or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 39

post #1521 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

I would totally overcharge you, dude.
Try Sea Bright Solar or somebody like that, they have great 230W panels now.

What, are you afraid to show what you really sell? I did not say I would (or even wanted) to buy from you, just wanted to see if you live up to your own hype... I guess if you've got nothing you don't want to show it to me...

And while we are at it. How many businessmen (that plan to stay in business) don't actually want business?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1522 of 2360
I can live without doing business with people who drive 2,500 cars and have limited mental capacity.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #1523 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

I can live without doing business with people who drive 2,500 cars and have limited mental capacity.

What!?! I take offense at that statement.

The car statement is just lame , but the second part, AD HOM in the extreme.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1524 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Yes because the only type of person who would do business with a person who does nothing but pass items along with a large mark up is a person with no mental capacity at all.

Which explains exactly why the business is catering to liberals and shuns conservatives.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1525 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

What!?! I take offense at that statement.

The car statement is just lame , but the second part, AD HOM in the extreme.

Only against people who include themselves in the class. Do you?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #1526 of 2360
Thread Starter 
I'm just trying to figure out who own so many cars and is dumb?

I mean we are talking about someone who owns well over 2,000 cars and for some reason must be an idiot.

Me, I'm content to just drive and own three cars among my family. I don't need 2,500 of them but whoever does own that many likely has even Jay Leno beat.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1527 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Only against people who include themselves in the class. Do you?

Nice wiggle room you try to provide yourself.

"No sir, I was not talking about HIM. Just others that I happen to speak of around him that believe things that he does."

You have personally put me in that class with many of your statements. "I would totally overcharge you dude." And you have made it clear in your past posts that you would only overcharge those you felt were in that class of person.

Oh, and the only persons I know who would own anywhere near that many cars are either a car dealer, manufacturer, business, or the government (there may be more, but show me ONE individual). All idiots to be sure...

Whatever...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1528 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

I am with it. I do not do business with Republicans, and if I have to I will charge them twice as much. Since they are mostly gullible idiots they usually pay more than they have to thinking that they cool.

What Dermdoc didn't mention was that he had a choice. use his 2009 Ferrarri for two years this time instead of getting a new one again each year like he usually does, or lay off his cleaning lady and tell his receptionist to do the cleaning instead.

An oldie but a goodie...
post #1529 of 2360
Hello I'm a resident of Ukraine (it is one of the whilom Soviet republics). I want to ask the American people: Have you heard that we have importunate network marketing agents who walk from house to house and distribute a Vacs Kirby for $ 5000? Is it true that the cost of this hoover in the U.S. 1000 dollars? If this is true, they are confidence tricksters. What is your opinion about this. Sorry for bad English.
post #1530 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by yotsisit View Post

Hello I'm a resident of Ukraine (it is one of the whilom Soviet republics). I want to ask the American people: Have you heard that we have importunate network marketing agents who walk from house to house and distribute a Vacs Kirby for $ 5000? Is it true that the cost of this hoover in the U.S. 1000 dollars? If this is true, they are confidence tricksters. What is your opinion about this. Sorry for bad English.

Honestly, I have never spoken to a Kirby rep so I am not sure how much they charge. I have seen Rainbow vac dealers that charge around 1500 and up for their products. Now are they charging 5000 US? If so then they are probably overcharging you. The Kirby my mother owned lasted forever. Was a great vacuum. But worth 5000? Probably not.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1531 of 2360
There will be more opinions? From such incursions nobody is safe! I am referring to sales agents, if you have forgotten.
post #1532 of 2360
So Much For ObamaCare's Savings:

Quote:
The Democrats' reform is barely out of the gate and the Congressional Budget Office already says its previous cost estimate was too low. Either the bill's supporters lied or they're profoundly ignorant.

Quote:
At some point, Americans will have to deal with reality, such as the CBO's latest analysis. Director Douglas Elmendorf now says the program will probably cost at least $115 billion more from 2010 to 2019 than had been originally thought. So it is now officially a trillion-dollar program though unofficially, meaning realistic estimates made outside the federal government, it could cost as much as $3.5 trillion over its first 10 years.

Quote:
The new estimate, released Tuesday, includes "administrative expenses for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Internal Revenue Service for carrying out key requirements of the legislation" as well as "explicit authorizations for future appropriations for a variety of grant and other program spending."

