Hambergler

No one is happy in Iraq about anything. There is no freedom if there is no water and you can't make a living or take your kids to school because your afraid they will be blown up.Think Katrina x 10. Whatever the situation, everyone there is blaming the US. The servicemen I spoke with said they were looked at as invaders. Watch this frontline episode. The servicemen are being attacked by the Iraqi army. That we are supposed to be helping???

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/badvoodoo/

__________________

Sara

Iraqis - The Iraqi people are very thankful for what we are doing if you don't realize it but they are as for the gov't I dont know.

Soldiers - They are not getting drafted into this place. They are doing it because they want to and remember that,

__________________
Me - I'll Just blame bush.
Disciple - Bush? Is that some sort of slang for women? - Hahaha I love disciple.

btw Bush = worst president ever.

Razcsak

Rob, you've in no way demonstrated that socialism is detrimental to the long-term health of a society. You've cited socialist governments that fell and claimed that was proof of automatic failure on socialism's fault. Correlation does not equal causation. "I say this based on the past" is not particularly helpful. I don't know to what you are referring, where your sources are, or how, exactly, you've shown the link between socialism and societal collapse.

Rome, for instance, was one of your cited examples. Considering the fall of the Roman empire is usually seen as one of the most interesting examples of societal collapse and the causes are still being debated, claiming it as a "win" against socialism seems a bit preemptive. I suppose one could argue that socialist policies instead of civil war, an extreme culture war, exorbitant spending by the exceedingly wealthy upper class, and a military that became increasingly powerful in the political sphere while weakening itself on the field was the cause of its defeat, but I'm not sure how...

As to the Soviet Union, well, yes, it fell. I never said an aggressive policy of wealth distribution was the answer. I could just as easily make the claim that because the British Empire dissolved, capitalism is clearly unsustainable on a large scale. You have not shown that mostly capitalist countries with some socialist policies are doomed to fall any more than any country with other socioeconomic patterns.

__________________

Rob

Raczsak, I would like to continue discussing the dangers of socialism with you, however, since past socialist governments that have fallen debatably because of socialism cannot convince you of anything significant, I must conclude this discussion by saying this: Socialism's root is Communism, which is simply an attempt at removing freedom from the individual (supposedly for his own good). Many of the men who founded the country that we live in ( the US) spent their lives fighting for the freedom we have today. We should try to preserve that freedom, rather than see how much of it we can give away. On a side note, but more on topic with the original thread, I support Hillary as the Democrat nominee.

__________________
BF2142:|TG-Irr|Robb_the2nd
Cod 4:|TG|Rob

[tR]Greasy_mullet

How about trying a little common sense then? Naw, that wont work either I am sure. My fav history lesson about the failure of socilism is the story of our very first thanksgiving. Here is a link to it if you choose to read it. http://conservativecolloquium.wordpr...or-capitalism/

Socialism fails because it is against human nature and is immoral.

The only way I would ever support a socialist system would only be if every single person involved in the system was in it of their own free will. If that were the case then it would not be immoral and as crazy as it is... it would be their choice to do it.

leejo

With regard to whether we should fight to preserve the freedoms we enjoy today or should embrace socialism, I think we should do whatever works best. Where I think we disagree with our more liberal friends here is what burden of proof should be required before helping oneself to others' money and liberty for "the common good" and what if any deleterious impact socialism has on innovation and improvements.

For example, let's talk about medicine. I have US friends who have lived in Britain who swear that anyone who wants socialized medicine should live there for a little while. We can debate the cost and everything, but how many new procedures are coming out of nations with socialized medicine? How many new diagnostic and surgical devices are they developing? What new medicines are pharma companies in countries with socialized medicine creating?

Yes the US has expensive health care, but a lot, if not all, the cutting-edge stuff is happening within the US medical system. That's not cheap, and somebody has to pay for it somehow. I'm not aware of countries with socialized medicine leading the charge in this area, but if someone has some facts I'm happy to listen.

Slight aside: FWIW if anyone of you ever gets or has a loved one with cancer, you have two choices: MD Anderson in Houston or Sloan Kettering in NYC. The gap between 2 and 3 is stark, and it's critical that the diagnosis and treatment plans are set up properly. There are literally 2 places on earth who are really good at that.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/heal...p?spec=ihqcanc

Razcsak

Ah, so we're back to the socialism = communism = bad (bcuz I sed so) argument. I see. I take it you're opposed to health care in general, welfare, public transportation, employee rights, minimum wages of any sort, any form of union rights, mandated safety requirements, government loans for college students, taxes paying for military service, or any government involvement in the work place whatsoever? They're all socialist ideals and were decried as such in the wonderful days of the industrial revolution. Thanks, but what we saw there was far more an example of "everyone is poor" than what we have now. Yes, you had the exorbitantly rich, but the wage differential was such that you had no middle class to speak of. You had the tiny class of grossly wealthy upper class and the vast majority of the working class being unable to have access to basic living needs. That seems far more immoral than a universal health care and reasonable minimum wage, as well as basic safety requirements.

"Against human nature?" What, are you a sociopathic monster? I'm one of the colder-hearted people I know and have sat by and watched people die, while being able to help them, because they had papers that said I shouldn't. I had absolutely no problems doing this. I do have a problem standing by and amassing wealth to the great detriment of others. Mothers caring for children is against human nature? Societies are against human nature? Altruism (admittedly, all altruism is inherently selfish) is against human nature? Remind me never to get injured near you, since apparently you don't think that helping people is human nature.

Greasy, I take it you're either an anarchist or an extreme libertarian, since I can't think of anybody else crazy or stupid enough to want to revert back to the early days of industrial exploitation. The "immoral" part of your rather ignorant castigation of socialism implies that you subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent theories and think that helping others only encourages weakness. Well, good luck to you, sir. I hope that a purely utilitarian and consequentialist worldview serves you well after you abuse and use everyone around you for your own ends.

edit: Leejo, you have your anecdotal evidence and I have mine. The Brits I know say that while it has problems, they like not having to shell out exorbitant insurance fees for hospital coverage. I will acknowledge that medical research takes money, and the greater effort spent on developing new treatments is reflected in the higher cost of US health care. I simply feel that too much of the research (it being a market-driven economy) is going toward improved cosmetic surgeries and other entirely unnecessary treatments. Elective surgeries are, in comparison to European countries, cheaper (relative to normal HC costs) here, but that is only because of the far higher normal cost of health care. Personally, I'd like to think that people could forgo their third nose job or breast enhancement surgery so that more people could get the preventative care they need, but I guess that's me. One reason the UHC costs are lower is that people go to the hospitals more frequently. Prevention is actually an important part of medical care and with access to more hospital visits, people with UHC tend to be healthier in general. The US pricing system typically forces people to wait until the hospital visit becomes imperative, which drives the costs up for everyone. Surgery is expensive.

Further, the disparity in research is nowhere near as much as conservative pundits would like you to believe. We are not the only country putting money into medical research. I'll get data for you in a few minutes.

edit2: Almost every developed country spends between 1.5 and 3% of their GDP on medical research. The only exception I noted in my cursory search was Sweden, which spends 4%. The US spending, incidentally, was ~97 billion USD in the last year. Private funding is both more efficient and more prone to developing absolutely useless drugs, in terms of patient survival. Yes, the US puts out a extraordinary amount of new pills. Shame they're mostly weight loss pills, impotency pills, hair loss pills, and so forth.

__________________

AMosely

This thread sure is going all over the map, which is odd because Obama and Clinton are about 90% the same in their approach to the issues presented in this thread.

Regarding the talk of what the Iraqi people think - the Brookings Institution (as well as the UN and some media agencies) has been conducting opinion polls in Iraq for the last several years and provides an archive of their data. According to a February 2008 poll, 73% of Iraqis do not support the presence of coalition troops in the country. 53% think that the situation in Iraq will improve following the withdrawal of coalition forces. These are just polling statistics - my point is that you cannot summarize the will or opinion of a nation of people as going one way or another, or right or wrong.

I accept that there is clear evidence of Iran's military supplying insurgent activity in Iraq, but do not accept that Iran is a terrorist organization. Of course this depends on one's definition of a terrorist organization, which as we all know is blurry. Back to the original talking point, though, I also don't think you can say the Iranian government's distrust of America was a result of failed diplomacy - unless you call Operation Ajax an act of diplomacy. Regardless, Iran's participation in Iraq is chiefly rooted in what they see as a decades-long struggle with a bordering Muslim nation (Iraq). The fact that their efforts are killing American soldiers is a side effect, whether it is calculated or not. Look at it this way - if coalition forces were to withdraw from Iraq, Iran would still be supporting an insurgency. Their goal is to secure a foothold in Iraqi power.

Syria, again, as a bordering nation, has a legitimate interest in Iraqi security. We may not agree with their tactics, but we must at least acknowledge their role in the conflict. If Russia were to 'liberate' Mexico, would America have a right to represent their interests there?

Such is the game of global empire, and it's been playing out ever since WWII and somewhat before that. I firmly believe that a new kind of empire building began in the 1950's and is responsible for much of the regional conflict in this world today. America isn't hated for its freedom - it's hated for its overzealous foreign influence, which continues to this day.

This is an opinion, and is discredited by the factual record. Historically the only end to terrorism has begun with dialogue - which sometimes leads to negotiation. The Irish Republican Army, Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization - these were terrorist organizations whose wars were resolved through dialogue, which often led to negotiation. Today, the Israeli/Palestinian peace is failing because Israel (sponsored by the US) refuses to include Hamas in any dialogue. If both sides turn their backs, nothing changes - the fighting continues. In the case of Palestine, the war is entering its third generation. To 'put down' Hamas, it would involve killing or otherwise incarcerating an entire population of people. Historically, that approach fails. Historically, the claim 'we will fight these terrorists until we are victorious' fails.

You don't think you're reading into this too much? The flag pin only became popular after 9/11 - it stands for patriotism. I think it's fair to say that Obama is unpatriotic for not wearing the flag pin, but it is going a bit far to say he doesn't support 'the idea of our country.' I'm not even sure what the 'idea of our country' is at this point. I do know what he's up to - he's trying to get elected to the office of President.

Actually it had more to do with the battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, and that it was an election year. Americans, at the time, did not support going after Bin Laden. I also think you are confusing the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which are two very separate organizations with very different goals.

Again, I think you are confusing the Taliban with Al Qaeda and vice-versa. The Taliban reluctantly harbored Osama Bin Laden in the 90's, and in fact took money from the Saudi's with the promise that they would keep him contained. Initially the Taliban was weary of Osama's grand plans of jihad, and feared that his ambitions would bring war back to Afghanistan (they were still recovering from fighting the Soviets and the Northern Afghan tribes). As Bin Laden began receiving money and volunteers, the Taliban warmed up to him because he provided money and arms and supported their religious rule. The Taliban had barely secured their Islamic state (as brutal as it was) and didn't want to lose it. They knew what they needed to do when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan - go into hiding and resort to terrorism. With the U.S. being focused on Iraq, the Taliban has been able to regain much of what they lost, although coalition forces still battle them on a daily basis.

Frontline provided a good documentary of the Taliban over the past decade in a recent documentary.

I'm actually expecting the opposite, because the White House would have done anything to boost support for the war. We'll see. Impeachment orders weren't drawn up on Bush because Congress didn't have the votes. It was discussed in the offices of certain Senators. It also wouldn't have changed much because the damage (the invasion of Iraq) was well underway.

I think you may have missed this.

It's a social concept - it (white priviledge) has little to do with rich or poor and more to do with the simple privilege of not having to live with racism as an intrinsic property in your life. Try to see the bigger picture and not look at specific examples like loud-mouthed rap artists, political preachers or even someone you may know who you feel is undeserving. We do not live in a land of equal opportunity, and a significant part of that is due to race, but very few try and understand it or even acknowledge it at all. This is what I have in mind when I hear white people offer their opinions on Obama's history or approach to issues of race.

One thing I've noticed is how easily race seems to trump gender in this campaign, at least so far. If there wasn't a black man running, you can imagine that the press would be going off on gender bias and imbalance in this country. I think this is understandable - race is a wider and deeper problem - but the overshadowing is interesting to witness (to me, anyway).

AMosely

Actually my father-in-law is battling lung cancer right now and is getting more results from doctors from Dana Farber (in Boston) than doctors at Sloan-Kettering.

If these U.S. news rankings are done anything like their College rankings (which many schools, including my own, have disavowed), I think they should be regarded as a kind of sterile opinion and not much more.

Hambergler

Who said they want Englands system. Politicians talk alot, but at the end of the day they do little to change the status quo. In all probability there will be broader requirements for Medicaid. Big deal. Almost Everything will stay the same. 90% of medical bills are currently picked up by the government anyway through Medicare. By definitions set here we are already a communist country. Perhaps it's time to move to Somalia, they have no government there.

__________________

leejo

I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather. I'm going to disagree with you on the SK/MDA thing, and I only listed the US News thing as a piece of off-the-cuff supporting evidence. My friends in the medical field tell me that whenever a Dr. they know gets cancer, he or she beats a hasty trail to MDA.

It's certainly possible to get good treatment elsewhere, just as it's possible to get an excellent education without attending Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. However, the best cancer professionals in the world are highly concentrated at MDA and SK. What often happens is the local hospital will diagnose someone with lung cancer - a carcinoma or a sarcoma - hack out a lung and pump the patient full of chemotherapy, which is horrible, when in fact the person has a form of lymphoma that is slow-growing and unlikely to cause death before the patient dies of natural causes.

Anyone can execute the treatment, but MDA and SK are the only places where you can be assured that the diagnosis and treatment plans are correct.

But of course you're free to disagree, seek other opinions, whatever.

Rob

Said it better than I could (though maybe more bluntly )

btw, I think it is rather sad what people think (or don't think) human nature is today. There are other sides to human nature. In fact, Raczsak, why do you want to help people? I'm not at all saying that we shouldn't help people, but I'm asking this because if human nature is all there is, than it is for the good of mankind to kill off the old and the weak. It is something else that drives man to do good deeds, not human nature (I hope you know what I'm getting at.)

__________________
BF2142:|TG-Irr|Robb_the2nd
Cod 4:|TG|Rob

leejo

Huh? Socialism is about helping people? No. Socialism is about government-enforced redistribution of wealth.

I help people all the time. I give money to various charities and non-profits. My wife gives our stuff to charity. She volunteers her time to charity, and so do I (though less often, since I'm usually in a different state from my home).

If we want to talk about helping people, let's have that discussion. I thought we were talking about government-mandated help, which is also talking about government-assured help. If we're going to talk about socialism, we need to talk about the effects on both the helpers and the helpees.

Razcsak

Taxes are government-forced redistributions of wealth. Are we, as a US society, therefore socialist? Where is the line drawn? People here decided that universal health care was the sign of a socialist government while all the other welfare programs that the US supports are signs of a healthy capitalist society, or some such inanity. I am merely defending the concept of universal health care (or socialized medicine, if it helps you demonize it), not socialism at its core. I can, if you'd like, but I have been trying to keep the discussion within the realm of facts and data related to the merits of a governmental-run health care system. It is you all who keep using it as an excuse to lambast socialism (which most of you, like most United States citizens, conflate with communism) rather than actually debating the relative value of a government-run health care.

Leejo: Perhaps you missed a few pages back where I did describe why I feel that the data so far supports a universal health care system. Suffice it to say that the Europeans systems, to date, are cheaper per capita (that's across the board, mind you) and are more effective by the major nationally recognized markers. You're welcome to read back a few pages.

Now, your statement about the concentration of oncology specialists at a specific hospital implies that you feel that socialized medicine would somehow remove this specialty from the world, or that switching to a socialized system would remove the incentive to become a specialist. I don't see the logic in that particular step. The US currently has some of the best specialty clinics in the world, yes. This is partially due to the private practice, also granted. Do you feel that having the best hospital in the world, available only to the rich, is worth having the 29th best, and simultaneously most expensive per capita, health care in the world? I do not.

__________________

leejo

Taxes aren't necessarily about redistribution of wealth. Sometimes taxes are about funding infrastructure projects like roads or military or regulatory agencies.