cradle to grave coverage, otherwise, if you are lucky your employer provides it , and fewer do every year citing rising costs, If you switch jobs you lose your coverage until you are picked up by your new employers policy holder unless you make COBRA payments (good luck if you have a wife and kids or God forbid a pre-existing condition) .
Surly if we can afford to provide healthcare to all the pigs at the trough we should be able to provide something to the actual workers (taxpayers) who are producing the wealth and paying for it.

We are getting way off topic here. However, I don't disagree with you. Apart from the entities mentioned above, we have Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration. Medicare and Medicaid alone are going to bankcrupt our country long before Social Security does. And we should certainly not be providing benefits to illegal aliens. It was a very bad idea for the government to get involved in healthcare. I came to the U.S. before Medicare was signed into law, so I know how well a truly free market system can work. I'd like to return to that. I just don't want something like Hillarycare. I have no problem providing for people with pre-existing or extreme conditions if they are unable to obtain major medical coverage. But such cases are in the minority. Most of us go through life with average needs. I find that self-insurance for basic care is far more cost effective. I just want insurance for the big stuff. And that should be my choice.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Worst president in my lifetime. Not content with that, he has now become the worst ex-president as well. And I know whereof I speak - he was the governor of my state 1971-1975. The pious Jimmy ran as a segregationist, (although I'm sure he didn't really mean it.) .

Bullseyebarb, Just curious, how much time did you spend on 'get out the vote' in your 4th district to re-elect Cynthia McKinney another free-thinker much like yourself in last months election

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by steeljack

Bullseyebarb, Just curious, how much time did you spend on 'get out the vote' in your 4th district to re-elect Cynthia McKinney another free-thinker much like yourself in last months election

Still off topic. And how did Cynthia pop into the equation? I don't live in the 4th district, (thank heavens). Quite busy enough in my own district's elections last month. Cynthia was dubbed the Cutest Little Communist in Congress many moons ago. Her antics over the years have been well documented. I guess she finally became too much of an embarrassment, even for the 4th. Come January, they will have a dignified gentleman by the name of Hank Johnson to represent them.

[steeljack]

ok back to topic ,
#1 Bush/Blair invaded Iraq and expected the population to sing Hosannas and in return got a blackeye, 3000 odd dead on the allies side and God knows many thousands of Iraqi women and children , the occupation of Iraq has turned into a complete disaster, apart from the original reasons (WMD etc) being shown to be a pack of lies, the idea that we brought freedom to the average Iraqi is a sick joke , 4 yrs later the average Iraqi is worse off now than at any time under Saddam Hussien, no electric/water etc.
#2 Wether they like it or not Bush/Blair are going to have to talk to the Iranian and Syrian Govts and get their help (thats right I said help) to sort out the mess. If Bush/Blair insist on a fully democratic Iraq (majority rule , one man one vote etc.) it means a Shia Govt. with ties to Iran, and that means upsetting the major oil suppliers the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States .
#3 Months ago I wrote in another thread that in my opinion Iraq should revert to its natural historical borders , the modern day Iraq is an artificial British creation, (Gertude Bell and Winston Churchill )at the end of WW1. The 500 odd years under Turkish rule as three distinct provinces prooved to be much better, Mosul, Baghdad and Basra (Kurd, Sunni and Shia)
#4 In no way can an alien culture rule a conqered nation without local help , MacArthur prooved this in 45 in Japan by insisting the Emperor stay on the throne, when many wanted him to stand trial for war crimes. Bush/Blair made the mistake of disbanding many local infrastrucures including the police and army. Insensitivites to local culture by ignorant/uneducated occupying forces can do more harm than bullets (the bivouacing of the US Marines on the site of Babylon and excavating the site as a source of sand bag fill is nothing more than pure vandalism).
#5 I still say, re. the 'war on terror' we should have concentrated more on Afghanistan, and finding and punishing Bin Laden and his Taleban cohorts, The western imposed president Kharzai (sp?) is nothing more than a gangster , similar to the Chalabi guy in Iraq, opium production in Afghanistan is at highest levels ever and this in a country supposedly under NATO occupation .






"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty,
and there is nothing more to fear from them,
then he is always stirring up some war or other,
in order that the people may require a leader."


Quote by: Plato
(429-347 BC)

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by steeljack

#1 Bush/Blair invaded Iraq and expected the population to sing Hosannas and in return got a blackeye, 3000 odd dead on the allies side and God knows many thousands of Iraqi women and children , the occupation of Iraq has turned into a complete disaster, apart from the original reasons (WMD etc) being shown to be a pack of lies, the idea that we brought freedom to the average Iraqi is a sick joke , 4 yrs later the average Iraqi is worse off now than at any time under Saddam Hussien, no electric/water etc.

Actually, the majority of Iraqis were exceedingly glad to see the back end of Saddam and well disposed towards our military. Now they fear that we will leave before they are ready to stand alone.

For shame that this war has been politicized for gain by the chattering classes in Washington. Even worse that major media outlets have seen fit to cover it as they have. 24/7 mayhem in Baghdad. Thus perception becomes reality. Either way, they give the enemy a psychological victory. Iraq at large is not a disaster. There are many accounts, (including a recent Newsweek article), which detail the BOOMING Iraq economy. Such would not be possible without electricity, water and sewage treatment. Many Iraqis are enjoying these amenities for the first time in their lives.

Presidents and Prime Ministers don't have the luxury of hindsight. They do the best they can with the information available to them at the time. Every major intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD's. Republicans and Democrats alike believed it. Not that this was the only stated reason for taking Saddam out.

