Socialism is not Stalinist Communism.
Obama is not proposing or even suggesting that America cease capitalism in any way, he is proposing that America adopt the same medical care system that every other Western nation has; socialized medicine.
Calm down, I know, I know it's got that word in it; socialism.
Are you relaxed?
Now why don't you take the time to understand what socialized medicine is and how it works and yes I know... calm down, it has flaws but all systems have flaws, no system is perfect but its flaws don't outweigh the benefits in this case and further more the flaws in socialized medicine aren't actually all that different than the ones found in insurance companies profit medicine
See you can actually have some components that have socialist underpinnings without actually having the bread lines.
And no, it's not going to creep out and mug your economic system when you're not looking.Comment Posted By salvage On 16.11.2008 @ 15:16
It has become clear in the last few months that our democracy experiment in Iraq was in more trouble from defeatists and political opponents at home than it was from either al-Qaeda or the insurgency.
That doesn't make any sense, do you even think about what you write?
The "experiment" failed because of the mad scientists that throught they could slap together a country after blowing the hell out of it. Your Dear Leader and his minions screwed up and you'll blame everyone but them to protect your own fevered ego.Comment Posted By salvage On 14.10.2006 @ 17:32
Yr. Fthfl. Svnt.
Wow, that answers none of my points! Ha!Ha!Ha! Yes itâ€™s because I hate Bush that heâ€™s screwed everything up! Me and reality and about 60% of Americans! We all hate America!
International law huh? So you think that the U.S. should follow it? A big supporter of the UN are you? Iâ€™m surprised! So I guess you think America should invade Israel to enforce the various international laws theyâ€™ve broken? Like using cluster bombs on civilians? Or are you a bit more selective, one of those who only get puffed up about the law when you like what itâ€™s saying? Cuz hereâ€™s the thing Sparky, under international law the invasion of Iraq WAS ILLEGAL. See with no WMD there was no threat to the U.S., no threat to U.S. no legal rational for war.
ïƒ˜ And I am tired of people making outrageous claims they refuse to even attempt to back up.
Umâ€¦ reportâ€¦ backs it upâ€¦ numbers, statistics, sourcesâ€¦ did you read it ?
>respect for the will of the people in a country like Iraq
Majority of Iraqis want the Coalition forces gone or is your respect for the will of the Iraqi people as adjustable as your support for international law?
>They actuallly had an election, that should count for something.
Ah yes, a few in fact and to have them they had to shut the country down and theyâ€™re still under martial law. Their â€œgovernmentâ€ is hidden in a fortress because if they ever met in a half-public venue theyâ€™d be massacred. Thatâ€™s quite a stable democracy Bush has made there, you should be very proud. So no, it counts for nothing because Iraq is a war zone and the Iraqis are targets and that â€œdemocracyâ€ is about as stable as Mel Gibson at a Bar Mitzvah with an open bar.
>550,000 dead in two years is insane. It is a bizarre claim.
Do you even understand the report? Itâ€™s not saying that 550,000 Iraqis died in specific ways, itâ€™s saying 550,000 Iraqis have died since the occupation from everything to degrading infrastructure, disease, infant mortality, natural causes as well as the violence. Itâ€™s an overall snapshot of a country that is collapsing under the weight of an endless civil war. Itâ€™s neither bizarre nor surprising. You just donâ€™t like it so youâ€™re deciding that it simply cannot be true. That is called denial and it is neither helpful or healthy.
Now letâ€™s say that for a second the numbers are true, Iâ€™m not saying you have to believe that, letâ€™s just pretend that you have been given rock solid, indisputable proof that the numbers are complete and accurate.
Would this change your support of the invasion and occupation?
I think the majority of you would still be â€œRah! Rah! Goooo Dubya!â€ because the alternative is something you simply could not handle; Bush has screwed everything up and yâ€™all helped him along.
But thank Jesus, Budah, Allah, Zeus, Odin and Bill Hicks that the majority of Americans have finally woken up and realized what many of us knew a long time ago. GW Bush is and will always be a miserable failure.
Yâ€™all are a minority, enjoy!Comment Posted By salvage On 12.10.2006 @ 09:01
Right Iâ€™m hungry so letâ€™s make this quickâ€¦
Yes, some of the jihadis learned new tricks in Iraq. SO DID WE.
And what are those tricks? Seen the latest casualty figures for the coalition forces?
Do you even understand the nature of the conflict? Do you know what a massive advantage the terrorists have there? They donâ€™t have a fraction of the training, resources or skills of the worldâ€™s most advanced and lethal fighting force and yet they manage to murder two to three coaltion soldiers a day.