Quote:
"At a stroke," our reporter David Hogberg wrote Tuesday night on IBD's Capital Hill blog, "that erases almost all of ObamaCare's $143 billion in budget savings based off rushed, incomplete CBO projections given just before the decisive House vote in March."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1533 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

"...the bill's supporters lied..."

Bingo!
post #1534 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Bingo!

Not to be too picky, but...Although I do believe the bill's supporters lied. I didn't actually say that and your quote should have been not of me but of the article I linked to.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1535 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Not to be too picky, but...Although I do believe the bill's supporters lied. I didn't actually say that and your quote should have been not of me but of the article I linked to.

Regrets! I should have been more clear. I have revised my post to indicate precisely that; i.e., the quote.
post #1536 of 2360
Either the supporters of the Iraq war lied, or they were profoundly ignorant. Or they just made an inaccurate prediction. Far more inaccurate, of course, than that of the supporters of the health care bill, but inaccurate nonetheless.

And yes, I know, MJ, that you oppose the Iraq war, and for that I applaud you. But I also hope you see my point.
post #1537 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Either the supporters of the Iraq war lied, or they were profoundly ignorant. Or they just made an inaccurate prediction.

Agreed. I'll go with a mix of these with the majority going toward lying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Far more inaccurate, of course, than that of the supporters of the health care bill, but inaccurate nonetheless.

This is still to be determined. Way too early to know the answer to that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And yes, I know, MJ, that you oppose the Iraq war, and for that I applaud you. But I also hope you see my point.

I think I do see your point, but the question is, do you?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1538 of 2360
Of course I see my point. I made it. What you gather from my statement might be different, I'll grant you that. But my point was, to be clear, that the third phrase was selectively omitted from the artice you quoted in the first post. An article, no doubt written by staunch supporters of the Iraq war. Pointing out their hypocrisy. An hypocrisy which is often the case.
post #1539 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But my point was, to be clear, that the third phrase was selectively omitted from the artice you quoted in the first post. An article, no doubt written by staunch supporters of the Iraq war. Pointing out their hypocrisy. An hypocrisy which is often the case.

Huh? What was omitted from the article? What difference does it make what the writer's stance on the Iraq war is? That's merely a red herring in this discussion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1540 of 2360

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1541 of 2360

The last line is interesting.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1542 of 2360
Oh lookie! Obama basking in his newfound power:

Quote:
The Obama administration had a message Monday for employers who want to keep federal bureaucrats from rewriting the rules for their company medical plans: Don't jack up costs for workers, and you won't have to worry about interference from the new health care law.

Gosh that sounds like a threat. It looks like Obama is looking for some ass to kick.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1543 of 2360
5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts:

Quote:
The best guide to how President Obama's historic health-care legislation will reshape the nation's medical marketplace and fiscal future is the pioneering model in Massachusetts. The Bay State's reform program started in late 2006, and it shares virtually all the major features of the new federal plan.


Quote:
Two years after enacting health-care reform to rein in costs, Massachusetts strengthened "certificate of need laws" that prevent hospitals and other providers from competing with high-cost, entrenched suppliers. The state now requires that ambulatory surgical centers and outpatient treatment facilities get permission from regulators before they can enter the market. Their rivals invariably lobby the regulators to block competition, and usually win.


Quote:
The Obama bill does nothing to eliminate regulations that effectively cartelize the market.


Quote:
The combination of heavily subsidized demand and tight, over-regulated supply is a textbook formula for perpetuating the big, chronic price increases that bedevil today's health-care system.

Instead of attacking the real causes of the explosion in costs -- the combination of overly generous state aid and a dearth of competition among hospitals and physician groups -- Massachusetts is vilifying prestigious, non-profit insurers, and punishing them, believe it nor not, with price controls. In April, Governor Deval Patrick refused the request of carriers such as Harvard Pilgrim, the top-rated plan in the country, for premium increases of 8% to 32%. Instead, his administration is refusing all rate hikes over 7.7%; any rate requests the administration rejects are automatically held at 2009 levels.


Quote:
Even now, four of the biggest insurers are threatening to stop taking new patients at rates so low they lose money on each new enrollee.

The battle in Massachusetts may foreshadow the results of the new federal law. It threatens to mirror precisely the cycle we're witnessing in the Bay State: Spiraling costs that make coverage unaffordable for both patients and businesses, followed by price controls that drive private providers from the market. "This could repeat itself on the national level, and become the beginning of government-run healthcare," says Lora Pellegrini, chief of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans.


Quote:
Lesson 1: The Massachusetts plan does not control costs.
Lesson 2: Community rating, guaranteed issue and mandated benefits swell costs.
Lesson 3: Huge subsidies for low-to-medium earners could prove extremely expensive.
Lesson 4: The exchanges reward people for working less and earning less.
Lesson 5: The generous plans and added mandates give employers an incentive to drop health insurance.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1544 of 2360
Here's an interesting observation:

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1545 of 2360
Remember that lie that was told about Americans able to keep their current health plan under ObamaCare?

The Unmet Promise Of Obamacare
Forbes
Marc Siegel, 06.15.10, 05:18 PM EDT
http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/15/oba...schannellatest
Turns out many patients will not be able to keep their current health care plan.
post #1546 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Remember that lie that was told about Americans able to keep their current health plan under ObamaCare?

The Unmet Promise Of Obamacare
Forbes
Marc Siegel, 06.15.10, 05:18 PM EDT
http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/15/oba...schannellatest
Turns out many patients will not be able to keep their current health care plan.

This is not surprising at all. Of course the (unspoken) plan was to get rid of private insurance. Slowly, gradually, seemingly reasonably and indirectly, but to get rid of it nonetheless until all that was left was the "public option." The US is on track to a single payer system (assuming ObamaCare stays.) This will be heartening for some (those who fantasize about the Utopia they hope and imagine this will bring) and heartbreaking for others (those who know the real consequences this will bring.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1547 of 2360

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1548 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Either the supporters of the Iraq war lied, or they were profoundly ignorant. Or they just made an inaccurate prediction. Far more inaccurate, of course, than that of the supporters of the health care bill, but inaccurate nonetheless.

And yes, I know, MJ, that you oppose the Iraq war, and for that I applaud you. But I also hope you see my point.

Your point is that those who believed that the CIA and NSA were acting on robust proof of WMD were wrong, which included most of Congress at the time. And those who believed that Iraqi society was ready for democracy, the neo-cons in the Pentagon, were also wrong (and in this regard the State dept was right). And finally, that those who believed that Bush and Rumsfeld were following an intelligent and coherent counter-insurgency policy were also wrong - and in this regard McCain was right.

Obviously faith in leadership and in our intelligence agencies was misplaced. Yes I get that point.

But the current medical reform is not going to fail because of a poor Secretary of HEW, or a President who can't make up his mind between the competing views the Dept's of Commerce and HEW. It is not going to fail because we made assumptions about the maturity of the clients we are "helping". And it won't fail because the reform was not defined and never planned in detail.

It is going to fail because it ignores the laws of economics, political experience, and social realities. It is, by its nature, doomed to fail regardless of who runs it or who it is designed to serve or how much of it is planned. And like Iraq, we will have to live with it.

As we learned in Iraq, putting hope before experience and rational analysis is a disaster.

So yes, I do get the point - although I know that is not what you had in mind.

PS (FTRecord I should also note that those who finally paid attention to experience, and advocated the surge, got it right and their left of center critics were very wrong.).
post #1549 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Your point is that those who believed that the CIA and NSA were acting on robust proof of WMD were wrong, which included most of Congress at the time. And those who believed that Iraqi society was ready for democracy, the neo-cons in the Pentagon, were also wrong (and in this regard the State dept was right). And finally, that those who believed that Bush and Rumsfeld were following an intelligent and coherent counter-insurgency policy were also wrong - and in this regard McCain was right.

Obviously faith in leadership and in our intelligence agencies was misplaced. Yes I get that point.

But the current medical reform is not going to fail because of a poor Secretary of HEW, or a President who can't make up his mind between the competing views the Dept's of Commerce and HEW. It is not going to fail because we made assumptions about the maturity of the clients we are "helping". And it won't fail because the reform was not defined and never planned in detail.

It is going to fail because it ignores the laws of economics, political experience, and social realities. It is, by its nature, doomed to fail regardless of who runs it or who it is designed to serve or how much of it is planned. And like Iraq, we will have to live with it.

As we learned in Iraq, putting hope before experience and rational analysis is a disaster.

So yes, I do get the point - although I know that is not what you had in mind.

PS (FTRecord I should also note that those who finally paid attention to experience, and advocated the surge, got it right and their left of center critics were very wrong.).