News flash.....civilians die in war zones - especially since this enemy hides behind them. In fact, they deliberately target civilians. The more the merrier. If the new template is going to be that we can never fight another war if even one woman or child is killed in the process, then Al-Zarqawi will posthumously be granted the distinction of having been a great military theoretician. Just kill! Anyone. Continuously. Murder on a horrendous scale. A simple path to victory opens up for any thuggish group or regime.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by steeljack

#2 Wether they like it or not Bush/Blair are going to have to talk to the Iranian and Syrian Govts and get their help (thats right I said help) to sort out the mess. If Bush/Blair insist on a fully democratic Iraq (majority rule , one man one vote etc.) it means a Shia Govt. with ties to Iran, and that means upsetting the major oil suppliers the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States .
#3 Months ago I wrote in another thread that in my opinion Iraq should revert to its natural historical borders , the modern day Iraq is an artificial British creation, (Gertude Bell and Winston Churchill )at the end of WW1. The 500 odd years under Turkish rule as three distinct provinces prooved to be much better, Mosul, Baghdad and Basra (Kurd, Sunni and Shia)

So, we should go cap in hand to Iran and Syria, major sponsors of terrorism? What help would they offer, pray tell, that wouldn't involve blackmail? They LOVE what's going on in Iraq right now - which is the reason they are feeding the violence!

To which natural, historic borders do you refer? When the area was under the control of the Ottoman Empire - or prior? There have been many changes over the last few thousand years. Post WWI, occupying European powers carved up the region under a mandate system established by the League of Nations. In 1920 it authorized Britain to set up a postwar government in Iraq. Britain drew the new boundaries according to its strategic needs, largely around the old Ottoman provinces. The victors call the shots. Thus it has been throughout history.

The Iraqis don't concur with your opinion. They prefer a united Iraq and have voted for a unity government.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by steeljack

etc.

#4 In no way can an alien culture rule a conqered nation without local help , MacArthur prooved this in 45 in Japan by insisting the Emperor stay on the throne, when many wanted him to stand trial for war crimes. Bush/Blair made the mistake of disbanding many local infrastrucures including the police and army. Insensitivites to local culture by ignorant/uneducated occupying forces can do more harm than bullets (the bivouacing of the US Marines on the site of Babylon and excavating the site as a source of sand bag fill is nothing more than pure vandalism).

On the contrary, Japan and Germany were great success stories. A couple of democratic nations, neither of which has threatened world peace in the last 60 years. Of course, it took time and patience to bring this about. The Iraqis deserve no less.

One can argue whether or not it was a good idea to disband the Iraqi military and police. Clearly the idea behind that was de-Bathification. The army definitely needed a make-over. Retraining has gone too slowly for the critics but it is beginning to pay off. The police forces remain problematic. Corruption and infiltraion by insurgents. They cannot yet be trusted to do the job.

Three years ago the U.S. Marines went to Babylon at the request of the Iraqi Ministry of Antiquities, who feared the site might be looted. The marines set up camp on the periphery. Some land was bulldozed for helicopter landing sites and the perimeter of the base secured.....(hello, sandbags). In short order this camp was turned over to other allied forces - mainly the Poles. All personnel were told to disturb the site as little as possible. As it turns out, Saddam encroached upon Babylon far more than any troops. He had the site excavated in order to build a visitors center and during the 1980's reconstruction of Nebuchadnezzar's palace, thought it would be a great idea to put his mark on Babylon by stamping his name into the bricks of the palace walls. The inscription reads - "The City of Babylon was reconstructed during the era of the victorious Saddam Hussein, President of the Republic, protector of the great Iraq, the modernizer of its renaissance and builder of its civilization." Modest kind of guy, eh?

Our military personnel are not the ignorant, uneducated boobs as portrayed in some elite circles. If one looks at the whole picture, I think they've bent over backwards in an effort to do the right thing under extremely difficult circumstances.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by steeljack

#5 I still say, re. the 'war on terror' we should have concentrated more on Afghanistan, and finding and punishing Bin Laden and his Taleban cohorts, The western imposed president Kharzai (sp?) is nothing more than a gangster , similar to the Chalabi guy in Iraq, opium production in Afghanistan is at highest levels ever and this in a country supposedly under NATO occupation .

Bin Laden is likely already pushing up daisies. And wasn't a major Taliban honcho killed this past week? Guess somebody is still in Afghanistan getting the job done. Oh, corruption in government!!! Fancy that! You are the first I've heard to dub Kharzai a gangster. Source me, per favore. I believe Chalabi is living in Paris at the present time. I tried to find something very current on him but nothing popped up. However, here's a link to a Chris Hitchens piece in Slate, dated 2004, which gives a good overview. www.slate.com/id/2101345

Poppy sells. The farmers can make more money from that crop than any other. Ditto in our own hemisphere. As long as there is demand, there will be supply.

[Ianto.W.]

What right have the USA, Great Britain, Russia ,France and the rest of the so called 'developed' world got to tell Iran or any other despotic medieval nation to de-commission their nuclear capability, and hypocriticly keep theirs!

[Wynonie Harris]

For crying out loud, don't set her off again, Ianto. She'll be firing verbal guided missles at us until New Year at this rate!

[Ianto.W.]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

For crying out loud, don't set her off again, Ianto. She'll be firing verbal guided missles at us until New Year at this rate!

She has some obscure views I must admit Wynonie, but it doesn't half make it interesting.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

What right have the USA, Great Britain, Russia ,France and the rest of the so called 'developed' world got to tell Iran or any other despotic medieval nation to de-commission their nuclear capability, and hypocriticly keep theirs!

Because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

High probability of passing nuclear materials to terrorist groups, who would not hesitate to use them. For Iran, another war by proxy. I don't think you really want to wait and see how that plays out, do you?

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

She has some obscure views I must admit Wynonie, but it doesn't half make it interesting.

Thanks, darlin'.