Think about that.
Terrye Iâ€™m tired of people like you, Iâ€™m tired of you recycling the same stupid nonsense as if somehow reports of bad news magically puts terrorists in Iraq and guns in their hand. If you think that the violence in Iraq would magically disappear if people stopped noticing it than I canâ€™t help you.I do hope one day you join reality and realize that people pick up guns for a wide variety of reasons. CNN is not one of them.
Karl Iâ€™m sorry I have one of these busted calendars that say the year is 2006 not 1943 and these stupid atlas and history books of mine insist that Iraq is not Germany. Weird huh?
And you donâ€™t think the first Gulf War was a success because Iraqis died at the hands of Saddam rather than a mÃ©lange of terrorist groups, criminals and Marine crossfire? Gosh Iâ€™m sure even when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking Saddamâ€™s hand on behalf of your government you were deeply concerned about Iraqâ€™s human rightâ€™s record. I have no doubt that if we were to compare contributions to Amnesty International during that era that our checking accounts would sync right up.
Funny thing, the President Bush that wasnâ€™t a miserable failure wrote this about why he didnâ€™t go to Baghdad:
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Well thank goodness that didnâ€™t happen!Comment Posted By salvage On 11.10.2006 @ 16:07
Thatâ€™s a true fact. But the war ended in about six weeks.Comment Posted By salvage On 11.10.2006 @ 14:22
Hahahahah! Oh my, too bad the other side doesnâ€™t see it like that. Is that how you comfort yourself? We won! Why donâ€™t they acknowledge that they lost?!?! You go tell that to the marines, you go tell them theyâ€™re not in a war.
As for the rest, flypaper bullshit. Afghanistan, guess where theyâ€™ve learnt all them IED tricks? Tell me all the time money and men poured into Iraq, they wouldnâ€™t make a difference in Afghanistan? Seriously? Gettoutahere.
If I were an pro-war conservative Iâ€™d be for the invasion of Iraq, preferring instead that terrorists, insurgents and criminals be left free to continue killing Iraqis at a rate the Lancet addressed in these endless war days. Iâ€™d also hope I never have to explain that to an Iraqi who had lost a loved one to terrorists, insurgents and criminals' mass graves, or his daughter to terrorists, insurgents and criminals' appetites, or his village to shock'n'awe or clean and hold or whatever they're calling it this week.
See thatâ€™s a saw that cuts both ways, Iâ€™m under the impression that many of you donâ€™t care how Iraqis die as long as Saddam has nothing to do with it.
Think about that.
Yeah, that different war from a different time, with different people for different reasons. I think that it has absolutely nothing to do with this war. I think if you need to look at the casualty rates of one war to make yourself feel better about another that you may have a problem.
But hey, you want to start talking past wars letâ€™s talk Vietnam, letâ€™s talk the first Gulf War and why it was a success and why this one is a miserable failure. Isnâ€™t it interesting how different the casualty rates are?
Why donâ€™t you think about that?Comment Posted By salvage On 11.10.2006 @ 14:17
How many Iraqi civilians have died? A dozen? Two? A hundred? A thousand? What is your limit I wonder? What number would make you sit there, self-satisfied and righteous that the Iraq invasion was still a good idea? Well whatever that number is letâ€™s pretend for a second that it is in fact that correct number (Iâ€™m sure it just comes in under Saddamâ€™s body count).
Do you see the violence ending anytime soon? Do you see being an Iraqi civilian getting any safer? Do you see an end to the civil war? The terrorism? The crime?
Do you see the point or are you so desperate to protect your fevered ego that four years from now when there are even more dead civilians and even more statistics describing the deaths youâ€™ll still be spouting the same tired bullshit?
Iraq civilians are dead, America is responsible*, deal with it.
*No, no, I donâ€™t mean that America deliberately targeting civilians calm down. What I mean is that because America invaded and occupied Iraq, Iraqâ€™s security became Americaâ€™s responsibility. Every time a civilian dies in Iraq at the hands of the terrorist America is ultimately responsible. Not fair? Guess you shouldnâ€™t have invaded huh?Comment Posted By salvage On 11.10.2006 @ 12:08
And it means that those responsible for these policies must be brought to justice. Not just the perpetrators of the torture, but those who formulated and approved whatever guidelines the soldiers were using to justify these barbarous and unholy acts.
Yup.Comment Posted By salvage On 5.08.2005 @ 11:29
Pages (1) :