Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Were trailers full of hot air?
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:43:35 +0000, Dave Hall wrote: To which I respond; Yea so? So one lead for a source of uranium turns out to be bogus. Does that mean that Saddam wasn't getting uranium from other sources? Does this one "oops" negate the fundamental reasons why we had to shut Hussein down? Humans make mistakes. Bush may have been a little overzealous, due to the urgency for action. If you knew what he knew, you might be tempted to grease the wheels a little too. Slowly, you are seeing the light. Presidents are allowed to make some mistakes, but overzealousness in going to war is not one of them. A prudent, competent, President would make sure. I'd also like to point out that if the underlying reasons weren't there, there is *no* urgency. *ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the elimination of havens for terrorists. Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... thunder wrote: On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:43:35 +0000, Dave Hall wrote: To which I respond; Yea so? So one lead for a source of uranium turns out to be bogus. Does that mean that Saddam wasn't getting uranium from other sources? Does this one "oops" negate the fundamental reasons why we had to shut Hussein down? Humans make mistakes. Bush may have been a little overzealous, due to the urgency for action. If you knew what he knew, you might be tempted to grease the wheels a little too. Slowly, you are seeing the light. Presidents are allowed to make some mistakes, but overzealousness in going to war is not one of them. A prudent, competent, President would make sure. I'd also like to point out that if the underlying reasons weren't there, there is *no* urgency. *ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the elimination of havens for terrorists. Dave Brutality of Saddam: We are hypocrites in that regard. There are equally brutal regimes in Africa, and your president lets the citizens of those countries dangle in the wind. Stability of the Middle East: Get real. You do not believe for a moment that we contribute to stability. As early as a year ago, numerous Middle Eastern writers were saying that to attack Saddam would strike a blow AGAINST stability. You should stop by this link regularly, and read: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Default.asp Havens: Show me. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Were trailers full of hot air?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:43:35 +0000, Dave Hall wrote: To which I respond; Yea so? So one lead for a source of uranium turns out to be bogus. Does that mean that Saddam wasn't getting uranium from other sources? Does this one "oops" negate the fundamental reasons why we had to shut Hussein down? Humans make mistakes. Bush may have been a little overzealous, due to the urgency for action. If you knew what he knew, you might be tempted to grease the wheels a little too. Slowly, you are seeing the light. Presidents are allowed to make some mistakes, but overzealousness in going to war is not one of them. A prudent, competent, President would make sure. I'd also like to point out that if the underlying reasons weren't there, there is *no* urgency. *ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the elimination of havens for terrorists. Dave Brutality of Saddam: We are hypocrites in that regard. There are equally brutal regimes in Africa, and your president lets the citizens of those countries dangle in the wind. We're sending troops to Africa right now. You can only fight so many battles without risking the dangerous thinning of your military power. Stability of the Middle East: Get real. You do not believe for a moment that we contribute to stability. That depends. Initially, we are just another disruption. But in the long term, if we are successful at creating a democracy in the middle of all those fundamentalist regimes, we can build a foundation to drive other country's to following that model. Once people get a taste of true freedom, how can they be expected to live under the harsh rule of a totalitarian fundamentalist government? And thus the seeds are planted. As early as a year ago, numerous Middle Eastern writers were saying that to attack Saddam would strike a blow AGAINST stability. They're entitled to their opinions, as we are to ours. But they're no more credible. The point is that we at least DID something, to make a change. Sitting around doing nothing, only allows the cancer to grow..... You should stop by this link regularly, and read: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Default.asp Havens: Show me. Do you not read the news? They uncovered a "major" terrorist training camp in the northern section of Iraq, sometime during the middle of the "war". Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Brutality of Saddam: We are hypocrites in that regard. There are equally brutal regimes in Africa, and your president lets the citizens of those countries dangle in the wind. We're sending troops to Africa right now. You can only fight so many battles without risking the dangerous thinning of your military power. We are??? That's interesting. Today's news says: PRETORIA, South Africa (CNN) -- President Bush will decide in the next few days whether to send U.S. troops to Liberia to enforce a cease-fire, according to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. As early as a year ago, numerous Middle Eastern writers were saying that to attack Saddam would strike a blow AGAINST stability. They're entitled to their opinions, as we are to ours. But they're no more credible. Right. What do they know? They're just Arabs who happen to live in the region. Imagine what your response would be if some Arab editor in a Cairo newspaper wrote a column about crime in Philadelphia, never having visited the city. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
... Even those "millions" have access to health care. What they don't have is health care insurance and many of them CHOOSE not to. There's a difference between access to health care and (practical) access to health care insurance, particularly for poor or middle income people. Fact is, the majority of poor people work at low wage jobs. They are on the battle lines of American commerce, actually delivering the services or building the widgets at $10 an hour, or often less. These jobs rarely include health insurance any more. When you're paying $1000-1200 a month for a worker's wages, adding 30, 40, 50 percent to that total to fund health insurance doesn't make economic sense. Gould, we already know most of the prerecorded responses which will be forthcoming from Dave, NOYB, etc. For instance, "Well...then 'they' can better themselves and get higher paying jobs if they don't like the ones they already have. I picked myself up by my bootstraps!" Great idea. What if all of "them" get better jobs? Do you suppose NOYB would mind checking into a hotel with his own toilet cleaning tools? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Even those "millions" have access to health care. What they don't have is health care insurance and many of them CHOOSE not to. There's a difference between access to health care and (practical) access to health care insurance, particularly for poor or middle income people. Fact is, the majority of poor people work at low wage jobs. They are on the battle lines of American commerce, actually delivering the services or building the widgets at $10 an hour, or often less. These jobs rarely include health insurance any more. When you're paying $1000-1200 a month for a worker's wages, adding 30, 40, 50 percent to that total to fund health insurance doesn't make economic sense. Gould, we already know most of the prerecorded responses which will be forthcoming from Dave, NOYB, etc. For instance, "Well...then 'they' can better themselves and get higher paying jobs if they don't like the ones they already have. I picked myself up by my bootstraps!" Actually, I blame the insurance companies for making the insurance unaffordable. Of course, thanks to the McCarron-Ferguson Act, they operate under different rules than the rest of us...making them exempt from many anti-trust laws. The Bush Administration is tackling this issue from the right direction. First, he's squeezing the trial lawyer's profits by pushing punitive damage caps. Secondly, he's squeezing the insurance companies by pushing Association Health Plans (AHP's), that allow organized "groups" to purchase competitive group plans ACROSS STATE LINES. (No longer will the insurance companies be able to "cherry pick" the most lucrative states to operate in). Finally, he's lowering the cost of administering the health care. How? By insuring more people are insured, hospitals and doctors won't be writing off the non-insured patient expenses against the patients that actually pay their bill. I'd love to see Congress repeal the McCarron-Ferguson Act. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Were trailers full of hot air?
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:08:52 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:
*ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the elimination of havens for terrorists. The brutality of Saddam was a given. No one will miss him. Mid-east stability is still a wait and see. As an aside, the mid-east might of already been a stable place, if we had kept our CIA's hands out of it. You are aware that one of the CIA's many mid-east coups was indirectly responsible for Saddam in the first place. Do a search on CIA Kassim Saddam. You might find it interesting. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Were trailers full of hot air?
thunder wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:08:52 +0000, Dave Hall wrote: *ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the elimination of havens for terrorists. The brutality of Saddam was a given. No one will miss him. Mid-east stability is still a wait and see. As an aside, the mid-east might of already been a stable place, if we had kept our CIA's hands out of it. You are aware that one of the CIA's many mid-east coups was indirectly responsible for Saddam in the first place. You are correct. This country does have a very poor record, for interfering in the affairs of other nations, if we feel it's to our best interest. In the case of Iraq and Saddam, they were our friends, because we shared a common enemy, Iran, at the time. Where we go wrong, is that we fail to consider the constantly changing political atmosphere in this region of the world. What might be today's friend, could turn out to be tomorrow's enemy. This practice transcends partisan politics. We tend to judge by our own set of morals and principles, which may be different then that of the people in those other countries. We have a weakness for wanting other countries to be more like us, as we have more rights and freedoms as most other nations. Then we face a catch 22 situation. If we keep our heads out of world politics, we get accused of being "isolationists". If we do become involved, we get accused of trying to police the world. It seems that no matter what we do, we can't seem to please everyone.... Dave |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|