The minute we found out we were in error and there was no WMD we should have withdrawn from Iraq as soon as we could ( years ago ). However this was never really about the advertised reasons. That's why most of the public was duped on this one. It was about an agenda. That's why the reasons we were there kept changing and why this action was so wrong.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1550 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The minute we found out we were in error and there was no WMD we should have withdrawn from Iraq as soon as we could ( years ago ). However this was never really about the advertised reasons. That's why most of the public was duped on this one. It was about an agenda. That's why the reasons we were there kept changing and why this action was so wrong.

I really don't believe that. I believe there were two reasons, one stated publically and one that every study of geo-strategy acknowledges BUT is politically sensitive. I believe it was a cas of group think on WMD, people who wanted to believe it and who took every scrap as confirming bias.

The other was oil security. Saddam was a constant threat, very annoying, and would not go away. He would mobilize his army periodically just to cause the allies to deploy oversees and then he'd stand down. His seeming willingness to launch another war unless the allies were there and constantly reacting contributed to his demiss.

Yes it was about WMD and Oil (security).
post #1551 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I really don't believe that. I believe there were two reasons, one stated publically and one that every study of geo-strategy acknowledges BUT is politically sensitive. I believe it was a cas of group think on WMD, people who wanted to believe it and who took every scrap as confirming bias.

The other was oil security. Saddam was a constant threat, very annoying, and would not go away. He would mobilize his army periodically just to cause the allies to deploy oversees and then he'd stand down. His seeming willingness to launch another war unless the allies were there and constantly reacting contributed to his demiss.

Yes it was about WMD and Oil (security).

You mean Bush wanted to believe it. Saddam had been a friend/thorn in our side since the late 70's. There was no pressing reason ( no WMD remember ) to attack then ( other than to distract from Bush's failure as a president ). As to the oil which isn't ours they wanted to gain support for a war by false advertising. If the Bush administration had said " We need to secure the oil in the region " Or " We need to free the Iraqi people from their tyrant " ( one of many like this in the world ) they would have never gotten the support for a preemptive strike. Wrong and beneath the dignity of this great country ( which became the bad guys that day ). The cost to ourselves and our image to the rest of the world was high. Bad move and wrong. End of story.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1552 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You mean Bush wanted to believe it. Saddam had been a friend/thorn in our side since the late 70's. There was no pressing reason ( no WMD remember ) to attack then ( other than to distract from Bush's failure as a president ). As to the oil which isn't ours they wanted to gain support for a war by false advertising. If the Bush administration had said " We need to secure the oil in the region " Or " We need to free the Iraqi people from their tyrant " ( one of many like this in the world ) they would have never gotten the support for a preemptive strike. Wrong and beneath the dignity of this great country ( which became the bad guys that day ). The cost to ourselves and our image to the rest of the world was high. Bad move and wrong. End of story.

2ND.

Well put!
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #1553 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You mean Bush wanted to believe it. Saddam had been a friend/thorn in our side since the late 70's. There was no pressing reason ( no WMD remember ) to attack then ( other than to distract from Bush's failure as a president ).

I don't see that you offer any support for your belief, other than a prejudice and desire to believe an emotionally satisfying charge. Here's a catchup:

Saddam had been a counter balance after the 79 Iranian revolution, and American foreign policy found it useful to slightly tilt in his direction during Saddam's long war with revolutionary Iran. However, I need to point out that a friend is a nation like the UK, not when we pursue an opportunistic but limited Machiavellian tilt for anti-Iranian purposes. If anything, the American foreign policy establishment saw a continued and unresolved warfare between the parties somewhat satisfying and useful (although a danger to gulf oil shipping).

Anyway, there were several pressing reasons to attack Iraq. a) the "regime change" decade of policy by Clinton was getting nowhere b) 9/11 introduced the potential of aid to world-wide terrorists by Saddam (something he had already done with others) c) the Saudis were pressing the end of the no-fly zone protection of Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, and the withdrawal of US bases d) Saddam had ended inspections, sabre rattled about his weapons programs. e) Europeans were pressing hard to end sanctions (starving children propoganda).

Not only did Bush want to believe, but so did his advisor's, the CIA, and others. Everyone, after 9/11, tended to give more credibility to intelligence than was warranted.

Finally, given the knowledge at the time, I think invading Iraq was the only prudent choice left. It was obvious that Europeans were pressing hard to end the embargo (lots of propaganda about starving Iraqi children) while Saudis were pressing hard to shut down bases. Even if there was only a 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 chance that Saddam was developing atomic weapons, not invading could have tragic and unacceptable consequences.

Quote:
As to the oil which isn't ours they wanted to gain support for a war by false advertising. If the Bush administration had said " We need to secure the oil in the region " Or " We need to free the Iraqi people from their tyrant " ( one of many like this in the world ) they would have never gotten the support for a preemptive strike. Wrong and beneath the dignity of this great country ( which became the bad guys that day ). The cost to ourselves and our image to the rest of the world was high. Bad move and wrong. End of story.

Of course regions oil is not ours. However, the security of the oil supplies of the neighbors of Iraq is important. Saddam threatened that security and the region and without him we would be rid of a future invasion, like the one Saddam launched 10 years earlier. However, you are correct that had Bush cast the war as only one to protect Saudi and other oil supplies then the support would have not been sufficient.

Given what we knew then, it was the correct action - no doubt about it. And even given what we know now, it may have been appropriate. In fact, it is likely we would now face a nuclear armed Iraq by now if we had not.
post #1554 of 2360
What's fascinating (and not the least bit perplexing) to me is how the same people who distrusted the federal government and the President and the Congress over such a thing as the war in Iraq seem so willing to hand over power, control and money of similar proportions for something like health care.

Strange that. \

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1555 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I don't see that you offer any support for your belief, other than a prejudice and desire to believe an emotionally satisfying charge. Here's a catchup:

Saddam had been a counter balance after the 79 Iranian revolution, and American foreign policy found it useful to slightly tilt in his direction during Saddam's long war with revolutionary Iran. However, I need to point out that a friend is a nation like the UK, not when we pursue an opportunistic but limited Machiavellian tilt for anti-Iranian purposes. If anything, the American foreign policy establishment saw a continued and unresolved warfare between the parties somewhat satisfying and useful (although a danger to gulf oil shipping).

Anyway, there were several pressing reasons to attack Iraq. a) the "regime change" decade of policy by Clinton was getting nowhere b) 9/11 introduced the potential of aid to world-wide terrorists by Saddam (something he had already done with others) c) the Saudis were pressing the end of the no-fly zone protection of Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, and the withdrawal of US bases d) Saddam had ended inspections, sabre rattled about his weapons programs. e) Europeans were pressing hard to end sanctions (starving children propoganda).

Not only did Bush want to believe, but so did his advisor's, the CIA, and others. Everyone, after 9/11, tended to give more credibility to intelligence than was warranted.

Finally, given the knowledge at the time, I think invading Iraq was the only prudent choice left. It was obvious that Europeans were pressing hard to end the embargo (lots of propaganda about starving Iraqi children) while Saudis were pressing hard to shut down bases. Even if there was only a 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 chance that Saddam was developing atomic weapons, not invading could have tragic and unacceptable consequences.

Of course regions oil is not ours. However, the security of the oil supplies of the neighbors of Iraq is important. Saddam threatened that security and the region and without him we would be rid of a future invasion, like the one Saddam launched 10 years earlier. However, you are correct that had Bush cast the war as only one to protect Saudi and other oil supplies then the support would have not been sufficient.

Given what we knew then, it was the correct action - no doubt about it. And even given what we know now, it may have been appropriate. In fact, it is likely we would now face a nuclear armed Iraq by now if we had not.

Quote:
Even if there was only a 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 chance that Saddam was developing atomic weapons, not invading could have tragic and unacceptable consequences.

There wasn't even that. Most of the inspectors present there were saying at the time there was nothing to find. And guess what? No WMD. Whatsoever.

You haven't offered anything either as far proof just your opinion.

I've rehashed this a million times with various people here. They've always lost. I don't want to do this again just for you. I know what happened and could offer you a good link to a place that has a time line with references so it's not just their opinion. But we all know you still wouldn't like it. Saddam was mostly a joke at the point we invaded. There was nothing to be gained by preemptively invading accept a loss of our image, lives, and dollars. What a waste of time! Also 10 years from now this region will be no more stable than it was before the war. You should know that. None of what you said changes the fact that what we did was wrong. No matter how you slice it. There is no justification for forgetting our honor. Attacking without being attacked on our soil is wrong.

Quote:
Everyone, after 9/11, tended to give more credibility to intelligence than was warranted.

Not everyone. There was a rather long statement by the late Senator Byrd that said what a stupid idea this was. Bush supporters poo poo the idea and used Byrd's background in the KKK ( when he was very young ) as a justification to discredit.

Also there were many protests at the time. The University where I work had one for example. The timing just happened to be right for this after 911.

