For those who think Bush is the problem...read.

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703709804575202072055128934.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

If people from places like Syria and North Korea can respect what George stood for...why cant others? Maybe it is because they never lost their freedoms?

Dubya may not be the greatest politican by any stretch, but I think in standing up to dictators, he didn't do as bad as people think...

[Eki]

Nor is Mr. Hendi a fan of this administration's efforts to engage the regime, most recently by deciding to send an ambassador to Damascus for the first time since 2005. "This gives confidence to the regime," he says. "They are not capable of a dialogue; they don't believe in it. They believe in force."

Bush was also not capable of a dialog and believed in force. He tried to bully other countries to do his way, Syria and North Korea only bully their own. Bush tried to be a global dictator instead of a local dictator.

[anthonyvop]

Bush was also not capable of a dialog and believed in force. He tried to bully other countries to do his way, Syria and North Korea only bully their own. Bush tried to be a global dictator instead of a local dictator.

So lame!

I could care less if other countries like us.

I want them to respect us. The US was respected much more under Bush than it is now.

[fandango]

No matter who is in the White House, there will always be some who feel ignored and some who feel empowered.

I like the way Obama seems detached - it's not the USA's job to solve the world's problems. But it's also worth noting that the baby Obama was left holding was quite different to what Dubya inherited, and who's fault is that? Well, that's a debate for years and years...

[BDunnell]

I could care less if other countries like us.

What you mean is 'couldn't care less'. It does help add weight to one's arguments if they are written coherently.



I want them to respect us. The US was respected much more under Bush than it is now.

Can we have a drug test for Tony, please?

Opinion surveys in Europe have shown exactly the opposite view coming across, which can only be a good thing.

[Tomi]

I want them to respect us. The US was respected much more under Bush than it is now.

Lol, by who was us respected during bush, and what make you think that way?

[BDunnell]

Dubya may not be the greatest politican by any stretch, but I think in standing up to dictators, he didn't do as bad as people think...

Well, that 'standing up' to Iran and North Korea did bugger all good, didn't it? Did he 'stand up' to Robert Mugabe? Not a bit. And his stance on Iraq was less than heroic. By the time Bush came to power, we know full well that the Ba'athist regime under Hussein had been effectively emasculated, not least militarily, in which sense it posed no threat to anyone whatsoever. What the actions of the Bush regime did far more effectively than 'stand up' to dictators was impress the American right by virtue of its own brand of bellicose fundamentalism.

[EuroTroll]

Well, the Baltic States were certainly beneficiaries of Bush's approach to foreign policy. Without strong American support, we would have never been admitted to NATO in the midst of very strong Russian opposition. Would we be accepted now, after Obama's "restart" in relations with Russia, with a much "softer" American approach? I doubt it. The Balts are certainly thankful and consequently contribute more than most (per capita) to American/NATO war efforts. At one point during the recent election in Afghanistan, Estonia actually had more troops on the ground per capita than the US.

That said, I wouldn't say Bush ever inspired that much respect. The everyman quality that endeared him to Americans left him open for so much ridicule in Europe that... And then there's the question of competence. What do you call it when a conservative president doubles the national debt and significantly limits personal freedoms? Overreaction, poor judgement. And then the needless war in Iraq...

If I were American, I'd miss Clinton, not Bush. Leaving aside what I think were the totally insignificant sex scandals, I think Clinton was an excellent president, for the US and for the world.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, I will just say if Bush did nothing about Mugabe, neither has Obama. Obama has a foreign policy of mainly confusing and contradicting stances. He is for Israel, then he ticks off its president and snubs him publically. He enters office, and the first thing he does is send back a famous gift (the Bust of Churchill that sat in the oval office) to the UK and sends the Queen an Ipod of HIS speeches on it. I mean...Dubya has his faults, but he spoke out against places like Syria and Myanmar oppressing their people. He also didn't tolerate much with the North Koreans.

VOP's point also is well taken if you are honest. It may not be the US's job to be the world's policeman, but it is also not always their job to be loved by everyone either.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, that 'standing up' to Iran and North Korea did bugger all good, didn't it? Did he 'stand up' to Robert Mugabe? Not a bit. And his stance on Iraq was less than heroic. By the time Bush came to power, we know full well that the Ba'athist regime under Hussein had been effectively emasculated, not least militarily, in which sense it posed no threat to anyone whatsoever. What the actions of the Bush regime did far more effectively than 'stand up' to dictators was impress the American right by virtue of its own brand of bellicose fundamentalism.

Well we can put Iraq to bed. I think having Hussein gone isn't a bad thing, but I will agree maybe the war was a pretty expensive way to do it.

That said, the "American Right" against dictators shouldn't bother you. If the western powers were more united on this sort of thing instead of playing paddy cake with them, moral suasion to open up human rights might have a great effect. I look no further than the example set by Apartheid. When did South Africa truly cave in? When people like PM Mulroney of Canada working on Reagan and Thatcher to come to the world's view that any and all forms of boycott of South Africa were neccessary. The minute Reagan started to join the chorus, things changed.

IF the Western world is UNITED on asking oppressive regimes to smarten up, often events push those nations into a much more progressive stance on human rights. Mugabe exists because the nations of the world tend to ignore African issues.....Just like Rwanda was a slaughter because Clinton ignored it, and Darfur is an issue because the world ignores that officially too. Everyone knows there is a problem, but no one says anything. Bush's greatest crime wasn't standing up stronger against clowns like Mugabe and the thugs in Sudan...

[BDunnell]

Well, I will just say if Bush did nothing about Mugabe, neither has Obama.

And neither has anybody, but that's not the point I'm making, which is about the deeply selective nature of the stance of Bush (and Blair, for that matter) in relation to unpleasant regimes. I cannot think of any defence that can be mounted of this.


Obama has a foreign policy of mainly confusing and contradicting stances. He is for Israel, then he ticks off its president and snubs him publically.

What is wrong with that stance? There are many of us who, unlike some, would defend the right of Israel to exist but criticise its policies. I am pleased to see Obama reflecting this widespread view. Supporting the continued existence of Israel in the face of threats does not mean that one should offer unconditional backing to its leadership on every issue. Unfortunately, Israel has never appreciated this and takes every criticism as a serious affront.


I mean...Dubya has his faults, but he spoke out against places like Syria and Myanmar oppressing their people. He also didn't tolerate much with the North Koreans.

To what end? And he was hardly a vehement human rights campaigner before he took office.

[BDunnell]

Well we can put Iraq to bed.

Until all foreign forces are out of Iraq and the country is genuinely a peaceful, stable place once more, we can't put it to bed. I'm afraid the (North) American right, and Blair and his acolytes, won't get people to just 'move on' from the issue of Iraq just by saying that they should.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ben, what Obama is doing with Nethanyu is personal in how he attacks him.

Mark my words, Obama is a very thin skinned idealogue and he isn't above getting personal in showing his displeasure. Apparently he had Benjamin cooling his heels in the Oval Office while he had dinner with his kids. Not sure on how this diplo thing is supposed to work, but I do believe that sort of message is just childish.

AS for Bush's lack of campaigning about human rights before he was elected, maybe he saw the light once he was in the Oval office? Cant criticize the man for being late to the party if he arrives and recognizes the wrongs being done and uses his office to add pressure. My point is, and always was, that he isn't the dope he has been portrayed at, and some of the things he has done in the 3rd world have been ignored by the opponents. The US spent WAY more on foreign aid in Africa on anti-AIDS prevention and treatments than Clinton did, and it was Bono who pointed THAT out, hardly a Bush acolyte.

As for the Americans getting out of Iraq, I suspect Obama would have had them out yesterday if the country would stand on its own. Most Americans want their troops out of there, both left and right. However, this goes under the category of "you broke it, you bought it"....and the US and the UK have a moral duty to at least leave the nation on some sort of footing of self sufficiency. This being the Arab world, that usually means a dictator imposing peace. Since that wont do....the troops stay while the Iraqi's figure out this democracy thing and learn to work with it, instead of blowing each other up with large car bombs and the like.

Like I said, there is a very good argument to be made for not having gone to Iraq in the first place, I get that, but it is water under the bridge now...

[anthonyvop]

Lol, by who was us respected during bush, and what make you think that way?

Ask our enemies.....and our "friends."
you see, I don't care about the general public of other nations....I care about the Governments. They respected Bush. Look at Libya. They saw what Bush was doing and cleaned up there act quick.

[BDunnell]

Ben, what Obama is doing with Nethanyu is personal in how he attacks him.

I have seen nothing to object to in this, and I am not someone who is automatically impressed by Obama. It is about time Israel was shown that its 'you're either with us or against us' attitude, not one to have served its interests well, cannot be tolerated.



Like I said, there is a very good argument to be made for not having gone to Iraq in the first place, I get that, but it is water under the bridge now...

No it isn't! There are still people dying there in an armed conflict that would not have occurred had those who knew it was an awful policy to pursue been listened to. This is what we hear ad nauseam from the likes of Blair whose backing was unconditional: 'Let's move on'. No, we won't, thank you very much. Then there's the view of people such as David Cameron who, for some reason, were naive and misguided enough to support the war in the first place and have now realised the error of their ways but are unwilling to admit their mistake: 'If I'd have known then what I know now about how Iraq will turn out...' Neither is that good enough.

[anthonyvop]

Until all foreign forces are out of Iraq and the country is genuinely a peaceful, stable place once more,

Once more?

I guess genocide and political repression is peaceful for you. Not Surprising seeing what flag you wave.

The Republic of Iraq is currently seeing it's greatest moment of peace and stability since it's inception in 1958. The only destabilization occurring is from outside interference. Better known as Iran.

[BDunnell]

Ask our enemies.....and our "friends."
you see, I don't care about the general public of other nations....I care about the Governments. They respected Bush. Look at Libya. They saw what Bush was doing and cleaned up there act quick.

That is revisionist history. Libya was already cleaning up its act some time before Bush came along. Diplomatic relations with many nations had already been restored and trading links set up. Don't forget, it announced in 1998 that it would be giving up the alleged Lockerbie suspect. It was probably not the right man, but the very action of doing so was a deeply symbolic move.

[BDunnell]

I guess genocide and political repression is peaceful for you. Not Surprising seeing what flag you wave.

The flag under my name is the modern flag of post-war Germany. Your point being...?

[Eki]

I could care less if other countries like us.

Neither do Syrians, Iranians and North-Koreans care if other countries like them, at least their leaders don't. You're just like them.

You're just like some Russian youths I saw interviewed on TV. They said they don't care if other countries like Russia, they prefer them to respect and fear Russia.

[Eki]

I want them to respect us. The US was respected much more under Bush than it is now.
:laugh: Respect? I used to like and respect the US before Bush. Under Bush I used every opportunity to crack a joke about the US, ridicule it and criticize it.

[BDunnell]

Neither do Syrians, Iranians and North-Koreans care if other countries like them, at least their leaders don't. You're just like them.

Which, I think, is a perfectly fair and valid point. But it should be remembered that I don't feel that the US' leaders, with one possible recent exception, would agree with the view that they don't care about what the rest of the world thinks of them. It certainly wasn't true of Reagan or Bush senior, two politicians for whom I would never have voted, but whose manner and style were infinitely more acceptable to more people than merely a particular section of the American electorate.

[BDunnell]

:laugh: Respect? I used to like and respect the US before Bush. Under Bush I used every opportunity to crack a joke about the US, ridicule it and criticize it.

Jokes and cracks almost always achieve currency for a reason. No President of whom I can think has done more to destroy the external image of the US, end of story. This is a huge shame, as that view came to mask the many outstanding things about a great country and its people.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No it isn't! There are still people dying there in an armed conflict that would not have occurred had those who knew it was an awful policy to pursue been listened to. This is what we hear ad nauseam from the likes of Blair whose backing was unconditional: 'Let's move on'. No, we won't, thank you very much. Then there's the view of people such as David Cameron who, for some reason, were naive and misguided enough to support the war in the first place and have now realised the error of their ways but are unwilling to admit their mistake: 'If I'd have known then what I know now about how Iraq will turn out...' Neither is that good enough.

So the stability of a country run by a meglomaniac who killed thousands of his own citizen for sport is superior to a country with a democratic base being formed, but is still fighting interethnic conflict? Heck, if you want to blame anyone for Iraq, how about the British foreign office that thought three distinct groups in this part of the world can get along in one nation? Where does it stop?

My point is, you can be mad as hell about Bush and Blair going to Iraq all you want, it is water under the bridge. Both are out of power, and both the UK and US have committed themselves to helping this nation find some sort of footing. IT isn't their fault tho that these morons with car bombs and religious/political agenda's cannot get along...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Once more?

I guess genocide and political repression is peaceful for you. Not Surprising seeing what flag you wave.

The Republic of Iraq is currently seeing it's greatest moment of peace and stability since it's inception in 1958. The only destabilization occurring is from outside interference. Better known as Iran.

Umm Tony, I wont quibble with your first statement...but the Republic of Iraq was more STABLE under Hussein at times than it is now. Not a fun place to live I grant you, but no one was putting car bombs in markets either.

Most of the fighting I wager is NOT just Iranian influenced, but the Sunni/Shiite dislike for each other. Toss in the fact the Kurd's don't trust the other two, and it is like Yugoslavia's disintegration all over again..

[Eki]

My point is, you can be mad as hell about Bush and Blair going to Iraq all you want, it is water under the bridge. Both are out of power, and both the UK and US have committed themselves to helping this nation find some sort of footing. IT isn't their fault tho that these morons with car bombs and religious/political agenda's cannot get along...
They should have seen it coming. Saddam's mass killings were more water under the bridge, over 10 years had passed since them before the invasion, and they happened because those morons with religious/political agendas couldn't get along. Bush got rid of Saddam, but he couldn't get rid of those morons or the root cause of the problems.

[anthonyvop]

:laugh: Respect? I used to like and respect the US before Bush. Under Bush I used every opportunity to crack a joke about the US, ridicule it and criticize it.

We don't care if you respect us. The Government of Finland does...that is the only thing that matters when discussing US-Finland relations.

[anthonyvop]

The flag under my name is the modern flag of post-war Germany. Your point being...?

That you proudly fly the flag of a people who willingly used Government repression, Terror and Genocide. A people who never willingly gave up the practice but had to be forced.

So why would anyone expect you to think that Iraq is better off now than when they practiced Government Repression, Terror and genocide?

[anthonyvop]

That is revisionist history. Libya was already cleaning up its act some time before Bush came along. Diplomatic relations with many nations had already been restored and trading links set up. Don't forget, it announced in 1998 that it would be giving up the alleged Lockerbie suspect. It was probably not the right man, but the very action of doing so was a deeply symbolic move.

It is you who is using revisionist history. The Only reason some European countries were working with Libya is because of Oil. Libya continued down the anti-western path while selling oil to you people.

Europe has a terrible history of turning a blind eye to evil governments that continues to this day.

[Eki]

We don't care if you respect us. The Government of Finland does...that is the only thing that matters when discussing US-Finland relations.
Why?

Besides, the government of Finland is elected by Finnish citizens. Finland didn't join the US coalition in Iraq, and the former Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen had to go when people found out that he had secretly promised Bush that Finland will aid in rebuilding Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_Iraq_War_prior_to_th e_2003_invasion_of_Iraq


In Finland, Anneli Jäätteenmäki of the Center Party won the elections after she had accused her rival Paavo Lipponen, who was prime minister at the time, of allying neutral Finland with the United States in the war in Iraq during a meeting with President George W. Bush. Lipponen denied the claims and declared that "We support the UN and the UN Secretary-General." Jäätteenmäki resigned as prime minister after 63 days in office amid accusations that she had lied about the leak of the documents about the meeting between Bush and Lipponen. This series of events was considered scandalous and it is named Iraq leak or Iraq-gate. The main point was that special advisor of President of Finland had leaked series of documents which were considered secret. Special advisor Martti Manninen gave these secret documents to Anneli Jäätteenmäki, who used information provided by these documents to accuse Paavo Lipponen of supporting the Iraq war. The secret documents included a memo or memos of discussions between George W. Bush and Paavo Lipponen. Later on criminal charges were pressed against Martti Manninen for leaking secret documents and against Anneli Jäätteenmäki for incitement and aid to the same.
The Finnish government stated that they took a stronger stand on the Iraq question at a meeting chaired by President Tarja Halonen. The meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Foreign and Security Policy issued a statement according to which the use of force against Iraq would not be acceptable without the authority of the UN Security Council. [18] [19]

Furthermore, the Finnish President Tarja Halonen later said in the UN that the invasion was illegal:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-22/news/0409220312_1_president-bush-iraq-weapons-inspectors/2


Other leaders who followed Bush to the microphone declared the invasion illegal, echoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's similar statement in an interview last week.

Saying there was no alternative to unified international action on security issues, Finnish President Tarja Halonen told delegates, "Some nations resorted to the use of force, which was not compatible with international law."

[anthonyvop]

Why?

Besides, the government of Finland is elected by Finnish citizens. Finland didn't join the US coalition in Iraq, and the former Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen had to go when people found out that he had secretly promised Bush that Finland will aid in rebuilding Iraq.


You don't get the point.

[Eki]

You don't get the point.
No, please explain.

We are serious about our neutrality. We don't take kindly to threats like "you're either with us or against us".

[fizzicist]

That you proudly fly the flag of a people who willingly used Government repression, Terror and Genocide. A people who never willingly gave up the practice but had to be forced.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Nazi_Germany_(1933-1945).svg This is the flag of a people who willingly used Government repression, Terror and Genocide. They were indeed forced to give up the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Germany.svg This on the other hand is the German flag.

Nazi Germany perished 65 years ago. Ask any German about the actions of their forebears, their nation's actions in the 1930's and 40's and the reaction you get is muted. One generally of shame. There is a cultural 'joke' in the UK when discussing Germans - "Don't mention the war" is said in jest.

Not because there was a winner, but because of the godawful things that human beings did to one another in that time.

The rest of the world has moved on and respects Germany for the peaceful, tolerant and immensely successful nation and culture that it is. The fact that you feel the need to (innaccurately) dredge up the second world war in reaction to someone flying the German flag (if I recall correctly, Ben is domiciled there?) to try and make the point that America was more respected under Bush, displays the frankly breathtaking arrogance and ignorance of the rest of the world that the Bush administration displayed in reducing what was a global superpower to little more than a global laughing stock which is essentially owned by China.

(Have you any idea how screwed the American Economy is if China relinquishes it's American investments? Debt is owed to someone....I suggest you practice the phrase nǐ hǎo....)

[gloomyDAY]

That you proudly fly the flag of a people who willingly used Government repression, Terror and Genocide. A people who never willingly gave up the practice but had to be forced.

So why would anyone expect you to think that Iraq is better off now than when they practiced Government Repression, Terror and genocide?You're ridiculous. No one can take you seriously for ridiculing a modern German for WWII. Talk about a can of worms! Also, you're always whining when someone insults you, but you easily dish out a load of crap. The give-it and can't take-it crowd (see: coward).


It is you who is using revisionist history. The Only reason some European countries were working with Libya is because of Oil. Libya continued down the anti-western path while selling oil to you people.

Europe has a terrible history of turning a blind eye to evil governments that continues to this day.Right, which is the same reason America is in Iraq. Thanks for gracefully illustrating that point.

[gloomyDAY]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703709804575202072055128934.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

If people from places like Syria and North Korea can respect what George stood for...why cant others? Maybe it is because they never lost their freedoms?

Dubya may not be the greatest politican by any stretch, but I think in standing up to dictators, he didn't do as bad as people think...I haven't seen anyone under the Obama administration lose any of their political freedom. If anything he's trying to rectify it by using Federal laws (speaking about Arizona's illegal immigration law). Seems like these guys are just G.W. Bush brown-nosers trying to make a big issue out of nothing.

[edv]

... Syria and North Korea only bully their own...
This is an incorrect assertion. The last 2 times that I visited the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, it was dominated by the Syrian military.

[BDunnell]

So the stability of a country run by a meglomaniac who killed thousands of his own citizen for sport is superior to a country with a democratic base being formed, but is still fighting interethnic conflict?

If one wants to go down that road, it is worth noting that the internal situation in Iraq had largely been becalmed for several years by the time the invasion took place. But say that, and one is immediately lumped in with the view that one supports Hussein, which is patently nonsense, but doesn't stop right-wingers of little intelligence putting two and two together and making five.

[BDunnell]

That you proudly fly the flag of a people who willingly used Government repression, Terror and Genocide. A people who never willingly gave up the practice but had to be forced.

I think your knowledge of flags is sadly lacking. Germany then used a different flag to Germany now. Indeed, the name of the state of Germany is different. But this may be a little too nuanced for you. (Sorry about the number of syllables used there, as well.)

[BDunnell]

My point is, you can be mad as hell about Bush and Blair going to Iraq all you want, it is water under the bridge.

Tell me, at what point does something become 'water under the bridge'? When talking about it starts to become inconvenient or embarrassing? Do you have a set timescale for this? Again, say that all you like, but it won't be forgotten. Sorry.

[BDunnell]

You're ridiculous. No one can take you seriously for ridiculing a modern German for WWII.

I should maybe say that I am not actually German, though I can understand why someone not using the flag of their own country on an internet message board is tantamount to treason as far as someone like anthonyvop is concerned.

[BDunnell]

No, please explain.

We are serious about our neutrality. We don't take kindly to threats like "you're either with us or against us".

A statement that was only deemed appropriate or effective by those of spectacularly little brain.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tell me, at what point does something become 'water under the bridge'? When talking about it starts to become inconvenient or embarrassing? Do you have a set timescale for this? Again, say that all you like, but it won't be forgotten. Sorry.

I never once said it should be forgotten about. What I dismiss is the constant nattering that amounts to "I told you so" for about the last 8 years. The UK isn't pulling out, the USA isn't pulling out, and they wont until Iraq is in a better place from what I can figure. Never once did I tell you to forget about it, but I would like something else to come from you and Eki more intelligellable than "Bush is an idiot, Bush is evil, bush is this..bush is that...yadda yadda yadda."


My point in making the post is that with all leaders, good or bad, there is a lot of gray areas and there were people who saw Bush's them or us stances towards human rights in certain countries as a good thing. I think he wasn't principled enough in how he did it, and I don't think he was consistent enough, but I do think it is better than what Obama does, which basically says to the world "It's ok...you do what you like within your borders..we apologize for anything we may have offended you with before". What kind of ****E is that? HE rolls over with 4 feet in the air and says "rub my belly" and expects respect?

No...Bush was ham fisted and awkward, but the USA didn't have to worry about being their enemies knifing them in the back. With Bush, they were clearly defined on their own.

A clear foreign policy with consistent values is what the USA needs, and they didn't get it all the time with Bush, but they certainly are not getting it with Obama.

[BDunnell]

I never once said it should be forgotten about. What I dismiss is the constant nattering that amounts to "I told you so" for about the last 8 years. The UK isn't pulling out, the USA isn't pulling out, and they wont until Iraq is in a better place from what I can figure. Never once did I tell you to forget about it, but I would like something else to come from you and Eki more intelligellable than "Bush is an idiot, Bush is evil, bush is this..bush is that...yadda yadda yadda."

When have I ever gone on in that fashion? I resent being lumped in with those who do so.

[Mark in Oshawa]

When have I ever gone on in that fashion? I resent being lumped in with those who do so.

You do it in a far more intellectual manner, but in the essence, the fact we are arguing about it says to me that is how you have come across on this subject. I shouldn't simplify your stance on this Ben, but the reality is for the last 8 years I have heard over and over again by people who dislike Bush is how he is such a screw up and we shouldn't be in Iraq...and the reality is, the USA and UK are in Iraq, and THAT is a done deal. It is over...done...finished...the direction of history has changed for good on that score. We can debate how smart is was, and I wont disagree that in hindsight it was foolish, but I just dislike this constant chorus of complaints about that stupid dork Bush. He was President...he isn't now...and yet people are just content to demonize the guy as if he was still in power. He isn't..

[gloomyDAY]

America is still on the side of political dissidents.

Las Damas de Blanco!

[anthonyvop]

I think your knowledge of flags is sadly lacking. Germany then used a different flag to Germany now. Indeed, the name of the state of Germany is different. But this may be a little too nuanced for you. (Sorry about the number of syllables used there, as well.)

Different flag........same people.

[gloomyDAY]

Different flag........same people.You're insane.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Different flag........same people.
Ya right...sometimes Tony, even if you have a point, you shoot yourself in the foot....

[Tomi]

We don't care if you respect us. The Government of Finland does...that is the only thing that matters when discussing US-Finland relations.
Normal diplomatic relationship is not the same as respect.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Normal diplomatic relationship is not the same as respect.

You have that right.....

[Bob Riebe]

Normal diplomatic relationship is not the same as respect.Nor is it groveling face down in the dirt as Obama does.

[fandango]

While I am one of the people who think that Bush's overall impact on the world has been negative as President (invading Iraq based on 9/11, when most of the terrorists were Saudis, the "axis of evil" nonsense, creating a concentration camp in Cuba), I think Mark makes a good point about Obama's shortcomings, and that it's not as simple as it's made out to be in the media.

What I find sad is the rather immature idea that some Americans have that trying a softer approach, as Obama seems to be trying to do, is somehow being all wimpy. This isn't the school playground.

Of course, the logical progression of Obama's policy is that he mustn't show any hesitation in using controlled, effective force when the diplomacy doesn't work. The jury's still out on whether he can do this, because whenever (when, not if) it happens there will be a certain number of people who will say he's a warmonger and no different to his predecessor.

[ShiftingGears]

Different flag........same people.

It's funny because you're an idiot.

[Tomi]

Nor is it groveling face down in the dirt as Obama does.

You should understand that you in us get what you deserve and elect, but the rest of the world, cant effect your choise, but often we pay for the consequenses of your lousy choises, in many different ways.

[Camelopard]

This is an incorrect assertion. The last 2 times that I visited the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, it was dominated by the Syrian military.

So edv when were you last in the Bekaa Valley? Syria moved it's troops out of Lebanon quite a few years ago. In fact the time I visited the Bekka Valley (may 2008) there wasn't a Syrian military person to be seen. Didn't make it there this time, we only went to Tripoli, Byblos and Beirut.

Guess whose planes were doing low level sorties over Beirut the week before last when I was there?

Give up? Israel that is who. Why ? To continue to destabilise the region, that's why.

VP Biden goes to Israel to try and restart the peace process, what does Israel do? Announce on the very day he arrives that israel will build 1,600 new houses in East Jerusalem. Helpful? constructive? I don't think so! http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155171.html

Obama snubbing israel? Well I say good on Obama for showing some balls in standing up to israel for once, unlike any other US president recently.

