Jump to content

Quotes on Iraq


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok I tried to stay I tried to stay out of this but this is really too much! THAT war was about human suffering? Why not trust the electorate and tell them that from the beginning? Also I have a laundry list of countries where people are being slaughtered by Despots(concindentally where there is little or no oil)why are we not going over there and promoting "Humanity"?

I just wish that at some point some of the Fundamentalists in this country masqurading as conservatives could admit some bottom line truths about the blunders made in this campaign both diplomatically and militarily.

It was clear to me why the quotes were listed without comment and it should have been clear to some of the really smart people on this forum. I guess it is easier to alienatee, belittle and question the patriotism of any who would disagree with your narrow views.

Doesnt anyone find it strange that $ilk, a lifelong conservo is denigrated for changing his views while us so called liberals are chided for never changing ours? I hope that the new right has not becomes so monolithic that they cannot tolerate any dissenting views among thier own bretheren.

Just once I would love to see one of you guys take the risk to admit a wrong, just once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't really see myself as changing my views... I don't see anything Conservative about invading countries that never attacked us, driving government spending through the roof, and basically making one blunder after another.

Bush has some good points, such as 2/3 of his SCOTUS picks and I agree with him on this 'domestic wiretapping' non-issue. I agreed with his Social Security push and I agreed with our actions in Afghanistan.

But even during the 2002/2003 runup to war I expressed some very serious reservations in this very forum.

I cannot imagine either of the two big names in Conservatism - Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan agreeing with these views that neo-Conservatives espouse.

A Lenin-esque view of reshaping the world to fit our ideology is not what this country is about. I find myself in the company of men who Conservatives would normally point to as beacons of great Americans who warned against the very things we are facing today. John Quincy Adams' quote above at the forefront.

Our ancestors lived as we do in a world of horrible men, brutal dictators, empires - and we survived just fine. We thrived in fact.

I understand that oceans no longer protect us as well as they once did, but arrogantly presuming what our place should be and making plans for a 'New American Century' are foolhardy.

I'm insulted by the post-war justifications.

If we're so worried about the Iraqi people, we should have thought about the effects on them by our invasion - as well as their willingness to form a 'Democracy'.

Watching the hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims marching in the streets yesterday slicing their scalps with knives and chanting to Allah doesn't give me much hope for their forming a representative government that protects the rights of minorities.

Women will be stuck in burqas and beaten with sticks... but at least there won't be 'rape rooms'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you ALL fail to understand, is that THIS IS AN IRAQI DEMOCRACY, NOT A US DEMOCRACY.

You keep expecting freedom of religion, WHAT? Are you daft? This is a Muslim country we are talking about.

This is NOT a US style democracy, it is an Islamic one, yeah, you may not like it, but you're not a Muslim, NOR are you an Iraqi.

Their Democracy will be based upon their society and what they are confrotable with, NOT what we would be comfortable with.

Get over it.

Oh, and Nomad, FU......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa whoa Jaguar calm down boy... I know Nomad is an (SNIP) and that he hates the United States of America.. but still... CALM DOWN!!!!

Refresher course people, and this applys to EVERYONE IN THIS TOPIC, INCLUDING YOU NOMAD

The SC ALREADY stated that he doesn't want Anti-american bullshit on his board, if you can't follow the rules, THEN LEAVE!

quote:

OK, its like this. I am an American (OK, so I have dual citizenship, but thats besides the point) and do NOT want ANY anti-American sentiments on MY board. Anyone violating this - even by accident - will be perma-banned (that means your profile is deleted and you never - ever - come back) from the board. No tribunal. No explanations. No chance to say you're sorry. Nothing. Period. Nada.

[ 03-21-2006, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Just once I would love to see one of you guys take the risk to admit a wrong, just once.

Okay there was this one time, when I was a sophomore in high school, 2nd semester...

Just kidding. Seriously, though, Race, I really don't have a problem admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong. Of course, I have to be made to realize I'm wrong, which can take some doing, but It CAN be done. And has been. Many times.

To whit, I fully expected there to be the oft-mentioned WMD in Iraq in massive quantities, and claimed that they would be found. Now, we all know that this wasn't the case. Some were found here and there but by and large the intelligence was flat-out wrong. I have admitted as such - i.e. that I WAS WRONG. It doesn't hurt to say it. It's easy. Being wrong puts me in good company ; no one (not even the almighty SILK) is right all of the time.

Now, if WMD had been the only reason that I was in support of the Iraq war, then naturally, I would have had no problem saying that I was wrong about that too. But what YOU fail to do is acknowledge that the people who supported the war did so on a number of levels, and not just on a one trick pony the media fed into like a starved cat at a fish fry. Take away WMD, and that left only six reasons why I believed the war in Iraq was a justifieable one. Hence, no admittance on my part of being wrong. There are still six solid reasons why America went to war in my view.

But for muckraker bloggers and sensationalist political columnists like our friend SILK, the motivation to be the town crier, the supposed lone voice in the wilderness, supercedes reason and the goal becomes to put one self on a pedestal as the bastion of righteousness and truth; crusaders of valor living in their fabled idealistic world where every war has to have a storybook lead-in, basic plot, and an identifiable villain. Of course, their villain has become Bush. Ironic, that. The most he did was interpret the intelligence compiled by 12-plus nations showing that Hussein did have/was actively pursuing WMD.

Of course our aforementioned town crier/voice in the wilderness/bastion of justice and truth friends like SILK can't just stop there. That doesn't make the story exciting enough. Oh no - Bush has to be made out to be a power-hungry, vengeful, bloodthirsty, coniving monster, or their crap just won't get read. The rest of us who don't have a reputation to build and a show to put on for the masses just shake our heads at how so many intelligence agencies could have gotten so much so wrong, and move on.

Am I a neo-con? Umm...No. Seeing as how this another fairy-tale concoction by SILK and his ilk (hey, I like that!) in their drive to create another enemy at which to direct their angst-filled prose that they hope will gain them their political fame. It is, in my view, the consummate straw man.

Me, I am dog-sick of having the same pointless and stupid conversation over and over again with thick-headed know-it-all's who would have done everything differently and far better to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Remo Williams

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

No actually the biggest success was bring out in the open the people here in the USA that could careless about the suffering of others in distant lands.

"America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

- John Quincy Adams

Do I care about their suffering? Of course. But aren't millions dying in Rwanda instead of the paltry few thousand that were dying each year under Saddam?

Don't use their suffering as an excuse to blind you to the real cause of the Iraq War. This wasn't about liberating people. This was about reshaping the Middle East to suit America's interests.

It pains me to see my country involved in a war against a country that never attacked us, had no ability to attack us, and had no plans to attack us.

Instead - we brought the war to them - and daily suicide bombings are killing up to 100 per day.


Yet again you miss the point due to your self-centered blindness. I could give a damn why Bush or the rest of this nation wanted to go over there. There was ONE and only ONE reason to go and I supported it then, I support it now, and I'll support it the next time we go into a nation with a suffering population no matter what excuse the government uses as long as Humanity is accomplished, and if you haven't got this by now you never will.

quote:

THAT war was about human suffering? Why not trust the electorate and tell them that from the beginning? Also I have a laundry list of countries where people are being slaughtered by Despots(concindentally where there is little or no oil)why are we not going over there and promoting "Humanity"?


Because they don't have the stomach for it unless they can make a buck you think the electorate is going to do anything about human suffering in other nation without seeing a profit give me a break. Yes Race there are many other people in this world suffering I wish we could go and save every one of them from torture and death, but there's little chance of that now is there in this morally bankrupt nation of ours. Maybe someday we'll wakeup and do the right thing for others regardless of the cost and with out ulterior motives but from reading yours and $ilks post I seriously doubt it will be in my life time.

Just once I would like to see you guys all pull together and say to hell with the government reasoning lets get in there and help these people and stop being so damn selfish. Don't follow the example of Europe we can make a difference in this world it may cost us everything, but IÔÇÖm ready to pay the price and so is my son and daughters. WeÔÇÖre so busy fighting each other over bogus reason we've lost sight of what really matters. I could careless what motivated Bush; I could careless about what you anti-war(anti-humanity) folks have to say about this action. Saddam cannot hurt anyone else and thatÔÇÖs all that matters to me.

Never mind this is useless you guys just don't get it carry on with your mindless endeavors and forget about the suffering of others and this post for that matter. You all have your reason for not wanting to help those that are suffering needlessly be it called a war of aggression or the cost in money and life what ever works for you to justify inaction.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a quite interesting article I found that says a bit about the current situation of the "Iraqi civil war". It seems to fit into this topic.

Unfortunatley the article is taken down from the web so Ill just paste it.

-------------------------------------------------

DUDE, WHERE'S MY CIVIL WAR?

By RALPH PETERS - In Iraq

BAGHDAD

I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.

Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.

Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.

And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.

Instead of a civil war, something very different happened because of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The fanatic attempt to stir up Sunni-vs.-Shia strife, and the subsequent spate of violent attacks, caused popular support for the U.S. presence to spike upward.

Think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi intended that?

In place of the civil war that elements in our media declared, I saw full streets, open shops, traffic jams, donkey carts, Muslim holiday flags - and children everywhere, waving as our Humvees passed. Even the clouds of dust we stirred up didn't deter them. And the presence of children in the streets is the best possible indicator of a low threat level.

Southeast Baghdad, at least, was happy to see our troops.

And we didn't just drive past them. First Lt. Clenn Frost, the platoon leader, took every opportunity to dismount and mingle with the people. Women brought their children out of their compound gates to say hello. A local sheik spontaneously invited us into his garden for colas and sesame biscuits.

It wasn't the Age of Aquarius. The people had serious concerns. And security was No. 1. They wanted the Americans to crack down harder on the foreign terrorists and to disarm the local militias. Iraqis don't like and don't support the militias, Shia or Sunni, which are nothing more than armed gangs.

Help's on the way, if slowly. The Iraqi Army has confounded its Western critics, performing extremely well last week. And the people trust their new army to an encouraging degree. The Iraqi police aren't all the way there yet, and the population doesn't yet have much confidence in them. But all of this takes time.

And even the police are making progress. We took a team of them with us so they could train beside our troops. We visited a Public Order Battalion - a gendarmerie outfit - that reeked of sloth and carelessness. But the regular Iraqi Police outfit down the road proved surprisingly enthusiastic and professional. It's just an uneven, difficult, frustrating process.

So what did I learn from a day in the dust and muck of Baghdad's less-desirable boroughs? As the long winter twilight faded into haze and the fires of the busy shawarma stands blazed in the fresh night, I felt that Iraq was headed, however awkwardly, in the right direction.

The country may still see a civil war one day. But not just yet, thanks. Violence continues. A roadside bomb was found in the next sector to the west. There will be more deaths, including some of our own troops. But Baghdad's vibrant life has not been killed. And the people of Iraq just might surprise us all.

So why were we told that Iraq was irreversibly in the throes of civil war when it wasn't remotely true? I think the answers are straightforward. First, of course, some parties in the West are anxious to believe the worst about Iraq. They've staked their reputations on Iraq's failure.

But there's no way we can let irresponsible journalists off the hook - or their parent organizations. Many journalists are, indeed, brave and conscientious; yet some in Baghdad - working for "prestigious" publications - aren't out on the city streets the way they pretend to be.

They're safe in their enclaves, protected by hired guns, complaining that it's too dangerous out on the streets. They're only in Baghdad for the byline, and they might as well let their Iraqi employees phone it in to the States. Whenever you see a column filed from Baghdad by a semi-celeb journalist with a "contribution" by a local Iraqi, it means this: The Iraqi went out and got the story, while the journalist stayed in his or her room.

And the Iraqi stringers have cracked the code: The Americans don't pay for good news. So they exaggerate the bad.

And some of them have agendas of their own.

A few days ago, a wild claim that the Baghdad morgue held 1,300 bodies was treated as Gospel truth. Yet Iraqis exaggerate madly and often have partisan interests. Did any Western reporter go to that morgue and count the bodies - a rough count would have done it - before telling the world the news?

I doubt it.

If reporters really care, it's easy to get out on the streets of Baghdad. The 506th Infantry Regiment - and other great military units - will take journalists on their patrols virtually anywhere in the city. Our troops are great to work with. (Of course, there's the danger of becoming infected with patriot- ism . . .)

I'm just afraid that some of our journalists don't want to know the truth anymore.

For me, though, memories of Baghdad will be the cannoneers of the 1st Platoon walking the dusty, reeking alleys of Baghdad. I'll recall 1st Lt. Frost conducting diplomacy with the locals and leading his men through a date-palm grove in a search for insurgent mortar sites.

I'll remember that lieutenant investigating the murder of a Sunni mullah during last week's disturbances, cracking down on black-marketers, checking up on sewer construction, reassuring citizens - and generally doing the job of a lieutenant-colonel in peacetime.

Oh, and I'll remember those "radical Shias" cheering our patrol as we passed by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people have to justify the war in Iraq as humanitarian. Why should we have a problem admitting that first and foremost, the war in Iraq is self serving, and the secondary benefit is higher standard of living and freedom for Iraq citizens.

It would be foolish to spend trillions of dollars on something such as overthrowing a dictator. No, not foolish, insanely idiotic is more like it.

On the other hand. It wouls be smart to spend trillions of dollars to overthrow a dictator with a goal of transforming a hostile country in a hostile region, into an oasis of wester values. Over the long run, we gain a foothold in the middle east, we gain influence, we create stability because at the negotiating table a single word from a neighbor with a strong back up(Iraq) carries more weight than a sentence from that same back up across the globe.

As a US citizen, I see the benefits that Iraq war has to offer us in the long run. It breaks up the congremolate of the middle eastern threat. If there were to be a conflict in the middle east, or an immenent threat. A country that would aid western powers would face the wrath of majority of Islamic nations. Now that we have overthrown Iraq, the process of gaining influence and transforming it into a western society will obviously take more than a decade. It will take at least a generation if not two.

So, to sum it up. Lets be realistic. US started a war in Iraq to profit US. That's why initially European countries that didn't participate in the war weren't allowed the re-construction (read bussiness deals, major profits, new markets) contracts. It's too bad the the alliance of those who did participate caved in to the loud mouthed European socialists, and let them reap the rewards of our risks, no matter how little. However, you can not argue that Iraq did not benefit from our selfish reasons. Iraq people weren't even allowed to own cell phones under Sadam. He was a dictator just like Stalin. Stalin murdered millions. He treated Russian people worse than slaves, if that's even possible. So did Sadam. Yes they had power, so did Russians under Stalin. Yes they had water, so did Russians under Stalin. To think that if they wanted help, they would rise up and overthrow Sadam is foolish. Stalin murdered millions for the sole purpose of elliminating all possible oposition, so did Sadam. Today Iraq citizens are re-building their country. The rest of the middle east, or more like the elite monarchs do not and will not like it, which is understandable as they can see the threat a westernized Iraq would present to their power thrones.

So, the rewards are two fold. We benefit from the influence, which equals power, which equals potential wealth. Iraq citizens benefit by getting freedoms and the higher standard of living for themselfs and their children, something they couldn't even hope for under Sadam and his like.

PS, I've just read Nomads post. Seems he posted right before me. What he is saying is right. We DO need to watch, very carefully, the people who get elected into positions of power. As all what we have been trying to achieve might crumbell if the wrong people get the power. Instead of expanding western influence, we will get more Iranian influence. So instead of a pack of wolves fighting each other (the middle eastern nations), we will have one big wolf with the pack following him (Iran).

Pulling the troops out of Iraq would be the equivalent of just giving the neighboring middle eastern nations a free bid at a land rush (Iraq), which would mean a complete and utter waste of trillions of dollars. Plus, a bigger threat in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

The SC ALREADY stated that he doesn't want Anti-american bullshit on his board, if you can't follow the rules, THEN LEAVE!


In my view, the anti-American sentiment on this board are those who applaud willful violation of the U.S. Constitution, becoming an aggressor nation, and bowing before an all-powerful executive who has been dictating for so long he's absolutely 'shocked' when the U.S. Congress stops rubber-stamping his edicts.

I love my country - and it is painful to see it going down a path that the founding fathers warned against on all fronts... from our foreign policy to our domestic policy.

The very fact that "Iraqi-style Democracy" will be what they choose it to be reminds me of Saddam Hussein's 100% vote turnout and 100% re-election in 2002.

If the Iraqis choose to go back to that, Sean Hannity and blubber-butt Limbaugh will be circle-jerking each other over the radio talking about 'progress' and 'freedom'.

Will there be any Iraqi family who hasn't lost at least one innocent family member by the time they can have 'freedom'?

It would be much different if they had chosen it... but we chose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

And Prez... the fact that 3 prominent members of Bush's cabinet have been calling for the invasion of Iraq since 1998 and have written a buttload of documents since then discussing their strategy to create a "New American Century" by invading countries and propping up democracies using U.S. military might and to hear Bush use 'verbatim' some of their lines in his 2002 SOTU speech and even in his answers to the press corps yesterday... well it reeks more of reality than 'fairy tale'. Neo-conservatism is a well-known ideology that has existed since the Reagan years. Do some research before going 'pfffft lib'ral medja!'

I don't support invading countries who never attacked us, had no plans to attack us, and had no ability to attack us.

I'm sure I'm in good company among the founding fathers on that front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell even Bush agrees with me:

"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country."

George. W. Bush Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

The SC ALREADY stated that he doesn't want Anti-american bullshit on his board, if you can't follow the rules, THEN LEAVE!


In my view, the anti-American sentiment on this board are those who applaud willful violation of the U.S. Constitution, becoming an aggressor nation, and bowing before an all-powerful executive who has been dictating for so long he's absolutely 'shocked' when the U.S. Congress stops rubber-stamping his edicts.

I love my country - and it is painful to see it going down a path that the founding fathers warned against on all fronts... from our foreign policy to our domestic policy.

The very fact that "Iraqi-style Democracy" will be what they choose it to be reminds me of Saddam Hussein's 100% vote turnout and 100% re-election in 2002.

If the Iraqis choose to go back to that, Sean Hannity and blubber-butt Limbaugh will be circle-jerking each other over the radio talking about 'progress' and 'freedom'.

Will there be any Iraqi family who hasn't lost at least one innocent family member by the time they can have 'freedom'?

It would be much different if they had chosen it... but we chose it.


There has been NO violations of the constitution, there is NO all powerful executive dictating to the world or us.

Please, sometimes you guys rewrite history to such a point that it is unrecognizable.

Let's see, Saddam over 30 years, close to 2 million dead in war or executed.

US in Iraq for 3 years, close to 50K dead, and it is now dropping.

Yeah, sure thing...

You guys need a MAJOR reality check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Please, sometimes you guys rewrite history to such a point that it is unrecognizable.

Kind of like the 'Werewolves' true impact after WW2 huh?

Your '100,000 dead' from the other topic has been shown to have been 10 - 6 by plane crashes and 4 from other reasons according to the military casualty reports across all branches.

Saddam Hussein was a horrible man. His '2 million ' (I'll take your word for it) over the past 30 years is paltry when compared to the millions dying every year in African countries.

Seriously... I read today that in North Korea there are no disabled people because they are killed at birth.

How many people in Iraq died because of our sanctions which did little more than empower religious extremists in Iraq and starve the population while Saddam sat pretty in his palaces?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about all the bad humanitarian concerns in Iraq all you like... that doesn't change what the war was about nor the fact that there are much worse things happening around the world - by other dictators.

This war strategy was brought up by members of Bush's cabinet... to set up puppet governments across the Middle East.

I understand the logic - it would be in our interests to control all the oil.

But I think it would be cheaper and better to have spent that $2 Trillion defending America and working towards alternative energy.

As-is we are just wasting money. Girls who used to go to school and work under Saddam are now going to be beheaded if they don't wear a burqa and will get treated as property - you justify that by saying "It's not gonna look like US Democracy."

You'll justify it, then repeat Hannity's talking points about 'rape rooms' while ignoring the more widespread occurences under Muslim extremists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, SILK, I would never say you are anti-American. I find the stance you have taken extremely disturbing, but I DO understand what drives you to a point. I simply cannot be so cynical as you about hidden and not-so-hidden intentions concerning the war. If I truly believed a sitting U.S. president deliberately misled the nation into war for purposes of gaining control of the middle east's oil (of which there is ABSOLUTELY no proof whatsoever) as you do, I can't see how I could choose to continue living here.

What is so sad is that you have absolutely no way of knowing Bush's heart; you have know way of knowing if what's driving him is just what he says, or something else. It's not that you may not be right on some level, but you pompously claim that you know for a fact something you clearly have no way of knowing.

On a side note, I never claimed that the "neo-con" lie was a liberal media fabrication. Maybe YOU should actually read what someone else writes more thoroughly. In my opinion, it's a malcontent conservative splinter concoction used to label those of a differing viewpoint than the elitists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Remo Williams

Heh, well after reading all the new post for today in this topic all have to add is we're doomed. LOL!

quote:

Talk about all the bad humanitarian concerns in Iraq all you like... that doesn't change what the war was about nor the fact that there are much worse things happening around the world - by other dictators.


Not for you maybe, but for me it was only about one thing and sorry you'll never change that no matter how much you rant. As I said before lets go get all the dictators I'm ready lets not stop with Saddam there are many more that need to be dealt with that are as bad or worse.

Oh and BTW just because I think your beliefs on this issue are foolish. Doesn't mean I think your anti-American or unpatriotic you're 100% American in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look if we're going to start making war against every tin-pot dictator world-wide we need to cut out the domestic social spending. You can't have both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Look if we're going to start making war against every tin-pot dictator world-wide we need to cut out the domestic social spending. You can't have both.

I'm ALL for that, cut ALL social spending, foreign aid, etc, etc ad nauseum, give it ALL to the military and LET'S DANCE!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only tin pot dictators who support, fund, and harbor terrorists. I would totally support that foreign policy. That would be MY foreign policy.

I would put a domestic spending freeze on all but the most critical expenditures (defense spending, securing the borders, disaster relief, research and development, etc) and do what the world has turned away from doing for decades too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any dictator who follow Hitler's mass-murder strategy is probably a theat to the world as a whole. Sure, cut spending, but I think we Americans are TOO used to just minding our own buisness and watching from the sidelines as countries blow eachother up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cicada

quote:

I'm ALL for that, cut ALL social spending, foreign aid, etc, etc ad nauseum, give it ALL to the military and LET'S DANCE!!!!


Good idea.

BTW, how's it working out without medical insurance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cicada:

quote:

I'm ALL for that, cut ALL social spending, foreign aid, etc, etc ad nauseum, give it ALL to the military and LET'S DANCE!!!!


Good idea.

BTW, how's it working out without medical insurance?


I have no idea where you get your information, but I do have medical insurance, and it is through the fricking roof.

If the government would get out of it, if the states would get out of it and quit regulating every Tom Dick and Harry that practices medicine, and then do tort reform, we would see our medical insurance become affordable.

But since the government has "bottomless" pockets, the medical extablishment can charge what they want, since the government has told hospitals that they CANNOT turn away a person without insurance, and will NOT be reimbursed in any way, and of course since you have lawsuit crazy lawyers that has made malpractice insurance the BIGGEST expense a Doctor has, we pay up the ass for medical insurance. Because WE are the ones that end up paying for all of that.

What? You think it's FREE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cicada:

Well...you posted in the past that you didn't have medical insurance.

Ok..You have super insurance.

How about your family?

What? Is this the 3rd degree?

You have made what? 4 posts, and you're asking me this crap? And if I did post that in the past, how do you know that, are you one of the bannees coming back for more? Or a lurker that has decided to pick a fight with one of the old, old timers?

If I have health insurance, my family sure as hell is gonna have health insurance as well...

Good grief....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...