Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't say she quit on the search. She quit on the war against. The majority of Osama's group, are in Iraq causing the majority of the problem. He may not be there, but his cowards are.
George W. is not the only one still standing up for it. The soldiers and sailors that are over there are standing up for it. And don't say that they don't want to be there. Last year there were thousands of reenlistments on the grounds that they could go back and make a difference.
I work with several National Guardsmen around here. They don't say, "Man, my unit is up for deployment." They do say, "Alright, I get a chance to go back over in November."
So they're not quitters.
So what kind of message do the quitters send to our troups?
Oh wow........apparently Dubya still has a supporter in you.
Osama's folks are in Iraq..........NOW, not before the war, thanks to Dubya. Afghanistan, where they were before the war.........they are reloading and retooling, because of Dubya's infatuation with Iraq.
Hillary, which I am not a fan of, is 1 of 100 senators.........the Iraq mess, and forgetting about Osama, lies on the feet of the Commander in Chief. Remember, he was the one that declared Mission Accomplished.....America and the troops are still waiting for that day.
Wow, powerful post.
She jumped up and screamed that Osama and Sadam have to be stopped. That region must be put into better shape. And now, you guessed it. She quit.
Congress just voted to increase the reward for capturing Osama from $25-million to $50-million. Bush will probably veto.
I didn't say she quit on the search. She quit on the war against. The majority of Osama's group, are in Iraq causing the majority of the problem.
This statement is 100% false. I can't blame for you for having an inaccurate perception of what is actually occuring in Iraq, since your President, once again, is feeding you these falsehoods. But Al Queda is not responsible for the majority of the problems in Iraq. They are just one of a plethora of Sunni and Shi'ite insurgent groups, and they are in fact smaller in number than many of the other groups. What's more, the group who calls themselves Al Queda in Iraq is not the same Al Queda who attacked us on 9/11. They just borrowed the name, I'd assume due to the strong brand name we have given it.
But there's a bigger problem with your theory, while our military has been bogged down trying to restore order in a country where there citizens do not want us there, and actively and tacitly support attacks against our soldiers, our intelligence has just indicated that Al Queda has effectively rebuilt their organization to an operating capacity similar in strength to before 9.11.
So while we have wasted countless Iraqi lives, over 3,000 American soldiers, and 3/4 quarters of a trillion dollars in Iraq, we have only seen Al Queda strengthen in that time.
Its time to admit what has been long obvious. Iraq is only hurting our national security. It has increased terrorism significantly worldwide, and has failed to have any affect on Al Queda, except for allowing it time to rebuild itself.
An unserious person would say that anyone who recognizes this reality is a quitter. A rational person would recognize that anyone who realizes it is time to realign our national security priorities in terms of something that works is on the right track. So on that note, I'd feel far more secure with Hillary Clinton and a group of adults correcting our foreign policy, than the incompetent bunch sinking the ship right now.
Oh wow........apparently Dubya still has a supporter in you.
Osama's folks are in Iraq..........NOW, not before the war, thanks to Dubya. Afghanistan, where they were before the war.........they are reloading and retooling, because of Dubya's infatuation with Iraq.
Hillary, which I am not a fan of, is 1 of 100 senators.........the Iraq mess, and forgetting about Osama, lies on the feet of the Commander in Chief. Remember, he was the one that declared Mission Accomplished.....America and the troops are still waiting for that day.
I'm glad people are allowed to live a sheltered life. Osama's people, Al-Quida, were in Iraq when I was there in 1990. And they had been there for years prior to that.
We didn't take them there when we started this war.
This statement is 100% false. I can't blame for you for having an inaccurate perception of what is actually occuring in Iraq, since your President, once again, is feeding you these falsehoods. But Al Queda is not responsible for the majority of the problems in Iraq. They are just one of a plethora of Sunni and Shi'ite insurgent groups, and they are in fact smaller in number than many of the other groups. What's more, the group who calls themselves Al Queda in Iraq is not the same Al Queda who attacked us on 9/11. They just borrowed the name, I'd assume due to the strong brand name we have given it.
the President isn't feeding me anything. My son is stationed 15 miles straight West of Falujah. My fiance is stationed just East of Bagdad.
The President himself said this in 2005, before his approval ratings were in the 20's and Republicans were finally ready to change course in Iraq...
Quote:
A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group. . . .
The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller, but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein -- people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community. . . .
The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda.
The only thing that has changed since then is the President's desperation, which has lead to an increase in misleading rhetoric. The American Public and Congress has correctly abandoned support for Iraq. So the President and his supporters have sought to redefine the war in Iraq to a war against Al Queda.
The unfortunate reality is that your husband and son remain in a country supporting an Iraqi government Iraqi's don't support, on behalf of a mission Iraqi's don't support, all in the name of these Iraqi's who don't agree with any of this. And while this is happening, Al Queda has completely regrouped itself in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
I'm glad people are allowed to live a sheltered life. Osama's people, Al-Quida, were in Iraq when I was there in 1990. And they had been there for years prior to that.
We didn't take them there when we started this war.
Come on now, if we want to nitpick, Al Qaeda is also in Brooklyn, NY, Buffalo, and Jersey City, NJ.
We are still talking about the folks that committed 9/11 right? Remember those people, the ones that set up base camps in Afghanistan, NOT Baghdad.
My take on the Health Plan problem and Hillary is this. She failed because she didn't understand that by going into nuanced detail she was putting a bullseye on her project. She was naive to the ways of the Federal process, and she had the outcome that would be inevitable with such a high degree of specifics.
My dislike of Bill Clinton was probably different from everyone else's. I viewed him as a backstabber to his supporters within his party when he was president. When his own party senators and congressmen would work to craft legislation he requested, he would frequently negotiate with his opposition behind his supporters back, and undercut what they were working to resolve in support of his own objectives. I don't recall the specific legislation proposals anymore, but I recall this happening often enough that his fellow Democratic officeholders were only lukewarm in supporting him when he was President.
The unfortunate reality is that your husband and son remain in a country supporting an Iraqi government Iraqi's don't support, on behalf of a mission Iraqi's don't support, all in the name of these Iraqi's who don't agree with any of this. And while this is happening, Al Queda has completely regrouped itself in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
One slight mistake. The fiance that is over there is a she. I'm the diabled American Vet (man) of the house.
But what I was pointing out is that I'm not pulling my info from the TV set or the news paper or any online info pit. I'm getting my info from soldiers in the field. I wouldn't trust Bush or Clinton to accurately describe what is happening. I specially wouldn't trust the news networks to report on the real happenings.
Son is on his first tour. Fiance is on her second tour.
2nd and 3rd weren't enough. It required either over 10 in less than 3 months. These weren't normal docs, but specialists, mostly rheumatologists. Show me a socialized program where you are able to call up specialist after specialist with no referring doctor after you have already recieved "treatment" from 2 or 3, all in a very short time span of 9-12 weeks. And if you can show me a system like that, show me the tax rates of the average middle class citizens.
I found one answer with a quick online search:
The French healthcare system allows for citizens to make appointments direct with any specialist they select. There are no gatekeepers or referral requirements. Additionally, they can see a General Practitioner without even making an appointment. Can you do that today? - I doubt it.
Now regarding the cost per citizen in France - in 2004 via WHO it was $3464.00 (equivalent US dollars) --- for the US in 2004 it was $6096.20. I realize that you put in your requirement something regarding middle-class taxes to try to make my point unprovable - (that was big of you by the way ), but that is a weak attempt because the actual cost I've shared above is the actual healthcare service total cost; and thus represents the actual amount of money spent on this service without lumping in all the others a French or US citizen may or may not also receive via our government.
The reality is that the French people are getting more bang for their buck than our currently privately-run healthcare system. How is this possible? It is possible because the privately run companies in the US across the current healthcare supply chain are pocketing a big chunk of the money we pay, as their profit. It's not the doctors (in Fact doctors on average in France earn more than US Doctors), it's the insurers, and other companies involved in our system.
Now lastly, back to your example. I find it most interesting that after all you and your wife went through (seeing 9 doctors before finding 1 that you agreed wth the diagnosis), and spending significant monthly money for the privalege of your insurance, that you are of the opinion that another system would be so bad. Perhaps you just hadn't before now seen the facts. Please don't take my word for it sir - take a look at the information available via WHO (as well as other non-partisan international organizations who collect and share statistics). Almost everything data-wise is online and free these days.
Additionally, it would do critics good to stop referring to this as "socialized medicine" as though that was equivalent to calling something "communist" during the cold war era. People need to get beyond this us vs them attitude and realize that one can be patriotic and open-minded to best-practices other countries have established, at the same time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but that is a weak attempt because the actual cost I've shared above is the actual healthcare service total cost; and thus represents the actual amount of money spent on this service without lumping in all the others a French or US citizen may or may not also receive via our government. 
