BUSH or KERRY ?? Hmmm

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Anyways, back to the original post. Vote for Kerry 😀

One question about National Healthcare people - would healthcare in the US now be similar to a system like Canada's? I'm not sure if I would want to follow that route. Perhaps a two-tiered system would be better, but I have no idea if that would be possible.

Eh? I think that most of this world would like to emulate Canadas healthcare, it i cheaper than in the US, for the government and for the people.

But i don't live there and you do so you probably know that better than me.

Vote for Kerry, that i can agree with.

Most people compare health care costs to the US? That's not going to be very effective, lol.

Canada's healthcare is pretty expensive compared to other governments that have universal health care. I think it's the most expensive of the group.

perent of gdp

"Canada (at 9.7%) ranked fourth in health spending as a percent of GDP, behind the U.S. (13.9%) but close to Switzerland (10.9%), Germany (10.7%), and France (9.5%)."

expensive issue is now dead...

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Anyways, back to the original post. Vote for Kerry 😀

One question about National Healthcare people - would healthcare in the US now be similar to a system like Canada's? I'm not sure if I would want to follow that route. Perhaps a two-tiered system would be better, but I have no idea if that would be possible.

Eh? I think that most of this world would like to emulate Canadas healthcare, it i cheaper than in the US, for the government and for the people.

But i don't live there and you do so you probably know that better than me.

Vote for Kerry, that i can agree with.

Most people compare health care costs to the US? That's not going to be very effective, lol.

Canada's healthcare is pretty expensive compared to other governments that have universal health care. I think it's the most expensive of the group.

perent of gdp

"Canada (at 9.7%) ranked fourth in health spending as a percent of GDP, behind the U.S. (13.9%) but close to Switzerland (10.9%), Germany (10.7%), and France (9.5%)."

expensive issue is now dead...

Thank you. I knew the numbers but didn't have the link.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think we're stuck fighting in Iraq. We shouldn't leave it a complete mess like others have done elsewhere in the past.

Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, who, pray tell left those places in a mess? (you could include a couple of others but i'm not sure so.

Vietnam, Cambodia - mainly France, also US
Korea - whole lot of countries (UN)
Sudan - British

Sure, I'll include others:

Rwanda - Germany, Belgium
India/Pakistan - British
Israel/Palestinians - British
Algeria - France
most of the Middle East - France & British
most of Africa - mainly France, British, Portugal
etc.

I don't think Iraq should be left in a mess or have sticky political situations like these countries/situations. Iraq should be improved, not torn apart and pillaged like these countries.

India/Pakistan? Algeria? Israel/Palestine? are you aiming for the most humourous post of the year?

Ok, i get it, it is Europs fault about the middle east, the US's involvment with creating governments (like in Iran, Iraq and SA, and no, the US has NO involvment in Israel) had NOTHING to do with it.

Iraq won't be left in a mess (wow, look at that we agree) it will be left in the hands of a government that is US friendly no matter what.

Iraq is ALREADY torn apart and pillaged by the US, oh, are you going to give your own companies your tax money to rebuild it, how awfully nice.

With voters like you a moron for a president is all you deserve. (you can retort by calling me a racist, you always do)

Um, my post is about leaving Iraq in a good condition. Those countries were not left in good condition. You must be the most historically unaware person on this forum.

When the British left India/Pakistan, hundreds of thousands to a million died! The British just pillaged and committed genocide, barely tried to improve anything, and left it in a state of chaos.

Algeria was held by the French until the 1960s! I believe there was even an apartheid-like system in Algeria. Over a million French came to Algeria when it was a colony and pillaged it, took the best land, etc. It was left in ruins.

France and the British arbitrarily carved up the Middle East. They went in, pillaged it, and left it in a mess.

BTW, please tell me how the US created the Iraqi and SA governments. I can understand that the US tried to topple the Iranian government during the Cold War, but I want to see some concrete info for the US absolutely creating Iraq and SA.

The current kindom of SA would not have been there if not for US, read up big boy, the baathists would not have taken power if not for the US backing, again, read up.

I know about Algeria and India/Pakistan and the British/French involvment (actually, at the time the Brits were closer to the French than to any other nation and pretty much had divided power over the region) but that is 40+ years ago (if you bring up that it's 39 for algeria i'll spank you or something) and the regimes have been supported by the US or gone since then.

I have a feeling you really just want me to be wrong though, and my shift is up, so if you want to argue further you'll have to wait until this eveneing, time is 10.32 here and i'm gonna get some sleep

LOL, the current kingdom of SA wouldn't be there if it weren't for the BRITISH. You honestly think that the US had much influence in the Middle East in the 1920s?

These actions that happened in history are directly related to many horrible, horrible situations today such as the Rwanda genocide. What did the nations (Germany, Belgium) that caused the genocide do? Nothing, they just sat there while people were slaughtered. Iraq shouldn't be left in the same position. It should be in a good condition like Japan after WW2. That's all I'm saying. I have no clue why you are so against the belief that Iraq should be left in good condition.

I think it's good that the British are now helping in Iraq to start fixing their previous wrongs.

Don't be daft, the kingdom of SA wouldn't have lasted if not for the US support, we're talking about situations as late as the 70-80-90's and if you WOULD have read up yu would have known.

Rwanda wasn't a part of the discussion was it? But yes it is a black mark on Europes history, and if we are venturing into Africa, why not bring up Sudan? More recent, but then of course you would have to admit that the US pulled out also, pretty much like the French did in Rwanda.

Too many dead tends to get troops out, US troops as well as European troops.

You think that it's ok that the US and the UK are raping the children of Irak? ok.

(see, two can play this game)

Why are you arguing SA anyways? Do you just hate them because the brown people are bad?

I don't know of any US involvement in Sudan. Can you please provide a link to it? Sudan was raped by the British though.

Rwanda wasn't just simply a black mark - it's a black hole that represents truly how cruel and selfish some people are and how some truly feel certain types of people deserve. I'm not sure why you're referring to France as they weren't responsible. You seem to have some of your things jumbled up.

Yes, the WORLD, including the US turned their back on Rwanda, at least one country TRIED and MAYBE with some help could have prevailed, the US didn't do anything at all, so yes, in the concience of this WORLD it is a black hole, that includes US, Canada, China and France, not so much France though, they TRIED, the rest of the world just turned their backs and pretended that the problem did not exist.


No, you don't know about Sudan, you got that right, read up on yet another thing, fortunantly us racists don't have such a narrow view ot the world and only cheer when we are successful.

I love you you place that racism tag on EVERY thread that has me or ANY european in it, i am not one to run to the mods with this crap but enough is enough.

It's not just me, it's sunner (one of the best members of OS, Freegeeks, another valuable member and every other european you come in contact with) Remember that Swede you responded to in a thread in OT, how your first statement to him was to leave his racist views at home even though he hadn't said a thing that could even be thought of as racist, that is what you have become.

I would pity you but you are not worth my pity.

I am sorry if you somehow feel discriminated against but NONE of us on this board has EVER expressed any racist opinions, so would you PLEASE stop this taunting?

I could write it off as a difference of opinion if it wasn't so damn obvious "do you hate them because brown people are bad".

You are spouting of opinions in matters you don't understand and then turn around and say the complete opposite when it comes to YOUR opinion. (a good example is the fight against illegal immigration in EU that you interpret as racist while you are for harder laws on illegal immigration in the US)

You go around in threads i respond to, it can be about whatever, and make some stupid remark about how europeans are racist, what are you trying to accomplish with that?

Honestly, you don't have to TRY so hard to look stupid, you do that just fine without the racist remarks.

If you had been old enough to remember Clinton, you might have remembered Sudan, or wasn't that about European racism, is that why you forgot?

Regarding Sudan, are you serious?

Here's what the Sudan representative had to say on the matter:

"We reserve the right to protest to the UN and request that there
be a presence of fact-finding committees from the Security Council
concerning the truth about this plant.

We have sufficient information to show that this plant was far from
what the Americans claimed it was. In fact, the US actions, or the
US Government's, were to cover up the scandals which have been
pursuing the US president and which forced him to stand personally
before the media and announce to the American people and the whole
world that he was a liar and was morally corrupt.

He regards such an action as repentance for his mistakes and
corrupt conduct. It is an attempt to cover up his crimes. The
number of people who could have been killed does not matter to
the US president."

It has to do with misdirected bombing and a former president, take a wild guess, you can do it.

I notice that it's getting hard to focus once we are not liberals, (either we are socialists or we are racist right wingers here in Europe according to your world view) when we don't support Clinton, Buch OR kerry the race card is the only card you have left to pull, strangely you are the ONLY member to pull it.

Give me ONE good reason why you have to pull that card in thread after thread, even if it has nothing to do with anything.

Typical. Compare the bombing of a factory to the routine genocide of millions. You're really out of the loop here.

Rwanda was purely Belgium & Germany's problem. They were 100% responsible for it. Nobody else had a responsibility to fix it - it would have been nice, but Germany & Belgium didn't want to do anything about it. You don't need UN approval to stop a genocide.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Why are you arguing SA anyways? Do you just hate them because the brown people are bad?

I don't know of any US involvement in Sudan. Can you please provide a link to it? Sudan was raped by the British though.

Rwanda wasn't just simply a black mark - it's a black hole that represents truly how cruel and selfish some people are and how some truly feel certain types of people deserve. I'm not sure why you're referring to France as they weren't responsible. You seem to have some of your things jumbled up.

where in this thread is klixxer is saying that he hates SA because they are "brown". what the hell is that supposed to mean Klixxer is just pointing out that SA is an oppressive regime heavily supported by the USA. Is that not the case??

Why are you playing the "all Europeans are racist" tactic all the time?

Ah, it's Klixxer's buddy who has conveniently come to try to rescue him!

How can I play the "all Europeans are racist" tactic when the statistics I provide prove the contrary?

I'm just wondering why he keeps bringing it up when we're talking about countries that were completely devastated and formed by colonialism and responsibility to fix the wrongs done through it. I believe SA was spared most of that. We're not talking about oppressive governments. If we were, we would certainly be mentioning a few European countries that oppress their minorities. Plus, he used to support apartheid until I persuaded him against it. He's also a strong supporter of ethnicity-based legislations. I think it's a valid question in regards to him. Like I said before, I believe Klixxer is the only European racist in this forum that I've encountered (but at least I've reformed some of his views). It's also sort of a play on his own actions - he essentially called someone else racist just for a simple, harmless statement.

I am racist and you have reformed my views?

Would you mind telling me why you think i am racist and which views of mine you have reformed?

Read the post, it's quite clear.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Anyways, back to the original post. Vote for Kerry 😀

One question about National Healthcare people - would healthcare in the US now be similar to a system like Canada's? I'm not sure if I would want to follow that route. Perhaps a two-tiered system would be better, but I have no idea if that would be possible.

Eh? I think that most of this world would like to emulate Canadas healthcare, it i cheaper than in the US, for the government and for the people.

But i don't live there and you do so you probably know that better than me.

Vote for Kerry, that i can agree with.

Most people compare health care costs to the US? That's not going to be very effective, lol.

Canada's healthcare is pretty expensive compared to other governments that have universal health care. I think it's the most expensive of the group.

perent of gdp

"Canada (at 9.7%) ranked fourth in health spending as a percent of GDP, behind the U.S. (13.9%) but close to Switzerland (10.9%), Germany (10.7%), and France (9.5%)."

expensive issue is now dead...

Exactly, it's expensive. Why would Canada's be the model choice for others?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

How can I play the "all Europeans are racist" tactic when the statistics I provide prove the contrary?

I'm just wondering why he keeps bringing it up when we're talking about countries that were completely devastated by colonialism. I believe SA was spared most of that. Plus, he used to support apartheid until I persuaded him against it. He's also a strong support of ethnicity-based legislations. I think it's a valid question in regards to him.

nobody is denying that colonialism is probably one of the worst acts in history but blaming all todays problems in Africa on stuff that happened 50 - 150 years ago is wrong IMO. Just look at some countries in Asia. They received their independance in the last 50 years (just like the African countries) and have made immense progress while Africa is probably in its worst shape ever. The ruling class in African countries have created a large mess by filling their pockets, starting a war once in a while and starving their populations to death. If Africa is still a mess in 150 years (and let's hope it's not), will you still be blaming Europe for the problem?

don't close your eyes for problems created by US intervention in the last 30 years (Nicaragua, Iran, Chile, ...)

Look at the histories. European powers were still practicing slavery in Africa into the 20th century.

I definitely don't close my eyes to what the US has done since I routinely say that the US has done much, too. However, I don't think it's on par with the mass genocides, pillaging, etc. But it's still bad.

 

[freegeeks]

Typical. Compare the bombing of a factory to the genocide of millions.

Rwanda was purely Belgium & Germany's problem. They were 100% responsible for it. Nobody else had a responsibility to fix it - it would have been nice, but Germany & Belgium didn't want to do anything about it. You don't need UN approval to stop a genocide.

The US and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994

Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide and knowledge as to its perpetrators, United States officials decided against taking a leading role in confronting the slaughter in Rwanda. Rather, US officials confined themselves to public statements, diplomatic demarches, initiatives for a ceasefire, and attempts to contact both the interim government perpetrating the killing and the RPF. The US did use its influence, however, at the United Nations, but did so to discourage a robust UN response (Document 4 and Document 13). In late July, however, with the evidence of genocide littering the ground in Rwanda, the US did launch substantial operations?again, in a supporting role?to assist humanitarian relief efforts for those displaced by the genocide.


US chose to ignore Rwandan genocide

President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.
Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.

That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda."

On a visit to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in 1998 Mr Clinton apologised for not acting quickly enough or immediately calling the crimes genocide.



you are totally right, European countries were the sole responsible for the Rwanda genocide :roll:
I really wonder where you get your information

European powers stood on the sideline during the genocide, just like the USA or are you denying this

 

[CanOWorms]

I don't think you get it. The US had NO hand in what caused the genocide. Belgium & Germany most defiinitely did. Why didn't they themselves try to do something? If the US doesn't want to go into Rwanda, fine. If Mongolia doesn't want to go, fine. But Belgium & Germany - they HAD to do something, there should have been NO choice. Of course, they didn't want to. I wonder why... maybe they thought if genocide is accepted, then they could practice it in their own countries.

LOL, I've never denied that the US and others stood on the sideline. I don't even know why you're arguing that.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I don't think you get it. The US had NO hand in what caused the genocide. Belgium & Germany most defiinitely did. Why didn't they themselves try to do something? If the US doesn't want to go into Rwanda, fine. If Mongolia doesn't want to go, fine. But Belgium & Germany - they HAD to do something, there should have been NO choice. Of course, they didn't want to. I wonder why... maybe they thought if genocide is accepted, then they could practice it in their own countries.

LOL, I've never denied that the US and others stood on the sideline. I don't even know why you're arguing that.

Belgian paratroopers who were there to protect the population were killed during the genocide. Our govt. then decided to pull them back. I still don't agree with that decision and a few years later our govt. admitted they were wrong by pulling back. The same thing happened with US troops in Somalia, they had some KIA and then they pulled back. Maybe the US is then responsible for the thousands and thousands of killed Somalians??

btw you are getting way out of line with your "genocide is accepted" and that we "practice genocide" remarks

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I don't think you get it. The US had NO hand in what caused the genocide. Belgium & Germany most defiinitely did. Why didn't they themselves try to do something? If the US doesn't want to go into Rwanda, fine. If Mongolia doesn't want to go, fine. But Belgium & Germany - they HAD to do something, there should have been NO choice. Of course, they didn't want to. I wonder why... maybe they thought if genocide is accepted, then they could practice it in their own countries.

LOL, I've never denied that the US and others stood on the sideline. I don't even know why you're arguing that.

Belgian paratroopers who were there to protect the population were killed during the genocide. Our govt. then decided to pull them back. I still don't agree with that decision and a few years later our govt. admitted they were wrong by pulling back. The same thing happened with US troops in Somalia, they had some KIA and then they pulled back. Maybe the US is then responsible for the thousands and thousands of killed Somalians??

btw you are getting way out of line with your "genocide is accepted" and that we "practice genocide" remarks

You are completely missing the point again. Belgium and Germany colonized Rwanda. They played each ethnic group against each other. Let's not forget the dumb belief that one of the ethnic groups was "more white" than the other and thus were superior in their eyes. The actions of Germany and Belgium during their colonization directly contributed to the genocide. The Belgians and Germans completely destroyed Rwanda. It was probably the worst colony of any of the colonial powers. They practiced slavery there into the 20th century! Belgium and Germany had a responsibility to do something since they obviously completely destroyed the country and didn't try to improve it. They should have done more, not hide behind the UN or anything. They can do something. They are rich, first-world, modern countries that were responsible for the genocide. They just chose not to do anything.

Sudan has a genocide going on right now. Is that the fault of the British since they colonized it? I don't know. But the facts are very clear in regards to Rwanda.

The US did not colonize Somalia.

 

[M16Grenadier]

Bush or Kerry?

Neither.

When chosing the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil.