Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Everything Political

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Chorlton » Fri May 07, 2010 2:59 pm

So can someone sort of give me a potted statement of whats wrong with the Oldbarmer idea of healthcare?
Or are you people all committed to giving better healthcare to insurgents in Afghanistan than you do to your own people?
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm


Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby gunter » Fri May 07, 2010 3:08 pm

Most Democrats wanted a system similar to the British National Heath system. But the insurance industry, which owns at least half of Congress, made sure that would never happen and that their cash cow would survive. Simple as that.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri May 07, 2010 10:15 pm

Chorlton wrote:So can someone sort of give me a potted statement of whats wrong with the Oldbarmer idea of healthcare?


Unaffordable. Is that potted enough? You used the excuse that you cannot compare your attitude today about global hegemony to the England of the past when it came to Chamberlains appeasement of tyrannical regiemes. In exactly the same way, and using the same argument, you cannot compare the health plan your society has (population of slightly more than 61 million) to the health plan our society has (population of slightly more than 307 million). You especially cannot make the comparision because the vast majority of pharmaceutical companies that pay for the drugs you get for cut rates are American. Hope you enjoy your cheap drugs at our expense, ya freeloaders! :wink:

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri May 07, 2010 10:31 pm

egg wrote:It's not the Democrats or the Republicans who made this. It's the Democrats and Republicans.


I agree. But I would like you to pay attention to the main thrust of my point: Affordability and skyrocketing spending. It seems both Chorlton and especially gunter ignore (i.e. have no solutions) for the problems I point out. (Chorlton at least admits he has no solution, while gunter tries to change the subject). Both attitudes are lazy... grumpy old men that like to complain, but offer no solutions to the problem. I am hoping you are not the same way.

Let me make it clearer with this:

Greece Offers a Frightening Glimpse of the Future

On American’s current path, Greece’s current woes will be our future. From slower economic growth to having less money for their retirements, Americans have a real stake in learning from Greece’s errors.

(snip)

The violent demonstrations in Greece are showing how incredibly hard it is to control government spending once programs are started. Even just cuts in the growth in spending are meeting stiff opposition.

(snip)

Greece is simply confirming investors worst fears. It was so easy for politicians to give benefits to voters and put them on credit so the tab could be put off for years. But when countries start having problems paying back their debt, they are a greater credit risk and the interest rates that they have to pay will rise. With that increase in rates, what were once difficult loans to pay back suddenly appear impossible.


The future of America is the same if we do not get spending under control NOW. We already pay way too much just to service our existing debt, and we are still adding to it!

The World Bank lists Greece's external debt at $582 billion, an amount equal to about 170 percent of their GDP. By contrast, the U.S.'s external debt is $13.8 trillion, but our GDP is much larger, so our debt equals about 96.5 percent of GDP. Our problem is that the Obama administration plans on increasing our federal government debt over just the next ten years by another $10 trillion. And this is likely to be an underestimate. For example, recent government estimates also indicate that President Obama's health care program will cost significantly more than what was estimated just a couple of months ago. Given current trends, we could be in Greece's league before much more than a decade goes by.


So, again, my point: How do you think the American populace is going to react when our turn comes around? Indeed, let's not even go that far into the future. Let's just presume the situation reported in my last post (many large US companies drop their employees health coverage) comes to pass. Some pols were so stinkin worried about people not covered by health care, or people who were having trouble affording health care. But none of those people were rioting in the streets...none of those people were having something THEY EARNED, ON THEIR OWN, taken away from them. Now imagine what people who HAD health care, as a result of working hard and earning a decent job (many going to college), are going to think if suddenly the carpet gets pulled out from under them? And then, not only would that happen, but because of this and the stupid law as it stands, government spending continues to soar as a result...and the promised safety net of health care by the government is not even there, as promised?

BOTH parties have been partying it up, and doling out money that was NOT THEIRS. The rooster is already coming home to roost (social security will be cashflow negative within a couple years, as reported by many sources), and none of the pols are even blinking.

Most Americans who do not live on handouts from others know how to live frugally, within their means, and not mount serious debts that put them underwater. Why cannot the government that is allegedly elected to serve us do the same? Answer: Because all of them, Democrat and Republican, have used the public larder as a means to essentially buy votes.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Chorlton » Sat May 08, 2010 11:00 am

Healthcare should not be a matter of income.
Any society that spouts that it cares about its populace then charges them extortionate rates for heathcare is nothing but depraved.

All healthcare should be nationalised and Insurance companies excluded from it. If everyone in the US paid just $2 a week it would be sufficient to fund decent healthcare.
Then the relevant Hospital can claim from Insurance companies for people involved in car accidents etc.

And by the way Ray, we dont get cheap drugs, we pay market price. Apart from which its English scientists that created the drugs in the first place. Practically everything that gets invented or produced in the US is of foreign origin.
If it werent for German and English scientists, youd still be firing off toy rockets attacked to dogs tails :lol:
Youll be tellin me the Wright Brothers were the first to prove powered flight next :roll:
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby gunter » Sat May 08, 2010 4:24 pm

All healthcare should be nationalised and Insurance companies excluded from it.
There'd have been plenty of money to finance it if Bush and his merry band of assklowns hadn't had the good judgment to spend all the nation's treasure on futile wars of aggression in far off places. Ray never seems to factor that in. In a just society this is a matter of just priorities: humanism or warfare. Chorlton is exactly correct.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby egg » Sat May 08, 2010 4:55 pm

We spend 3 times (and usually more) more on defense than anyone else. How about make it 2 times, pay for healthcare and have a little left over for infrastructure?
I find it odd to point to health care as the reason why our government will collapse when there are so many other expenditures that need to be cut, and if cut, would pay for healthcare and leave money left over....
User avatar
egg
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:20 am

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 12, 2010 6:04 pm

gunter wrote:There'd have been plenty of money to finance it if Bush and his merry band of assklowns hadn't had the good judgment to spend all the nation's treasure on futile wars of aggression in far off places. Ray never seems to factor that in.


More hot air from the master of hot air (philofawzy), and not even a tidbit of facts to back it up. Why am I not surprised?

If you exclude the federal spending to service our existing debt (which is something the USGOV tends to leave out of its summaries) and all entitlement programs (health, welfare, and pensions), the discretionary spending portion of the budget amounts to about 15% of total capital outlay by the federal government. All of DoD spending (including the Iraq and Afgahnistan wars) are contained in that 15%, along with other federal departments like NASA, Dept of Energy, and a host of others. So your implication that these wars are the sole, or even the primary reason for our budget problems is simply, flat-out wrong. And I would point out, again, that you have made a claim ("plenty of money to finance it...") and have offered absolutely no facts to back it up.

You see, it all depends on how you draw the pie charts. Here is a good example if you wish to demonize the DoD: Take a look at the federal spending pie chart on this page:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Defense = 24%
Health = 22%
Pensions = 21%
Remainder = 18%
Welfare = 15%

As I mentioned above, this DOES NOT include spending on debt servicing, which continues to grow and grow and grow. So this would be one of those charts which, by a cursory glance, you would probably like to invoke to demonize defense spending. But where that falls apart is if you lump all entitlement programs together (because they are NOT DISCRETIONARY SPENDING):

Entitlements = 58%
Defense = 24%
Remainder = 18%

So all of a sudden, wars or no wars, we see that while defense is a large part of spending, it is NOT the sole reason for our debt problems...and not even the largest. We have had an entitlement fetish in this country every since Roosevelt, and our appetite has only gotten larger over the years. Very much like Greece...and they are doing so well, aren't they?

Prediction: Toon will come back with absolutely no argueable facts for his position. Rather, I expect only a snide remark or two, with some philofawzy thrown-in, but nothing to back his claim. That's just how Toon rolls. Don't bother him with facts and figures.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 12, 2010 6:14 pm

egg wrote:We spend 3 times (and usually more) more on defense than anyone else. How about make it 2 times, pay for healthcare and have a little left over for infrastructure?


Gee, that would be fine and dandy if you could just get all those other countries that we defend (some by treaty) to agree to our cuts. I am sure if we just cut loose Japan and South Korea we could save a whole helluva lot, right?

As you can see, citing facts like "we spend 3 times more on defense than anyone else" is not a fair look at the picture. As POTUS recently said, we are a Superpower "like it or not". He clearly does NOT like it, but at the end of WWII we took on a lot of responsibilities on the world stage, and quite a few of them were to use our military to ensure the safety of commerce, not to mention other countries' sovereignty.

Perhaps if the rest of the world stepped-up to their own obligations to defend democracies in their own sector of the globe, our defense spending could be reduced. And while I will admit Iraq became a mess, and was not properly thought-out, I would like to hear a viable argument for why we should not have gone into Afghanistan, and also include some reasoning on how or why we should abandon them now (or again, I should say).

Now your fallacious belief that we cut back 1x on defense spending and that will "pay for healthcare" and more. Have a look at the pie chart at the link in my last response to gunter. Defense is 24% of spending and health care is 22% of spending (and rising), and this is health care PRIOR to all the new Obama entitltements that must be paid for. Could you possibly explain to me how you worked your numbers such that cutting defense is going to make up for all the new health care add-ons....and then still have leftover money for other things?

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Chorlton » Wed May 12, 2010 7:05 pm

Heres a good reason you should not have gone into Afghanistan
It was nothing to do with you?

Bush had an idea Obama was there so he decided to put Soldiers and Civilians lives at risk on a wild goose chase.
He also wanted to secure some pipeline? I also think it was a bit of bravado. "If the ruskies cant settle the place we will" He failed miserably and will continue to do so. It is a totally unwinable war. I would have thought you lot would have learned that in Vietnam. You cant beat an army who, in plain clothes will shake your hand and smile, then 10 minutes later pick up a gun and shoot you.

How do you leave? The same way you came in. You say Goodbye, and leave. Just like the russians did. You and for that matter the British army have no reason to be there. I suspect the British army will be leaving very quickly now we have a new government.
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby gunter » Wed May 12, 2010 7:08 pm

Defense = 24%
Reduce that to 4% and you have your healthcare paid for. National security isn't about guns.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby gunter » Wed May 12, 2010 7:10 pm

How do you leave? The same way you came in. You say Goodbye, and leave.
I love the essential truth of that simple statement.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu May 13, 2010 1:52 am

gunter wrote:
Defense = 24%
Reduce that to 4% and you have your healthcare paid for. National security isn't about guns.


As predicted, no veridical facts to back up his claims. Just lots of hot air and opinions.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu May 13, 2010 2:21 am

Chorlton wrote:Heres a good reason you should not have gone into Afghanistan
It was nothing to do with you?


Mmm? Beg your pardon? It most certainly had everything to do with us! Or do I need to quote your very own statement about 9-11-2001? We were attacked. The perpetrators were most definitely "the guests of the Taliban" in Afghanistan. And even Bill Clinton knew they were training and operating from camps in Afghanistan (he lobbed some cruise missiles at them). Now, it may have not had anything to do with the UK, that's fine. But do NOT expect me to simply roll over for your attempts at re-writing history, Chorlton.

Bush had an idea Obama was there so he decided to put Soldiers and Civilians lives at risk on a wild goose chase.


Perhaps old age is fuzzing the mind, eh?
1) Osama (or was that a Freudian slip?) :D
2) Osama was most definitely in Afghanistan, and the Taliban at the time even admitted as much when they claimed he was a "guest of the Taliban", and then refused to turn him over. There was no "Bush idea". There was actionable intelligence all the way back to the Clinton Administration. Fact.

Perhaps you are getting confused with Iraq. In that case, the intelligence was NOT all it was presented to be, but your recollection of Afghanistan is simply incorrect.

He also wanted to secure some pipeline?


Unfounded cornspiracy theory, and you know it! Stop that nonsense.

I also think it was a bit of bravado. "If the ruskies cant settle the place we will"


Well, you think wrong. It was not about "settling the place" and had nothing to do with Russia's failure (which we were, in part, responsible for in funding Osama in the first place!). It was about not allowing the place to re-descend into a cesspool which would allow Al Qaeda to rebuild itseld there.

He failed miserably and will continue to do so. It is a totally unwinable war. I would have thought you lot would have learned that in Vietnam. You cant beat an army who, in plain clothes will shake your hand and smile, then 10 minutes later pick up a gun and shoot you.


All you are admitting is that the combatants are not obeying the Geneva Convention's laws of war:

Modern laws of war regarding conduct during war (jus in bello), such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, provide that it is unlawful for belligerents to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly.


While people love to wail about victors and the stronger forces in a war violating certain Geneva Conventions with respect to prisoners of war, I wonder why no one ever points out that terrorist elements and cells continue to violate the two pricipals of war underlined above? Why is that, Chorlton? You seem to enjoy ignoring the things that terrorists do, but at the same time make a point of excoriating the US. Why do you not give equal time to the scum who do not wear uniforms, and who hide incendiary devices under their clothes?

So what does one do when faced with "asymmetric war" (i.e. a war in which our forces obey these laws of war, but the enemy does not?). HEAVEN FORBID that we "descend to their level". People get their panties in a wad if we were to do that. And so what happens is we attempt to do surgical strikes, such as being done in Pakistan with Predator UAVs and Hellfire missiles. Do innocent people sometimes lose their lives in such strikes? Sure they do. Is that the problem of the USA? Not in the least. You see, there are also laws of war that prevent combatants from hiding amongst civilians for cover. More laws broken by the terrorists. There would be no innocent casualties if they abided by the laws of war. So every single innocent casuality lies at their feet...not ours.

Now... will you address these difficult questions, or will you simply say "I don't have answers for that"? I want you to be fair on these issues, Chorlton. I realize you don't like war. Hell, no one really does. But it does not help your argument if you are seen not addressing the terrorist actions that make such a war necessary. I never see you propose ANY solutions for how we deal with terrorists. What? Ignore them and let them bomb free societies forever?

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Chorlton » Thu May 13, 2010 9:14 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
Chorlton wrote:Heres a good reason you should not have gone into Afghanistan
It was nothing to do with you?

Mmm? Beg your pardon? It most certainly had everything to do with us! Or do I need to quote your very own statement about 9-11-2001? We were attacked. The perpetrators were most definitely "the guests of the Taliban" in Afghanistan. And even Bill Clinton knew they were training and operating from camps in Afghanistan (he lobbed some cruise missiles at them). Now, it may have not had anything to do with the UK, that's fine. But do NOT expect me to simply roll over for your attempts at re-writing history, Chorlton.


Yes you were attacked (something a lot of us thought was going to happen anyway, AND I still suspect you are going to be hit even harder sooner or later. Unfortunately Al Qaeda has bases in many parts of the world. But OK lets assume Osama was in Afganistan (something never 100% verified though) You go in after him. If you dont find him you leave. You didnt, you went for Regime change, something which under International law is totally illegal. But you didnt even get Osama. Thats no reason to continue a 9 year war in the area and imposing your own President (Karsai) The US and for some part the UK has turned a relatively peacefull country into uproar, because some ragheads shoot at you, as I would should foreigners come into my country with guns. Wouldnt you? They had insufficient people to do the job so they called in their M<uslim brothers. And so 9 years down the line, yourve killed and maimed people, destroyed peoples lives upset half the civilised world and all for ????????? What? Nothing
All you and us Brits have done is stir up a Hornets nest and get practically the entire Muslim peoples to hate us and increase the poppy harvest and heroin production in the process.

Bush had an idea Obama was there so he decided to put Soldiers and Civilians lives at risk on a wild goose chase.

Perhaps old age is fuzzing the mind, eh?

No Im still as sharp as ever, as even Dear Mr Cameron knows.
1) Osama (or was that a Freudian slip?) :D

Joke, thought you might miss it[/quote]
2) Osama was most definitely in Afghanistan, and the Taliban at the time even admitted as much when they claimed he was a "guest of the Taliban", and then refused to turn him over. There was no "Bush idea". There was actionable intelligence all the way back to the Clinton Administration. Fact.

There have been several programmes on UK TV looking into this idea of Osama being at Tora Bora that stated none of the claims other than one were proven. So you had all that info yet he's still around?
Perhaps you are getting confused with Iraq. In that case, the intelligence was NOT all it was presented to be, but your recollection of Afghanistan is simply incorrect.

No Im not getting confused with Iraq at all.

He also wanted to secure some pipeline?

Unfounded cornspiracy theory, and you know it! Stop that nonsense.

I beg your pardon? Karsai was a past employee of Bush's companies. Its a pretty well known fact that Bush had him installed to secure Oil and Pipeline contracts, or doesnt your Government tell you the truth?

I also think it was a bit of bravado. "If the ruskies cant settle the place we will"

Well, you think wrong. It was not about "settling the place" and had nothing to do with Russia's failure (which we were, in part, responsible for in funding Osama in the first place!). It was about not allowing the place to re-descend into a cesspool which would allow Al Qaeda to rebuild itseld there.

Well you did a great job. You turned a cesspool into an even bigger cesspool, turning the Muslim world against Infidels.
By the way have you ever seen any research on Al Qaeda? There is NO organisation as such. It is simply a collection of terrorists around the world who occasionaly get funds form anonynmous sources and call themselves Al Qaeda, but there is no mass, organised terrorist organisation as such. Thats been proven.

He failed miserably and will continue to do so. It is a totally unwinable war. I would have thought you lot would have learned that in Vietnam. You cant beat an army who, in plain clothes will shake your hand and smile, then 10 minutes later pick up a gun and shoot you.

All you are admitting is that the combatants are not obeying the Geneva Convention's laws of war:

Errr I think youll find the US does not obey geneva conventions on many many things. Treatment of Combatants for one, torture, illegal imprisonment failure to obey International law, want me to go on?
But Ray, its THEIR country they are allowed to defend it as they wish. If you attack a country that has no effective army, the population have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. Or would you prefer "Lets start the battle at 9.00 old chap, just after breakfast OK ? Good Luck old boy, pip pip.
You attack them with bombs, missiles, the most modern soldiers abd weapons in the world and theyre still there?

Modern laws of war regarding conduct during war (jus in bello), such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, provide that it is unlawful for belligerents to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly.

Do the unmanned missile carrying drones have Uniforms Ray? Do your B52 Bombers that flew out of UK bases to Bomb Iraq and Afghanistan have identifying marks on them? Nope.
Modern Laws of war require the correct treatement of prisoners and specifically ban torture.
And I have to repeat, You attack them with bombs, missiles, the most modern soldiers and weapons in the world and theyre still there, and youre crying about IED's? Oh please !! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
While people love to wail about victors and the stronger forces in a war violating certain Geneva Conventions with respect to prisoners of war, I wonder why no one ever points out that terrorist elements and cells continue to violate the two pricipals of war underlined above? Why is that, Chorlton? You seem to enjoy ignoring the things that terrorists do, but at the same time make a point of excoriating the US. Why do you not give equal time to the scum who do not wear uniforms, and who hide incendiary devices under their clothes?

I dont defend terrorist attacks by foreigners on foreign soil. However people are entitled to defend what they perceive to be attacks against their way of life any way they wish. The US and Brits and coalition are the attackers.
Because Ray when you dont have the funds for an army, and when your country is broken up into many factions you defend your country any way you can. I would and I suspect you would to. When you dont have bombers and tanks and thousands of soldiers you Improvise, adapt, overcome. But one could say those IED's kill fewer civilians than carpet bombing or lobbing missiles into houses with women and children in? And you wonder why Iran wants Nukes??.
Lets not forget Ray, in all of this it was the invasion or Iraq by the coalition forces that pretty much started all this. If you dont want to get stung by bees, dont shake the beehive.
So what does one do when faced with "asymmetric war" (i.e. a war in which our forces obey these laws of war, but the enemy does not?).

The US doesnt obey the laws of war. Neither do the Brits or are you even attempting to suggest that US and UK special forces dont dress up as the Taliban and then attack them, OHHHH wait, its ok for us to do that but not them? fart fart fart fart fart.
HEAVEN FORBID that we "descend to their level". People get their panties in a wad if we were to do that.

But you do. Its a well known fact.

And so what happens is we attempt to do surgical strikes, such as being done in Pakistan with Predator UAVs and Hellfire missiles. Do innocent people sometimes lose their lives in such strikes? Sure they do.

SOMETIMES ?? Please Ray. Once could also promulgate the theory that 11/9 was a 'surgical attack' Ive seen that suggested. War sure is a bitch when your own shores start taking it eh?
Is that the problem of the USA? Not in the least. You see, there are also laws of war that prevent combatants from hiding amongst civilians for cover. More laws broken by the terrorists. There would be no innocent casualties if they abided by the laws of war. So every single innocent casuality lies at their feet...not ours.

I actually cant believe you said that, I just cant !
Now... will you address these difficult questions, or will you simply say "I don't have answers for that"? I want you to be fair on these issues, Chorlton. I realize you don't like war. Hell, no one really does. But it does not help your argument if you are seen not addressing the terrorist actions that make such a war necessary. I never see you propose ANY solutions for how we deal with terrorists. What? Ignore them and let them bomb free societies forever?
Ray

I will never back out of a decent rational argument or discussion Ray, you should know me by now, and Ive had the same argument with American friends. Even Vince Furnier who was at my place last year. (namedropper that I am 8) )
If you dont want Terrorists, dont create them. Thats the simplest argument I can suggest. Dont threaten countries, dont bully nations smaller than your own. If someone holds a hand out for help then help them if you can, dont invade them and make the country adhere to YOUR standards of civilisation and democracy. We dont all want 7/11's and Subways on every street.
If I saw the US start f---- with MY way of life, my beliefs, believe me, I'd be on the next plane to the US and shoot and kill and bomb as many people as I could. What many in the US dont realise is that many countries and civilisations have a completely different mindset, they think completely different than western people's. They dont want Democracy, they dont understand it. They dont want yours or my way of life or standards of life and they get pissed when they see their way of life being changed by continual interference of outsiders.
Im not a Muslim Ray, neither am I anti US but years ago I could see that, sooner or later something was bound to happen. People around the world dont like the way the US influence has spread. I mean influence in everything.
Demanding Free trade around the world then flooding those self same countries with under priced goods so the local producers go broke, then upping the price. Enforcing Japan to buy US rice or face embargo's.
Demanding Extradition laws from the world on conditions that the US itself wont allow. People around the world dont want the US b.s. and continual cries of Democracy when they are quite happy with what they had.
Its time to call it a day. Bring home the troops and let people in their own countries sort their own problems out.

I'd love to argue more and have more to say but the wife has been loading my favourite van up with junk from this new house of mine and will cut my balls off if I dont take her to the tip. Dont know how she likes being driven by a one eyed cripple. Scares me too !!
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron