The New Role of the United States of America - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-10-2002, 04:41 PM   #21
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,044
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


No, the US doesn't have to give aid to anyone. However, given that it does give aid, it's interesting to see how it's used to manipulate countries into acting in accordance with US demands.

Israel is in violation of UN resolutions. Resolution 242 states that Israel must withdraw from the territories it occupied in the 1967 war. It still has not done so, although this resolution is renewed every year.

And as for the suggestion that Israel hasn't invaded other countries - tell that to Egypt, Syria and Jordan, all of which were attacked in 1967 and had territories taken illegally from them by Israel.
very interesting

Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
I do not think comparing the Bush Administration to the Third Reich is either wise nor correct, the two should not be uttered in the same sentence.
very true
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 12:33 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Fizzing,

I realize that Israel is violation of UN resolution 242 but it has agreed to comply with that resolution once a peace settlement is signed. The problem over the past decades has been Arab countries commitment to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and Palestinians refusal to agree to recent settlements.

In addition, UN resolution 242 was passed under CHAPTER 6 rules which do not allow the use of military force to achieve compliance with the resolution. All resolutions in regards to Iraq were passed under Chapter 7 rules which approves military actions to bring about compliance with the UN resolution.

I did not say or imply that Israel has not invaded other countries, I implied that Israel has not invaded other countries without provication like Iraq has.

Israel invaded those countries out of military necessity. Because of prior actions by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and preperations to strike Israel, Israel had no choice but to strike first, or face the real possiblity of being wiped from the face of the earth. Israel did what it had to do to insure its survival in the face of enormous odds. It eventually gave the land it took from Egypt back when a peace settlement was worked out. When similar settlements are worked out with the Palestinians, they will have an independent state.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 12:51 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Rono,

If you believe the USA supplied military weapons to Iraq, please name the type of weapon system or vehicle and the quantity sold. The only USA weapons in Iraq's arsonal are a small number of weapons that it captured from Iran during its war with Iran in the 1980s.

Any US military action against Iraq has never and will never target innocent civilians.

Its obvious to me why some countries are allowed to have weapons of mass destructions and others are not. Its called behavior, and Iraq's behavior is why this conflict is occuring.

Targeting and taking immediate military action against terrorist potentially can save hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilian lives.
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 04:08 AM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 36
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Iraq has received the vast majority of its weapons from Russia (former USSR).

Comparing Israel and Iraq and saying that, in terms of nuclear weapons risk, they are the same thing is much like saying that a child waving a weapon towards an Israeli soldier in the Gaza Strip is much like an adult Palestinean doing the same thing. If you believe that, Rono, then I guess shooting them both would be the appropriate answer, correct?

"And now that Iraq is not following western rules we are prepared inocent civilians and poor children"

Here are some of the findings from the United Nations Special Commission (the Iraqi UN weapons inspectors):

Aflatoxin: Iraqi scientists studied how to produce liver cancer using aflatoxin. Aflatoxin has no direct military value, as its cancerous effects take years to develop. Iraq produced more than 2000 liters of aflatoxin, and admitted putting it into missile warheads and R-400 bombs.

Iraq declared that it produced 8445 liters of anthrax, and inspectors determined that at least three times this much could have been produced with the equipment and growth media Iraq had at its disposal. One gram of dried anthrax spores has been estimated to contain about 10 million lethal doses. The US Army estimates that a person inhaling 8,000 spores (weighing about .08 millionths of a gram) would be likely to die in less than a week. However, as the attacks on the United States made clear, far fewer spores can cause death in some victims.

Botulinum toxin is the most poisonous substance known - the average man would only have to inhale about 70 billionths of a gram for it to be fatal. Eighty percent of victims die within 1-3 days of being infected. Iraq made almost 20,000 liters of botulinum toxin, much of which was placed into munitions and missile warheads.

The Clostridium perfringens bacterium can cause gas gangrene, which in turn causes toxic gases to form in the body's tissues. The result can be acute lung distress, leaking blood vessels, the breakdown of the red blood cells or platelets (which enable the blood to clot to stop bleeding), and liver damage. Inspectors believe Iraq could have produced some 5,000 liters of clostridium perfringens, though it declared it had made far less.

He ACTUALLY used these weapons without provocation:

Hussein used VX nerve gas on Kurds in his country in the eighties. In the town of Halabja alone, an estimated 5,000 civilians were killed and more than 10,000 were injured.

So, how exactly is Iraq "suddenly" not following Western rules? I don't even want to know what all this implies about Eastern rules



boywonder is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 01:17 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If you believe the USA supplied military weapons to Iraq, please name the type of weapon system or vehicle and the quantity sold.
In a May 25, 1994 Senate Banking Committee report, Iraq received from the U.S., in 1985, "pathogenic, toxigenic and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." The report then details 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding, "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

And what was Donald Rumsfeld's response to Sen. Robert Byrd's questioning of this back in September? "Certainly not to my knowledge." Yes...a classic case of Reagan-style amnesia... Apparently, up to the Gulf War, the U.S. was more concerned about Iran toppling Iraq, so the U.S., utterly, built much of the problem that we have today with Iraq.

National Security Directive 26 on October 2, 1989 (declassified): "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and to increase our influence with Iraq."

So, really, this is partially what led up to today.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 03:05 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Melon,

Biological materials have medical and scientific uses and are not military weapons unless converted to such uses. There are dozens of other countries that recieved the same things from the USA for the purposes of scientific research. In addition, there are multiple other nations besides the USA that Iraq recieved materials or knowledge associated with Biological and Chemical agents for scientific and medical research. The problem is that they are duel uses for many of these Biological and Chemical agents.

These agents were not sent to Iraq for military purposes but were converted by Iraq for such use. Chemical and Biological weapons because of their nature are not necessarily effective weapons on the battlefield but can be effective terrorist weapons against defenseless civilian populations given the right conditions. So that the idea that the Iraqi military was aided in its war with Iran by such materials is fluff. The Iraqi military defeated the Iranian military on the battlefield because of the extensive amount of weapons and training it recieved from the former Soviet Union. Iraq briefly used Chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian soldiers, but this was not exstensive. The overwhelming number of Kurds and Iranian military personal killed in the conflict were killed by conventional weapon systems supplied by the former Soviet Union.

Supply of duel use technology with out strict safe guards back in the 1980s was mistake committed by the USA and many other countries but not the USA alone. Iraq was not the only country that recieved this technology because of its duel use nature. Duel use techonology are not defined as military weapons, although they can be converted to such use. Lots of things that are not weapons can be converted into one. Iraq would have their Bio/Chem capability with or without the transfer of duel use techonology from the USA in the 1980s because of its close relationship with the former Soviet Union(the largest manufacter of Bio/Chem weapons and material in the history of the planet). In addition, Iraq did extensive trade with several other European companies and firms, and recieved a lot of its Nuclear weapons technology and know how from a German company.

Rumsfeld did not work for the Commerce Department in the 1980s as did a lot of other officials. So Rumsfeld was correct in his statements. Sen. Byrd had a better chance of knowing at the time and yet, here he is asking Rumsfeld this question. As I said before the problem with Iraqi Weapons of Mass destruction would exist today with or without the transfer of duel use technology to Iraq during the 1980s from the USA. NSD made sense in 1989. Iraq had one war with Iran and know one knew how irrational Hussein really was as he was soon to demonstrate with invasion and attacks on Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel with its vast arsonal of conventional military weapons supplied by the former Soviet Union.
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 03:21 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:12 PM
Re: The New Role of the United States of America

Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
Why do we not, as a nation that consistently claims to be better than those of the terrorists who would destroy us, *act* as though we are better? Why do we not share more of our wealth and time with the impoverished of the world? Why do human rights go straight out the window as soon as they're inconvenient for us to attend to?

But I suppose the question I really want answered is: how do we cultivate a more responsible ethic of nationhood? How do we prove to the rest of the world something that few nations are wont to believe at the moment: that we truly do have one of the greatest countries in the world?
Your question hasnt been answered and wont be answered.

So I may ask again, just for asking, just for having fun:

WHY DO WE NOT SHARE MORE OF OUR WEALTH WITH THE IMPOVERISHED OF THE WORLD?

Hello?
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 03:56 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Biological materials have medical and scientific uses and are not military weapons unless converted to such uses. There are dozens of other countries that recieved the same things from the USA for the purposes of scientific research. In addition, there are multiple other nations besides the USA that Iraq recieved materials or knowledge associated with Biological and Chemical agents for scientific and medical research. The problem is that they are duel uses for many of these Biological and Chemical agents.
So I guess it would be okay to give an arsonist a box of matches and gasoline, as long as you're not the one starting the fire?

Give me a break. Unless the Reagan Administration was really this dumb, they knew exactly what they were doing.

Quote:
Rumsfeld did not work for the Commerce Department in the 1980s as did a lot of other officials. So Rumsfeld was correct in his statements. Sen. Byrd had a better chance of knowing at the time and yet, here he is asking Rumsfeld this question.
Rumsfeld was an active equation with Iraq even in the 1980s. It was Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983 that launched the U.S.'s support for Iraq in its war against Iran. He is as entrenched of a Republican as it gets.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 05:53 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Melon,

Sorry but your anology does not work. Many of these Biological and chemical agents of duel uses including medical uses that can treat people with certain medical conditions. I'll say it again, Biological material went out to dozens of countries for various medical and scientific reasons as they had been doing for years before that.

"The Reagan Administration new exactly what it was doing"? This happen due to the import/export rules of the time and was largely a matter handled by the commerce department. What would be the point of supplying Iraq with Biological material to develop weapons that had little if no battlefield use for the war against Iran? While Iraq briefly used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians, they have never used Biological weapons against anyone. Such weapons are difficult to properly deliver and take days to take effect. Its not a useful battlefield weapon, but if carefully distrubuted among an unsuspecting immobile civilian population, it can have terrible effects.

The US support for Iraq in its war with Iran amounts to simply verbal support, a few transport vehicles, and food. The transfer of Biological material is simply the result of the rules at the time set by the commerce department. Similar material went to dozens of other countries as well.

The Iraqi military machine was built by the Soviet Union. I have the weapons tables and other information which clearly proves this beyond any reasonable doubt. Democrats, liberals, or others attempts to stick this to the Reagan Administration are baseless and not supported by any facts.
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-12-2002, 04:41 AM   #30
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Melon,

Biological materials have medical and scientific uses and are not military weapons unless converted to such uses. There are dozens of other countries that recieved the same things from the USA for the purposes of scientific research. In addition, there are multiple other nations besides the USA that Iraq recieved materials or knowledge associated with Biological and Chemical agents for scientific and medical research. The problem is that they are duel uses for many of these Biological and Chemical agents.

These agents were not sent to Iraq for military purposes but were converted by Iraq for such use. Chemical and Biological weapons because of their nature are not necessarily effective weapons on the battlefield but can be effective terrorist weapons against defenseless civilian populations given the right conditions. So that the idea that the Iraqi military was aided in its war with Iran by such materials is fluff. The Iraqi military defeated the Iranian military on the battlefield because of the extensive amount of weapons and training it recieved from the former Soviet Union. Iraq briefly used Chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian soldiers, but this was not exstensive. The overwhelming number of Kurds and Iranian military personal killed in the conflict were killed by conventional weapon systems supplied by the former Soviet Union.

Supply of duel use technology with out strict safe guards back in the 1980s was mistake committed by the USA and many other countries but not the USA alone. Iraq was not the only country that recieved this technology because of its duel use nature. Duel use techonology are not defined as military weapons, although they can be converted to such use. Lots of things that are not weapons can be converted into one. Iraq would have their Bio/Chem capability with or without the transfer of duel use techonology from the USA in the 1980s because of its close relationship with the former Soviet Union(the largest manufacter of Bio/Chem weapons and material in the history of the planet). In addition, Iraq did extensive trade with several other European companies and firms, and recieved a lot of its Nuclear weapons technology and know how from a German company.

Rumsfeld did not work for the Commerce Department in the 1980s as did a lot of other officials. So Rumsfeld was correct in his statements. Sen. Byrd had a better chance of knowing at the time and yet, here he is asking Rumsfeld this question. As I said before the problem with Iraqi Weapons of Mass destruction would exist today with or without the transfer of duel use technology to Iraq during the 1980s from the USA. NSD made sense in 1989. Iraq had one war with Iran and know one knew how irrational Hussein really was as he was soon to demonstrate with invasion and attacks on Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel with its vast arsonal of conventional military weapons supplied by the former Soviet Union.
Wow it's amazing that you actually believe this. The Americans knew the consequences of giving those chemical and biological agents to the Iraqis, at the very least knew they could be converted into weapons by Iraqi scientists. They probably hoped the Iraqis would use them against the Iranian civilian population and win the war. What the Americans did not forsee was a U.S. war against Iraq soon after in which the Iraqis could use those same agents against the U.S and people asking why the Americans sold such agents to the Iraqis.

If your saying the U.S. didn't know what the Iraqis intended use of those agents were then you must think the American government naive or stupid. Governments do these kinds of things for intended purposes (using the tools against your mutual enemy), sometimes those same 'friends' become your enemy and use the same tools you gave them against you, it's not hard to see how this has happened but it's almost unbelieveable that you think the Americans didn't know what the iraqis were gonna do with the stuff (make them into weapons) and that Rumsfeld is not aware of what was being sold to the Iraqis. Like Melon said Rumsfeld had the first meeting with Iraqis in 1983 which was the beginning of the U.S. support to Iraq so he was aware of all the things America was doing in it's support to Iraq.
Under Current is offline  
Old 11-12-2002, 06:39 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Re: Re: The New Role of the United States of America

Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


WHY DO WE NOT SHARE MORE OF OUR WEALTH WITH THE IMPOVERISHED OF THE WORLD?

Good point....gotten wayyyy off topic here.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-12-2002, 10:57 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Under Current,

First and most importantly, there were dozens of countries that recieved biological cultures that Iraq recieved, on a routine basis. The USA did not have sanctions against Iraq in the 1980s or against the dozens of other countries that such biological material went to. Many life saving biological or radiological material or equipment often goes to other countries and, yes there are duel uses for this material. Hardware store does not stop selling supplies simply because what it sells can be used to build a conventional bomb.

I think you fail to fundamentally understand the difficulty in using chemical and bio weapons on the battlefield do to its dependence on variable conditions for it to have successful effects. In addition, Biological weapons take days and perhaps weeks to take a full effect. Their best use is as a terror weapon against a defensely and stationary, unsuspecting, civilian population in a city. Killing Iranian civilians in cities is not the objective of Saddam or his Army. The Objective was to be able to stop and defeat the Iranian military. The best and virtually only way to do that is with a strong conventionally well equiped military. Chemical and Bio weapons, as I said before are effective terror weapons against a stationary, defenseless civilian population, not a mobile protected military. Nuclear weapons of course are a different case. So, keeping this in mind, even if the USA desired to materially help the Iraqi military, it would do so by supplying conventional military weapons, not Biological cultures that have duel uses and have not been weaponized and been matched with equipment for effective means of distrubution against the intended target, and even if successfully distributed over a given area, will take days to take effect and may not hit the intended target. There were far better ways for the USA to effect the battlefield situation between Iran and Iraq. In addition, Iraq new these facts and while they may have experimented with the Biological material, they have never launched a biological attack against anyone or anything. Iraq already had Chemical weapons prior to the Iran/Iraq war.

Again, Biological material that Iraq recieved from the USA have never been used against any country. The USA of course knows the duel use of such equipment, but did not ban it at the time because of its important scientific and medical uses. Dozens of countries recieved the exact same material in the way that Iraq recieved it. Unless there was a specific sanction against the country, they could recieve this material. Remember this is Iraq in the mid 1980s, its easy to look back now and see how ruthless Saddam and his regime is, but in the mid 1980s, Saddam had commited only one international infraction by invading Iran.

Iraq also recieved all kinds of similar material from several other western countries, in addition to recieving supplies along these lines from the Soviet Union, the largest manufacturer of Chemical and Bio weapons in the history of the planet. In addition the Soviet Union built, equiped and trained the Iraqi army through out the 1980s. Nearly 75% of Iraq's military equipment and vehicles and aircraft came from the Soviet Union. In addition, the Soviet Union kept 2,000 Soviet troops on the ground in Iraq throughout the 1980s and up to two months before the 1991 Gulf War.

Bottom line is that Iraq recieved Biological material from the USA for scientific medical purposes just like dozens of other countries did at the time. Only specific sanctions against Iraq at the time could have prevented these duel use techonologies from going to Iraq. Even if such sanctions were in place, Iraq could have and did recieve similar material from as many as a dozen countries in addition to the Soviet Union which was supplying Iraq with nearly everything they wanted. Finally, Iraq never used Biological weapons against Iran for the obvious reasons, which completely refutes this notion that the material intentionally went to Iraq to somehow aid it militarily or in some other way in its war with Iran.

Rumsfeld does not work for the commerce department and does not know how many countries are recieving which kind of possible duel use material, at that time back in the 1980s. Rumsfeld trip to Iraq was simply verbal and diplomatic support for the regime in its war with Iran. The Soviet Union was already supplying and did supply Iraq, with everything it needed to finally defeat Iran on the battlefield in 1988.
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-12-2002, 11:05 PM   #33
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 07:12 AM
I don't think my actual question is going to get answered at this point.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 11-13-2002, 12:09 AM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Re: The New Role of the United States of America

Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
Why do we not, as a nation that consistently claims to be better than those of the terrorists who would destroy us, *act* as though we are better? Why do we not share more of our wealth and time with the impoverished of the world? Why do human rights go straight out the window as soon as they're inconvenient for us to attend to?

But I suppose the question I really want answered is: how do we cultivate a more responsible ethic of nationhood? How do we prove to the rest of the world something that few nations are wont to believe at the moment: that we truly do have one of the greatest countries in the world?
Effectually, it is my belief that Western civilization has hit another crossroads, and we are slowly witnessing the final death knells of the twentieth century, which was dominated by leftist philosophy and ideology, along with some idealistic notion that people recognize what is wrong with the world and wish to better themselves. All the questions you ask rest upon the assumption that we prescribe to Keynesian capitalism, which, in essence, is, to some degree, "socialist capitalism."

But I've come to the conclusion that it is a losing battle. Human nature is greedy, self-absorbed, and unconcerned about helping one another. The U.S. is not going to help the rest of the world, because it is unwilling to even help its own--1/3 of America has no health insurance, for instance. In some reactionary sense, I think some people do think that the "war on terrorism" is going to be the "war to end all wars," but every generation has demanded its own "crusade." For this generation, it is the "war on terrorism." For the last, it was the Gulf War. For the one prior, it was Vietnam...and one so terrible that it frightened everyone. But, in each instance, each generation has been forced to learn the same lesson the hard way; and, likewise, I doubt that our generation will be any more intelligent.

Don't know if you are (or were) Catholic, but here's a good article:

http://www.chausa.org/PUBS/PUBSART.A...9204&ARTICLE=B

Written back in the days when Catholicism actually gave a damn. I do get nostalgic here and there...

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 11-13-2002, 01:07 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Melon,

The number of Americans that do not have health insurance is 40 million. That is currently only 14% of the population, not 1/3 or 33%. The current population of the USA is about 290 million. It was 281 million on the 2000 census.
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-13-2002, 01:12 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The number of Americans that do not have health insurance is 40 million. That is currently only 14% of the population, not 1/3 or 33%. The current population of the USA is about 290 million. It was 281 million on the 2000 census.
I guess that makes it all better? 14% looks like such a "smaller" number than 40 million.

I heard another statistic earlier, though, that 67% of America had health insurance. That's where I got the 1/3 figure from. Oh well...

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 11-13-2002, 04:57 AM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The number of Americans that do not have health insurance is 40 million. That is currently only 14% of the population, not 1/3 or 33%. The current population of the USA is about 290 million. It was 281 million on the 2000 census.
So that makes it okay?!?! FORTY MILLION people can't see a doctor when they're sick, but it's okay because that's "only 14% of the population"? How can a country claim to be civilised when forty million of its people don't have access to healthcare?

The NHS isn't perfect but I'd choose that any day over a system where some people have no access to healthcare at all.

(sorry Sting, this post wasn't directed at you as much as at the statistic you posted.)
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 11-13-2002, 06:35 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 06:12 AM
I am still waiting for someone to tell me how to pay for it all.......

I am not against providing health care.......

I am against the fact that I pay so much in taxes......

When I have my own bills, children, ect to think of.....



As I said earlier......Many people have busted their rear-ends to get out of the lower class and into positions where they can afford to provide for their families. It would seem unfair to raise their taxes.


Its funny because yesterday, I called a parent to set up a conference for their child's report card........I wrote earlier about free lunches. Here is a situation with a family on free lunches. The parent is away on vacation in the Carribean. Hmmmm....number of times I have been to the Carribean (0). Chances of me affording it anytime soon (0). The child is a beautiful kid with a lot of potential. The child is not on the vacation with the parent. They are going to Florida in February though, that is for the kids.

No, I am not envious. I am content with my life. I knew that by deciding to go into education I would not be paid as much, but the job would be rewarding. I love what I do. I would not trade for another job in the world.

As a taxpayer.....I am tired of seeing things like this. When my money is taken from me....money that I have earned and worked hard for. Money that others have worked hard for.

So how do you pay for Health Care for all??????
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-13-2002, 10:44 AM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,728
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Dreadsox,

Hundreds of millions of people around the world (even your very close Canadian neighbours) have a portion of their taxes going to universal health care and they are hardly homeless or broke. In fact, a number of countries with higher taxes and considerably better social systems placed above the USA on the UN's standard of living index; surely something is working, don't you agree?

If so many other countries can do it, then why is there such a paranoia about taxes going to social programs in the USA. People in Europe have a lot of their hard earned money going towards a universal health care system, and they're not any more impoverished than you are in the great ol' US of A.
anitram is offline  
Old 11-13-2002, 05:46 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Antrium,

Actually that is not true. Most Europeans do not have a standard of living equal to that of Americans according to the Human Development Index by the UN. The USA is #6 in the world. Only Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and Belgium have a higher standard of living. Norway, Sweden, and Belguim represent a tiny fraction of Europes population. The USA's system is not perfect, but in general it produces a higher standard of living than almost any other country in the world.

A problem with the 40 million people that are uninsured is that many of them, if not most of them are childern. The problem is that there are some people who start families without having the money to support one. A person making minimum wage can in most area's of the country provide for his/her basic needs and is above the poverty line. But if they get married and have two three or more kids and the family is only supported by their minimum wage income, suddenly you have gone from one person supporting themselves and out of poverty, to 5 or more people living in poverty. When individuals live beyond their means or take on responsibility they can't afford, it makes solving this problem much more difficult.

40 million people is a lot of people to insure and its very expensive. I actually do think the government should do this if it can, but not at the expense of undue taxation that would cause economic recession and make the problem even worse or at the expense of spending on other vitally important things. Most European countries do not even have 40 million people. I hope a solution can be worked out somehow to fix it, but currently I do not know what the silver bullet is.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×