# Don't go, Don't kill - The hypocrisy of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2010)

Ms. Sheehan wrote a powerful essay on the hypocrisy of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

http://www.infowars.com/dont-go-dont-kill/



> The recent repeal of the US military policy of Dont ask, dont   tell  is far from being the human rights advancement some are touting  it  to  be. I find it intellectually dishonest, in fact, illogical on  any  level  to associate human rights with any military, let alone one  that is   currently dehumanizing two populations as well as numerous  other   victims of its clandestine security policies.
> 
> Placing this major contention aside, the enactment of the bill might   be  an institutional step forward in the fight for equality; however    institutions rarely reflect reality.
> Do we really think that the US congress vote to repeal the act and    Obama signing the bill is going to stop the current systemic harassment    of gays in the military?
> ...




There are several examples that could be cited here.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0121-02.htm
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-...million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/
http://www.collateralmurder.com/
http://www.truth-out.org/the-torture-bradley-manning66147





> It is hard to separate this issue from the activities of the   military.  War might be a racket, but it is also the most devastating   act one  can be involved in, whether you are the aggressor or a   victimised  civilian, no one can shake off the psychological scars of   war. No one.
> Its effects on the individual as well as collective human psyche are    terminal. Championing equal rights is an issue of morality, war is    immoral, and the US military is heading further and further down the    path of immorality.
> 
> 
> Even with the advent of WikiLeaks, transparency and accountability of    US military activity has been sucked into a black hole of silence.    Drone attacks, illegal cross-border interventions, extra-judicial    assassinations all occur in the name of national interest. It is not in    the interest of equal rights activists to support an institution that   is  intent on ignoring every protocol of human decency.




More then that, the troops themselves are used up in kinds of experiments and ill deeds.  Do homosexuals really want to be part of this?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2205254052040284660#





> Joining the US military should never be an option for the socially    conscious while our troops are being used as corporate tools for profit,    or hired assassins for imperial expansion. Soldiers are called:   Bullet  sponges, by their superiors and dumb animals by Henry   Kissinger, the  former secretary of state.
> 
> While soldiers are dehumanised and treated like dirt, they are taught    to dehumanise the other, and treat them as less than dirt. It is a    vicious cycle, and the way to stop a vicious cycle is to denounce and    reject it, not openly participate.




Well said, Ms. Sheehan.  It's not the words that matter in the end, it's the deeds.  On the Eve of the Celebration of Christs Birthday, please consider the deeds and consider choosing Peace.


----------



## billc (Dec 24, 2010)

I very much consider peace, which is why a strong U.S. millitary is necessary.  The world is full of evil people and laying down your arms is exactly what they hope for.  To world peace on Christmas Eve.  Merry Christmas to our troops, the men and women who keep us safe from harm, at great expense to themselves and their families.  I hope they too find some joy on this holy day.


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 24, 2010)

Ms Sheehan has experienced one of the most painful experiences a human can experience, the loss of a child.  Given the nebulous and sometimes deceitful reasoning for our involvement in Iraq, her son's death became an even harder pill for her to swallow.  However, I think she forgets that the military's job is actually to keep us from war.  No one hates war more than someone who has actually experienced it.  I think her time would be better served keeping politicians' feet to the fire regarding war than disparaging those that have volunteered to serve in our armed forces.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Ms Sheehan has experienced one of the most painful experiences a human can experience, the loss of a child.  Given the nebulous and sometimes deceitful reasoning for our involvement in Iraq, her son's death became an even harder pill for her to swallow.



It wasn't sometimes deceitful, it was a lie.  The Pentagon created a case for war by manipulating the intelligence.  Col. Karen Kwiatkowski blew the whistle on this.  She was actually part of the Office of Special Plans and revealed the nature of how we actually got into Iraq.

"I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP  usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through  suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were  in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski

Her son Casey, and countless other sons and daughters of America died for a lie.



WC_lun said:


> However, I think she forgets that the military's job is actually to keep us from war.  No one hates war more than someone who has actually experienced it.



Noting how the Pentagon created the case for war out of falsehoods and then obfuscated the truth, I think we can plainly see that the military will not keep us from war.  The bottom line is that a military never keeps us out of war if the state is engaged in empire.  



WC_lun said:


> I think her time would be better served keeping politicians' feet to the fire regarding war than disparaging those that have volunteered to serve in our armed forces.



If our soldiers are engaged in something dishonorable, is it disparagement to call it what it is?  Perhaps the word "honor" ceases to have any meaning other then a marketing tool?  It's the difference between words and deeds and I think that Ms. Sheehan does our young people a service by pointing out the very real difference.

America is involved in five wars at this moment.  We are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Algeria.  In order to have peace, people need to not only hold the feet of the politicians to the fire, but, as Ms. Sheehan has recognized, they must call these wars what they are.  If the politicians won't listen, perhaps they will when no one signs up to do their dirty work anymore.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I very much consider peace, which is why a strong U.S. millitary is necessary.



How do they create peace?  America is fighting five wars.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 24, 2010)

Mrs Sheehan is an unrepentant loon who has been ruthlessly used by anti-war and anti-American types. 
Her son wasn't drafted, he voluntarily enlisted, and served and died honorably. What is a shame is the only way he'll be remembered in years to come, is that his death unhinged his mother.


----------



## billc (Dec 24, 2010)

Five wars, which ones?  I know about the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres in the war against islamic terrorists.  That would be one.  Much like the pacific and european theaters in ww2.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Her son wasn't drafted, he voluntarily enlisted, and served and died honorably.



How did her son die honorably?  Are we confusing tragedy for honor?  If a man signs up for an ideal, goes to war based off of lies and has those ideals repudiated by action, and then dies in that war, is that an honorable death?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Five wars, which ones?  I know about the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres in the war against islamic terrorists.  That would be one.  Much like the pacific and european theaters in ww2.



Americans are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Algeria.  If we count action against Somali pirates and our intervention there, that makes six.  I know that many people see this all as one war, but I don't know if people understand how much this thing has spread or how big it has really gotten.  We've got drones and soldiers killing people in all kinds of places that most Americans have never heard about.  Noting this, lets get back to the more important question, how does the military create peace?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 24, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> How did her son die honorably?


How dare you denigrate his service? He enlisted of his own free will and served. He followed orders and was killed doing his duty, yes, that is tragic. But, it is also honorable.
Don't you dare lessen the sacrifices made by servicemen just to push your preferred policies!


----------



## Big Don (Dec 24, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Americans are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Algeria.  If we count action against Somali pirates and our intervention there, that makes six.  I know that many people see this all as one war, but I don't know if people understand how much this thing has spread or how big it has really gotten.  We've got drones and soldiers killing people in all kinds of places that most Americans have never heard about.  Noting this, lets get back to the more important question, how does the military create peace?


Like Bill said, you are confusing theaters of war with wars.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 24, 2010)

The websites you reference as "research" are laughable. For all the "Cave" references and all...when all your data comes from sources like "Infowars" and "common dreams" the shadows on the wall all start to look alike.


----------



## billc (Dec 24, 2010)

From the book, "courting Disaster.":

"...the real purpose of Geneva.  Most people think of the Geneva Conventions as a set of rules requiring humane treatment of prisoners of war.  But their actual objective is much broader than that.  The Conventions were created to protect innocent civilians by deterring violations of the Laws of War.  They do this by offering certain protections to those who follow these laws-and denying such protections to those who do not...if(as terrorists do)he wears ordinary clothes and hides among civilians, he endangers the innocent and acts treacherously toward rival soldiers, and thus recieves no rights under Geneva...giving terrorists such protections would UNDERMINE the very purpose of the Geneva Conventions."  

What you saw on the video is why terrorists should not be covered by the conventions.  Innocent civilians are caught in the fighting.  It is because the terrorists violate the rules of war that these civilians were killed.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 24, 2010)

[yt]nGClrsAN2aY[/yt]


----------



## billc (Dec 24, 2010)

Over on the martialtalk side under general self-defense there is a thread about a police officer involved in a shooting with a kid armed with a bb gun.  You should probably take a read over there before you accuse the shooters in this video of killing unarmed civillians and reporters, maunkauma.  If it is a tough judgement call for police officers, wether to shoot or not shoot, it is 100 times tougher in the middle of a war zone with terrorists hiding among and using civilians as shields.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 24, 2010)

Should have just shot them in the leg or something...


----------



## billc (Dec 24, 2010)

Better yet, they should have shot the guns out of their hands.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> The websites you reference as "research" are laughable. For all the "Cave" references and all...when all your data comes from sources like "Infowars" and "common dreams" the shadows on the wall all start to look alike.



Weren't you the guy who warned people against telling other people they were in the cave?  LOL!


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Big Don said:


> How dare you denigrate his service? He enlisted of his own free will and served. He followed orders and was killed doing his duty, yes, that is tragic. But, it is also honorable.
> Don't you dare lessen the sacrifices made by servicemen just to push your preferred policies!



I simply asked a question.  Listen, if you want to define honor like that, do so, but there are some unintended consequences that I'm sure you never thought of.  Anyone who just follows orders and is killed as a result is now honorable?  Perhaps you have redefined honor to suit your own political preference?  LOL!!!


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Like Bill said, you are confusing theaters of war with wars.



Or perhaps you are conflating the separate wars into one big overarching narrative that doesn't make sense?  Can you imagine that there might be a difference between all of these places, between all of these people?  Can you imagine that their might be a difference between the muslims in one area and muslims in another?  Can you even imagine that not every one of the people who live in these regions are muslim?  What reason does an "enemy" in Iraq have to kill us?  Is that different then an "enemy" in any of those other places?  The more you know, the harder it gets to stitch your narrative together.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 25, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Weren't you the guy who warned people against telling other people they were in the cave?  LOL!



No..I warned about the people who try to make you believe that they have been outside. Hint. Hint.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Double post, double dose.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 25, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I simply asked a question.  Listen, if you want to define honor like that, do so, but there are some unintended consequences that I'm sure you never thought of.  Anyone who just follows orders and is killed as a result is now honorable?  Perhaps you have redefined honor to suit your own political preference?  LOL!!!



People who enlist and risk their lives because they feel a sense of duty and responsibility towards their country have honor. Like it or not, they back up their beliefs via action and sacrifice. They have honor. Integrity and GUTS.

Loads more than people who crusade via posts on the internet after reaffirming their preconceptions from various conspiracy websites.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> No..I warned about the people who try to make you believe that they have been outside. Hint. Hint.



Right, I thought you were doing that.    Dude, if you want to bring the cave into this, fine, but the analogy is a double edged sword.  You can't cut someone else with it without cutting yourself.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> People who enlist and risk their lives because they feel a sense of duty and responsibility towards their country have honor. Like it or not, they back up their beliefs via action and sacrifice. They have honor. Integrity and GUTS.
> 
> Loads more than people who crusade via posts on the internet after reaffirming their preconceptions from various conspiracy websites.



LOL @ Crusade and reaffirming my own preconceptions.  That's another CAVE analogy.  It's Christmas and I'm simply thinking about Peace.

People risk their lives for a lot of things.  Do they all have honor, integrity and guts?  Sense of duty and responsibility toward the country sounds like something we can elevate, but it's not real and it's not always good.  Would you honor the sense of duty and honor General Custer had when he slaughtered women and children on the American West?  How about General Chivington when his men spitted babies cut open pregnant women at Sand Creek?  Would you honor a soldiers death if one of those men were killed during that war?


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 25, 2010)

Our soldiers do not get to pick and choose where they fight, when they have to fight.  They signed up to serve this country in the military.  Doing so they go where ordered to go.  They are our sword and shield.  If you don't like how the sword and shield are used, then go to the person wielding them...in this case the politicians in Washington DC.  Do not denegrate people who actually risk thier lives in the belief they are helping others, either by protecting this country or making other places better. 

Denigrating the soldiers does absolutley nothing to forward the cause of peace.  It just gives ammunition for those that prefer war to use to turn the discussion away from the issues.  It becomes more about "the soldier hating lefties," instead of the negatives of what we are actually doing.

Very few of our soldiers are signing up for service because they think it would be fun to go shoot innocent civilians in a foreign country.  It is war though, accidents and  tragedies happen.  When it isn't an accident, it becomes something other than war and though not perfect, we are pretty good at prosecuting such crimes.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 25, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> More then that, the troops themselves are used up in kinds of experiments and ill deeds.  Do homosexuals really want to be part of this?



They already are. Only before now they had to lie and pretend to be hetero.
Regardless of how you feel about the war or the military, allowing gay people to serve in the military without having to lie about who they are.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> They already are. Only before now they had to lie and pretend to be hetero.
> Regardless of how you feel about the war or the military, allowing gay people to serve in the military without having to lie about who they are.


 
Here homosexuality isn't illegal in the Forces, hasn't been for a while and nobody cares frankly, it isn't an issue. We have infantry soldiers in civil partnerships living together in married quarters and it doesn't even raise an eyebrow. As long as a person pulls their weight and does their job that's all that matters.

We've had the discussion that soldiers are war criminals before and I'm not going there again. I think most know my views and I really don'w want to go through all that again.

The family of my student who was killed by an IED in Afghan has asked that we all light a candle for him on Christmas Day, and although I don't celibrate Christmas I've lit a candle for him. RIP Steptoe.

My thoughts and prayers are with all families this holiday who are without their loved ones because they made the ultimate sacrifice. :asian:

Oh and bollocks to any who bad mouth the troops


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 25, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Ms Sheehan has experienced one of the most painful experiences a human can experience, the loss of a child.  Given the nebulous and sometimes deceitful reasoning for our involvement in Iraq, her son's death became an even harder pill for her to swallow.  However, I think she forgets that the military's job is actually to keep us from war.  No one hates war more than someone who has actually experienced it.  I think her time would be better served keeping politicians' feet to the fire regarding war than disparaging those that have volunteered to serve in our armed forces.



I felt much the same way about the woman, until I had the opportunity to hear her speak in person, and while I don't agree with all her ideas and opinions, she is far more well spoken on a much broader range of topics regarding the war than we are often fed in her soundbites.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I felt much the same way about the woman, until I had the opportunity to hear her speak in person, and while I don't agree with all her ideas and opinions, she is far more well spoken on a much broader range of topics regarding the war than we are often fed in her soundbites.



I went to a Peace rally where she spoke and experienced the same.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Very few of our soldiers are signing up for service because they think it would be fun to go shoot innocent civilians in a foreign country.  It is war though, accidents and  tragedies happen.  When it isn't an accident, it becomes something other than war and though not perfect, we are pretty good at prosecuting such crimes.



In 2006, it was reported that over a million people died in response to the invasion of Iraq.  That's more civilians then the bad guys.  I realize that no one signs up to commit war crimes, but the results are often different then the rhetoric.  It doesn't denigrate anyone to point out the difference.  In fact, from what I've found, people are relieved that someone else acknowledges this uncomfortable fact.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Here homosexuality isn't illegal in the Forces, hasn't been for a while and nobody cares frankly, it isn't an issue. We have infantry soldiers in civil partnerships living together in married quarters and it doesn't even raise an eyebrow. As long as a person pulls their weight and does their job that's all that matters.
> 
> We've had the discussion that soldiers are war criminals before and I'm not going there again. I think most know my views and I really don'w want to go through all that again.
> 
> ...



I train with a lot of marines and sailors at my jujutsu dojo.  They are all great guys, but they have a pretty ****** job.  I would rather that my friends choose to do something else...until such a time when service to the country doesn't commit oneself to the maintenance of empire.  

My whole point in posting this article isn't to battle about who is bad mouthing who, that's definitely not my intent, no matter how it's chosen to be read.  It's to point out that this step toward equality is bittersweet because even more people can participate in some of the worst events that humans can do to each other.

Ms. Sheehan is definitely pointing out the hypocrisy of all this.  I suspect that all we are looking at is a political stunt designed to throw a bone to the anti-war movement, placating them.  I doubt the sincerity of the intentions of people who would prosecute these wars.  Anyway, "don't go, don't kill" sounds like a good mantra for the anti-war movement in response to this.  It's a good counter point that sends home the message that needs to be heard.


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

What empire.  The last time I looked every country that we ever went to war with is now our biggest competitors on the world market.  We keep troops overseas in foreign countries to protect them and us from aggression by Russia, china and the other evil actors out there.  Oh, we also use our troops to protect europe so that they can afford all their social welfare programs, I almost forgot that.  Germany, Italy, Japan, the phillipines, cuba, latin america, where exactly is this empire you are speaking about.  Are you reading stuff from that silly guy Noam Chomsky, the guy making millions getting his work published by the U.S. millitary who then complains about the U.S. millitary and the American empire.  You Should check out the book "Do as I say" about all the liberals who are fabulously wealthy and complain about the rich not paying their fair share.  Chomsky has his own chapter.

http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293302838&sr=1-1  It is a great read.  All the liberals who support union membership, in other states and then deny their own employees the right to unionize.  All the liberals who want higher taxes, and then shelter their money overseas.  The list is endless and funny.

You know, we didn't just one day decide to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan all on our own.  There were a few, insy, tinsy, little events that sort of made bombing the you know what out of some bad actors pretty necessary.  If, Oh, say, 3000 americans had not been murdered simply for going to work in the morning, we wouldn't have invaded anyone.  We would still have troops hanging around the border nations of Iraq, watching the U.N. goof offs pretending to look for Sadaams weapons programs.  Let's be real.

Not to forget, the first attack on the world trade cente, the bombing of our embassies in Africa, the bombing of the Kobar towers in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of the Cole...
At some point we actually had to start responding to the murder of American citizens, not to mention the murder of our allies in Israel, you know, in their pizza parlors.   How manhy times did we have to watch Americans and our friends get killed before we said enough is enough already.  People seem to forget about all that slaughter that led up to Iraq and Afganistan, as if they were isolated events.  Let's all get in the "way back machine" and travel back to the early 90's and look at all the killing that took place before we actually hit back.  How about that.

Did I forget any events, oh yeah that cruise ship the achille lauro, the bombing of the german discoteque.  Did I forget any others?  Oh yeah, that golden oldie, the murder of the israeli athletes in munich during the olympics.  Anything else?  Anyone?  Bueller, Bueller?

Oh yeah, that million civillian casualty figure is made up as well.  The "lancet"article it came from was shown to be highly inacccurate, and Muslim Terrorists are killing more muslims than any collateral casualties from our attacking the terrorists.  Yeah, I know, you want me to dig up multiple sources on my "facts" well, if I have time I'll look.  Otherwise, look it up for yourselves.

Here is one source debunking the Lancet conclusions:  http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> What empire. The last time I looked every country that we ever went to war with is now our biggest competitors on the world market. We keep troops overseas in foreign countries to protect them and us from aggression by Russia, china and the other evil actors out there. Oh, we also use our troops to protect europe so that they can afford all their social welfare programs, I almost forgot that. Germany, Italy, Japan, the phillipines, cuba, latin america, where exactly is this empire you are speaking about. Are you reading stuff from that silly guy Noam Chomsky, the guy making millions getting his work published by the U.S. millitary who then complains about the U.S. millitary and the American empire. You Should check out the book "Do as I say" about all the liberals who are fabulously wealthy and complain about the rich not paying their fair share. Chomsky has his own chapter.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293302838&sr=1-1 It is a great read. All the liberals who support union membership, in other states and then deny their own employees the right to unionize. All the liberals who want higher taxes, and then shelter their money overseas. The list is endless and funny.
> 
> ...


 


No, you don't keep your troops in Europe to protect us at all, it's for your own benefit. I remember being stationed in Germany in the early eighties and the American troops had no money, the families had to eat in the military messes and we had whip rounds for them to be able to afford food etc. I work sometimes at an American base here and trust me it's not for our benefit it's here. The American bases in Germany were there to remind the Germans who won and to keep en eye on the communists who were a bit too close for comfort.
You need to look at what the governments in Europe politics actually are rather than assume they are all socialists. You also want to look at what we mean by liberals as opposed to what you mean, they are two totally different things, total opposites in fact.
Here's a list of socialist countries in the world, not the lack of European countries there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

Do you actually know how we fund our welfare programmes? We pay for it through insurance, yes just like you do. Whoever is working pays National Insurance contributions, this is matched by our employers, this funds the benefits like old age pensions, unemployment benefit, disability benefits etc. It also mostly pays for the National Health Service along with tax money so you see we pay for our healthcare just the same as you do but if we can't afford it we still get healthcare.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Oh yeah, that million civillian casualty figure is made up as well.  The "lancet"article it came from was shown to be highly inacccurate, and Muslim Terrorists are killing more muslims than any collateral casualties from our attacking the terrorists.  Yeah, I know, you want me to dig up multiple sources on my "facts" well, if I have time I'll look.  Otherwise, look it up for yourselves.
> 
> Here is one source debunking the Lancet conclusions:  http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm



The Lancet is one of the best journals out there.  They retract studies that are proven to be false.  Until they retract the claim, I'll keep posting it as a fact.  Even if it's half as many, it's staggering.  Also, when we count all of the people who died because of our bombing of Iraqi infrastructure and subsequent sanctions in the early 90s through 2003, we can easily count their dead in the millions.  

The truth is that the war in 91 never ended.  We bombed them to hell, laid siege to the country for 12 years, and then moved in for a slow motion massacre.  The Iraqis still can't form a government and the various factions are barely kept from each others throats by our soldiers presence.  This war has spanned 20 years and still has no end in sight.


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

The people who died during the santions died because Sadaam was not giving the food and medicine to his people.  It was Sadaam, not the coalition that caused those deaths.  Remember, he invaded Kuwait, he lost and had to submit to weapons inspections as terms for his surrender.  This was all on him.


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

Just so people do not miss the debunking of the "Lancet's" medthodology, here is an article that points out that the lancet used a methodology designed for plagues and famines to come up with their stats.  Also, since the iraqi government was in ruins at the time there was no way to know the death toll, especially in regards to civillian vs. insurgent caused deaths.  

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm


----------



## granfire (Dec 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> The people who died during the santions died because Sadaam was not giving the food and medicine to his people.  It was Sadaam, not the coalition that caused those deaths.  Remember, he invaded Kuwait, he lost and had to submit to weapons inspections as terms for his surrender.  This was all on him.



Remember the perverted sick son of a B**** was also the West's champion when he attacked Iran. A lot of training and support was coming his way....


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

Tez, our troops were in Europe to keep the russians from annexing the rest of Europe and to keep them out of your country.  Yeah, our troops were poor, I know my parents were, and I was born in West Germany, in a little town called Nuebrucke.  We also have troops in Korea, you know, where the north just shelled that little south korean island, and Okinawa and other spots where the bad guys are just waiting to take over.  Tez, what are your income tax rates where you live?  How about your corporate taxes?  How much of your GDP goes to social services vs. your military?

I have to apologize Tez, I don't like it when people expect me to do research for a martial arts website so I am not going to go down that route with you, sorry.  We have troops in Europe and asia for our sake and the sake of our allies, it is that simple.  I wish we could pull our troops back but it is unrealistic to think that we can.  I am going to post Monday about Iran, venezuela and Russia and their move to put Iranian missle bases in Venezuela.  The world is a dangerous place and it isn't getting nicer.


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

Not our champion, just someone who attacked Iran, which was fine with us.


----------



## granfire (Dec 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Not our champion, just someone who attacked Iran, which was fine with us.



No, Love, he received tons of support to attack the US arch enemy Iran. So, like fighting the mountain men in Afghanistan, it's a problem we made ourselves.


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

I am not sure why people think it is so easy to fight against the bad guys in the world.  Stalin murdered 25-30 million people, and we used him against the socialists in Germany.  We helped the socialist in China, Mao, who went on to kill 70 million people.  You don't always get to choose the best people to help you deal with bad people.  I'll ask you Granfire, would you have used stalin as an ally against the Nazis, knowing how many people he murdered?


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

When George Bush took out Sadaam, it was a good thing.  The Iraqi people have a chance now that they didn't have before, especially with ude and kuse waiting in the wings.  The world is not an easy place to live, and it doesn't respect nice people.


----------



## granfire (Dec 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I'll ask you Granfire, would you have used stalin as an ally against the Nazis, knowing how many people he murdered?



Interesting question. I have heard Churchill being quotes as to having had the sentiment that 'they slaughtered the wrong pig' as in dismanteling Germany instead of keeping them under arms and making for Stalin.

Not commenting on the support for Mao - I doubt it, the West (as in Nato, US, etc) has a sad track record in backing the wrong horse, for all the wrong reasons.

As to the assessment that the Iraquy people have options now they didn't have before, I reserve judgment: There were women working outside the house under the regime, leading normal, western style lives while now they are under thread of being kidnapped or killed, forced to adhere to more conservative values. 
Not to mention that Hussein provided stability to the area. Removing him from power left a big power vacuum happily filled by ever tom dick and harry, not to mention opening the borders to the real terrorists who previously had no room to thrive there. 

Like pulling the key stone out of an arch...


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

How about filling that power vacuum with a free and democratic Iraq.  The region needs more functioning democracies for long term stability.


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

Ann Coulter's opinion on Don't ask Don't tell:http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=400

"Even more absurdly, the Pentagon polled all military "personnel" -- and their spouses! Only a small portion of what is known as "the military" actually does the fighting. The rest is a vast bureaucracy along the lines of the DMV."


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> How about filling that power vacuum with a free and democratic Iraq. The region needs more functioning democracies for long term stability.


 

Democracy cannot be imposed.


----------



## crushing (Dec 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Ann Coulter's opinion on Don't ask Don't tell:http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=400
> 
> "Even more absurdly, the Pentagon polled all military "personnel" -- and their spouses! Only a small portion of what is known as "the military" actually does the fighting. The rest is a vast bureaucracy along the lines of the DMV."


 
In the same article Ms. Coulter says, "Most people have no clue what military life is like..." as if she is an authority on what military life is like and that is a prerequisite to having a say in military matters. Then I looked up her biography to find when she served.


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

Democracy cannot be imposed, but people can be allowed to vote for their government, which they seem to have done.  They keep doing that voting thing over there, and it seems like they would like to keep doing that.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 25, 2010)

crushing said:


> In the same article Ms. Coulter says, "Most people have no clue what military life is like..." as if she is an authority on what military life is like and that is a prerequisite to having a say in military matters. Then I looked up her biography to find when she served.



She's right. Most people don't know what being a brain surgeon is like.

Do I have to be a brain surgeon to say so??


----------



## crushing (Dec 25, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> She's right. Most people don't know what being a brain surgeon is like.
> 
> Do I have to be a brain surgeon to say so??



Are you speaking as an authority on brain surgery and what the policies and procedures brain surgeons should follow?


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 26, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Democracy cannot be imposed, but people can be allowed to vote for their government, which they seem to have done. They keep doing that voting thing over there, and it seems like they would like to keep doing that.


 

And as soon as the occupation is over, Iraq will descend into a bloody civil war that may likely engulf the entire region.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 26, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> And as soon as the occupation is over, Iraq will descend into a bloody civil war that may likely engulf the entire region.


We have 53 THOUSAND troops in Germany, and 47 THOUSAND in Japan, are they occupied countries? What defines an occupation?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2010)

Big Don said:


> We have 53 THOUSAND troops in Germany, and 47 THOUSAND in Japan, are they occupied countries? What defines an occupation?


 

Well, funnily enough both Germany and Japan were defeated by the Allies and were subsequently occupied by them. We are moving out troops out of Germany now, they should all be gone in the next five years or so, I believe the French are too.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 26, 2010)

Big Don said:


> We have 53 THOUSAND troops in Germany, and 47 THOUSAND in Japan, are they occupied countries? What defines an occupation?


 
Occupation is defined by a foreign military power controlling a country gainst the will of the people.

Germany had a history of democracy prior to WWII. Japan is a highly homogenous country. It is easy to install a new form of govenment. Altough it can be succesfully argued that because the same party has been ruling pretty much since the war, Japan is not truly a democracy.

If the USA troops leave Iraq, the different factions and tribes will tear each other apart as the only thing that held that country togheter was the dictatorship of Saddam.


----------



## granfire (Dec 26, 2010)

Big Don said:


> We have 53 THOUSAND troops in Germany, and 47 THOUSAND in Japan, are they occupied countries? What defines an occupation?




53k troops still in germany....

it's a fraction of what it was 20 years ago. 

While it has been a friendly force, there have also been  a few tough spots in the relationship;
Like having strategic nuclear weapons on your soil with no control over it....

On a basic, human level it was not all bad. I wonder if the Russian troops had a similar impact on their occupied allies...but probably not....


----------



## billc (Dec 26, 2010)

Iraq has its shot at real freedom.  If  they blow it they blow it.  We need to be there for our purposes, mainly keeping crazy people from coming over here and killing Americans.  If they get freedom out of that, so much the better.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Iraq has its shot at real freedom. If they blow it they blow it. We need to be there for our purposes, mainly keeping crazy people from coming over here and killing Americans. If they get freedom out of that, so much the better.


 

The Iraqis weren't the ones coming over and killing people. The Iraqis invaded Kuwait which no one actually cared about, what caused concern was the oil might dry up so a war was launched against the Iraqis. Kuwait was 'freed' at least from Iraqi ocupation, it remains one of the least 'free' and undemocratic countries in the world. George Bush jnr decided to do what his dad didn't, that is get rid of Saddam. For many reasons none of which included democracy for the Iraqis a second war was declared on Iraq. 

It sounds good 'oh we are fighting for the safety of the world and for democracy in Iraq' but it's a load of waffle designed to justify an unjustifiable war.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2010)

granfire said:


> No, Love, he received tons of support to attack the US arch enemy Iran. So, like fighting the mountain men in Afghanistan, it's a problem we made ourselves.



Good thing we did something about it then.  If we made the mess, IMO we were responsible for cleaning it up.


----------



## granfire (Dec 26, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Good thing we did something about it then.  If we made the mess, IMO we were responsible for cleaning it up.



lol, cleaning it up?! 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lfao:

I do believe the phrase that applies here is: If you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.

The original point, that - as usual - is not heard is that the West has a bad track record in supporting the wrong people for short term gain and end up getting bit in the butt by it.


----------



## granfire (Dec 26, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Iraq has its shot at real freedom.  If  they blow it they blow it.  We need to be there for our purposes, mainly keeping crazy people from coming over here and killing Americans.  If they get freedom out of that, so much the better.




I don't know, but living in civil war is not freedom. 

Most people in the West have no idea what Iraq is: an artificially created nation comprised of many different tribes who do not get along. Hussein's dictatorship kept a lid on it. not that is off, there is no freedom to be had.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 26, 2010)

As the expense of these wars and of our unfunded entitlements hit Americans, more and more people are going to be asking some very difficult questions.  I believe that when the US dollar breaks (or the English Pound or the Euro - they are all linked together), everyone will become anti-war and anti-empire.  We are watching our wealth be looted before our eyes in order to maintain 737 military bases in foreign countries across the world.

What people need to realize, and this is something Ms. Sheehan is pointing out, is that when you enlist, you choose to serve this vast network and do all that commands.  Even if we put the horrors of war fighting aside, the cost of this is helping to bankrupt the nation.  Thus, Serving doesn't protect America, it propels it toward it's doom.  The article doesn't make this point, it focuses more on the irony of taking a step toward equality in an organization that regularly violates human rights.  However, I believe this is something to consider as well.  

This is why Congressmen Ron Paul and other libertarians want to vastly reduce the size of our military.  They understand what the long term effects will be of maintaining a gargantuan military industrial complex.  We sacrificed our wealth to it.  We are sacrificing our personal freedoms to it.  Soon, we will sacrifice ourselves to it if we do not collectively see the truth of the matter.

I don't want to see the dollar break and our Constitution become just another piece of paper.  I don't want to see WWIII go down and watch my family live in a police state.  This world wide empire is not something the US can maintain.  It will break us with fire and famine and poverty just as it has broken every other country that has attempted it.

I want to see peace in my lifetime.  I want to see my money and my labor go to what I choose rather then go to the corporations so they can bully weaker countries.  I want to see an end to the secrecy and corruption that the MIC causes.  I want to live in a free society where the strength of our minds leads us rather then the barrel of a gun.  

Repealing don't ask don't tell isn't a step toward freedom because it only helps the cause of it's greatest enemy.  Force.

Don't go, don't kill.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2010)

*British* Pound..please! It may be a small thing to you but it's *hugely* annoying to the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Cornish to be totally ignored and to be lumped together as English. They aren't English and shouldn't be called so. It's a case of getting your facts correct, if you can't get that right what about the rest of your arguments?

Very unlikely that the British will ever become anti war btw, we've been doing it for a few thousand years and I doubt we will stop any time soon.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 26, 2010)

Iraq would at least become 2 countries. Sunnis and Shiites each with their own, after a fair go at ethnic cleansing. Then the Kurds will stir their own shitpot, which will spread into Turkey, further destabilizing the region.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2010)

The beginning of the Middle East problems....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/middle_east_01.shtml

_"It is perhaps only proper to note that if Germany had won the war, the Ottoman Empire would have been expanded, subjecting many Arabs and other nationalities to its rule. And if the French and British had granted 'self-determination' to the inhabitants of this region it is possible that the result would have been the balkanisation of the area, with fragile and often antagonistic fiefdoms and kingdoms prevailing. It seems likely that, no matter how this war in the Middle East had been resolved, the region was destined to suffer instability and conflict in the years ahead."_

Heads they lose, tails we win.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 26, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> It's a case of getting your facts correct, if you can't get that right what about the rest of your arguments?



Oh, well never mind then.  Carry on.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Oh, well never mind then. Carry on.


 

Look, you are discussing international affairs and yet you can't get countries correct, there is no such thing as an  'English' pound, it's British. You may think that's being pendantic but Scotland, Wales and Ireland have their own governments, they use British Sterling as their currency. While there is of course a British government you are insulting a hell of a lot of people by calling the these countries England, much the same as if you were to call the Iranians Arabs. You have to understand the whys and wherefores of a country before you can start making statements about what you think they should do. 
As Canuck has pointed out there are different people, nations even, as well as factions in Iraq and if you can't understand that we have different nationalities in the UK how are you going to understand Iraq?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 26, 2010)

I understand all of that.  Sometimes, people just type the wrong word. Mele kalikimaka me ka hau'oli makahiki hou.


----------



## billc (Dec 26, 2010)

maunakuma, welcome to my world.


----------



## crushing (Dec 26, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The beginning of the Middle East problems....
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/middle_east_01.shtml


 
In the 'Find Out More' books section of the article it lists _Paris 1919_ by Margaret MacMillan, but it shouldn't the Treaty of Versailles be more prominently featured in the aftermath section?  Afterall, it planted the seeds many of the conflicts and wars, including those far away from Paris in the Middle East and the Far East.


----------



## granfire (Dec 26, 2010)

billcihak said:


> maunakuma, welcome to my world.




I don't think anybody would want to be welcomed there....


----------



## granfire (Dec 26, 2010)

crushing said:


> In the 'Find Out More' books section of the article it lists _Paris 1919_ by Margaret MacMillan, but it shouldn't the Treaty of Versailles be more prominently featured in the aftermath section?  Afterall, it planted the seeds many of the conflicts and wars, including those far away from Paris in the Middle East and the Far East.



Great point.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 27, 2010)

crushing said:


> In the 'Find Out More' books section of the article it lists _Paris 1919_ by Margaret MacMillan, but it shouldn't the Treaty of Versailles be more prominently featured in the aftermath section? Afterall, it planted the seeds many of the conflicts and wars, including those far away from Paris in the Middle East and the Far East.


 

The Treaty of Versailles only mentions specific colonies and interests being handed over to either the French or the British this includes Egypt, Siam and China.
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versa/versa3.html

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html

It was the Ottoman Empire rather than the German one that was carved up by the Allies to make the countries we more or less know now in the Middle East.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 27, 2010)

billcihak said:


> maunakuma, welcome to my world.



Well, thanks, but this thread is putting forward and argument that is ultimately going to lose at this time.  The thesis that we respect people for the merits of their deeds and not their title or profession applies in many areas, but not with soldiers.  Even if they are stuck in some stinking pit doing terrible things on our behalf, we are taught from a very young age to give our support no matter what because they choose to go and serve the country and put their lives on the line.

Our society has benefited from this in the past.  This belief is what has allowed us to form our empire and extend our power throughout the globe.  Our hegemony is the reason why the US Dollar is the world's reserve currency.  The problem with any empire is that it eventually bankrupts the States that try and maintain them.  It happens every single time and it's happening now.  The US charged these wars on the global credit card and we haven't even begun to pay for it.  When this is combined with all of the other unfunded entitlement programs that have been stripped for wars and corporate welfare, it creates the financial perfect storm that will ruin us.

There are a lot of factors that contribute to this perfect storm, but I believe that one of the biggest is that Americans tend to support any war as long as they can't see it and it doesn't affect them.  The State creates a veil over wars by controlling the information that people see.  

The Alternative Media, Wikileaks, and the Internet are penetrating this.  They are showing people that as we expand these wars into other countries and kill more people, we are never going to run out of enemies.  And, as the anger in the region builds, in order to make any "progress" we need to become increasingly more brutal.  And, as we get more brutal, the anger builds and we have even more enemies to fight.  This is the fundamental nature of the wicked deathspiral that wipes out every Imperial State.  And that suicidal nature is enabled by our unquestioning support of the people who are perpetrating the wars.

The argument that our society shouldn't support the wars or the people who fight in them makes logical sense because of the nature of our forces.  Everyone choose to be there, for whatever reason.  If the public disapproves of their actions and service, not only do the wars stop politically, but people stop volunteering for them en masse.  If that happens, we voluntarily give up our world wide hegemony and we might be able to preserve our personal freedoms and our prosperity.  If we continue on the deathspiral, however, we will most assuredly lose both of those things.

This argument loses because we haven't reached a tipping point.  There are too few people who have internalized the true costs of this war and the ultimate price we are going to pay.  As we travel down this road, and the expense mounts, and the bodies pile, and the police state that naturally grows in every failing empire builds, more and more people will start to see the nature of this thing.  

When US citizens are taxed up front for the wars, when the dollar breaks and the economy doesn't function, when they try to conscript us, when US citizens cannot travel any where without being searched like a criminal, when the State cracks down on political dissidents, when the promised entitlement checks come in the form of IOUs, etc.  When all of this happens, the whole thing comes crashing down and people are going to have to do some serious soul searching.  We are going to have to choose to live in a free, prosperous, and peaceful society, or an impoverished imperial tyranny.  

The argument that we shouldn't support the wars or the people who fight them is a loser for now, but time and the nature of this deathspiral makes it increasingly likely that it will be accepted.  Until then, we race toward the cliff and listen to people tell us that there is no cliff.  There will be some people who choose to ride this vehicle straight into the abyss rather then get honest with themselves.  When the tipping point comes, the outcome will be decided by the numbers of intrepid and courageous individuals who decide to go against tradition and the reactionaries who simply refuse to own up to anything resembling personal responsibility.  

I understand the part that I play in this symphony and I refuse to play a song of death.  Don't go, don't kill is a way of telling others not to play this song.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 29, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The Iraqis weren't the ones coming over and killing people. The Iraqis invaded Kuwait which no one actually cared about, what caused concern was the oil might dry up so a war was launched against the Iraqis. Kuwait was 'freed' at least from Iraqi ocupation, it remains one of the least 'free' and undemocratic countries in the world. George Bush jnr decided to do what his dad didn't, that is get rid of Saddam. For many reasons none of which included democracy for the Iraqis a second war was declared on Iraq.
> 
> It sounds good 'oh we are fighting for the safety of the world and for democracy in Iraq' but it's a load of waffle designed to justify an unjustifiable war.



Tell me, please, what constitutes a "justifiable" war.

To me, what is justifiable or not may be different then what it is to you.  You can choose to agree with, or disagree with, the reasons for going to war, but that doesn't make your position more "justifiable" then mine.

If I were to tell you that I am taking troops to war in order to ensure price stability in the oil trade in order to insure that Americans had adequate access to oil at reasonable prices, would that make my war justified?  And, if I don't go because you said it was unjustifiable, and the economy of my country collapsed, or people died due to not being able to have access to enough home heating oil, would that have then justified my position?

Does there always have to be some moral justification to war?  If so, on what / who's morality do we base it?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 29, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Do you actually know how we fund our welfare programmes? We pay for it through insurance, yes just like you do. Whoever is working pays National Insurance contributions, this is matched by our employers, this funds the benefits like old age pensions, unemployment benefit, disability benefits etc. It also mostly pays for the National Health Service along with tax money so you see we pay for our healthcare just the same as you do but if we can't afford it we still get healthcare.



No, that is nothing like how we do it.

Call it what you will, your "health insurance payment" is still a tax, which is completely unlike what we have here.  And your premium, from what your description sounds like", is based on your income, just like your taxes.  If you can't afford your health insurance "tax", then you still get those services, just like you would get the services of your military if your couldn't pay your "regular" taxes.

Plus, I can also choose to whom I pay my insurance.  It doesn't sound as if you can.  And even if you can get your own private insurance there, it sounds as though you would still have to pay into the system based on your level of income.  Sounds like a tax to me, similar to the public school system in the U.S.

Here, if  you don't pay your premium, you don't get the benefit of the insurance.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 29, 2010)

Bill, 

The main issue that I have with the course of your arguments is that it seems to make out that violence is the sole solution to this problem.  Now, I am certainly not one who is against violence.  In fact, I also don't subscribe that violence should be the last resort only.

But the question that remains is whether what we are doing really facilitates our ultimate goal, whatever that goal may be.  And, to support maunakumu's position, in order to make informed choices in what we like to call our Constitutional Republic, why would our aims need to be hidden if they are the morally correct ones to have.  (This is different then having all of our methodologies known due to security concerns.)


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 29, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> No, that is nothing like how we do it.
> 
> Call it what you will, your "health insurance payment" is still a tax, which is completely unlike what we have here. And your premium, from what your description sounds like", is based on your income, just like your taxes. If you can't afford your health insurance "tax", then you still get those services, just like you would get the services of your military if your couldn't pay your "regular" taxes.
> 
> ...


 
The answer wasn't directed at you it was directed at Bilichik but I'll reply anyway. Whatever you think of our system or call it, we like it that way and if put to the vote...again..we will keep it. Tax or no tax you pay your NI and you know what it's for, Bilichik seems to think the government hoicks money off us willy nilly for anything it likes. Tha's his idea of a socilist state even though we have a Conservative/Lib Dem government not even a Labour one.

Having universal healthcare is one of the best things about this country, whatever you think. The NHS may not be perfect and you will find plenty to moan but really we are very proud of the fact that you don't have to be rich to afford treatment as you did in the bad days before the NHS.


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 29, 2010)

well 'mrs sheehan's' 'essay' seems like a lame cop out to me. In that case why pass any laws protecting groups of people or promoting equality or anything else at all, since they 'won't stop people from doing stuff' anyway?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 30, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The answer wasn't directed at you it was directed at Bilichik but I'll reply anyway. Whatever you think of our system or call it, we like it that way and if put to the vote...again..we will keep it. Tax or no tax you pay your NI and you know what it's for, Bilichik seems to think the government hoicks money off us willy nilly for anything it likes. Tha's his idea of a socilist state even though we have a Conservative/Lib Dem government not even a Labour one.
> 
> Having universal healthcare is one of the best things about this country, whatever you think. The NHS may not be perfect and you will find plenty to moan but really we are very proud of the fact that you don't have to be rich to afford treatment as you did in the bad days before the NHS.


 
I made no judgement as to the effectiveness of the NHI, or whether Brits as a whole like or dislike it.  I was merely pointing out that there is an essential difference in the systems and how they are run.


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

You didn't have to be rich to get healthcare in the U.S. before Obamacare either.  Health insurance coverage was an issue, but could and can be resolved with smaller solutions than having the government rationing care to the neediest people.


----------



## granfire (Dec 30, 2010)

billcihak said:


> You didn't have to be rich to get healthcare in the U.S. before Obamacare either.  Health insurance coverage was an issue, but could and can be resolved with smaller solutions than having the government rationing care to the neediest people.



Then you missed the part that a lot of people did not have any coverage or that even with coverage you are just one severe accident/illness away from economic annihilation.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 30, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I made no judgement as to the effectiveness of the NHI, or whether Brits as a whole like or dislike it. I was merely pointing out that there is an essential difference in the systems and how they are run.


 
It is however not what bilichik was talking about, he had a completely different idea about how our healthcare was funded so I was explaining to him. He keeps confusing socialism with communism.


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

Tez, look at the Ann Coulter is great post and you will see an explanation of why socialims and communism are one and the same, regardless of what anyone says.


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

I didn't miss that part about no coverage, which is why I said people had healthcare but no insurance, and there are fixes to the problem of a lack of insurance causing bankruptcy.  One of the first would be to get the government out of healthcare.  Instead of taking over healthcare, the government could have simply paid the premiums for people without healthcare, and it would have cost less, with less loss of control for individuals than obamacare.  Now the death panels are back, cancer drug rationing is beginning, companies are going to start dropping their health insurance coverage, and for those with insurance, the premiums are going to sky rocket next year.  Also, insurance companies are no longer going to issue certain policies.  Nice fix.


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

Tez, does this accurately describe the health care available in England?

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...England_Not_Your_Cup_of_Tea_Introduction.html

The term &#8220;single-payer health care&#8221; has been popularized by the media in describing the Canadian system&#8212;or any system, like the NHS, where government collects taxes and charges most people a premium for the insurance. It is the government bureaucracy that writes all the rules of eligibility, establishes the formulae for delivery of care, rations the care to conserve money, and employs the medical professionals.
Single-payer health care is national health care, socialized medicine, and universal health insurance&#8212;but it is definitely _not_ universal health care.

You mentioned you pay a premium, but is the rest true about your system?  The government charges the premium, sets policy and pays the doctors?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 30, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Tez, look at the Ann Coulter is great post and you will see an explanation of why socialims and communism are one and the same, regardless of what anyone says.


 
Guess you miss my posts there too.

I'm guessing too the history you've learned is all from television programmes rather than from anywhere academic. I think you need to delve deeper into history and politics from a more reliable source. 
In Europe there are countries that have socialist governments that aren't even close to being communist, they have Christian Socialist parties and governments. In Italy they have Christian Communist parties. You don't understand and you aren't alone, in misunderstanding what liberals are in the UK and Europe so you misundrstand what liberal governments and parties are over here. If you are going to cite European politics you should understand what they are, if you don't, stick to American politics.


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

I'm not siting European politics, and the Christian communists are lying to fool people who are religous. Communism has no place for religion. using religous terms is one of the ways they try to subvert people. We have the same thing in the catholic church. You should watch more television. You might learn more of the fun side of history. The sex and the violence end anyway.  Actually, I watch less regular television than I used to.  The cable shows follow a pattern, the first episodes are usually way over the top with sex and violence, and then all of that slows down and you get more story.  I think it is because the network bigwigs are pretty degenerate guys, and the people making the shows want to catch their attention.  Hence, the sex and violence.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 30, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I'm not siting European politics, and the Christian communists are lying to fool people who are religous. Communism has no place for religion. using religous terms is one of the ways they try to subvert people. We have the same thing in the catholic church. You should watch more television. You might learn more of the fun side of history. The sex and the violence end anyway.


 


Oh dear me, I've just frightened the cat by laughing so much. 

I get enough real life sex and violence, ta, don't need the second hand type. And I'm off for more, night shift tonight and New Years Eve.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 30, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Tez, does this accurately describe the health care available in England?
> 
> http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...England_Not_Your_Cup_of_Tea_Introduction.html
> 
> The term single-payer health care has been popularized by the media in describing the Canadian systemor any system, like the NHS, where government collects taxes and charges most people a premium for the insurance. It is the government bureaucracy that writes all the rules of eligibility, establishes the formulae for delivery of care, rations the care to conserve money, and employs the medical professionals.


 
Government decides what is funded or not. At their own risk at the next election. Medical professionals are not employees of the government. They are either employees of a hospital or, like the majority of doctors, independent businessmen who bill the government for their services.



> Single-payer health care is national health care, socialized medicine, and universal health insurancebut it is definitely _not_ universal health care.


 
Everybody is covered. It is universal.


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

I think he is referring to the rationing aspect when he says not everyone is covered.  Bye for now.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 30, 2010)

Universal healthcare never referred to everything covered, but to the coverage of every individual.

Open heart surgery is not going to bankrupt anyone. The nose job may have to wait until you have the funds.


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

You meant like the Canadian government official who needed heart surgery, found out it would take months to get the procedure and then came to the States to get it done in about a week.  That is not exactly a nose job.  Or the 80 year old woman who had cancer in Enland and kept being put on waiting lists to see a doctor.  After, I think it was a year, she gets in to see the doctor and they told her, oops, too late, it had spread.  I knew a guy who i worked with here in the states.  He had testicular cancer, had no job, and had been unemployed for at least a year with no insurance.  After he finally worked up the courage to deal with the problem, he saw the doctor and they performed the surgery the next week, followed by chemo.  No insurance, no job, and he was seen right away.  Or how about the contracter in England who broke his ankle at work.  Because he was a smoker they wouldn't do the surgery.  They gave him morphine for the pain, but until he quit smoking he was out of luck.  These are not nose jobs.

I know someone in Poland who needs hemmorhoid surgery.  They told him that he could get the surgery in 9 months.  He has been asked to fly here to the states so he could just get it done, but he doesn't want to take the flight.  Not exactly nose surgery but the wait time is excessive.

http://health.gaeatimes.com/2010/02...-raising-questions-about-health-system-18938/

Also, if he is the same guy, he was told in Canada that they would have to crack his chest for the surgery, when he came here they had a more advanced procedure where they went through the arm pit to do the surgery and avoided cracking the chest.  If I have to I can track down the other stories as well.  And the Bankruptcy issue can be dealt with with limited reforms to the system.  It doesn't take a complete takeover by the government to fix it.  Besides, bankrupt is still better than being dead, and if you can't pay, what would they do besides wait for you to pay.    Dead is kind of a permanent condition.


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

Higher mortality rates in women in their 80's who have breast cancer in England.  

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/uom-loc032907.php


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 30, 2010)

He could have had the surgery in another province. He chose to go to the US.

Anybody can cherry pick horror stories. Botom line is that you have no idea how the system really works. It's always been there for me. Cases are prioritized. 

Is it perfect? not at all. It does beat the US system. Just peruse these forums, it's full of people who describe injuries and ask for advice because they can't go to the doctor.

I suggest you start broadening your sources of information.


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

Are they prioritizing beds in maternity wards in England?  Apparently they don't have enough of them for all the ladies with babies.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/278301


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

It looks like they may be prioritizing baby deliveries in Canada as well. 

http://www.womensenews.org/story/medicine/101220/canada-faces-growing-loss-maternity-wards

"Scarcity of Health Care Providers
The Ontario Medical Association, for instance, projects that 10,000 women will not have any healthcare provider of any kind by 2012. The Niagara Health System says that the scarcity in providers, particularly obstetricians and gynecologists, is one reason behind their decision to centralize maternity care."

I guess socialism is working, if thats what you mean by working in Canada.  The internet is a wonderful thing.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 30, 2010)

Big Don said:


> How dare you denigrate his service? He enlisted of his own free will and served. He followed orders and was killed doing his duty, yes, that is tragic. But, it is also honorable.
> Don't you dare lessen the sacrifices made by servicemen just to push your preferred policies!


Don! Big News... I actually agree with you. I _must be comi_ng down with something.
Sean


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

I am going to possibly move the healthcare success stories to another thread, just to let you know.  This one is a little used up.  THanks for the comments and the debate.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 30, 2010)

My nine year old nephew has had and continues to have more surgeries then any child should ever go through, there would be no possible way my sister, and our extended family could have ever paid for all of them. 

A couple of years ago my sister was visiting my Aunt and Uncle in Scotland, my Nephew, the same boy, had to be rushed to their emergency department because of a medical issue. Not even a citizen of the UK, the Drs treated him, and sent him on his way, no cost, no mess, no fuss, no money, no insurance. No problem.  

A few years ago both my Mom and Dad had serious health issues, my Mom had cancer, my Dad had heart problems. All happened in the same week. Quicker then you can snap your fingers, my Dad was in the best hospital, with the best Dr having a triple bypass, and my Mom was in the best hospital with the best cancer specialist have surgery and subsequent radiation and drug treatments. Minimal waiting, no ********, get in and get it done.

Our system isnt perfect by any means, but when I talk to my American friends, (half of my friends on FB are American), I hear serious horror stories when it comes to medical treatment.  

What Obama is doing, with you folks being forced to buy health insurance from private companies is wrong, there are much better ways to run national health care.

BTW, did I ever tell you that Im a Conservative party member? Card carrying? Active in the community? And there is zero chance I or my party will ever get rid of Canadas socialized medical care.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 30, 2010)

OB-GYN is a troubled specialty everywhere.


----------



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

Thoughts on why American medicine costs so much:

http://biggovernment.com/jbambenek/...up-cost-of-medicine-and-limit-patient-choice/


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 31, 2010)

Do I have to do the 'England' lecture again? Billcihak, it's showing your ignorance to keep calling the UK 'England', I'm not surprised though. the Daily Mail story was nearly two years old and refers to Gordon brown as the Prime Minister, the Mail is as right wing as you are and will twist things to make them seem worse. Women aren't giving birth in offices because of a shortage of beds, it's because as all of you with kids will know you can't predict just when the baby will decide to make it's appearance, hence all those odd places mothers give birth in.

Our system isn't perfect either but it on the whole works so stop criticising something you have only read about in right wing papers and articles. The NHS here is supported by people of all shades of political thought, it may not suit you but it's very much what the people here want and that makes it democratic.


----------



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

My very last post was about the U.S. system and why it is screwed up.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 31, 2010)

billcihak said:


> My very last post was about the U.S. system and why it is screwed up.


 
So why are you preaching to 'foreigners' and not out there on the streets protesting ?


----------



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

Well, some of the foriegners do tell me their health services are better than ours, and so when I hear that I crank up the internet and look for the flaws in their systems.  I hear a lot of great NHS stories from Mark Steyn, who is a real fan of the system.

http://socglory.blogspot.com/2009/08/careless-nhs-kills-again-by-mark-steyn.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/186471/paneled-death/mark-steyn

You could look up U.S. horror stories, but I would say that having our government, in particular, take over health care will make those horror stories more common and more severe.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 31, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Well, some of the foriegners do tell me their health services are better than ours, and so when I hear that I crank up the internet and look for the flaws in their systems. I hear a lot of great NHS stories from Mark Steyn, who is a real fan of the system.
> 
> http://socglory.blogspot.com/2009/08/careless-nhs-kills-again-by-mark-steyn.html
> 
> ...


 

*No one here has said that their health services are better than yours*. Your posting up stories about our healthcare seems like trolling. It's as far from the OP as it's possible to be.
It's just sad that you can only find bad things to say about people, I could post up the same amount of stories where people have been saved by the NHS but to what point? The system your government is looking at is nothing like ours, here the NHS was born out of necessity and works because we started it many years ago when the majority of people had no healthcare at all. Your situation is totally different.

The links you posted up, one about the 'death panel' is nearly two years old and nothing of the sort has happened, indeed we actually have a different government now and the other about a woman dying after being sent home is a story of a bad doctor not a bad system, bad doctors or ones who make bad judgements aren't confined to 'socialised' healthcare, it's down to the individual doctor. Paying a lot of money doesn't make you exempt from bad doctors.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 31, 2010)

Because random stories on the internet will give you an acurate picture of our system. Every time I've needed our system, it's been there for me. It's been there for friends and family. 

Those 'horror' stories are often the result of misdiagnosis. That happens everywhere.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 31, 2010)

Well I'm off on nights again, what a way to spend New Year's Eve and see in the New Year! anyway have a good one folks.


----------



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

From Canuchma:  "It does beat the US system"  about the canadian medical system.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 31, 2010)

First off, you should have the common courtesy of spelling user names right.

And yes, I stand by my assertion that the way we pay and cover everybody beats your system.


----------



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

Tez?


----------



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

I am happy for you Canuckma, I hope your system works and keeps working.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 31, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Tez?


 
sorry, uniform is on and off to work, you'll have to wait till I get up tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

Happy new year Tez3.  May the new year be a good one for you and your family.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Happy new year Tez3. May the new year be a good one for you and your family.


 
Thank you and a happy New Year to you and yours. Just back from work and off to bed for a couple of hours.


----------

