President Hillary Clinton - Best for the Economy !!

Nevadan, the point a lot of us would make is that Germany was not under attack from Poland or France. We WERE attacked - like it or not and from the same type of enemy in 1993 and 2001 (plus at various other times throughout the world). We can choose to not take the terrorists seriously or look at what they have done and realize that perhaps they mean business. What more do they have to do to get their point across? Let's say we withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else in the world: will that bring about world peace? Will that make us safe? On the contrary, it would probably trigger the most cataclysmic event the world has ever seen. Then these same people who sit back piously and self-righteously will be begging for America's help - yet again. Of course they would probably rationalize that it was all our fault anyway.
 
"Many in this country wish Canada could find a reason to invade and occupy the USA, capture the senior executives running the health insurance companies, for profit hospital, the American Medical Association and try them for crimes against humanity for all the Americans who have died from our shitty overpriced health care system. Canada would then impose universal health care. After a period of pacification which would root the con men and exploiters of the sick and dying from their bunkers and hiding places, Canada could gradually restore sovereignty and withdraw forces."

If a little nation building was good for Iraq, why not here?


Are you sure you want Canada's health system. Just last week ambulance drivers called for an inquiry into why 3 people died during the week in Etobicoke General Hospital, which is a part of Toronto. Ambulance drivers rushed these people to emergency but the hospital shoved them in hallways for hours and hours without any care and they passed on. If Americans are not aware , the canadian medical and everything else is run and manipulated by and for powerful unions. When Clinton speaks in canada the unions pay his huge fees. Unions have Toronto mayor under their thumb !!!
 
Quote from the4xczar:

Nevadan, the point a lot of us would make is that Germany was not under attack from Poland or France. We WERE attacked - like it or not and from the same type of enemy in 1993 and 2001 (plus at various other times throughout the world). We can choose to not take the terrorists seriously or look at what they have done and realize that perhaps they mean business. What more do they have to do to get their point across? Let's say we withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else in the world: will that bring about world peace? Will that make us safe? On the contrary, it would probably trigger the most cataclysmic event the world has ever seen. Then these same people who sit back piously and self-righteously will be begging for America's help - yet again. Of course they would probably rationalize that it was all our fault anyway.
More...

4x'...
I completely agree that we, the USA, have to take action... its not just to reposition out of Iraq and then retreat into tortoise shell...

you have a good point there...

I am all for special teams, Delta, Seals, etc. taking out these criminal buggers all over the world... Wherever they are - send a team to either capture or eliminate them as threats... as long as there is oversight on those teams (questionable) - then do it... and keep doing it...

But to destabilize an existing political system as a solution is crazy and gets you such horrendous 'blowback' as shown by history that its not a wise decision, or an good policy to illegally invade or illegally occupy foreign countries... especially when you cannot win that game... as history readily shows.

I think its best to conserve our treasury and not go into unnecessary deficit so as to have the financial power to act when truly necessary.

I think its best to conserve our military forces for a true defense in case of real attack that we would need to really react to...

i think its best to conserve our position in the world as a moral one rather than as a 'cowboy one' so as to keep the possibility of strong allies helping us in the future as a real solution.

I think its best to conserve the opinion of the electorate so as not to fatigue it so when a real and large threat truly strikes they will be psychologically ready for it... unlike now...

I think its best to conserve the constitution as a viable living document regardless of whether or not the present administration's leader thinks 'its just a damn piece of paper'... that document and not irrational leadership has keep us strong...


<img src="http://www.enflow.com/p.gif">
 
quote from the4xczar:
Nevadan, the point a lot of us would make is that Germany was not under attack from Poland or France. We WERE attacked - like it or not and from the same type of enemy in 1993 and 2001 (plus at various other times throughout the world). We can choose to not take the terrorists seriously or look at what they have done and realize that perhaps they mean business. What more do they have to do to get their point across? Let's say we withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else in the world: will that bring about world peace? Will that make us safe? On the contrary, it would probably trigger the most cataclysmic event the world has ever seen. Then these same people who sit back piously and self-righteously will be begging for America's help - yet again. Of course they would probably rationalize that it was all our fault anyway.
More...

Your comments are well taken. My objection is to the idea that this war comes from some sort of inspiration coming from our leadership. It was entered into as a result of hysteria following 9/11. Congress has ceded it's responsibilities to Bush by not declaring the war following a debate and resolution to do so. Seems to me we have a lack of leadership in the congress. It is much easier to get into a war than out. As far as the future "cataclysm", maybe, but that could be in the cards anyway if current trends persist.
 
Edgehunter, I understand your perspective as well. I will add this: I was a part of Desert Shield/Storm - hard to believe it was that long ago - and after it was over, we signed a "cease fire" with Iraq. Iraq had to abide by certain requirements - such as allowing UN weapons inspectors free access to search for WMD - which Saddam did not fully comply with. The war was not "illegal" as some contend - based on that alone, Iraq violated the cease fire.
 
Are you sure you want Canada's health system. Just last week ambulance drivers called for an inquiry into why 3 people died during the week

----

I'd take that in an instant to the US system which is in the "business of medicine" as opposed to the "practice of medicine". Hell 3,000 people probably die a week in ths country because the insurance company lawyers figure out an angle to not pay for an expensive operation.

Why does the US have such a low life expentancy compared to Canada, Japan, Sweeden, Germany, Switzerland or other countries with national health care?

Why does our shittly healthcare system take up so much more of the GNP% than in those countries?
 
Iraq had to abide by certain requirements - such as allowing UN weapons inspectors free access to search for WMD


Right... so let's invade North Korea which did the same thing or better yet Israel, which has never let anyone inspect their nuclear bomb program.
 
I use to hate Canada's health care system because hospital waits were terrible and lots of treatments were ignored because doctors were forced to explain every penny they spent.

BUT

Since our economy is full steam and in surplus, the health care system has improved and is working as promised, that being said it only took 44 years of my life to see the concept actually work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top