Now israel is claiming that Syria is providing Hezbollah with scuds..... Most serious observers say that scuds are the last thing Hezbollah fighters need. The people I spoke to in Beirut are sure this is a ruse being used by israel as an excuse to attack Lebanon this coming June or July.

[Camelopard]

Different flag........same people.

I could say the same thing about you and what your hispanic ancestors did to the Aztecs and the Incas.................... different flags, same people...........

[Eki]

Nor is it groveling face down in the dirt as Obama does.
I haven't seen Obama groveling face down anywhere. If you refer to that meeting with the Japanese Emperor, then I must tell you that good manners aren't the same as groveling.

[BDunnell]

Different flag........same people.

And with that remark, you confirm yourself to be nothing short of bonkers.

[Mark in Oshawa]

While I am one of the people who think that Bush's overall impact on the world has been negative as President (invading Iraq based on 9/11, when most of the terrorists were Saudis, the "axis of evil" nonsense, creating a concentration camp in Cuba), I think Mark makes a good point about Obama's shortcomings, and that it's not as simple as it's made out to be in the media.

It is never that simple. I thank you for seeing where I am driving at. IN the last year of Obama, I still here people ripping Bush, and Obama, unless you are an American Republican can do no wrong. Well, the world is made up of shades of gray. Some darker and lighter than others. My link to the article at the start of the thread was interviews with people from oppressive regimes who were adament part of the reason they were alive was from Bush's pressure on their regimes and they didn't see the same sort of support from Obama


What I find sad is the rather immature idea that some Americans have that trying a softer approach, as Obama seems to be trying to do, is somehow being all wimpy. This isn't the school playground.

Of course, the logical progression of Obama's policy is that he mustn't show any hesitation in using controlled, effective force when the diplomacy doesn't work. The jury's still out on whether he can do this, because whenever (when, not if) it happens there will be a certain number of people who will say he's a warmonger and no different to his predecessor.

Obama is trapped by his ideology and his party's radical left fringe, who he has spent more time listening to than Bill Clinton ever did. A "softer" America is pressupposing of course that Bush was too hard. Well, in many ways, he wasn't. When you are dealing with people who want to use nuclear weapons to finish the job Hitler started, being nice isn't really going to get you too far. When you are dealing with regimes who treat human rights as something they pay lip service to in the press while they confiscate property and throw people in jail for their political beliefs, why should "manners" or being "nice" come into it?

Lets face a HARSH reality. There are nation states out there that really don't CARE whether the man on the street in Birmingham or San Diego or Uppsala like them. They do what they do because dictatorial regimes are about the appearance of legitimacy while strangling any dissent in a vicious manner. So to treat these nations with respect and tact and "manners" as Obama does is kind of silly. Bush was blunt, to the point, and undiplomatic. At times, he did exacerbate things. That said, if he had stayed out of Iraq ( a big one I know to presume) tell me where he has actually made the world worse? Not guessing, not leaping to conclusions..not telling me how this is that..and it is all...opinion.

In the end, you take Iraq out of the mix, and Bush's foreign policy where he was blunt and contrary to those in Europe really did nothing but rub some limo liberals the wrong way in New York, and annoyed Europeans. Great...so he was annoying. Still don't know where that should sit in the final standing of things. The point is, the dictators and thugs who run much of the worst places a man could live knew that Bush wasn't messing around kissing their heiney. When I saw the transcrpits and excerpts of Obama's speech in Cairo to the Arab Third World, I saw a mixed message.

It isn't Bush's America. Get over it...but Obama is sending out a mixed message. Maybe in the end it will work for him, but he has spent a lot of time acting like the good cop to George's Bad Cop. That only works if in the end, both cops know what is important....and on Obama...well we really cannot be sure...

[anthonyvop]

I could say the same thing about you and what your hispanic ancestors did to the Aztecs and the Incas.................... different flags, same people...........

And?

[anthonyvop]

Normal diplomatic relationship is not the same as respect.

Normal Diplomatic relations is accomplished through intimidation.

[Eki]

Normal Diplomatic relations is accomplished through intimidation.
That's like saying normal business relations and sexual relations are accomplished through intimidation just because the Mafia and rapists do it.

Contrary to your belief, normal diplomatic relations are based on mutual trust and mutual respect.

[Eki]

And?
And you don't get the point.

[EuroTroll]

That's like saying normal business relations and sexual relations are accomplished through intimidation just because the Mafia and rapists do it.

Indeed. What a strange statement from Anthonyvop.

[Bob Riebe]

That's like saying normal business relations and sexual relations are accomplished through intimidation just because the Mafia and rapists do it.

No it is not.
What you pop-out for analogies are weird on a good day, and naive on all others.

[BDunnell]

Indeed. What a strange statement from Anthonyvop.

I think you're entirely wrong. It would be a strange statement from a sensible person. From anthonyvop it is entirely to be expected.

[EuroTroll]

I think you're entirely wrong. It would be a strange statement from a sensible person. From anthonyvop it is entirely to be expected.

I'm not so familiar with the gentleman's previous works. ;) A little eccentric, is he? :)

[Eki]

I'm not so familiar with the gentleman's previous works. ;) A little eccentric, is he? :)
Maybe a little, but not much more than Bob Riebe.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'm not so familiar with the gentleman's previous works. ;) A little eccentric, is he? :)

Tony is Tony. Even those from the right side of political debates see some of his ideas as...unorthodox. He hasn't seen a shade of gray in his entire life....

[Bob Riebe]

Maybe a little, but not much more than Bob Riebe.

Well, verses your naiveté, that would be a complement.

[henners88]

I guess genocide and political repression is peaceful for you. Not Surprising seeing what flag you wave.

I must admit, I'm a little confused by that comment. :confused:
*Comment reinstated*

[chuck34]

invading Iraq based on 9/11, when most of the terrorists were Saudis

This was the worst mistake of Bush's term in office, and (unfortunatly) it will be his legacy.

Now let me explain, as that does not mean what most of you think. What fandango has stated there is an outright falsehood. Bush did not invade Iraq based on 9/11. He NEVER said so. He made a few speeches where he drew paralells that were misinterpreted. The fact that he never took the time to clear up the misunderstandings/misinterpretations is the worst mistake of Bush's Presidency. There was, and is, a clear justification for the war. That is that Iraq was in CLEAR violation of the terms of the cease fire, Saddam signed, to end the first Gulf War. Those violations are/were well known. Had Bush just pushed those reasons harder, I think history may look on him in a better light. But I'm sure in a few years when the High School text books are writing their sections on the Iraqi war, they'll say just what fandango has, "Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11".

But now I've sparked off a whole new debate, and we'll get the usual cast of characters spouting off more and more about Bush's "evilness".

[fandango]

It is never that simple.... (snipped)
....... Bush was blunt, to the point, and undiplomatic. At times, he did exacerbate things. That said, if he had stayed out of Iraq ( a big one I know to presume) tell me where he has actually made the world worse? ......

What I have to say on this subject is not to say that Obama is the goody and Bush was the baddie. My biggest problem with Bush, if I had to name one thing, was that he created the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay. People have been interned there with no trial and tortured. Some of them guilty of something, some not. So his claim to be defending freedom simply is not true.

Perhaps it's because I'm Irish, but I don't believe that Bush's methods for dealing with terrorism will do anything other than prolong the existence of these terrorists. I saw it happen time again with the British in Northern Ireland.

People who support Bush have this attitude of "well, he stepped on some toes, but you knew where you stood." I live in the state of Spain, and you still hear some people say that same thing about Franco. I'm sure there were many in Iraq who felt the same about Saddam, ordinary people who just kept out of the way, living their life. The American invasion has probably made them look back on the fun easy times of the days when Saddam was in power. There are many ways, many better ways to remove an evil dictator from power.

It's usually at this point in any discussion that someone is outraged that a democratically-elected leader can be compared to a dictator. That's a fair point, but once you start comparing the bad things they did to people the line gets rather blurred.

Bush added to the flames. That doesn't put out the fire. People are either more afraid of THEM, or more desparate and ready to die to kill THEM.

I have no strong opinion on Obama. He had a message of hope, of conciliation. I'm reserving judgement.

[Eki]

People who support Bush have this attitude of "well, he stepped on some toes, but you knew where you stood." I live in the state of Spain, and you still hear some people say that same thing about Franco. I'm sure there were many in Iraq who felt the same about Saddam, ordinary people who just kept out of the way, living their life.
Many Russians still miss Stalin. He was voted the third greatest Russian in 2008:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm

The fact that he was a Georgian and not a Russian didn't bother them.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Many Russians still miss Stalin. He was voted the third greatest Russian in 2008:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm

The fact that he was a Georgian and not a Russian didn't bother them.

Hey, you needed a Swede to come to your rescue.

[Eki]

Hey, you needed a Swede to come to your rescue.

Do you mean Mannerheim? He was born in Finland:

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

[veeten]

This was the worst mistake of Bush's term in office, and (unfortunatly) it will be his legacy.

Now let me explain, as that does not mean what most of you think. What fandango has stated there is an outright falsehood. Bush did not invade Iraq based on 9/11. He NEVER said so. He made a few speeches where he drew paralells that were misinterpreted. The fact that he never took the time to clear up the misunderstandings/misinterpretations is the worst mistake of Bush's Presidency. There was, and is, a clear justification for the war. That is that Iraq was in CLEAR violation of the terms of the cease fire, Saddam signed, to end the first Gulf War. Those violations are/were well known. Had Bush just pushed those reasons harder, I think history may look on him in a better light. But I'm sure in a few years when the High School text books are writing their sections on the Iraqi war, they'll say just what fandango has, "Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11".

But now I've sparked off a whole new debate, and we'll get the usual cast of characters spouting off more and more about Bush's "evilness".

No, the real reason was a lack of evidence, from the WMD searches to the supposed Al-Qaida connections, but not for a lack of trying from W and the gang to make some kind of excuse, no matter just how flawed it may be.

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

In some ways, it reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Bay of Tonkin fiasco as a way of escallating US presence in Vietnam, and President Clinton for Somalia & former Yugoslavia.

[Eki]

No, the real reason was a lack of evidence, from the WMD searches to the supposed Al-Qaida connections, but not for a lack of trying from W and the gang to make some kind of excuse, no matter just how flawed it may be.

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

In some ways, it reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Bay of Tonkin fiasco as a way of escallating US presence in Vietnam, and President Clinton for Somalia & former Yugoslavia.
Cheney even tried to threaten the UN weapons inspectors to produce evidence or else...

http://www.infowars.com/hans-blix-would-testify-against-bush-cheney-war-crimes/


In an interview with Aljazeera today, former Chief of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq told the TV that he and the Head of the IAEA “Mohamed Al-Baradei” were subjected to direct threats from Dick Cheney before the war.
Blix said that Cheney threatened to defame both men’s reputations if they didn’t came with the “required” answers.

CVldccu5RmQ

[Mark in Oshawa]

Many Russians still miss Stalin. He was voted the third greatest Russian in 2008:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm

The fact that he was a Georgian and not a Russian didn't bother them.

The fact he was in charge of a regime that killed 40 million people obviously escaped their notice too.

Wonder why people don't trust the Russians? These same people who think Stalin was a good leader elected the current office holders....

[Eki]

The fact he was in charge of a regime that killed 40 million people obviously escaped their notice too.

Wonder why people don't trust the Russians? These same people who think Stalin was a good leader elected the current office holders....
Hey, normal diplomacy isn't about trust, it's about intimidation, just ask anthonyvop. And what's more intimidating than killing millions of people?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hey, normal diplomacy isn't about trust, it's about intimidation, just ask anthonyvop. And what's more intimidating than killing millions of people?

Well diplomacy is about lying apparently. Saying what is polite rather than what is on one's mind. As for nation state's and how they interact, sometimes the lies are more obvious when the people making them are the keepers of a legacy of 40 million dead.

[airshifter]

Once again we have the people with the mentality that Bush is a war criminal based on Wiki articles and other such sources.

People may not like the facts, but any person that actually reads the UN reports knows without doubt there were clear violations of the cease fire treaties. A thousand Wiki, newspaper, and online articles with other opinions don't change the written facts of those paid to provide an unbiased reporting on that situation.



I don't see why Cheney threatened Blix. After all the man would put one thing in writing and report it to the Security Council, yet give an opposing view to the world press. What credibility was there to harm?

[Tomi]

The Balts are certainly thankful and consequently contribute more than most (per capita) to American/NATO war efforts.

Kristjan this argumenting is difficult to understand, like if you help occuping a country because of a feeling you owe something, especially if you look at your own countrys recent history, if anyone your country men should know what means to be occupied.

[Eki]

Kristjan this argumenting is difficult to understand, like if you help occuping a country because of a feeling you owe something, especially if you look at your own countrys recent history, if anyone your country men should know what means to be occupied.
You know how the Mafia works, they do you a favor and later demand that you do a favor for them in return.

[chuck34]

No, the real reason was a lack of evidence, from the WMD searches to the supposed Al-Qaida connections, but not for a lack of trying from W and the gang to make some kind of excuse, no matter just how flawed it may be.

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

In some ways, it reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Bay of Tonkin fiasco as a way of escallating US presence in Vietnam, and President Clinton for Somalia & former Yugoslavia.

Let's slow down here, and take this one step at a time.

My point was that many people, perhaps a majority, think that the Iraq was was in response to 9/11. This is FALSE. Do you dispute that? If so, you'll have to show me the speech where Bush said we were going to Iraq because they perpetrated 9/11.

The search for WMD, or more precicely Saddam's refusal to allow the UN to inspect sites, is a CLEAR violation of the cease fire agreement. THAT is justification enough for a resumption of hostilities steming from the First Gulf War.

No one denies the fact that there were Al-Qaida camps in Iraq at some point. And although they many not have been condoned by Saddam himself, they were still there.

But there were no "excuses" used, only legitimate reasons for going to war. The outcome may not have been what any of us wanted, but it is what it is now. And since we "broke it" we "bought it", and things are starting to stabilize there a bit

[Tomi]

Let's slow down here, and take this one step at a time.
My point was that many people, perhaps a majority, think that the Iraq was was in response to 9/11. This is FALSE.

Thats true, I was in New York a few years after the occupation, and in the Metro magazine was an article about a poll done about this, and still years after i think it was over 40% did belive that Iraq was behind the terror attack in ny. :)
Now can some of you Americans explaine, how come is it possible?

[Malbec]

It is never that simple. I thank you for seeing where I am driving at. IN the last year of Obama, I still here people ripping Bush, and Obama, unless you are an American Republican can do no wrong. Well, the world is made up of shades of gray. Some darker and lighter than others. My link to the article at the start of the thread was interviews with people from oppressive regimes who were adament part of the reason they were alive was from Bush's pressure on their regimes and they didn't see the same sort of support from Obama

I've never really understood Mark why you always seem to fall for PR claptrap. You've dug up a report from what is clearly a political meeting with a parade of people who have supposedly been saved by Bush and don't agree with Obama's policy. An ardent Obama supporter could easily find a similar PR stunt which lo-and-behold shows Obama to be the saviour and the Republicans to be a threat to world peace. Isn't it clear that you're just falling for cheap PR gimmickery? You've done it before too with those healthcare 'articles' of yours.


Obama is trapped by his ideology and his party's radical left fringe, who he has spent more time listening to than Bill Clinton ever did. A "softer" America is pressupposing of course that Bush was too hard. Well, in many ways, he wasn't. When you are dealing with people who want to use nuclear weapons to finish the job Hitler started, being nice isn't really going to get you too far. When you are dealing with regimes who treat human rights as something they pay lip service to in the press while they confiscate property and throw people in jail for their political beliefs, why should "manners" or being "nice" come into it?

Firstly in this revisionist sentence you've forgotten one of the most important points, G W Bush was elected on a strongly isolationist platform, as was Clinton before him and Obama after him. Bush did not set out to be a beacon of democracy or whatever label your article wants to stick on him, his initial foreign policy was strongly based on not being involved in international commitments wherever possible, just like Clinton before him and just as Obama promised after him. However just as Clinton had to learn to cope with the outside world after Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Al-Qaeda's earlier attacks, GW Bush was forced into engaging with the outside world after 9/11. Obama doesn't have that luxury of course with Iraq and Afghanistan on his plate from day one of his presidency but to suggest that Bush inherently is more pro-democracy than Obama seems a little far-fetched.

Secondly and as has already been mentioned Bush did not show much backbone against, say, China which I still believe has MFN trading status and has never really faced serious American trading sanctions based on human rights issues (dumping allegations and other trading spats yes, human rights no) under successive presidencies whether blue or red. Neither did Bush's policy towards North Korea differ much from Clinton before him, ie working with China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to engage with them and get a deal giving them effectively free electricity in return for not developing nukes. Obama won't be able to change things much, there isn't much the US can do.

As for Iran Bush never really achieved much there either beyond throwing away one of the best opportunities for detent in his silly axis of evil speech which utterly ignored Iran's central role in helping the US get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Its a pity he did so since once Iran turned from potential friend to enemy again American troops paid for it with their lives thanks to the plentiful Iranian munitions sent over the border to 'assist' their Shia colleagues in Iraq.


In the end, you take Iraq out of the mix, and Bush's foreign policy...

Never a good idea to take defining bits of policy out of the picture is it? After all in the end once you take the Holocaust and WW2 out of the mix Hitler wasn't that bad was he? I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler but your argument method is extremely flawed don't you think?

[chuck34]

Thats true, I was in New York a few years after the occupation, and in the Metro magazine was an article about a poll done about this, and still years after i think it was over 40% did belive that Iraq was behind the terror attack in ny. :)
Now can some of you Americans explaine, how come is it possible?

It's possible because the Left in this country has had a bigger bull horn for years to shout their stuff. And many people in the US have other things on their minds than deciding if what they hear is true or not. So they just believe that what is shouted at them the most and the loudest (in this case that Bush is evil, and sooooo stupid that he invaded Iraq in response to 9/11) must be true.

Again, I think that is probably Bush's biggest failing. Not strongly clearing up this FALSE notion.

[Malbec]

Again, I think that is probably Bush's biggest failing. Not strongly clearing up this FALSE notion.

Don't you think it may have been a deliberate policy not to clarify this false notion, after all it was rather convenient in rallying US public support for the invasion of Iraq wasn't it.

[chuck34]

Don't you think it may have been a deliberate policy not to clarify this false notion, after all it was rather convenient in rallying US public support for the invasion of Iraq wasn't it.

I think you're right that they may have thought it was a convenient way to rally support. So they let the idea of an Iraq-9/11 connection float out there on it's own. But they knew it wasn't right, and that is NEVER good policy in the long run. They should have strongly let it be known there were other reasons for dealing with Saddam.

[Malbec]

I think you're right that they may have thought it was a convenient way to rally support. So they let the idea of an Iraq-9/11 connection float out there on it's own. But they knew it wasn't right, and that is NEVER good policy in the long run. They should have strongly let it be known there were other reasons for dealing with Saddam.

Well, you've got to leave over some material for a good memoir...

[Bob Riebe]

An ardent Obama supporter could easily find a similar PR stunt which lo-and-behold shows Obama to be the saviour and the Republicans to be a threat to world peace.

No you can not because there is nothing to even remotely show that Obama has accomplished anything.
The Dem. pundits always defend Obama, not by listing Obama's accomplishment but by throwing out some obtuse vacuous lie about Bush or Conservatives.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I've never really understood Mark why you always seem to fall for PR claptrap. You've dug up a report from what is clearly a political meeting with a parade of people who have supposedly been saved by Bush and don't agree with Obama's policy. An ardent Obama supporter could easily find a similar PR stunt which lo-and-behold shows Obama to be the saviour and the Republicans to be a threat to world peace. Isn't it clear that you're just falling for cheap PR gimmickery? You've done it before too with those healthcare 'articles' of yours.

Hey...you saying those in the articles are not legitmate dissidents who felt that way? Shooting the messenger is convenient, but the point is there are people in this world who don't see Dubya as an idiot in how he dealt with with some of the less desirable regimes. Obama's people could dig up someone I am sure...might even be true. I just posted the article because it made the point that I always felt that there is something to be morally clear on regimes you don't support and why. I do get that Bush was selective...only an idiot would argue otherwise...




Firstly in this revisionist sentence you've forgotten one of the most important points, G W Bush was elected on a strongly isolationist platform, as was Clinton before him and Obama after him. Bush did not set out to be a beacon of democracy or whatever label your article wants to stick on him, his initial foreign policy was strongly based on not being involved in international commitments wherever possible, just like Clinton before him and just as Obama promised after him. However just as Clinton had to learn to cope with the outside world after Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Al-Qaeda's earlier attacks, GW Bush was forced into engaging with the outside world after 9/11. Obama doesn't have that luxury of course with Iraq and Afghanistan on his plate from day one of his presidency but to suggest that Bush inherently is more pro-democracy than Obama seems a little far-fetched.

Dubya was an isolationist until 9/11. I never felt Clinton ever was, even if he paid lip service to it. Clinton used the NATO pulpit to finally put a stop to the Bosnian war and to deal with Serbia and Kosovo. He intervened in Somalia, and he sent cruise missles into Afghanistan to deal with Bin Laden antispetically...or was that to distract the American media a la "Wag the Dog"? Clinton was always trying to get Israel and the Palestinians to the table, and America was always dealing with Iraq, so for any claim of Clinton to be an isolationist is silly too. He was in more countries than Dubya, just not to the scale. The only difference is, he didn't stick around in some of them (Somalia the most glaring) to do anything but waste everyone's time, and as it turns out, encourage Al Quaida. Now...Bush? Clumsy...blunt...not always subtle...confronted a lot of nations such as Syria, Libya, Iraq, North Korea and so on and basically said he wasn't in the mood for their diplo speak lies and distortions. Did it work? Yes...and no...and maybe. Like all efforts, it is mixed. Obama sends a mixed message....and I am awaiting where the USA will come out ahead. Iran still develops their nuclear program, and while many in Europe are concerned, no one has an answer. I don't want a war there, Iraq proved how much effort that is for so little gain and so much turmoil. It isn't worth it......and yet, If Iran strikes with nuclear weapons against Israel, or Iraq or some other neighbour.....well I guess we will have a discussion then wont we? I don't think it is time to put Obama down as a failure or a success on foreign policy BUT I don't like the mixed message he sends. I do appreciate he gets along with foreign leaders in allied nations as a whole, but I remain unimpressed how all his soaring rhetoric translates into anything useful. Blair and Bush were blunt and too quick to simplify the world's problems....but one never had to guess where they stood. Only an idiot (Hussein) would try to bluff them....


Secondly and as has already been mentioned Bush did not show much backbone against, say, China which I still believe has MFN trading status and has never really faced serious American trading sanctions based on human rights issues (dumping allegations and other trading spats yes, human rights no) under successive presidencies whether blue or red. Neither did Bush's policy towards North Korea differ much from Clinton before him, ie working with China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to engage with them and get a deal giving them effectively free electricity in return for not developing nukes. Obama won't be able to change things much, there isn't much the US can do.

I agree 100%; I have never liked how any western nation has really dealt with China. We all are all high and mighty about human rights and principles, but when it comes to trade and jobs, we put those away. Canada's PM Harper was harsh towards the Chinese of Tibet and their human rights in General about a year before the Olympics in Beiijing. The opposition freaked here...saying he was jeopardizing trade and Canadian jobs. Bombardier was in the process of bidding on contracts to build subway systems here among other companies..and they had lots of connections with the opposition. Nothing came of it...but the west really doesn't DO anything about China, and that bothers me. One of the most searing moments in history was Tiamenen square when the tanks rolled in. I never forgot that....Clinton and a lot of other leaders in the 90's did..and Bush didn't pay much attention to it either.


As for Iran Bush never really achieved much there either beyond throwing away one of the best opportunities for detent in his silly axis of evil speech which utterly ignored Iran's central role in helping the US get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Its a pity he did so since once Iran turned from potential friend to enemy again American troops paid for it with their lives thanks to the plentiful Iranian munitions sent over the border to 'assist' their Shia colleagues in Iraq.

The axis of evil speech was stupid. That tag line was a throwaway and unnecssary...but if you really examine the three nations he mentioned, Iran, Iraq and North Korea, not one of the three was/is a sterling beacon of human rights or having time for democratic values. Iran did what they did in Afghanistan for their own reasons, not any love of America I think. That said, Iran has a large youthful middle class who doesn't hate America, and putting out stupid lines like that doesn't help America's image. Again...the article I pointed to was more in line with how Bush was unequivocal when he could afford to be in dealing with regimes like Syria.




Never a good idea to take defining bits of policy out of the picture is it? After all in the end once you take the Holocaust and WW2 out of the mix Hitler wasn't that bad was he? I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler but your argument method is extremely flawed don't you think?

You got me on the last one Dylan. IN that context you are correct. Still will also point out tho that Dubya's real goal in Iraq wasn't to take over and wipe out 6 million members of an ethnic group either.

[Eki]

No you can not because there is nothing to even remotely show that Obama has accomplished anything.

Didn't he accomplish some sort of health care thingy?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Didn't he accomplish some sort of health care thingy?

First off, it really wont happen until AFTER the next Presidential cycle. Secondly, it will damn near bankrupt the Yanks to get it all going, and that is before everyone realizes the financial pitfalls of it. Gov't never gets cost estimates right. EVER. All he accomplished was having his party have a majority in both US houses pass a bill that costs a lot of money, promises everything, and delivers nothing for 2 years....

I would watch this one Eki...I am making popcorn because the next two election cycles down there will be FUN...

[EuroTroll]

Kristjan this argumenting is difficult to understand, like if you help occuping a country because of a feeling you owe something, especially if you look at your own countrys recent history, if anyone your country men should know what means to be occupied.

Tomi, to be blunt about this and as you know, the overwhelming aim of Baltic foreign policy is to make us safe from Russia. That's why the Balts try to be the poster NATO ally, to stand out from the average lackluster attitude a la Germany.

Many people are opposed to our boys being in Afghanistan (and previously in Iraq) for exactly the reason you state. Personally, however, I think the course our government has taken is correct, under the circumstances. It's also worth noting that the Balts were never part of the original invasion force. Just the stabilization force. And obviously the aim is not to occupy, but to get out (together with others) as soon as possible.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tomi, to be blunt about this and as you know, the overwhelming aim of Baltic foreign policy is to make us safe from Russia. That's why the Balts try to be the poster NATO ally, to stand out from the average lackluster attitude a la Germany.

Many people are opposed to our boys being in Afghanistan (and previously in Iraq) for exactly the reason you state. Personally, however, I think the course our government has taken is correct, under the circumstances. It's also worth noting that the Balts were never part of the original invasion force. Just the stabilization force. And obviously the aim is not to occupy, but to get out (together with others) as soon as possible.

As a Canadian who has 3000 soldiers there, I appreciate your nation being there and you state things quite right. No one is there to occupy Afghanistan, it is now a case of stablizing the joint and getting the heck out of there. However, like Iraq, this self governing thing seems to be a tough nut for the people there to crack without 50 gallons of corruption and terror groups trying to disrupt things....

Guerilla warfare is a nuisance...

[Tomi]

It's also worth noting that the Balts were never part of the original invasion force. Just the stabilization force. And obviously the aim is not to occupy, but to get out (together with others) as soon as possible.

Let's not make it a playing with words thing, in style ("french frice" "freedom frice") the facts are that you are in war in Iraq, and at the same occupying the country. :)

[EuroTroll]

Let's not make it a playing with words thing, in style ("french frice" "freedom frice") the facts are that you are in war in Iraq, and at the same occupying the country. :)

Actually not in Iraq anymore as the Iraqi government didn't extend our agreement to be there. ;)

Iraq was, of course, more of a moral dilemma. Afghanistan is simpler. Article V was evoked after 9/11, so all NATO allies have to be there. And isn't Finland there as well? ;)

[EuroTroll]

You know how the Mafia works, they do you a favor and later demand that you do a favor for them in return.

That's one way of putting it. Another is that we contribute to Western security in the hope that the favour will be returned, if ever necessary.

[Tomi]

And isn't Finland there as well? ;)

Yes, there is some troops in peace keeping operations and rebuilding but are not allowed to take part in battles. Here has also been a debate are they in war or not, wich is quite amusing, those whos work is to define, professors of law etc. claims they are, but those who sent the troops claims they are not, in this case the professors are offcourse right.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's one way of putting it. Another is that we contribute to Western security in the hope that the favour will be returned, if ever necessary.

Only Eki would treat being in NATO as being involved with the Mob.

[EuroTroll]

Only Eki would treat being in NATO as being involved with the Mob.

I think the analogy is not entirely incorrect, though. Russian conventional forces are not as strong as you might think. (Finland and Poland could probably put up a very good fight.) But currently way stronger than those in the Baltics. Yes, we need a "roof". If we didn't have a Western one, we'd be in danger of getting an Eastern one... Just look at Georgia.

But NATO is obviously not like the Mob. It's the voluntary defence alliance of the democratic, Western world. An august institution. It's a privilege to be a part of it.

And coming back to the topic of this thread: the moral clarity that the Bush administration had about the Baltics certainly contributed very positively to peace and stability in our region. No, he wasn't all bad.

[Eki]

Only Eki would treat being in NATO as being involved with the Mob.
If the Warsaw Pact were still alive and kicking, how would you describe it?

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

[Bob Riebe]

Didn't he accomplish some sort of health care thingy?
It has had no benefits and if it is not repealed citizens will be paying for for YEARS BEFORE any part takes effect.
NO, it is not an accomplishment, especially as the majority of voters are against it.

[Eki]

It has had no benefits and if it is not repealed citizens will be paying for for YEARS BEFORE any part takes effect.
NO, it is not an accomplishment, especially as the majority of voters are against it.
The majority of voters may be stupid or otherwise wrong.

[Bob Riebe]

The majority of voters may be stupid or otherwise wrong.

Why, the governent has NO money, they take it from the voters by force if necessary (Those without health care face fines, or jail, for not having health care) but then
you seem to believe those in government, who have benefits and powers the working citizens do not or ever will have, are some sort of all-knowing, all-seeing gods!

Stalins, Hitlers, Obamas etc. of the world love/d people like you.

[Eki]

Why, the governent has NO money,
That's much because Bush and his gang wasted billions on unnecessary warfare. And Obama had to pick up where they left. On the plus side, people save because they don't need expensive insurances and private health care, so they have more money to pay taxes. Well, of course there will be some rich and stupid people like here in Finland who pay for their health care twice by insisting to use private health care after they have already paid for public healthcare and don't use it.

[chuck34]

That's much because Bush and his gang wasted billions on unnecessary warfare. And Obama had to pick up where they left. On the plus side, people save because they don't need expensive insurances and private health care, so they have more money to pay taxes. Well, of course there will be some rich and stupid people like here in Finland who pay for their health care twice by insisting to use private health care after they have already paid for public healthcare and don't use it.

So Bush spent Billions he didn't have, and that was bad. Obama spends Trillions he doesn't have, and that's good? What kind of stupid logic is that? I'll be the first to line up with you and call Bush out for spending too much. But then to defend Obama with the defense of "Bush did it too" ... man you just can't stand Bush at all can you?

People won't save with this. The insurance companies are now required to take on people no matter what, people that they normally reject because they are going to loose money on them. So now they have to make up that lost money somewhere. Where do you think that will be? That's right from those of us who are suckers and actually pay their bills.

[Eki]

So Bush spent Billions he didn't have, and that was bad. Obama spends Trillions he doesn't have, and that's good? What kind of stupid logic is that? I'll be the first to line up with you and call Bush out for spending too much. But then to defend Obama with the defense of "Bush did it too" ... man you just can't stand Bush at all can you?

People won't save with this. The insurance companies are now required to take on people no matter what, people that they normally reject because they are going to loose money on them. So now they have to make up that lost money somewhere. Where do you think that will be? That's right from those of us who are suckers and actually pay their bills.
The insurance companies could try to find real jobs instead of feeding from peoples' misfortunes.

Today, I was at a private dentist. The dentist bills the city on her own rate and the city bills me on their own cheaper rate. The tax payers (me included) pay the gap. No need for insurance companies to skim money from the middle. The city acts as an insurance company, but they don't expect any profit.

[Bob Riebe]

That's much because Bush and his gang wasted billions on unnecessary warfare. And Obama had to pick up where they left. On the plus side, people save because they don't need expensive insurances and private health care, so they have more money to pay taxes. Well, of course there will be some rich and stupid people like here in Finland who pay for their health care twice by insisting to use private health care after they have already paid for public healthcare and don't use it.
The insurance companies are the ones the gov. says you MUST have a policy with or you go to jail; as Chuck said, to cover those without money, the Ins. will raise rates on those who can.

One good, kinda-sorta, thing is, the fines are less than a ins. policy, SO, one can simply not pay for one, THEN- when one does get sick, quickly get a policy for as long as necessary to cover what ever disease one got by living like a fool, then simply do not pay and the tax payers will pay it for you.

You seem to have no idea of what has transpired here.

[Bob Riebe]

The insurance companies could try to find real jobs instead of feeding from peoples' misfortunes.

Today, I was at a private dentist. The dentist bills the city on her own rate and the city bills me on their own cheaper rate. The tax payers (me included) pay the gap. No need for insurance companies to skim money from the middle. The city acts as an insurance company, but they don't expect any profit.

We had a better system; unless you were on welfare or an illegal alien, no government was needed period, but costs went up and NO ONE, especially the Fed. Government gives a damn about the exceedingly high costs (to challenge that one would have to create tort reform and lawyers are one of the major contributors to the Dem. candidates) so the Dem. float paper boat telling lies about insurance companies and the huddled masses, as usual, are obtuse to the extreme and suck it up, UNTIL it comes back to bite them in the ass, but then Pandora's box is open.

The fact the huddled masses have awakened is one of the major reasons the Dem. are fighting to keep the gate open so the illegal alien debris can continue to flood in, they DO vote for Dem., legal or not, as they live off of others tax money.

[Eki]

We had a better system; unless you were on welfare or an illegal alien,
Do you believe that people on welfare or illegal aliens never need medical care? Do you prefer insurance companies to make profit instead of people on welfare and illegal aliens getting medical care?

[Eki]

The fact the huddled masses have awakened is one of the major reasons the Dem. are fighting to keep the gate open so the illegal alien debris can continue to flood in, they DO vote for Dem.
How can illegal aliens vote in the US? Here only citizens of Finland can vote.

[Bob Riebe]

Do you believe that people on welfare or illegal aliens never need medical care?
They already had it.

As expenses went up only two classes could easly afford going to the hopsital, those with enough money to pay out of pocket, and the ones you mentioned.

Even into the nineties when I went to the doctor it was ALWAYS paid cash, that that, is now not easily done WAS NOT ADDRESSED by anyone in the "health care" scam.

[Bob Riebe]

How can illegal aliens vote in the US? Here only citizens of Finland can vote.Some areas, not all, proof of residence is required, the Dem. are fighting hard to make that illegal, saying that discriminates. (That was one reason Dem. fought hard to get illegal aliens drivers licenses, they could have used those as an ID at a voting booth.)

Now think about that for a bit.

A Harley rider is passing the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents. The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain, the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter says, "Sir, this was the most brave and gallant thing I saw a man do in my whole life." The biker replies, "Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right." The reporter says, "Well, I'm a journalist from The New York Times, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page ... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?"

The biker replies, "I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican."

The following morning the biker buys The New York Times to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:

U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH!

[Eki]

They already had it.

As expenses went up only two classes could easly afford going to the hopsital, those with enough money to pay out of pocket, and the ones you mentioned.

Even into the nineties when I went to the doctor it was ALWAYS paid cash, that that, is now not easily done WAS NOT ADDRESSED by anyone in the "health care" scam.
You people are really complicated. Here, if I need hospital, the city just sends me a bill.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think the analogy is not entirely incorrect, though. Russian conventional forces are not as strong as you might think. (Finland and Poland could probably put up a very good fight.) But currently way stronger than those in the Baltics. Yes, we need a "roof". If we didn't have a Western one, we'd be in danger of getting an Eastern one... Just look at Georgia.

But NATO is obviously not like the Mob. It's the voluntary defence alliance of the democratic, Western world. An august institution. It's a privilege to be a part of it.

And coming back to the topic of this thread: the moral clarity that the Bush administration had about the Baltics certainly contributed very positively to peace and stability in our region. No, he wasn't all bad.

It has been said only those who understand how precious and fragile peace and freedom are can really understand it. You growing up there, understand this since the Baltics were NOT free until the fall of the Soviet Union. I was old enough to understand what the Soviet Union was like from afar....so I not only understand why the Baltics joined NATO, but I can sense why you value it. Many, Eki for example just fail to really appreciate that while they constantly argue about the merits of this and that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

If the Warsaw Pact were still alive and kicking, how would you describe it?

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

THAT would be the Mob...no one voluntarily joined the Warsaw Pact and was given the option of leaving while the Soviet Union was around. NATO on the other hand is a club where you can join or not join...or rather leave. Hardly the mob...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Do you believe that people on welfare or illegal aliens never need medical care? Do you prefer insurance companies to make profit instead of people on welfare and illegal aliens getting medical care?

They can need medical care...and they get it..and Bob pays for it as a taxpayer. He would probably prefer the insurance company makes a profit, he can at least buy stock in that, and he knows that the insurance company has to compete for his business. When government does it all for you, there is no incentive other than good will for them to do a good job, and they don't care how much money they spend. They know they can just raise more taxes....

[Mark in Oshawa]

You people are really complicated. Here, if I need hospital, the city just sends me a bill.

Yes...and in Bob's world, he gets hurt, the hospital sends him the bill...or his insurance looks after it. Take your pick. The only difference is Eki is Americans like having that choice..and they have seen how the Medicare program is all screwed up and they were reluctant to let Gov't do that now....

[Eki]

Yes...and in Bob's world, he gets hurt, the hospital sends him the bill...or his insurance looks after it. Take your pick. The only difference is Eki is Americans like having that choice..and they have seen how the Medicare program is all screwed up and they were reluctant to let Gov't do that now....
I think another difference is that Bob's hospital and insurance company try to profit from Bob. If Bob gets hurt, the hospital makes profit, if Bob doesn't get hurt, the insurance company makes profit. Either way, Bob pays.

[Bob Riebe]

I think another difference is that Bob's hospital and insurance company try to profit from Bob. If Bob gets hurt, the hospital makes profit, if Bob doesn't get hurt, the insurance company makes profit. Either way, Bob pays.
That is why I did not carry insurance.

[chuck34]

The insurance companies could try to find real jobs instead of feeding from peoples' misfortunes.

Today, I was at a private dentist. The dentist bills the city on her own rate and the city bills me on their own cheaper rate. The tax payers (me included) pay the gap. No need for insurance companies to skim money from the middle. The city acts as an insurance company, but they don't expect any profit.

You obviously have no clue how the health insurance industry works here. Yes, it was complicated. The new "law" did nothing to correct those complications, nor did it do anything to drive down costs.

As for "skiming money", what do you think the government will do if they control the whole thing? They are all perfect angels, right? There is no waste, fraud, or abuse in a government system, right? There aren't layers upon layers of needless beurocracy in government, right? Come on.

[chuck34]

I think another difference is that Bob's hospital and insurance company try to profit from Bob. If Bob gets hurt, the hospital makes profit, if Bob doesn't get hurt, the insurance company makes profit. Either way, Bob pays.

In your system, you pay the government. If you get hurt the government makes money on taxes, and then they'll probably raise them too. If you don't get hurt the government makes money on taxes, and they'll probably raise them then too.

Just because government doesn't make "profit", doesn't mean that you're not overpaying for services.

[EuroTroll]

In your system, you pay the government. If you get hurt the government makes money on taxes, and then they'll probably raise them too. If you don't get hurt the government makes money on taxes, and they'll probably raise them then too.

Just because government doesn't make "profit", doesn't mean that you're not overpaying for services.

I'm not so familiar with your new health care legislation, but wasn't the major underlying problem the fact that Americans pay way more for their health care than anyone else in the Western world?

[chuck34]

I'm not so familiar with your new health care legislation, but wasn't the major underlying problem the fact that Americans pay way more for their health care than anyone else in the Western world?

I've always been a bit skeptical of that figure. I don't know if they figure in taxes, fees, etc. that other countires pay. Are they really comparing apples and oranges?

And even if we do pay more, so what? As long as I'm getting good quality health care I'm willing to pay for it. Is money really everything? Look at it this way. There are two ways to get your apendix taken out. One is the "old" way of slicing your gut open and pulling it out. That opens you up for infections, complecations, and has a fairly long recovery time. The other is the "new" way where they go in through your belly button with a scope and suck it out. There is little risk of infection, complecations, and the recovery is swift. Now the "old" way is cheap, and the "new" way is more expensive. And that's not the only example like this. So is cost really everything?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think another difference is that Bob's hospital and insurance company try to profit from Bob. If Bob gets hurt, the hospital makes profit, if Bob doesn't get hurt, the insurance company makes profit. Either way, Bob pays.

Why shouldn't Bob pay? Like most Americans, he wants something, he will make money and pay for it. You think your healthcare is free? I have "free" healthcare in Canada to the extent beyond most of Europe. I have no private option short of driving to the US for it. Yet I am paying a very high level of taxes for it, and I am in the middle class.

Yes, there is a role for some minimum level of healthcare in society. I think the poor and uninsured should be looked after, but those making a good living usually would be quite willing to pay for a higher quality healthcare. AS Chuck has pointed out in his posts, "Cheap" doesn't always mean better...

[EuroTroll]

I've always been a bit skeptical of that figure. I don't know if they figure in taxes, fees, etc. that other countires pay. Are they really comparing apples and oranges?

And even if we do pay more, so what? As long as I'm getting good quality health care I'm willing to pay for it. Is money really everything? Look at it this way. There are two ways to get your apendix taken out. One is the "old" way of slicing your gut open and pulling it out. That opens you up for infections, complecations, and has a fairly long recovery time. The other is the "new" way where they go in through your belly button with a scope and suck it out. There is little risk of infection, complecations, and the recovery is swift. Now the "old" way is cheap, and the "new" way is more expensive. And that's not the only example like this. So is cost really everything?

Is health care in Canada, for example, of lower quality than in the US? I've read that Canadians spend about 10% of their GDP on health care each year, while the Americans spend about 15%. I don't know how accurate that is. But if it's true, it would strongly indicate that your existing way of administering health care was inefficient.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'm not so familiar with your new health care legislation, but wasn't the major underlying problem the fact that Americans pay way more for their health care than anyone else in the Western world?

They pay more in a visible way, but pay less taxes. Furthermore, they have choices and can make more decisions on their care. In a gov't system, certain treatments or procedures may not be available. Americans have only their ability to pay as a restriction... Which may sound like only an option for the rich, but it does point out that one size fits all healthcare is rationed. It makes it a slave to the state, and it becomes an entitlement that chews up large amounts of the budget and makes medical care a political football. All of these things annoy Americans...because America was created to be free off but minimal state encroachment into the private lives of its citizens. It isn't that way now...and people are resenting it.

[EuroTroll]

All of these things annoy Americans...because America was created to be free off but minimal state encroachment into the private lives of its citizens. It isn't that way now...and people are resenting it.

Ok. When you put it like that, I can understand it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok. When you put it like that, I can understand it.

I am laughing because most of the time, just about everyone else from Europe doesn't grasp it.

America isn't like any other country, including mine. It really isn't. The political culture and mindset of a large majority of its citizens continues on the tradition of what founded the country; that is a fervent desire for there to be as little government interference in the private lives of the citizens as possible. Now they have a President who will use the state to toss people in jail or fine them for not having health insurance. You have to know there is going to be vehment opposition and THAT is what you are seeing on your news.

The reality is, American's traditionally have required the citizen to be responsible to himself and his family first, and created a state that made this self reliance a must. It must have worked eh? Now people are trying to emulate Europe. Well as the Greek's are proving...that isn't such a great idea...

[Eki]

Just because government doesn't make "profit", doesn't mean that you're not overpaying for services.
Why's that? I don't think so. The taxes are just to cover the costs, not to make the shareholders and doctors rich. Salaries for example are lower in the public healthcare, as far as I know.

[Eki]

As long as I'm getting good quality health care I'm willing to pay for it.
Believe it or not, health care can be good quality also in the public sector. Besides, if the public sector don't have time or resources to take care of something, they'll buy services from the private sector and tax payers pay collectively the price gap so one person doesn't have to pay the whole bill.

[chuck34]

Is health care in Canada, for example, of lower quality than in the US? I've read that Canadians spend about 10% of their GDP on health care each year, while the Americans spend about 15%. I don't know how accurate that is. But if it's true, it would strongly indicate that your existing way of administering health care was inefficient.

In some areas, yes Canadian health care is worse. My brother-in-law is Canadian. He has a bad back. He had to lay flat on his back for 6 months waiting for surgury. The premier of one of the Provinces (can't remember which one off the top of my head) recently came down here for heart surgury. I'm sure Mark and our other northern friends can come up with a million more stories.

And I never said the system we have/had is/was perfect. No one would say that. But the bill recently passed did NOTHING to fix any of the inefficiencies. In fact it made most of them worse, and added more.

[Eki]

Well as the Greek's are proving...that isn't such a great idea...
Greece isn't the whole Europe. Iceland isn't the whole Europe either, but look where emulating American mindless capitalism took Iceland and their banks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_Icelandic_financial_crisis

[chuck34]

Why's that? I don't think so. The taxes are just to cover the costs, not to make the shareholders and doctors rich. Salaries for example are lower in the public healthcare, as far as I know.

So if you force doctors to take lower salaries, do you think that will improve the health care system?

[chuck34]

Believe it or not, health care can be good quality also in the public sector. Besides, if the public sector don't have time or resources to take care of something, they'll buy services from the private sector and tax payers pay collectively the price gap so one person doesn't have to pay the whole bill.

That is unless you have a system like Canada where there is no private option.

And why shouldn't one person pay the whole bill? I don't understand that. If someone truly can't work, I'm fine with helping them out. But we are WAAAAAAAY beyond helping out the truly needy in this country. I'm sorry, I probably sound like some heartless *******. But I've worked hard for what I have. Why should someone forceably take my hard earned property away from me just to give it to someone who doesn't have the desire to work?

[janvanvurpa]

That's like saying normal business relations and sexual relations are accomplished through intimidation just because the Mafia and rapists do it.

Contrary to your belief, normal diplomatic relations are based on mutual trust and mutual respect.

What shows best that Vop has some form of mental disease or who knows maybe actual organic disease which affects his ability to think is this:
He posits that 'intimidation" is the way to "normal" diplomatic relations and presumably "respect" which he has stated is based on fear,

but he sees that his comments, invariably simplistic, and stupid, and pseudo-aggressive, are received by virtually all with derision, and disgust, and universal contempt---and he claims to be oblivious to it.

That's not cognitive dissonance, it's either some form of mental retardation or disease.

His "same people different flag" is so stupid, and so insulting that it should result in some sort of ban----if there were any kind of moderation around here.

[janvanvurpa]

America isn't like any other country, including mine. It really isn't. The political culture and mindset of a small minority of its citizens continues on the tradition of what founded the country; that is a fervent desire for there to be as little government interference in the private lives of the citizens as possible.
.

Mindset is right, the problem is that minority screams so loud that some OUTSIDE observers are fooled into thinking that that is the norm, and they, and their foreign mouthpieces, ignore that ignorant minority's constant desires for Government Interference into the PRIVATE lives of all of the rest of the country who they don't agree with.
The selective and ignorant nature of the vocal minority's cries about "as little government interference" is excellently illustrated in the latest astro-turf campaign of the so called tea baggers to "keep the government out of my Medi-care" we saw so famously.

They want the "gubbymint" to leave them alone, but want the gubbymint to control everybody else.
Real American.....

The confusion of that "mindset" is illustrated well by one of their heroes who said so famously ""A mind is a terrible thing to waste," and said, "You take the UNCF model that what a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."[13]"

(let's see if our beloved foreign defender and expert on all things American knows who said that....)

[Eki]

That is unless you have a system like Canada where there is no private option.

And why shouldn't one person pay the whole bill? I don't understand that.
Because for example cancer treatments can cost much more than an ordinary person can afford. There are also other expensive treatments not affordable to most people.

[Eki]

So if you force doctors to take lower salaries, do you think that will improve the health care system?
Do you think they'd decide to become for example teachers when they still make at least twice as much as teachers? If there aren't high paying jobs for doctors, they'll take what they can get as long as the deal is good enough to stay working as a doctor.

[anthonyvop]

If there aren't high paying jobs for doctors, they'll take what they can get as long as the deal is good enough to stay working as a doctor.
Really?

We already have a doctor shortage. With Obamacare even less people will go through the over 8 years of hell to become a doctor to work for civil servant salary.

[Roamy]

Really?

We already have a doctor shortage. With Obamacare even less people will go through the over 8 years of hell to become a doctor to work for civil servant salary.

Well the only good thing about this is there will be more women doctors so it will be less offensive when you get your prostrate checked :)

[Malbec]

So if you force doctors to take lower salaries, do you think that will improve the health care system?

Chuck, salaries have very little to do with the quality of doctors in any system. In just about any country in the world the number of doctors is limited by one factor only, the ability of the country to train sufficient numbers.

If anything if you cut the salaries of doctors in the US you may get rid of a substantial number of the unpleasant types who forget that they are treating people and only pursue financial renumeration. As Fousto has inadvertently pointed out you'll still get enough doctors, just ones who are motivated by factors other than money.

[Bob Riebe]

Chuck, salaries have very little to do with the quality of doctors in any system. In just about any country in the world the number of doctors is limited by one factor only, the ability of the country to train sufficient numbers.

If anything if you cut the salaries of doctors in the US you may get rid of a substantial number of the unpleasant types who forget that they are treating people and only pursue financial renumeration. As Fousto has inadvertently pointed out you'll still get enough doctors, just ones who are motivated by factors other than money.
Tell that to the small towns around my home town which now have NO clinic or simply NO doctors.
You must think it is great to have to drive thirty to forty miles, or more to find a doctor.
Every little burg with population of one hundred or more used to have at least one doctor in town.

[Malbec]

Tell that to the small towns around my home town which now have NO clinic or simply NO doctors.
You must think it is great to have to drive thirty to forty miles, or more to find a doctor.
Every little burg with population of one hundred or more used to have at least one doctor in town.

Bob, why exactly do you think that villages with populations of only 100 or so don't have doctors any more? Because it isn't profitable enough for those doctors to only treat populations so small perhaps?

Running healthcare with profit as the only motive results in exactly the situation you describe.

[Bob Riebe]

Bob, why exactly do you think that villages with populations of only 100 or so don't have doctors any more? Because it isn't profitable enough for those doctors to only treat populations so small perhaps?

Running healthcare with profit as the only motive results in exactly the situation you describe.
If you see it from that aspect then the problem runs far deeper than profit medical care. The only thing that has inflated near the same rate as doctor costs is education; therefore the Feds. must step in an reduce the wages in the educational institutes so the people running the colleges do not make millions whilst the teachers make tens of thousands; ESPECIALLY in medical schools.

With reduced educational costs the doctors will not have to charge so much to pay for their education, and of course the government, the same one that sat around scratching is ass and picking its nose as ITS rules destroyed Fannie and Freddie, will use its error free pixie dust to bring their smooth running train to education.
NO more private or state colleges everyone can go to the wonderful Fed. institutions.
Of course, the same Feds. who forced this state run law on its citizens are exempt by law from having to use said same system; whereas they are also the same people who voted THEMSELVES a pay raise during an economy THEY said was near as bad as the Great Depression.

BRILLIANT!

[anthonyvop]

Chuck, salaries have very little to do with the quality of doctors in any system. .

Really?

Hypothetical: You need some delicate, advanced medical treatment.
Would you prefer having;

A. A doctor who earns top dollar at John Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic

or

B. Dr. Tie-dye from the "People's Clinic Co-op" in East L.A.

Don't bother answering....we both know the truth.

Salaries have a great deal to do with quality of work. There are exceptions but they are very, very rare.

[Roamy]

Chuck would take Tie dye because he is beyond help.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mindset is right, the problem is that minority screams so loud that some OUTSIDE observers are fooled into thinking that that is the norm, and they, and their foreign mouthpieces, ignore that ignorant minority's constant desires for Government Interference into the PRIVATE lives of all of the rest of the country who they don't agree with.
The selective and ignorant nature of the vocal minority's cries about "as little government interference" is excellently illustrated in the latest astro-turf campaign of the so called tea baggers to "keep the government out of my Medi-care" we saw so famously.

They want the "gubbymint" to leave them alone, but want the gubbymint to control everybody else.
Real American.....

The confusion of that "mindset" is illustrated well by one of their heroes who said so famously ""A mind is a terrible thing to waste," and said, "You take the UNCF model that what a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."[13]"

(let's see if our beloved foreign defender and expert on all things American knows who said that....)

I do know Qualyle mangled it once Jan..but I really don't care....

ON me being a defender? I guess you missed the @ss whupping I got for calling into question your military's actions in Iraq with a helicopter. I can be critical. On this one, no....I am not that critical. I am realistic...and not even sure where your point is going...but I could put you back on ignore and not have to worry about it again...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Bob, why exactly do you think that villages with populations of only 100 or so don't have doctors any more? Because it isn't profitable enough for those doctors to only treat populations so small perhaps?

Running healthcare with profit as the only motive results in exactly the situation you describe.

It is for THAT reason I believe Canada went to universal care...because large parts of the sparsely populated west didn't have doctors..or enough of them. I get the point of a partial move towards public care. I am not 100% sure public healthcare to some point in the US isn't bad idea. I have swung quite a bit on that...BUT..and this is the KEY point. Nothing they passed this year will really do much to help that. The US gov't makes Canada's government look efficient on how it funds healthcare.

I wouldn't trust the Feds or the US States to not muck it up to be honest...

[Mark in Oshawa]

If you see it from that aspect then the problem runs far deeper than profit medical care. The only thing that has inflated near the same rate as doctor costs is education; therefore the Feds. must step in an reduce the wages in the educational institutes so the people running the colleges do not make millions whilst the teachers make tens of thousands; ESPECIALLY in medical schools.

With reduced educational costs the doctors will not have to charge so much to pay for their education, and of course the government, the same one that sat around scratching is ass and picking its nose as ITS rules destroyed Fannie and Freddie, will use its error free pixie dust to bring their smooth running train to education.
NO more private or state colleges everyone can go to the wonderful Fed. institutions.
Of course, the same Feds. who forced this state run law on its citizens are exempt by law from having to use said same system; whereas they are also the same people who voted THEMSELVES a pay raise during an economy THEY said was near as bad as the Great Depression.

BRILLIANT!

As I said in my above post, Maybe some form of public healthcare for the USA isnt a bad idea..but Bob's post here really explains why no one trust's the current part of power in the US AT ALL on healthcare. The people in Congress exempt themselves from the programs they are ramming down the public's throat. Whenever a politician does that...you have to know it is bad news.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Why's that? I don't think so. The taxes are just to cover the costs, not to make the shareholders and doctors rich. Salaries for example are lower in the public healthcare, as far as I know.

They are? The Doctors salaries are less, but in Canada, nurses and practical nurses make 20 to 35 % more working for the public system, rather than in doctor's offices, or nursing homes run by private corporations.

What is more, the public sector unions that are staff in the hospitals usually have the workers there also making above the private sector average for the same job. I worked in the hospital kitchen here for two summers as a porter. Unskilled labour just taking meals up to the floors. I was paid per hour about 30% more than I made for the next 3 years in my real job when I got out of school.

For Profit healthcare providers and health insurance companies do some things very well.

A good system would have elements of both..but not sure how I would make it all work....

[chuck34]

Because for example cancer treatments can cost much more than an ordinary person can afford. There are also other expensive treatments not affordable to most people.

So no one has ever payed for cancer treatment without government "help"? Interesting.

[chuck34]

Do you think they'd decide to become for example teachers when they still make at least twice as much as teachers? If there aren't high paying jobs for doctors, they'll take what they can get as long as the deal is good enough to stay working as a doctor.

Many will retire early. Then we'll have a worse doctor shortage than we do now. How will that effect quality of care?

[chuck34]

Chuck, salaries have very little to do with the quality of doctors in any system. In just about any country in the world the number of doctors is limited by one factor only, the ability of the country to train sufficient numbers.

If anything if you cut the salaries of doctors in the US you may get rid of a substantial number of the unpleasant types who forget that they are treating people and only pursue financial renumeration. As Fousto has inadvertently pointed out you'll still get enough doctors, just ones who are motivated by factors other than money.

We already have a doctor shortage. If you take away the incentive for many of them (money), do you really think that they'll continue to devote years of schooling just to come out of school with massive debt they can never pay off? It's not the salary that effects the quality of care. It's the shortage that we have and may be worsened by this that will cause the drop in quality of care.

[chuck34]

Bob, why exactly do you think that villages with populations of only 100 or so don't have doctors any more? Because it isn't profitable enough for those doctors to only treat populations so small perhaps?

Running healthcare with profit as the only motive results in exactly the situation you describe.

So how do you think this will change the profit motive? Sure the government isn't concerned with profit, but they do still have to worry about costs. It still may not be cost effective to have a doctor in a town of 100, especially with less docs.

[chuck34]

Chuck would take Tie dye because he is beyond help.

I think perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

[Eki]

So no one has ever payed for cancer treatment without government "help"? Interesting.
I guess it depends on the cancer and the treatment. For example here is a limit of how many hospital nights one has to pay and those that go over the limit are free. Also prescription drugs that you buy are partly compensated and tax deductible.

[Malbec]

Really?

Hypothetical: You need some delicate, advanced medical treatment.
Would you prefer having;

A. A doctor who earns top dollar at John Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic

or

B. Dr. Tie-dye from the "People's Clinic Co-op" in East L.A.

Don't bother answering....we both know the truth.

Salaries have a great deal to do with quality of work. There are exceptions but they are very, very rare.

Firstly I was talking about salaries not affecting recruitment INTO the field, not recruitment WITHIN, but you raise a good point that often is not clear to laymen.

I've worked in both kinds of institution long enough to know that working in a big-name institution is no guarantee of staff quality.

I would want to be treated by the doctor with the best clinical acumen in my field or the surgeon with the best skills and least complication rates. I suspect that is what you would be looking for too.

Going to John Hopkins or its equivalent is all well and good but who do they recruit? The best clinicians or the guys with the most impressive paper CV? People are too easily impressed by the title 'Prof' while forgetting that clinical skills are often far removed from academic prowess, just as in most other practical fields. I have through my career come across 'Profs' who command immense respect from non-doctors who are truly appalling in their clinical care. You also forget that big name institutions often specifically attract academics rather than hands-on clinicians because of the volume of research they do. Some of the best doctors I have ever had the pleasure of working with are at 'no-name' institutions where they get to do hands on straight forwards clinical work

[Malbec]

If you see it from that aspect then the problem runs far deeper than profit medical care. The only thing that has inflated near the same rate as doctor costs is education; therefore the Feds. must step in an reduce the wages in the educational institutes so the people running the colleges do not make millions whilst the teachers make tens of thousands; ESPECIALLY in medical schools.

With reduced educational costs the doctors will not have to charge so much to pay for their education, and of course the government, the same one that sat around scratching is ass and picking its nose as ITS rules destroyed Fannie and Freddie, will use its error free pixie dust to bring their smooth running train to education.

I know what American medical students pay for their training and it IS expensive but it is not extortionate. American medical students also do get their moneys worth in general, whilst I'm sure there are exceptions the general level of training is excellent.

I don't think you will see a substantial cost-saving by reforming the costs of medical training, even by removing the profit component completely costs won't be reduced substantially. Training doctors is simply an expensive business.

[Malbec]

We already have a doctor shortage. If you take away the incentive for many of them (money), do you really think that they'll continue to devote years of schooling just to come out of school with massive debt they can never pay off? It's not the salary that effects the quality of care. It's the shortage that we have and may be worsened by this that will cause the drop in quality of care.

You raised two points in your posts (I only quoted this one of yours). You suggested that there'd be worse recruitment and worse retention of doctors. On the latter I'd agree but on the former there won't be any effect. In Italy for example the average doctor earns 1/3 their US equivalent but the government doesn't have a cap on training numbers, end result is that they produce too many doctors and have to export them.

Ultimately if there's a shortfall in doctor numbers you can always deregulate the market a little and allow more overseas doctors to come in to plug holes. Given how well paid American doctors are now there'd be plenty of foreign ones willing to work for a relatively lower salary. Problem then is that you're up against some very powerful medical colleges and lobbies.


So how do you think this will change the profit motive? Sure the government isn't concerned with profit, but they do still have to worry about costs. It still may not be cost effective to have a doctor in a town of 100, especially with less docs.

You're probably right in that catering for every town with a population of 100 people will never be cost effective even for a state-run healthcare system. However there's even less incentive for a healthcare service looking for profit to serve rural communities that Bob described because the population density simply doesn't make it worthwhile, and private healthcare doesn't need to provide a service for any other reason.

[Eki]

If you see it from that aspect then the problem runs far deeper than profit medical care. The only thing that has inflated near the same rate as doctor costs is education; therefore the Feds. must step in an reduce the wages in the educational institutes so the people running the colleges do not make millions whilst the teachers make tens of thousands; ESPECIALLY in medical schools.

Here medical studies are free, just like all other university studies. So, I think the doctors owe the taxpayers for paying their education.

[Eki]

Many will retire early.
Why, if their pension is lower than the cut salary?

[chuck34]

Why, if their pension is lower than the cut salary?

They're near retirement anyway. Plus they may not want to deal with all the extra regulations, and beurocratic BS that is comming up. Many other reasons as well.

http://www.investors.com/newsandanalysis/article.aspx?id=506199

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62812

[Mark in Oshawa]

Doctor shortage in the US? Wow...I have news for you. WE have it here with Gov't healthcare. I think the doctor shortage is perception at times in the US...but in Canada it is real. We have communites of 2 and 3 thousand citizens begging for doctors, and taking doctors from foreign nations and giving them perks to set up shop for 5 years....

[anthonyvop]

Firstly I was talking about salaries not affecting recruitment INTO the field,

Not true at all. Salary is a big recruitment tool for occupations. In fact the number of students considering a career in the medical field has dropped considerably since the passage of Obamacare.


I've worked in both kinds of institution long enough to know that working in a big-name institution is no guarantee of staff quality.

Anecdotal evidence but if you really believe that staff at a institution like Johns Hopkins isn't superior than your local free clinic I wish you good health.

[/QUOTE]

[Eki]

Doctor shortage in the US? Wow...I have news for you. WE have it here with Gov't healthcare. I think the doctor shortage is perception at times in the US...but in Canada it is real. We have communites of 2 and 3 thousand citizens begging for doctors, and taking doctors from foreign nations and giving them perks to set up shop for 5 years....
We have doctor shortage in some places too. Most doctors want to live and work in big cities and towns in the south instead of small villages in the north. Increasing the number of educated doctors might help so that not everybody has the chance to pick the place where they work and some would have to accept jobs in undesirable locations or be unemployed, but that could lead to decreased quality of doctors.

[Malbec]

Not true at all. Salary is a big recruitment tool for occupations. In fact the number of students considering a career in the medical field has dropped considerably since the passage of Obamacare.

So? There'll be a new group of people who will find medicine more attractive as the emphasis shifts. Medicine has plenty of other things to offer people apart from money including simply being a bloody interesting job. Medical salaries in the UK have seen a drop year on year for the last three or four decades yet again filling medical school places has not been a problem.

Countries like Cuba pay their doctors peanuts, as do places like Italy. A shortage of doctors is not a problem they have to cope with, quite the opposite in fact. Both countries I believe have more doctors per capita than the US.


Anecdotal evidence but if you really believe that staff at a institution like Johns Hopkins isn't superior than your local free clinic I wish you good health.


I'm aware that English is not your primary language so I can't be too harsh but you clearly didn't understand what I wrote. If you think academics with a great grip on theory but who don't spend much time practicing clinical medicine are who you want treating you fair enough. There are plenty of extremely skilled people who choose not to work in institutions like John Hopkins simply because they do not like the academic research orientated culture.

[Malbec]

We have doctor shortage in some places too. Most doctors want to live and work in big cities and towns in the south instead of small villages in the north. Increasing the number of educated doctors might help so that not everybody has the chance to pick the place where they work and some would have to accept jobs in undesirable locations or be unemployed, but that could lead to decreased quality of doctors.

Many countries offer financial incentives to work in rural areas or specifically recruit doctors overseas purely for those rural areas (Australia and Canada come to mind). Others like Iran or South Africa with state funded medical education make it mandatory for junior doctors to spend time in rural areas for a period in return for free training. There are plenty of ways to try to tackle the problem.

[fandango]

Anyway, as the bishop said to the actress, let's get back to the Bush. He failed, really, didn't he? I mean, we can argue forever about the hows and whys and whatnots, but when you think back to that triumphant aircraft carrier PR stunt to herald the end of the war, that was ages ago, and well, he failed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Countries like Cuba pay their doctors peanuts, as do places like Italy. A shortage of doctors is not a problem they have to cope with, quite the opposite in fact. Both countries I believe have more doctors per capita than the US.



Not sure how little Italy pays their doctors, but to say Cuba has more doctors per capita also ignores the reality that that is the one profession the regime has gone out of their way to cultivate, they still get a lot more than the average worker AND...it isn't like they can emigrate Dylan.

Using Cuba is a bit of an exception that doesn't really help your case.

[BDunnell]

I'm aware that English is not your primary language so I can't be too harsh but you clearly didn't understand what I wrote.

Unnecessarily polite, in my opinion.

[Bob Riebe]

Anyway, as the bishop said to the actress, let's get back to the Bush. He failed, really, didn't he? I mean, we can argue forever about the hows and whys and whatnots, but when you think back to that triumphant aircraft carrier PR stunt to herald the end of the war, that was ages ago, and well, he failed.
Well as this: If people from places like Syria and North Korea can respect what George stood for...why cant others? Maybe it is because they never lost their freedoms?

Dubya may not be the greatest politican by any stretch, but I think in standing up to dictators, he didn't do as bad as people think... was El Marko's statement, so--- he failed at what.
He bungled the Iraq war, big time, but the Dem. were so busy BS that did absolutely nothing to point out how the war could have been fought better, with less loss of life, Bush's failing was pale compared to the vacuous obtuse statements made by the Dem.

I am glad the aircraft carrier stunt happened, it did make Pres. Bush's errors poignant to the point he either started fighting the war as a war should be fought, kill them till it hurts, or have it hung around his neck like Clinton got stuck with Mogadishu.
Oh yes, a top Al-Qaeda operative said one reason Osama attacked the towers was because he though Bush would do little more than Clinton did in Africa; although Reagan's running from Lebanon and Carter's running from Iran, not to mention cut-and-run in Vietnam, probably had an influence also.

[gloomyDAY]

Anyway, as the bishop said to the actress, let's get back to the Bush. He failed, really, didn't he? I mean, we can argue forever about the hows and whys and whatnots, but when you think back to that triumphant aircraft carrier PR stunt to herald the end of the war, that was ages ago, and well, he failed.You're absolutely right. Never start anything you can't finish.

Let's go over the list of Bush's failures in case someone forgot:

- 9/11
- unPATRIOTic Act
- War on two fronts
- Debt
- Katrina
- This is a long list....
- I know there's more....
- There just isn't enough space....

The savior of Iraq from falling off the precipice wasn't Bush. Petraeus is the name, son.

[Bob Riebe]

The savior of Iraq from falling off the precipice wasn't Bush. Petraeus is the name, son.
Petraeus did nothing without the White House OK. Just as Rumsfeld was Bush's fault, Patraeus was Bush's credit, sonny.

[Malbec]

Not sure how little Italy pays their doctors, but to say Cuba has more doctors per capita also ignores the reality that that is the one profession the regime has gone out of their way to cultivate, they still get a lot more than the average worker AND...it isn't like they can emigrate Dylan.

Using Cuba is a bit of an exception that doesn't really help your case.

Does Cuba force students into medicine? No. They make a choice out of free will. Is medicine any easier to study for there compared to other subjects? No. Do they get paid less relative to the rest of the population compared to the US? Yes.

Do they have a recruitment problem for doctors? No. You are right about one thing though, the Cuban government does seem to promote medicine as a career as a duty to both the people and the state, something which helps recruit a different kind of person into the profession other than the moneygrabbing types that go for it in the US.

You'll have to point out a case where lowering doctors salaries has reduced the supply of doctors. There simply isn't one. I could talk about Germany too which has oversupply and how little they earn compared to the US or even Britain. We could talk about Russia where even though doctors earn more than back in the Soviet days there are fewer around purely because the training system collapsed. Its the training system that is the bottleneck, not final salary.

[fandango]

Well as this: [b]If people from places like Syria and North Korea can respect what George stood for...why cant others? Maybe it is because they never lost their freedoms?

Dubya may not be the greatest politican by any stretch, but I think in standing up to dictators, he didn't do as bad as people think... (snipped)

Yes, that's a fair point. Our opinions are always coloured by our personal perspectives. Living in Spain, President Aznar's dictatorial style of leadership, ignoring the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the people regarding going into war, and his alliance with Bush and Blair, certainly colours my opinion of what the three of them stood for.

The thing is, this idea of standing up for democracy, of going to war against despots in the name of freedom, there's a problem with Bush and his friends: I don't believe them. Not for a moment. Not when you see how they then treat their own democractic freedom and abuse their power. I think they are lieing. Obviously some do believe them, and that means this discussion can go on and on...

And the people of the countries you mentioned are in desperate situations. Desperation leads to grabbing onto any hope there is. This is no endorsement of Bush or anybody.

[Eki]

Does Cuba force students into medicine? No. They make a choice out of free will. Is medicine any easier to study for there compared to other subjects? No. Do they get paid less relative to the rest of the population compared to the US? Yes.

Do they have a recruitment problem for doctors? No. You are right about one thing though, the Cuban government does seem to promote medicine as a career as a duty to both the people and the state, something which helps recruit a different kind of person into the profession other than the moneygrabbing types that go for it in the US.

You'll have to point out a case where lowering doctors salaries has reduced the supply of doctors. There simply isn't one. I could talk about Germany too which has oversupply and how little they earn compared to the US or even Britain. We could talk about Russia where even though doctors earn more than back in the Soviet days there are fewer around purely because the training system collapsed. Its the training system that is the bottleneck, not final salary.
That's true. If you train more doctors than are needed, the salaries will go down. If you train less doctors than are needed, the salaries will go up. It's about supply and demand.

[chuck34]

Petraeus did nothing without the White House OK. Just as Rumsfeld was Bush's fault, Patraeus was Bush's credit, sonny.

Well said. Rumsfeld wasn't much good as Sec. Of Defence. Another of Bush's faults is that he's too loyal. Once he was finally convinced that Rummy just wasn't gonna work out, replaced him with Gates, and Gates installed Patraeus things changed. And boy did they change QUICK. There weren't too many people, on either side of the aisle, that thought Iraq could be stabilized that fast. Bush, Gates, and Patraeus all deserve credit for that.

[Eki]

Well as this: [b]If people from places like Syria and North Korea can respect what George stood for...why cant others?

That doesn't say much. Some Russians respected Hitler so much that they joined his army and fought against their own country in WW2:

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

[EuroTroll]

That doesn't say much. Some Russians respected Hitler so much that they joined his army and fought against their own country in WW2:

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

I suspect you know that, but you've made a very unfair statement there. The Russian Liberation Army was about fighting against communists, not for Hitler. Or did the Finns also "respect Hitler so much" that they were on the same side?

[Eki]

I suspect you know that, but you've made a very unfair statement there. The Russian Liberation Army was about fighting against communists, not for Hitler. Or did the Finns also "respect Hitler so much" that they were on the same side?
Finns didn't fight against Finns in WW2, except the Terijoki Government:

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

What I meant was that Bush didn't have the right to invade Iraq just because not all Iraqis liked Saddam's government, Hitler didn't have the right to invade the Soviet Union just because not all Russians liked the communist regime there and Stalin didn't have the right to invade Finland just because not all Finns liked the capitalist government of Finland.

[AAReagles]

....If I were American, I'd miss Clinton, not Bush. Leaving aside what I think were the totally insignificant sex scandals, I think Clinton was an excellent president, for the US and for the world.

Though I'm a conservative, I can't say too much against Clinton, due to the fact that he maintained his stance on capital punishment and despite the ongoing criticism at the time, he was reluctant to get the US military involved in the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict until the UN/NATO finally got it right and realized the fact that military air strikes was a necessary ingredient to suppress the violent forces in the region.

He, like other presidents, of course, had his drawbacks as well as good points.



... but the reality is for the last 8 years I have heard over and over again by people who dislike Bush is how he is such a screw up and we shouldn't be in Iraq...and the reality is, the USA and UK are in Iraq, and THAT is a done deal. It is over...done...finished...the direction of history has changed for good on that score...

:up: I agree.

I'm not a Bush fan in any sense whatsoever, in fact I am glad he was president and his administration made some poor choices (namely Katrina) that this country got over its' racist self and voted in its' first African-American president, though I'm not an Obama fan either, since I regard him - so far that is - as another status-quo politician. I would have prefered Colin Powell myself.

But you're right about how Bush Jr., takes on too much flak for Iraq. It wouldn't have mattered if Al Gore was prez or for that matter, Tiny Tim and his ukulele, the US would have invaded someday anyways due to Hussien's actions.

I blame Bush Sr., for not getting the job done in the first place, as well as encouraging the Kurds and Shiites to rebel (after we left the region to a No-Fly-Zone policy), then being left to hang. Also the US should have halted their military support of Iraq once the atrocities committed against the Kurds was revealed in the 1980's. But that's another argument in itself...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Finns didn't fight against Finns in WW2, except the Terijoki Government:

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

What I meant was that Bush didn't have the right to invade Iraq just because not all Iraqis liked Saddam's government, Hitler didn't have the right to invade the Soviet Union just because not all Russians liked the communist regime there and Stalin didn't have the right to invade Finland just because not all Finns liked the capitalist government of Finland.

In the case of Russia, Finland or Germany, none were entrusted by the UN to enforce sanctions as passed by the UN for the end of the first Gulf War. Furthermore, the consequnces for not respecting the sanctions were spelled out and included the re-commencement of hostilities from the First Gulf War. Since Hussein could have just let the inspectors climb into his palaces but refused to, he handed Bush/Blair the rope, and put the noose around his neck didn't he? You REFUSE to admit this, because it destroys your argument. Nasty thing facts.....

[BDunnell]

Petraeus did nothing without the White House OK. Just as Rumsfeld was Bush's fault, Patraeus was Bush's credit, sonny.

You can't even spell his name correctly twice in the same sentence! Not a great advert for your argument, sonny.

[Bob Riebe]

You can't even spell his name correctly twice in the same sentence! Not a great advert for your argument, sonny.
No, it just shows I fell into a bad grammatical habit even though earlier on, I spelled it correctly.
That is all it shows.

Now you trying to prove a political point via a typo/s, that is WEAK.

[BDunnell]

No, it just shows I fell into a bad grammatical habit even though earlier on, I spelled it correctly.
That is all it shows.

Now you trying to prove a political point via a typo/s, that is WEAK.

Wasn't trying to prove any political point at all. I was merely pointing out that, yet again, those on the American right who come on here to offer their views generally do so inarticulately.

[markabilly]

Does Cuba force students into medicine? No. They make a choice out of free will. Is medicine any easier to study for there compared to other subjects? No. Do they get paid less relative to the rest of the population compared to the US? Yes.

Do they have a recruitment problem for doctors? No. You are right about one thing though, the Cuban government does seem to promote medicine as a career as a duty to both the people and the state, something which helps recruit a different kind of person into the profession other than the moneygrabbing types that go for it in the US.

You'll have to point out a case where lowering doctors salaries has reduced the supply of doctors. There simply isn't one. I could talk about Germany too which has oversupply and how little they earn compared to the US or even Britain. We could talk about Russia where even though doctors earn more than back in the Soviet days there are fewer around purely because the training system collapsed. Its the training system that is the bottleneck, not final salary.


For years and years it was not difficult to get into med school in the usa.
Then beginning with the 1960's and medicare, the medical profession refused through the AMA and various state boards to increase in enrollment in both state and private med schools.

meanwhile the population skyrockets and at one point in time HALF of the residents in training at USA hospitals came from overseas, while the med profession did its best to avoid increasing enrollment, as in limit supply while demand is going up, then up goes those salary dollars... :rolleyes:

[Bob Riebe]

Wasn't trying to prove any political point at all. I was merely pointing out that, yet again, those on the American right who come on here to offer their views generally do so inarticulately.
Well, trying to prove nothing, with nothing, amounts to nothing.

[anthonyvop]

Wasn't trying to prove any political point at all. I was merely pointing out that, yet again, those on the American right who come on here to offer their views generally do so inarticulately.

Pot. Meet Mr. Kettle!

[anthonyvop]

Does Cuba force students into medicine? No. They make a choice out of free will.

Actually they are. Cuban students are routinely forced into studies based on testing and need.

Don't believe the press releases. The Cuban health care system is a disaster. No supplies, Poorly trained and apathetic doctors.

The only good doctors work at "Dollar Clinics" where they take care of Tourists and Cuban Government officials. They get paid better there and receive numerous perks.

[Roamy]

Wasn't trying to prove any political point at all. I was merely pointing out that, yet again, those on the American right who come on here to offer their views generally do so inarticulately.

Great !!

Maybe we can start the "spelling bee" thread. Or better yet all Americans must post using "German"

[Eki]

Great !!

Maybe we can start the "spelling bee" thread. Or better yet all Americans must post using "German"
That might do you good. I recently read that those who speak two languages every day get dementia in average about 5 years later than those who speak just one language.

[Easy Drifter]

Chay.
Does Ojibway count?
I also am fluently bilingual in swear. :eek:

[Eki]

Chay.
Does Ojibway count?
I also am fluently bilingual in swear. :eek:
Probably Ojibway counts. I'm not sure about swearing though.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Actually they are. Cuban students are routinely forced into studies based on testing and need.

Don't believe the press releases. The Cuban health care system is a disaster. No supplies, Poorly trained and apathetic doctors.

The only good doctors work at "Dollar Clinics" where they take care of Tourists and Cuban Government officials. They get paid better there and receive numerous perks.
I have friends who have gone to Cuba with extra bottles of Asparin in them to "tip" their cleaning staff. So someone who defends the Cuban medical system want to explain why this would be a tip if the Cuban medical system was in good shape? When Maxipads, Asparin and Tylenol are considered "tips" in a nation, you know something is seriously wrong....

[Bob Riebe]

Probably Ojibway counts. I'm not sure about swearing though.
Well, to swear is to assert as true or promise something, but- cussing- is calling some one a stinky poop with more poignant words, or other similar items.

[Bob Riebe]

I have friends who have gone to Cuba with extra bottles of Asparin in them to "tip" their cleaning staff. So someone who defends the Cuban medical system want to explain why this would be a tip if the Cuban medical system was in good shape? When Maxipads, Asparin and Tylenol are considered "tips" in a nation, you know something is seriously wrong.... Shame on you, you mented: acetylsalicylic acid-- or aspirin--
HA- pants on the ground, pants on the ground....http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/smilies/roll_eyes.gif

Zstar Electronic Co.Ltd, Sell fire cards for DS/NDSL/NDSi, also have Wii, DSiLL, NDSi, NDSL, PSP2000, PSP3000, PS2, PS3, PSP go, PSP, Xbox360 accessories, all kinds of phones are available
http://www.zstar.hk
http://www.tigersupermall.com