Byrd's speech : http://www.swans.com/library/art8/zig078.html


You can go here to see what really happened. http://www.historycommons.org/projec...t=iraq_project This site is not just liberal opinion ( as some have tried to say ) it contains facts that can be looked up independently. So if you don't believe looking it up here you can follow the reference and see it somewhere else for yourself.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1556 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

There wasn't even that. Most of the inspectors present there were saying at the time there was nothing to find. And guess what? No WMD. Whatsoever.

You haven't offered anything either as far proof just your opinion.

I've offered commonly known facts and events, the kind of thing one reads in Newsweek or Time. if you are unaware of one of them I'd be happy to find a link. The "Haliburton" conspiracy is not exactly mainstream nor academic.

And I tend to doubt that the inspectors present said there was nothing to find, or perhaps you don't recall that Hans Blitz told the UN that he needed more time to continue the inspections?

Moreover inspections had already shown their dubiousness when they failed to turn up the Iraqi efforts post Gulf War I, and when the UN was about to certify Iraq clean...that is until his son-in-law defected and reported the program that they missed.

Quote:
I've rehashed this a million times with various people here. They've always lost. I don't want to do this again just for you. I know what happened and could offer you a good link to a place that has a time line with references so it's not just their opinion. But we all know you still wouldn't like it. Saddam was mostly a joke at the point we invaded. There was nothing to be gained by preemptively invading accept a loss of our image, lives, and dollars. What a waste of time! Also 10 years from now this region will be no more stable than it was before the war. You should know that. None of what you said changes the fact that what we did was wrong. No matter how you slice it. There is no justification for forgetting our honor. Attacking without being attacked on our soil is wrong.

I doubt I would lose as my propostion is reasonable. And as it turned out the invasion was a loss of image, lives, and dollars. But was it worth it?

That is an uncertain historical what if. The likihood is that sanctions would have been lifted, Saddam would still be in power, and his nuke program active once again. And it is likely the no-fly zone would have history as Saudis demanded the shut down of bases. Once again "cleansing" would have started up again. The armies expanded etc. Perhaps even a new war from Saddam's reborn 'Salidan" complex.

It will take at least another ten years, and the perspective of history, to determine if this was or was not worth it.
post #1557 of 2360

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1558 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I've offered commonly known facts and events, the kind of thing one reads in Newsweek or Time. if you are unaware of one of them I'd be happy to find a link. The "Haliburton" conspiracy is not exactly mainstream nor academic.

And I tend to doubt that the inspectors present said there was nothing to find, or perhaps you don't recall that Hans Blitz told the UN that he needed more time to continue the inspections?

Moreover inspections had already shown their dubiousness when they failed to turn up the Iraqi efforts post Gulf War I, and when the UN was about to certify Iraq clean...that is until his son-in-law defected and reported the program that they missed.

I doubt I would lose as my propostion is reasonable. And as it turned out the invasion was a loss of image, lives, and dollars. But was it worth it?

That is an uncertain historical what if. The likihood is that sanctions would have been lifted, Saddam would still be in power, and his nuke program active once again. And it is likely the no-fly zone would have history as Saudis demanded the shut down of bases. Once again "cleansing" would have started up again. The armies expanded etc. Perhaps even a new war from Saddam's reborn 'Salidan" complex.

It will take at least another ten years, and the perspective of history, to determine if this was or was not worth it.

Please if you really have links to facts about there being WMD in Iraq shortly before the war lets have them. I'm guessing not because that would be big news.

Otherwise none of what you listed changes the fact that this war was sold under false pretenses. Saying " Oops! " after the fact also doesn't change that. The rest of the american government and it's people were hoodwinked into this. I'm sorry but one group shouldn't have that kind of power in this type of government. And had the voters of this good country known about it before they cast their vote for these people I'm sure they would have made a different choice. This wasn't even a declared war and we've been there how long? And it cost how much?

I'm willing to bet 10 years from now this area will be much the same with someone new.

I've listed a link to a timeline that you can read for yourself. You've supplied your opinion. Let's see some proof of your claims so we can judge for ourelves as to if what you say was the case. Because really once they got there they found Nothing!

And that's pretty damning.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1559 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Please if you really have links to facts about there being WMD in Iraq shortly before the war lets have them...

It was the prevailing Democrat view at the time =>

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton, 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
post #1560 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

It was the prevailing Democrat view at the time =>

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton, 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Now you're just getting nasty. That's hitting below the belt. Where do you get off reminding us all that the Democrats were in on this too?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality