BF2S Forums Fear Mongering

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

He did not use fear. It was prudent that Iraq was no longer ignored like it was the 10 years prior. He was justified based on intel of the time and if nothing else, based on the fact that Iraq broke the resolutions that brought a cease fire in the first place.

It wasn't ignored though.  Air strikes kept Saddam contained.  Also, Clinton actually lobbied for war before Bush did, but he "prudently" stopped short of invasion because of a lack of international support.

Most of why the first Gulf War was a success was because most of the world approved of it, and the Saudis funded it in full.

By the time Bush entered office, there was no need to invade, because the air strikes worked pretty well.

Sorry, killing a camel and blowing up a tent is hardly an air strike. If it had worked then there would be no need for on going threats and resolutions for the entire decade of the nineties.

The continual process of resolutions is how the U.N. operates.  Just because paperwork and rhetoric continues onward, it doesn't necessarily mean invasion is a good idea.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry, killing a camel and blowing up a tent is hardly an air strike. If it had worked then there would be no need for on going threats and resolutions for the entire decade of the nineties.

The continual process of resolutions is how the U.N. operates.  Just because paperwork and rhetoric continues onward, it doesn't necessarily mean invasion is a good idea.

Disagree, the continual process and constant threats with no action to back it, up did nothing but make the UN a joke to be laughed at and dismissed. The US let them act accordingly until the joke was no longer funny.

I'm no fan of the U.N. either, but we destroyed a lot of our own credibility by invading Iraq when we did.

Granted, I realize that a lot of the opposition to the war came from countries profiting from the Oil for Food Scandal.

The sad truth of the matter is that morals don't usually make a difference when it comes to entering war or avoiding it.  Money is what usually talks the loudest.

We had plenty of war profiteers pushing for the invasion of Iraq, while countries like France had plenty of profiteers in the Oil for Food scandal.

My argument is not moral or about resolutions.  I simply believe that the costs of this war to our country (in money, lives, and reputation) were much higher than anything we've gained from it.

At the same time, the invasion would not have been possible had it not been for Bush's exploitation of fear.  While most of us here realize that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, the average American at the time was easily misled into making this false connection.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The continual process of resolutions is how the U.N. operates.  Just because paperwork and rhetoric continues onward, it doesn't necessarily mean invasion is a good idea.

Disagree, the continual process and constant threats with no action to back it, up did nothing but make the UN a joke to be laughed at and dismissed. The US let them act accordingly until the joke was no longer funny.

I'm no fan of the U.N. either, but we destroyed a lot of our own credibility by invading Iraq when we did.

Granted, I realize that a lot of the opposition to the war came from countries profiting from the Oil for Food Scandal.

The sad truth of the matter is that morals don't usually make a difference when it comes to entering war or avoiding it.  Money is what usually talks the loudest.

We had plenty of war profiteers pushing for the invasion of Iraq, while countries like France had plenty of profiteers in the Oil for Food scandal.

My argument is not moral or about resolutions.  I simply believe that the costs of this war to our country (in money, lives, and reputation) were much higher than anything we've gained from it.

At the same time, the invasion would not have been possible had it not been for Bush's exploitation of fear.  While most of us here realize that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, the average American at the time was easily misled into making this false connection.

this is as fair an observation as you can get.

I for one seeing what I saw, hearing what I heard, know the right thing was done.

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am gunna guess and say he probably had all of that going on for him before our country elected the messiah. Obama will take it from him and redistribute it, ya know just to be "fair", in the form of taxes. remember someone has gotta pay for allllll of the "free" health care your dreaming of.

Then maybe you should dig up some facts on "free" healtcare lowing ... all countries that have "free" healthcare use less money pr citizen on healthcare and have healthier citizens with a better life expectancy ...

Different culture different siz countries.

In America's entitlement era we will waste emergency room time over a sniffle, bogging down the system, and why not, hey, it is "free" after all.


here is your "facts" on American "free" health care

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29998460/

What an epic fail trying to link to prove your case lowing ... the ER have nothing do with UHC what so ever ... but to turn your link around lowing, if you had UHC those 9 persons would prolly not have to go to the ER 2700 times with their petty problems but rather go see their doctor ...

So you rather provided a link that proves my point and not your own ...

gg

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Different culture different siz countries.

In America's entitlement era we will waste emergency room time over a sniffle, bogging down the system, and why not, hey, it is "free" after all.


here is your "facts" on American "free" health care

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29998460/

What an epic fail trying to link to prove your case lowing ... the ER have nothing do with UHC what so ever ... but to turn your link around lowing, if you had UHC those 9 persons would prolly not have to go to the ER 2700 times with their petty problems but rather go see their doctor ...

So you rather provided a link that proves my point and not your own ...

gg

No what it proves, since we are now a nation of convenience as well as entitlement, given we have would "FREE" health care. People will go to the ER for everything instead of calling for an appointment to see a doctor in a week. The system will be abused, just like any other govt debacle. How you think it will not is really funny. You simply do not appreciate  or understand  the extent of our entitlement and instant gratification culture.

Then you have to show me lowing what other country implementing UHC have taken a turn for worse in the direction you obviously think it will in yours, how can you abuse something that is free for all?

Your fearmongering for something you don't understand nor comprehend is ridiculous ... the system works very well in countries with a small populace and in countries with a larger one ... instant gratification culture my ass ...

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Man With No Name wrote:

if you think that element didnt exist during the baath era youre a moron.  If you think people werent dying of carbombs and suicide vest in Iraq before the invasion, youre a moron.

While it is true that Iraq had radicals before we invaded and that we've generally improved Iraq, Bush did use fear to justify the invasion itself.

I just hope Iraq doesn't go the way of Pakistan.  I suppose that our continued presence in Iraq will mostly prevent that.

He did not use fear.

If 9/11 hadn't happened the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have happened (by your own admission).

That is a perfect example of the administration using fear to further their own agenda.

Beware ... socialism is sneaking up on you

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

What an epic fail trying to link to prove your case lowing ... the ER have nothing do with UHC what so ever ... but to turn your link around lowing, if you had UHC those 9 persons would prolly not have to go to the ER 2700 times with their petty problems but rather go see their doctor ...

So you rather provided a link that proves my point and not your own ...

gg

No what it proves, since we are now a nation of convenience as well as entitlement, given we have would "FREE" health care. People will go to the ER for everything instead of calling for an appointment to see a doctor in a week. The system will be abused, just like any other govt debacle. How you think it will not is really funny. You simply do not appreciate  or understand  the extent of our entitlement and instant gratification culture.

Then you have to show me lowing what other country implementing UHC have taken a turn for worse in the direction you obviously think it will in yours, how can you abuse something that is free for all?

Your fearmongering for something you don't understand nor comprehend is ridiculous ... the system works very well in countries with a small populace and in countries with a larger one ... instant gratification culture my ass ...

THere ya go, you just proved what the problem is, you actually think "Free" health care is "free".. Your EU nations are on the verge of bankruptcy because of your "free" social programs . Ours is on the verge of bankruptcy for the trying to force feed it to us. SS, medicare, all of it

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

No what it proves, since we are now a nation of convenience as well as entitlement, given we have would "FREE" health care. People will go to the ER for everything instead of calling for an appointment to see a doctor in a week. The system will be abused, just like any other govt debacle. How you think it will not is really funny. You simply do not appreciate  or understand  the extent of our entitlement and instant gratification culture.

Then you have to show me lowing what other country implementing UHC have taken a turn for worse in the direction you obviously think it will in yours, how can you abuse something that is free for all?

Your fearmongering for something you don't understand nor comprehend is ridiculous ... the system works very well in countries with a small populace and in countries with a larger one ... instant gratification culture my ass ...

THere ya go, you just proved what the problem is, you actually think "Free" health care is "free".. Your EU nations are on the verge of bankruptcy because of your "free" social programs . Ours is on the verge of bankruptcy for the trying to force feed it to us. SS, medicare, all of it

Never said it was free lowing, but it is cheaper ... and no EU nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, now were did you get hold of that information?

FEOS wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

lowing wrote:

THere ya go, you just proved what the problem is, you actually think "Free" health care is "free".. Your EU nations are on the verge of bankruptcy because of your "free" social programs . Ours is on the verge of bankruptcy for the trying to force feed it to us. SS, medicare, all of it

http://www.heritage.org/Press/ALAChart/ … _426px.gif

I think this speaks for itself

Other Images related:  http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAm … ements.cfm     Click on the title of each chart.

Shhh! Facts are inconvenient.

inb4libsmocksourcenotinfo.

I'm not strictly liberal, so I'm not exactly against ending Social Security.  If we replaced SS with a healthcare system like France's, we wouldn't run such high debts and would actually have a workable system.

The main reason why socialized healthcare would work better here than in most countries is because our medical infrastructure is better than that of most others.  For example, we have far more MRI machines than any other country.