Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve must for the first time identify the companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … CC61ZsieV4
Many banks were obligated by the feds to take bailout money simply because the feds didn't want the needy banks to look bad. So they legislated that all the banks look bad. Sad.
They didnt have to try hard to make banks look bad
They have been bad for some time
I used to trust banks ,not anymore , I hate them!
Just in case some forgot the subject of the thread....
Why, yes, it is a good thing that the Federal Reserve is finally having to show the US citizens what it is doing with their(our) money....
I realize it is a big subject, but surely we could get more ideas and perspectives on it than the many pages so far of everything else but...
Right Jewel, you need to spank them hard, or they don;t behave
Hey Misha how's it going ? Ahhh, I am none violent with the child in others I only spanked my own kids
I would like some actual conversation and ideas about this issue, really. something productive...it's hard for me to get my mind going on a subject and all the things I have read about it, without others getting involved... I like conversation/debate
Well some of us are making adult contributions to the conversations here. It is rather hard when one group of people screams at those who have differing opinions. Just so you know many of our international hubbers do not participate on these threads anymore for this reason, and that is the truth. I have had a number of great conversations here with people, so it is possible.
I am fine Jewel, thank you. Enjoying petty bickering
How bout yourself?
Well maybe if someone or other would stop the put downs I would not have to defend myself. Sorry Misha, but I do not allow people to speak to me like I am a child. Tk follows people around and lets them know they are not doing things the right way unless it is his way .
You definitely improved your discussion skills Sweetie since we first met. Keep up the good job
Thanks Misha. It takes two to tango, and I think you have improved too . We just were not on the same page.
...and the ball keeps rolling...over those that need to be "flattened" !
Even if it is one victory at a time...it is happening and will continue to happen !
Duplicate threads= bad news.
There are people from all over the world using Hubpages, so I wonder why so many threads start with US citizens, etc. Often people overseas are more interested in American issues than Americans.
Some Americans can't stand criticism from 'overseas'. And maybe they are right. There's a lot to critisize.
I wouldnt say more intersted SP ,but definately in some of America's decisions.
Finance , dollar up, dollar down effects trading
Bank Interests, ripple effect.
Allies, helps to know whose fighting who etc
Immigration (In an out personal or business
And cuz we love ya
just the other night I was sitting and pondering about my faith and trust in the USA. Is she still the land of the free, is she still the land of the brave, is she still the land of opportunity, Is she still the land I want to follow and so on.....
I would say so. Many Americans are waking up to the fact that our government just gives lip service to our Constitution. It may be buried under a pile of debris but it's still the law of the land.
Making the Fed accountable is a good step in the right direction.
All I can say is I have much more faith in Barack Obama than Glen Beck, or any of the yahoos protesting at town hall meetings with guns. The amount of hatred and misinformation towards health care is sad. Basically what is boils down to is a corporate right wing agenda telling people what they should think, and now they are falling for the lies.
No I am concerned about Americans that do not have insurance. If I had a left wing agenda I would be a communist, and I am actually a liberal Democrat. There are many of us, and surprisingly we are even moderate on some issues. However, the right to everyone to go to the doctor without going to the poor house is a basic humanitarian thing. Other countries get this, but Americans act all scared of health care.
Again, it's not about healthcare, but govt interference where it has no business being under the Constitution. To say that those on the right are not "humanitarian" because we don't want the govt to make these decisions for us is to miss the point.
The guy who showed up with the "obvious display" of his gun was making that point. I guess you missed it.
Obama has done more to expand gun rights by allowing people to take these into national parks. Government supervised health care would not take away your rights as at the moment the private insurance companies will still be around. The Constitution says nothing about health care reform, and that is your narrow interpretation. Actually you want to deny certain people their right to health care, which in a way goes against the Constitution. The pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all that. Some people want to pursue life and liberty by making health care less corporate, and not always such a money maker. You really do not seem to care much about people who cannot afford health care.
Again, the point is not gun rights.
Of course the Constitution says nothing about healthcare. What it does is LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT - in this case it would limit the govt as to how invasive it can be in that area.
For you to state that "you want to deny certain people their right to health care" is incorrect. I think everyone should have healthcare. I think the current bill on the table should be 1) read - that would be a nice start for congress - don't you think? and 2) scrapped - after you read it, you'll understand why.
I have read it and support it. However, it was way too watered down to make bipartisans happy in my opinion. I was in support of single payer, which is far too socialistic for some Americans. A system similar to what they have in the UK is what we need here. Also, your reading of the Constitution is not in line with many of us who support health care. You know it is a fallacy that Republicans are for small government because over the last hundred years many of their administration are too bureaucratic.
If you have read it, and understand it, then I can assume you support totalitarian government.
Yikes, I guess you think countries with better health care systems like the UK and Canada are totalitarian. The last time I checked people in those countries were overall much more satisfied with their health care than the majority of Americans. Countries with universal health care are not totalitarian, they just manage the system because they can do it better than corporations, which we have seen in evidence here. They do not control it, just help to keep it what it should be -universal. They even have a private option for those who do not want to wait, and you can pay extra if you want. Right now Americans are more interested in keeping the insurance companies wealthy.
People not having health insurance is an issue. However, you said it all when saying, "I think...." It isn't a constitutional right - it's a want.
Thank you do much. Well said. Keep repeating the message. It will sink in.
I have to disagree, I think glenn baeck informs the people of just what is going on, ya he is a little fanatical, but I like him for he has got some guts about him, even if he doesn't always know what he is talking about.
The Libs don't think anyone else is smart enough to sift his entertainment from his information.
Agreed.... "he doesn't always know what he is talking about".... for guts.... watch out for Rush Limbaugh.
No one protested with a gun. They legally carried guns. You are pro legal, yes? The Rule of Law, and all that?
The fellow who was vilified on MSNBC was strapped with a legally licensed semi-auto. He was photographed several hours before BHO came to town, and not even in the building that hosted the "Town Meeting." He was at a church down the street. I wish be lived next door to me.
If he was not out hunting he did not need to show up like that. The fact that you think it is normal is really odd. He could have just carried a sign. Oh well, no rationalizing with people that realize guns do not need to be put on display in public.
Typical Liberal tolerance. As long as he agrees with you, he's all good.
I'd like to buy him a pizza. He makes me proud to be an American.
Actually I do not care if he agrees with me. No one needs to show up in public brandishing a gun. Honestly I think the Democrats in power right now are too easy on some of the extremist who think that is a normal mode of protest. If he were an Arab Muslim showing up like that you know people would throw a fit. Would you support the rights of a Muslim to also protest just displaying their gun. I know people would not like that. Actually a group of peaceful Muslim scholars who stood up to pray together on a plane were thrown off before take off because people thought they were terrorists.
nicomp does someone carrying really make you proud to be an American ? I opologise if im not reading the thread correctly
That's why I don't watch the news media, any news media. Often times the real story is what winds up on the cutting room floor, so to speak. People don't see that and they don't see what is not in front of the camera, so they don't really know the whole story. That's what television lends itself so well to propaganda. Thank God for the Internet, I mean it's filled with wackos and nut jobs of every stripe, but it's also a great resource for debunking propaganda. I mean look at those people who bought that Sarah Palin was divorcing her husband. Look what happened to Dan Rather, he hated Bush so bad that he ran a story he didn't check up on and destroyed his career. That tells me all I need to know about the media right there.
I notice major sponsors have begun pulling advertisements though, on that network. Walmart ,CVS
Beck is like Michael Moore , he's an agitator! and his mouth has gotten him in trouble
That's not a bad comparison. Although Beck has nicer clothes and hair.
Major sponsors have abandoned Beck solely because of pressure form the White House. They have been deluged with emails, phone calls, and letters to insist that they do so. Beck is nothing like that bloated idiot Moore.
Oh not to look at, ( why is always about looks in the USA) but the effect is the same!
Patriotic to some Unpatriotic to others
May I suggest that you read the hub (not mine)-
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Health-Care … nt-1416908
This hubber has outlined the healthcare bill astutely. He shows that the healthcare bill in it's current form is mostly enforced by the IRS.
What does the IRS have to do with healthcare, you may ask? It doesn't, but it does have some nasty strong-arm tactics. If you don't sign up for govt healthcare, the IRS will seize your bank account.
Why? Why does everyone have to do that if they are happy the way they are? THAT is my right under the Constitution.
And if you think ANYONE wants to keep insurance companies wealthy, you've been drinking too much of the kool-aid.
Do you have even the slightest notion of the origins of that phrase?
The phrase "drinking the kool aid" has a much more sinister origin. It is particularly silly to use it from a right-wing point of view, given that the perpetrators and their victims were all religious conservatives.
Oh, please enlighten us all Ron. Where did that phrase come from?
10 seconds of research on your part will thoroughly answer your inquiry.
Jones is the current, and probably most thought of reference. The original vernacular came from the Tom Wolfe book about Ken Kesey. But that probably takes a little more than 10 seconds.
I guess "current" is irrelevant in your view. Thou art melancholy and dour fair lady
I have not been drinking the kool-aid, I just happen to be open to what works in other countries. The Clintons tried to pass universal health care in 19994, and even Roosevelt had talked about it. This is not a new concept you know. Yes, you do want to keep the insurance companies rich if you are not open to a public option, and that is a fact.
An open mind is healthy mind IMO.
How can one learn anything new ,if theyre mind is not open.
As we have seen there is a certain segment of the US population that believes health care for all is taking their rights away some how, which is ludicrous. Also, as much as stereotyping is not fun, this does happen to be a conservative agenda inspired and funded by corporations that continue to profit from not changing the status quo. Many who are against health care continue to say they are happy with how it is, but the system is broken, and they have no real answers on how to fix it.
I would have liked to have seen a more aggressive single payer option, but the bill has been watered down to make those who do not understand how health care works in other countries happy. Reading some of the comments on here people make about other countries sort of irritates me because some people are under the notion that everywhere else is tyrannical and America is the freest place on earth. We are still a wonderful country, but the only first world country to have such appalling gaps in health care and standards of living.
As of now many international and American hubbers have abstaining form the forums because of the aggressive right wing views, and this is true.
Not if you understand the US constitution, but ...
but you'll take part anyway
So, we just need to do something, anything.
because you are a socialist.
Everyone gets health care. Just not health insurance. Spend some time working in the system and you'll understand.
Agressive is bad if it runs counter to your viewpoint. On the other hand, Acorn rocks.
HilaryCare was structured such that fee-for-service medical care was illegal. Let us not forget that.
I want the insurance companies rich. I want everybody rich. Let's all be rich.
I want GM and Chrysler to be rich. I want AIG to be rich. Their success makes my tax burden easier.
The more money an insurance company makes, the less taxes I have to pay. Less unemployment, more payroll taxes.
I don't need to tear down one company to build myself up.
Insurance companies employ thousands of people and provide income for families. They even hire some of the so-called working poor. They employ part-time workers, single-parent families, grandparents, minorities. They have unions - unions are good, right?
Under a single payer option they could find a way for people that work for insurance companies to now work under the public option. However, as of now the insurance companies are still going to be functioning, but the bill proposes a separate public option.
Insurance companies pay their employees very little, and the people at the top make the majority of the profits. Even with single payer options in Europe the employees are not making millions, but at least you do not have corporations denying and excluding health care to people that cannot afford it. Insurance companies exclude people with pre-existing conditions, or make their premiums higher.
Your argument for keeping the insurance companies in tact is rather cloaking.
And insurance companies cannot compete with a government-run insurance company. Don't even bring up Medicare; it's broke and it runs on the back of a private supplemental system.
You are the source, right?
Sorry, the shareholders make the majority of the profits.
They don't call it 'denying'; it's called rationing.
No cloaking. I am blatantly obviously truthfully in favor of free enterprise in the insurance industry. I support working families and single-parent families and the working poor and all the shareholders invested in insurance companies.
No you are cloaking and disingenuous. The top share holders are usually the top people who control the policies of the insurance company. Denying people health care is the most sinister type of rationing out there, and your explanation is ridiculous. Yes the average employee working for an insurance company is not a millionaire, and my mom used to work for one. So that is my source. People I know that work for insurance companies usually make regular salaries. They pay their employees average salaries like most businesses, and those who control the companies make the most. It is like any other business, but the irony is health care should not be a business. It should be public like schools are, with a private option for people that think that would be better.
Wrong again. The top shareholders are retirement funds such as the ones in Indiana that got gigged when BHO shoved the bankruptcy of Chrysler through the bankruptcy courts.
And a regular salary is bad? Why do you hate people who work for a living?
As well they should. Risk = reward.
I happen to work for a living too. However, I also realize that those who work for a living deserve affordable health care. Many of us do not get insurance through our employers, and even when we do it does not cover much. Also, sometimes people who make more are just lucky to get where they are, and risk does not always equal reward.
Yes I am not wrong about the people at the top making the most. Nicomp, you are just wanting to be right. I am not thick.
I am not calling him names. Anyway, he is so convinced the system is perfect the way it is, and that is what is scary. He has no empathy for people that cannot afford medical care because he can afford to look the other way. Many people can afford health care, but some actually want to make it affordable for all Americans.
I know you're not calling him names. But "you are just wanting to be right." Your sentiments are admirable but you're not looking at the consequences of passing this bill. The price is way too high - from a freedom standpoint.
From a freedom standpoint the UK is a freedom loving nation, and they have had single payer health care since 1948. Actually at the moment from a freedom standpoint many people stand to suffer more if we do not do fix the system. Our country needs to make health care more efficient, accessible, and not just declare that people can go to the emergency room for any treatment. I enjoyed the episode of House where he told everyone with basic colds at the ER to go home. Many people go for any basic treatment because they are told to do that, when an affordable primary care physician could treat them much better.
The people of the UK might love freedom but they sure don't have it. Look up the definition of a "subject". That's what they are, subjects. We are citizens. You might want to look that one up too - just for comparison's sake.
I didn't know that. But for George Washington, we'd be subjects as well. Whew!
They are trying very hard to make us into de facto subjects with this healthcare bill.
Legally the British are citizens. At least since about 1983 or so. London Girl clued me in on that. Not that it matters much, they're still subject to the laws of their politicians, who seem to be as bad as ours.
Please elaborate. Did they pass a law to exclude the monarchy from their parlimentary democracy and therefore empower (in some way I'm not clear on) their subjects?
According to her they passed some kind of reorganization bill that classified the British as citizens rather than subjects. Honestly you have to ask her if you want to know more. She lives there, I figure she knows better than I. Also the monarch may be the head of state, but the PM is the head of government, it's not quite the same as saying that the monarch is head of government and the state. It sort of makes sense when you consider that their form of government has evolved whereas ours was born whole, much like Athena was from Zeus.
Actually their freedoms are just a great as ours, except they treat their people a bit better when it comes to health care. I am sure anyone from the UK would be chuckling if you think they are less free than you are.
No dear I am not. Ask people in the UK if you think so. There are several people from the UK on Hubpages so I would like you to email them and ask.
Yeah, you are, and so are they. Read some of their laws about what status they hold as "citizens". Then compare that to our Constitution and the status we hold as citizens - no contest. Many people believe themselves to be free but in fact, legally, they are not. I, and a whole lot of others find this to be a very scary situation that is creeping in on America and Americans under the last three administrations.
Did he say that the system is perfect the way it is?
Did he say that he has no empathy for people who cannot afford medical care?
Did he say he didn't want health care affordable for all Americans?
If the answer to any or all of those questions is NO, then you owe him an apology.
We agree on that issue. People need to work for a living if they are mentally and physically able.
No, they deserve Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's about it.
I agree. However it's not the federal government's fault. Nor is it the federal government's purview to try to fix it.
Yes, luck is involved. However you can't legislate away luck. The most prepared people seem to experience the most luck.
I don't think you're thick at all. We just disagree.
Here are some facts for you:
Humana Insurance is publicly traded. In 2008, The CEO made 1.7 million with salary and stock options. That's a lot, compared to a fry cook at Burger King. No argument there.
The market cap of the company if 6.3 billion, or 6.3 thousand million. That's the value of all the outstanding stock. The stock sells for about $36.50 per share.
In 2008, Humana's profit margin was 2.79%. That means for every dollar they earned, only 2.79 cents was profit.
By comparison. Exxon made 9%, IBM made 13%, General Electric 8%.
Therefore, the CEO of Humana is responsible for a 6.3 billion dollar company that operates on a tiny profit margin. His salary in relation to the market cap of the company is 1.7 million / 6.3 billion = .026 per cent of the value of the company. I'm sure you agree that's a very small percentage.
Here's the key: the largest individual shareholder has 443,844 shares. On the other hand, the largest shareholder overall is Welling Management Company, LLP, which has 12,330,244 shares. That's 27 times more shares. Wellington manages money for pension plans, endowments, and benefit plans for corporations.
See? The individual shareholders are minuscule compared to private investment in the company.
I never mentioned individual share holders, only you did. Wellington as you said manages the pension plans, and they have a great deal of say regarding insurance policies. You can break it down anyway you like, but the truth is they are still making money off people when health care should be a universal right. Philosophically this is were we diverge. I believe everyone should have affordable health care and preventive care, you think only those who pay the premiums are entitled to this. It should not be that way, and pre-existing conditions are also very cruel. If you had to pay a large hospital bill I think you may change your mind about some of these things. People that mortgage their houses over health care are not always low income citizens either.
The only options I want to "keep open" are my own. And you are correct - government control through a seemingly benign healthcare bill is not new.
Well Im not used to all the sterotpying that goes on re opinions meaning you must be this or that , who cares?
Whatever political system I come from ,being a Western democracy it should be about ALL people ,not just one class.
It was cheaper for my family to pay for a doctors consult ($30) than to take out private insurance.
However the bigger companies coming from offshore offered free insurance as part of employment incentives ,so of course we benefited from being able to use it if we had needed it.
We didnt , but its merits were great for many others all the same no doubt. Benefits being faster service and hospitals a higer standard , not better doctors ( as many of them work in both sectors),just faster access for treatment.
Of course A&E is free, and waiting times are solely dependant on your condition on admission.
Healthcare for all children under 6 yrs old is free (irregardless of parents income)
All dental is free until child is 18 or while still a student.
Anyone receieving a benefit is entitled to reduced prescription
charges ( GOVT subsidy) some meds are excempt ,but not too many.
However cosmetic surgery is way up there in $$$!
It is not a perfect system ( what is ?) but at least there is no reason for people to remain unwell! The Govt sees it as a plus to have happy ,healthy people so they can work , and produce more taxes an keep that revenue coming in.
Downside -Doctors want increased wages
Nicomp , that is so silly saying everyone gets healthcare! well silly they deliver when x percent are never going to be able to pay the bill or face more bad credit ,where is the sense in that?
Like saying anyone can buy a car ,you just cant all drive til you have a license.
Everyone doesn't have insurance, but everyone is permitted by law to walk into an ER and get treatment. I could go on, but I've posted this explanation many times already.
Oh that would work ,everyone go get medical treatment , it don't matter you cant afford the 2,3,$400 they wanna charge (and do!) just you walk yaself in there...omg thats the answer, flood the hospitals ,and dont pay
Yea youve posted it many times ,and it doesnt make sense the more times you post it!
That's fine. If you're after a system that's free for everyone, then dream on. I am simply explaining to you what the U.S. has now.
I'm still baffled by the number of people who don't want to pay for something they feel is so important.
It's really very simple, the problem is a problem of supply. There is not enough health care to meet the demand. Whenever there is more demand than there is of supply, price goes up. Prices have been going up in healthcare for decades now. So what this means is that we have a shortage of healthcare providers, it's not about price. If you really want to fix the system, you have to provide more health care. If you want to find a way to pay for all of that healthcare, all you're going to do is make the problem worse. Because you're not fixing the supply problem, you're just papering over the cracks.
@Madame X, no I wasn't aware of the legal definition of news as entertainment. Although it's not surprising.
The ER is for emergency care, and it costs the entire system more money in the long run when people walk in for minor procedures. That is a big reason why Americans spend more per capita treating people than they do in European countries. If we had a more efficient health care system everyone could see a primary care physician, which would cost much less in the long run. Emergency rooms are expensive for those who do not have insurance, and yes you do have to pay for the care you get there. It costs the system and people more. Also, say you are a diabetic, you need to see a physician on a regular basis. You cannot let your diabetes get out of control and just go to the emergency room when it gets bad. We definitely need good and affordable preventative care in this country.
Life ( not much of one when youre sick)
Liberty ( I should be able to afford to take care of myself, independence)
Happiness ( drugs n alcohol sales up)
Nicomp you said thats what every American deserves, and I say thats why there is so much conflict , they are simply not all getting what they are entitled too.
Madame X during Bush's administration many well respected correspondents such as Helen Thomas were cut off from asking the president questions that they always asked before. Even Blair handled critiques better than Bush did. In the UK the press still openly challenged Blair's decision to enter the war, but here in the US many critic were silenced, or parodied as being unpatriotic pinheads. Freedom of speech was curtailed under the Bush administration more than it was in Europe during the same time period. That is just one example of how we are not as open as you think.
My favorite Helen Thomas moment; President Bill Clinton was in the midst of his troubles for lying to a grand jury and debasing the office of the presidency. He attends a press conference in the White House and gives Helen Thomas the first question. Her question (I'm not making this up) was
"Why is everyone being so mean to you?"
That's not biased!
Considering that so many other politicians have committed sex acts in office she totally had a point. You just could not see it .
It wasn't about sex - although he could have been more discreet. It was about perjury.
Oh that hot potato again. Look, he never should have been asked about it in the first place, and as far as I am concerned the whole Lewinski affair is a prime example of how bureaucratic and not small government right wing conservatives truly are. All sentient adults know where a public life ends and personal life begins. As I said only Hillary has the right to be upset about what Bill did, and since she did not divorce them they must have come to an understanding about the whole thing. European politicians respect the personal lives of their politicians and do not care about their sex lives. Americans are way too obsessed about sex because of all the puritanical repression.
I think I said that. However, to clarify; he was impeached for lying to a grand jury about the sex in the Oval Office. He was stripped of his license to practice law.
Unethically impeached by a group of conservatives that had the audacity to question him about something they ought not to have even cared about. No sentient person would have voted to impeach Clinton, and all the money wasted on that process could have been put to better use. As I said Republicans are not as small government as they claim to be or they would not be pursuing it. Also, yes it is about sex, and denying that is disingenuous.
For some reason you want it to be about sex. I clearly explained why he was impeached. I am the source.
Lying to a grand jury is grounds for impeachment. That's the rule of law. You can't have one set of laws for Clinton and another for "conservatives".
We know that (me and my partners in crime). However, her position is that BC should never have been asked that question. I guess the grand jury was stacked with nasty conservatives.
They were clearly out of bounds when they asked about sexual activities while they were investingating a sexual harassment case. How rude.
I thought all presidents ordered bombs dropped on other countries while getting head.
I already stated that it was inclusive of the last three admins. I don't argue with your point. But I look at the legal standing of each. That's where the real story lies.
What freedom of speech was curtailed that you are referring to? I thought there were a lot of marches against the war etc.
She has no idea. Bush did nothing to curtail freedom of speech.
You are so out of it Nicomp. Yes there were protests, but the correspondents were hand picked at the conferences to make Bush look good. Sorry, but we are not falling for it. At least I do not need a partner in crime to make my point and I can stand on my own two feet .
I'm totally with it.
Hand-picking people is the first order of business for every "Town Hall" meeting attended by BHO. You are hoisting yourself on your own pitard.
By the way, the Supreme Court of Arkansas didn't think it was about sex, either. They took his law license.
Those of us who realize Bush obstructed many freedoms of the American people, beginning with freedom of speech in the press at the beginning of the war. It was not until later on when the deaths started escalated in 2005 that people started realizing something was not right. The Dixie Chicks were even lambasted for protesting early on.
What does this have to do with Clinton's impeachment? Or have we dropped that subject?
She can't support her points so she moves rapidly between topics.
I am supporting my points so well and that is why you try to tear me down. You have to have supporters, and I am strong enough to go it alone. I am a think tank, which is why I can share so many topics.
Your tank is on E today. You missed the point entirely on Freedom of Speech.
I do not watch E because it is boring. I am a think tank in that I have many ideas in my head because I read widely, and I do not back down when people pressure me to do so. Being conciliatory is more important to some, speaking the truth is more important to me.
Oh dear my mind is full and intelligent. Your put downs are immature. Get a hobby besides bashing people.
The Dixie Chicks were lambasted by paying customers.
You need a refresher in freedom of speech issues.
They only extend to government supression of such. No government entity tried to shoosh the Chicks.
You are speaking in generalities and have not given me any examples. As for freedom of speech in the press being obstructed, again, what are you referring to. I remember that there were reporters embedded with troops.
As for the Dixie Chicks, I have to agree. They made an anti-war statement during their concert. Bush did not prevent them from making it so how was their freedom of speech curtailed.
Sometimes murderers like OJ use slick lawyers and the law to get off the hook for crimes they committed. Other times people with slick law backgrounds, like Republican politicians, obstruct the law and create falsehoods. The law is not always correctly applied, and the impeachment of Clinton is not taken seriously by those who have respect for the true spirit of the law.
Ahhh. I see. It's not Rule of Law, rather it's Slickness of Law.
The spirit (your word) of good behavior would have precluded BC from cheating on his wife in the Oval Office and violating the trust of a family that sent their daughter to intern on his staff. So much for spirit.
The spirit of the law respects that we do not pursue someone's sexual life behind closed doors. At this point anyone fantasizing about Clinton's sex life must be slightly repressed because most sentient people find the whole thing ridiculous. Clinton and Lewinsky were both adults and of age, and they did not do anything other people do not do. Go get enraged about some of your Republican idols that do the same things while in office.
You can't be serious. In an investigation of sexual harrassment, ya gotta ask about sex. It goes with the territory.
Aere you implying that women should never charge men with sexual harrassment?
Madame X wrote:
Clinton and Lewinsky were not a case of sexual harassment. See, you need to distinguish and get the facts straight. Lewinsky should never have told Jennifer Tripp, who I would not consider much of a friend. Lewinsky can barely get work because of this whole thing, which is not really fair you know.
You imply some really nasty things nicomp. Monica never implied Clinton harassed her. They were consenting adults that made a bad choice, and not all that different than other people who get it on in offices. Personally I do not date people at work, but I once had to advise a friend who ends up sleeping with a lot of her married bosses. Since then she has changed her ways.
I'm not enraged about the juvenile activities of BC in the Oval Office. It was a pattern of behavior for him that strethed back to his days as governator of Arkansas. No one was surprised.
If it makes you feel better, I think Newton Gingrich should slink back to Georgia after the way he treated his first wife. I do hold that against him and I feel that his unconscionable actions should prevent him from being any sort of a leader in the Repoublican Party.
But I'm not a Republican, so it doesn't matter much.
Okay I will never call you a Republican again. You seem offal offended when I critique Bush, so how is one to know?
I'm only offended by obfuscation and prevarication. Don't assume a person's political leanings simply because they disagree with you on one issue.
Well I have not done that regarding Bush, who happens to have one of the worst human rights records as a US president. That is the truth, and big part of why the world community grew tired of his ways. I did not assume your political leanings, but when someone becomes defensive of what Bush did to hurt good people it makes one wonder why. Helen Thomas happens to be a very respected correspondent, but I guess I have a lot of respect for her. She is part of the old school journalism that is hard to find these days.
LOL. If every member of Congress who has engaged in extramarital sex had to slink back to their district, Congress would be practically empty!
And that goes for both sides of the aisle.
Remember, power is an aphrodesiac.
The reason people get upset when Republicans get caught is because Republicans walk around with a "holier than thou" attitude spouting "Family Values" platitudes. Hypocritical if you ask me.
Did we break HubPages? All the postings in this forum are shoved over to the right and the background is 1/2 white, 1/2 brown.
That is part of the reason I wrote my recent hub because it is a fallacy to believe there was ever a time when politicians or anyone else did not have inappropriate sex. It was worse in Jefferson's and Washington's day, but not much better in Clinton's day. I see the Carters and the Obamas as being a few of those rare couples that have a truly respectful love marriage. Those men are the type that would not cheat on their wives in politics, and that is rare.
Since the Iraq War Christians have left Iraq on enmasse because while Saddam was a dictator, but he was secular and allow all religions to practice freely. Once he was removed the religious fanatics started fighting over the country and all hell broke lose. Literally millions of Iraqis have left the country, and the majority of their Christian population is gone. Just like my Christian ancestors that left Syria, and the Jews and Christians now leaving other Middle Eastern countries, the Middle East is being robbed of its diversity. Saddam was the worst kind of dictator, but we had no place getting involved in their affairs. More bad than good has come out of the fall of Saddam. It would have been much more peaceful to allow him to slowly die in office. More people have died because of the Iraq War.
Wow. I guess we should have never declared independence from King George either. All those soldiers died needlessly.
Invading other independent countries to overthrow leaders we do not like is not the answer. We should have helped as many Kurds and others who wanted to leave Iraq immigrate to the US if we were concerned for their safety. I am glad to see we are giving permanent visa to so many Iraqis fleeing that debacle actually.
We probably should have let Hitler slowly die in office too, huh.
That was a completely different situation as Hitler was invading other countries and causing havoc. Hitler needed to be stopped, but in any war you have to assess the outcomes. Iraq War was badly planned, and most of the outcomes have been disastrous. This is not a war I support, especially since there was no clear cut evidence Saddam was behind 9/11. It also caused us to lose face with the international community that did not support this war, unlike World War II that was a united effort.
40 million Iraqis are now free from death camps, rape camps, torture camps and total political oppression. But hey, I'm just a compassionless conservative who could care less about anybody but myself.
Actually I think you fail to see how many people have been raped, tortured, and killed because of the Iraq war. We should not go invading countries just because we do not like the dictators. The amount of destruction caused by this war is greater than anything that took place before it. Now they have daily fears of market and roadside explosions. If I lived in Iraq at any time I would want out, this is not a free and happy place.
"fools rush in where angels fear to tread".... Bush's "mission accomplished".... demonstrated the lack of intelligence and judgement..... we're paying with American blood.... Bush's gotta one day answer all those families affected..... by his big lie... all for his cronies to make money outta Iraqi oil..... that is blood money.
Actually Iraq is more unstable now because the insurgents, those who are provoked by us invading their country. Our American soldiers should not be put in a situation where different factions are fighting over who is more holy than thou, and being injured and killed in the process. Iraq will remain unstable for years because it is a dysfunctional religious zone, and ironically only a dictator like Hussein could keep the loney tunes in fear of attacking each other. We are destroying our soldiers by sending them into the mosh pit of nonsense, and even soldiers I talk to are fed up with this war. They only enlist for the money, and no one really wants to go to Iraq.
So, it's ok to torture, rape, and politically oppress the population of Iraq to keep "peace" amongst the insurgents?
No it is not okay, but as I said per international law we can not just go invading every country willy nilly. Very few people I know even try to justify the actions of the Iraq War and admit it was a disaster. Eventually we will pull out, but now it is going to take awhile. There are worst dictators like Saddam that we have not tried to overthrown, and some of this does have to do with oil interest and political hegemony in the region.
Clinton did the willy-nilly invading. Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afganistan, Haiti...
He gets a pass ... revisionist history at work.
All while he was "not having sex with that woman"
rofl. And ordering bombing runs against soverign nations to take the heat off himself. Allegedly.
Those were legitimate conflicts where the international community asked for support. Iraq was a conflict where the US, Britain, and Australia to some extent said we do not care, we are going anyway. Bush was the one who pressured Blair to feel he had to by the way.
Good Grief, Tony Blair is absolved because Bush pressured him? What was he, a grade schooler on the playground?
No, but Bush was the one who wanted the war more than him. Of course he and Bush must have seen eye to eye at the time.
Have you seen the movie "Love Actually"..... funny scene where UK PM stands up... anyway American Presidents often force British PM... to toe the line.
That was actually a reference to Thatcher and even somewhat to Blair having given in so many times to American presidents. I have this theory Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were lovers too considering the letters they wrote each other, and how fond they acted around each other. They just had this look, something about it lol
We have all seen the blooming of a bouncing baby rumor. Awwww!
It is a joke. It was just sort of nauseating to see how on the same page they were, especially since she complained so much about how her own people did not agree with her policies. Ronald Reagan wrote her letters of support during that time lol.
That was funny... You made my day... gotta go for work now.
To bad you live so far away or I would give you a large tip for delivering my pizza. Today is my day off .
I'm sure you would.... gotta need more tips.... to pay for my fall sem.
Clinton screwed Monica .... Bush screwed USA.
Clinton screwed Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, all little defenseless countries.
Helping local governments.... different from invasions.... when Clinton came to office Bush Sr. left a deficit.... Clinton left office surplus.... Bush Jr. left office again deficit.... I'm concerned about America..... Did we Americans gain from Iraq war or Halliburton folks making money.
Soldiers aren't trained to 'help' local governments. He could have sent in the Red Cross if he wanted to help.
Haliburton is comprised of American folks. I do understand, however, that they are an evil nasty big company.
Oh yeah, Saddam would never do something like that...
Did the President lie to our country, troops, congress about our motives against Hitler.... Bush's WMD.... A Big lie.... no excuses here.
Destroying a terrorist stronghold, freeing 40 million people from a tortuous dictator, and keeping us safe from further attack - I would not define these actions as trivial. They were very important - even monumental. Our allies also believed that there were WMDs.
"Keeping us safe".... Iraq was never a threat.... on the other hand... North Korean missiles can strike USA or our allies Japan.... wonder why nothing is done.... simple.... no money to be made from such invasion.
Actually there was very little evidence of the weapons of mass destruction, and that has been substantiated again and again. Blair was voted out of office because people were irritated at his desire to support Bush in that war. All we did was distract ourselves from Afghanistan, where some of the true terrorist factions have been organizing. I am not big on the war in Afghanistan either, but at least that conflict had a bit more of a real purpose.
He was voted out as prime minister. So yes he was voted out of that office. You know if you learn how to discuss things and follow dialogue you might become a bit more respectful. At least Nicomp and XMadame can debate things without being rude.
Yes TK he was. Gordon Brown is Prime Minister now, for the news update.
I know who is the current Prime Minister, thanks. Tony Blair was not "voted out of office." You'll be less embarrassed later if you stop now and look into it. I know it was soooooo long ago, but you might be able to find something. I know you are the source and all, but...
Blair resigned from office of Prime Minister, so I said one thing wrong. I am smart and intelligent, and you are rude. My use of the English language is correct, and you are bordering on being a pest. If anyone should be embarrassed, I think it is you. However, you have the freedom to act however you like, so carry on.
The middle east wasn't being robbed of diversity. No one stole the Christians and the Jews. The extremist Muslims attacked them because they didn't want them there and ran them out of the country while regular Muslims allowed it. Saddam was secular, he killed anybody he wanted regardless of their religious affiliation. That doesn't mean that Iraq was better off.
The Iraqi Christians would differ with you. How would you feel if someone invaded the US under the same pretext? I am sure people would protest madly against this. Anyway, we are slowingly withdrawing from Iraq which proves this point.
What point has been proved? The Iraqis whether they were Muslims, Kurds, Christians, or Jews (probably in hiding)were powerless against Saddam, his army and his goons and had to suffer Saddam's will. War is not pleasant and many Iraqis have suffered and many of our men and our allies have been killed and there have been arguments on boths sides debating the war. It's over now but your claim that the Christians are leaving because Saddam is no longer there and therefore the whole country is worse off is illogical.
It is not illogical, it is a proven fact. Several more churches have been bombed during services in the last few months and even more people are leaving. It is just one example, and many other Iraqis have fled besides the Christians.
It is not a fact. It is a perception. I understand you are passionate about this and it's fine that we don't see eye to eye. It was nice conversing with you.
People quickly forget that Husseine entered politics as a hitman for the Bath party. Once in power, he invaded a soverign country because he thought it belonged to him. He didn't exactly begin public life as a community organizer.
Gassing thousands of Kurds wasn't his first atrocity.
I am aware of Saddam's record, but as I said there are dictators just as bad as he was. A lot of this has to do with oil and power politics.
Hey, if we can get more oil and get rid of a dictator all at once - why let a good crisis go to waste?
No doubt, there were worse dictators and some of them are still in power. North Korea comes to mind. I wonder when BHO will be bowing to that royal family...
That is not going to happen. Back in the 80's people used to watch Red Dawn and say the Russians were invading. That never happened either .
Many Jews in pre-WWII Germany believed the same thing.
That argument is so overused . North Korea and Obama are not making a deal. Like I said in fifty years people will laugh at some of these conspiracy theories.
Overused? I'm sure those who lost their families would have no problem with your cavalier statement. The fact is that it is necessary to stop the advances of power-mad politicians before they gain a foothold. Saddam was one of those. His removal from power only aided the US and the entire region - not to mention all those little people who now get to live a life.
No you are placing words in my mouth. Only Hitler was Hitler, and each situation in world affairs should be assessed individually. Anyone watching the nightly news knows things are worse in Iraq than they were before. It was not picnic under Saddam, but this part of the world did not become peace loving and fun under US occupation. I find it hard to believe some people still feel it is justified we are there. This is really not looking at any of the facts as they really are.
I hate to burst your bubble but there are many "Hitlers" of which Saddam was one. Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Jong Il and numerous others throughout history - not to mention that civil rights monstrosity called China. And Obama is now moving in that direction with his "preventative detention" proposal. It states that you can be detained, indefinitely, if you are merely "suspected" of terrorism. No trial, no lawyer, no notification to your family. You just "disappear" one day. Gee, that sounds like a free republic to me. . .
Obama is not Hitler, he is our respected president. I worry about people who think that we live in bad times because I think they are ruining their personal happiness. Obama is striving to do things to improve the US as many presidents have before him, but something about his foreign sounding name and skin color put people off. That to me is what is really happening here.
He's your respected president, not mine. I oppose just about everything he stands for. It's not his skin color, nor his name, but his actions that I oppose. It's not our happiness he is ruining, he is ruining our freedom to choose how we live.
You have a very narrow interpretation of what freedom is then. Lita seems to share some of your Libertarian principals, and I do not recall her feeling that Obama is depriving her of freedom.
What does what Lita think have to do with my comments? You don't seem to understand the significance of what it means to take from one group and give to another. If she feels that her rights aren't being trampled, it could be that she is either part of a group that isn't being mugged, or that she is part of a group that is getting something for nothing. Or she could have other reasons for feeling the way she does.
None of that matters. What matters is that Obama is busy redistributing income from one group of people (his opponents) to another group of people (his supporters). If we were smart, we'd get rid of any political candidate who talked like that. The end result of supporting such policies is the eventual destruction of our society. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. That is exactly what wealth redistribution does.
It's not Obama's skin color that bothers people, it's his agenda. Using the skin color as a scapegoat is typical. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are two well respected and intellignet black people we've had in government.
Watch what Obama does and not what he says.
Obama is also intelligent and well respected in many circles. Heck, many people I know would love to meet him, but have to go to work and cannot attend the town hall meetings. Yes, the rumors about his birth certificate are based on suspicion of his foreign sounding name. As for his actions I support health care reform. Obama is actually too moderate on some of his stances, such as him and the Dems compromising on health care. I would like to see some assertion by Congressional Democrats and Obama saying we are going to reform health care, and you can just keep your conniption fits to yourself.
Is seems to me that you're not ready for a black president. You can't separate valid criticism from racism. Every president gets it from all directions. His skin color matters not.
I am ready for more than you ever will know. If you are a teacher I think you are not ready to teach people properly as you may be judging students that do not agree with your ideas. I remember you said you taught, right? Well I am sorry I find you to be a very assumptive person.
You're just not ready. When you see Obama criticism, you assume racism; that means you can't deal with negative comments in a realistic manner.
No I am ready and you are assumptive. Obama is being criticized in a more bizarre manner than any of the previous US presidents, and yes much of this has to do with his foreign sounding name. You may not like his policies, but others do not like him period. I am ready because I am politically savvy and intelligent, and I do not need several people to agree with me to make my point. Right now there are now moderate or even more liberal people here speaking, and I bet that has to do with the fact about who can reason with you guys. I still try at least. Got to give me points for that .
My assumptions are based on your comments. You cry racism instead of trying to grasp that people can think for themselves and form opinions based on policy and partisanship.
Your political savvy is seriously in question if you think Blair was voted out of office and that Hussein wasn't a regional, if not world-wide, threat. He invaded/occupied Kuwait and vowed to destroy the United States.
I know my facts and big deal I said Blair was voted out. I have corrected you several times on your facts, and you are wrong about Hussein. He was not a worldwide threat, that is your cloaking of history. My intelligent and savvy remarks stand, and you will not tear me down with your emotional attack.
The Kuwait war was back in 1991, and we forced him to back out. Please read up on history because there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Of course this is why many international people will not discuss anything with aggressive conservative types of Americans who think they can justify the Iraq war.
I haven't attacked you. Again, you seem to be unable to differentiate.
If Hussein vowed numerous times to kill us all, I'd call that a threat. Just my opinion.
So many people say all sorts of jibberish. Hussein was a regional threat, but not a world threat. Unlike Hitler he was very paranoid and not a good military man. He never could have amassed a large army to take over more than Kuwait, and the international community pushed him back.
The US military pushed him back. George Bush Sr. pushed him back. Call it whatever community you like, but United States armed forces kicked his butt and then our all volunteer army cared for his wounded.
Conveniently forgetting that he was brought to power by US forces, too
Yes he was and we turned a blind eye we he launched horrific attacks on Iran, which suited our interests at the time. I do not see anyone complaining about how Saddam bombed Iranian cities lol
I strongly suggest that all the folks who think America was wrong in the Gulf War to pack their bags and move. It's these very freedoms that allow you to be critical of the government.
I strongly suggest you stop telling people how to live their lives. The last time I checked the Iraq War was not popular, and the Gulf War was in 1991 by the way.
Wasn't aware that making an appropriate suggestion was telling you what to do.
The wars were not popular - they rarely are. However, if people don't fight for what they believe in we are pushovers and weak, thus allowing the few who make the rules rule over all.
We are not pushovers by abstaining from unnecessary conflicts. This jingoistic idea of protecting our interests overseas is not a very old concept in US history, as up until World War II we were heavily an isolationist country. We only entered World War I because the German U boats kept sinking our ships, and the large number of Germans living in the US were opposed to that war from the start.
Actually Wilson ran on the platform of being anti-war, which suited our interests back then. From the time of Washington's farewell speech we adopted this policy of ignoring wars of foreign entanglement, and that was the popular thing to do. We had a few wars of self interest such as the Spanish American War and the Mexican American War, but we did not go overseas to throw over dictators. This mindset came about after War War II thinking we had to protect our "empire". We basically became the new imperialists as the British were beginning to rescind that role. In the end a large part of why Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were interested in Iraq was oil interest, and not the people of Kuwait or Iraq. Keeping the flow of oil secure is very salient in the minds of these people.
Oil, such an interesting topic. If the left treehuggers would allow drilling off American soil we wouldn't need oil from our enemies. If you don't think that going in to Iraq was to save people, where were you when it was reported people were voting and women went to school?
World War II, hindsight is such a luxury. Now why do you think the Germans were sinking the American ships?
Go right ahead - that's your choice. You most certainly are not annoying me.
Nope, not at all. I have many friend who I disagree with - it makes the friendship interesting and fun. I can agree to disagree:>
They're smart enough to realize how fortunate they are to live here:)
Should those who served in the Gulf War, but came away thinking it wasn't such a smashing deal also leave the country because you'd like them to? The statement was kind of, uh, over the top, wasn't it?
The thing that was even more odd about that comment was I think she meant the Iraq War and not the Gulf War.
Yeah, and I think I just may have lost her as a fan because of my comment, . Or...somebody.
But, yeah, Matt served and doesn't think so highly of the reasons we were there...necessarily.
Ladies, you really should come down off your high horse and not think so highly of yourselves. You are not as informed or educated about all the issues as you would like people to think.
When someone is genuinely knowledgeable on an issue they don't have to keep reminding everyone of their credentials or experience because it is apparent.
Actually I have studied history and I am informed about the issues, so I find your comment condescending. I also read on another thread that you are a teacher, so if you talk to your students that way I would not want my kids in your class. I am just saying you really need to show people more respect because you seem not to have much for people that disagree with you. Actually people can do anything they want if they are informed on a subject, and I find you a bit commanding.
No, I don't think that otherwise I wouldn't have made the statement.
You mean you don't think my bf should leave the country after serving in combat 5 times, getting a purple heart, a medal of valor and many other awards as an army officer...even though he came out thinking the Gulf war cause was not all that? That's good, .
My thanks and gratitude to your bf. In my mind he's a hero; take good care of him.
Surprisingly (to some anyway) some people who serve in the military do not always agree with every conflict. Of course they are national heroes because they have voluntarily enlisted to go places where most people want to go, but this does not mean every conflict our soldiers are sent to is justified or well plan. Since the Second World War there have been several conflicts of this nature, and interestingly enough in the 1960's many former veterans were the some of the most vocal protesters to the war in Vietnam because they had been there and saw what was happening first hand. Since they are national heroes I think you should give their opinions more merit.
It's a fine line that's for sure. If you think I'm a conservative you should meet my dad. Marine Corps for 21 years. Still regrets the day he left, I think. Our military tries hard to be apolitical and for the most part succeeds very well, I think.
One concern I've heard some vets mention and which also concerns me is the disconnect between the values of people in uniform and the values of society in general. So long as those two value systems are similar, not exact, but similar, the military will serve in any capacity in which it is asked. More and more of our military, I think, are becoming disenchanted with many in our leadership caste. If we're not careful, we could wind up exactly where Rome did.
From what I gather you are not exactly in support of the current wars we are engaged in overseas? Do you feel these serve our best interests as a nation because I certainly do not.
I'm pretty much opposed to any military use that does not involve repelling invaders from our borders. Few people, especially in the military share that view, I think. "Fight them over there or fight them over here" has become the watchword of our military. At any rate, what I think about society doesn't matter. What the military in general thinks does. After all they have all the guns, tanks and planes. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to any politician or party.
You hit the nail on the head when you identified general disillusionment of our military on the actions of our politicians. What happens when you have a series of politicians who are unpopular in the eyes of the military who send them off to foreign places to die for no apparent gain. I'm thinking long term, not about Iraq or Afghanistan or anything contemporary. One thing that is sorely lacking among many up and coming politicians is military service. If you don't know anything about the military then how can you command such a force. Now add in a disillusionment of the military culture, with the mass culture of the society which they are sworn to protect. What do you get?
I actually agree with your points. This might make an interesting hub too I think.
I did. It meant one of two things (up for grabs, grammatically, though I figured you probably meant the opposite of what my response implies). But, sigh. I decided to put it in a positive light (tried), with a couple little implications also hinted at. And that's pure demonstration of technique, no credentials mentioned here.
It's really cool. I'm sure you didn't actually mean my bf should pack his bags and leave the U.S. Just found the statement hyperbole (ie, 'over the top')
We have to thank the Saudis and the UK for helping too. The Saudis allowed us to use their land to launch attacks, and the UK, Kuwait, and Egypt provided troops. Japan provided financial backing, so it was also an international effort. It was not like the Iraq War with the US ignoring their allies saying we do not care what you think. Previous administrations actually tried to get along with allies more than the US. Ask yourself why Bush is so hated when he visited other countries.
You are thinking of the Gulf War dear. That was in 1991. Our major allies were against the Iraq War, and people protested when Bush visited their cities. Even people in the UK would protest during Bush visits. Yes the Iraq War was wrong, and several people screaming it was justified, right, and correct do not change the facts.
His facts are not accurate. There are several countries that sent troops, but even from the start our major allies were opposed to the war. Many started to pull out as time progressed too:
You're right, I was not accurate. It was actually over 50 nations.
March 19, 2003
"Coalition of the Willing" Already Larger than the 1991 Gulf War coalition
by Paolo Pasicolan and Carrie Satterlee
"Just one day after announcing a 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq, President Bush once again has been criticized for "unilateralism." On the contrary, a large, and growing, number of countries have decided to join a "coalition of the willing" to liberate Iraq.
Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday announced that, "We now have a Coalition of the Willing that includes some 30 nations who publicly said they could be included in such a listing," Powell said, "and there are 15 other nations, for one reason or another, who do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition."1
Furthermore, several other countries not mentioned by Sec. Powell have publicly offered either political or military support for the war (see list).
To date, there are 54 countries that have joined the Coalition of the Willing--not including Canada, Germany, and France, which have recently offered conditional support. This does not include all of the 15 nations that have offered quiet support. The number of nations to date already eclipses the 1991 Gulf War coalition, which had 38 countries. 2
The Coalition of the Willing:
Afghanistan: Afghanistan has pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq. May open airspace to U.S. and allied military flights.
Albania: Offered to send troops. Approved U.S. use of airspace and bases.
Australia: Sent 2,000-strong force of elite SAS troops, fighter jets and warships to the Gulf.
Bahrain: Headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
Bulgaria: Offered use of airspace, base and refueling for U.S. warplanes; sent 150 non-combat troops specializing in chemical and biological warfare decontamination.
Canada:* Sent military planners to join U.S. counterparts at their command post in Qatar. A destroyer and two frigates sent to the region could protect U.S. ships.
Croatia: Airspace and airports open to civilian transport planes from the coalition.
Czech Republic: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to U.S. request.
Denmark: The government decided to take part in the military action with submarine, surface ships, and a medical team comprised of 70 elite Jaegerkorps soldiers.
Ethiopia: Ethiopia has publicly pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq.
Georgia: Georgia has expressed strong support for the U.S. attack on Iraq, and has offered both its airspace and military bases to support the campaign.3
Greece: U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. sixth fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes.
Hungary: Hosts a U.S. base where Iraqi exiles are trained for possible post-war administrative roles. NATO can use the country's roads, railways and airspace to carry military support for Turkey's defense. May open airspace for U.S. military flights.
Italy: Offered logistical help and use of military bases and ports under longstanding NATO commitments.
Japan: Japan expressed unequivocal support for U.S. plans to forcibly disarm Iraq. Will provide post-conflict assistance.
Jordan: Opened its airspace to coalition planes; hosts U.S. troops carrying out search and rescue operations in western Iraq and manning a Patriot anti-missile defense system.
Kuwait: Hosts coalition forces massed for an invasion.
Latvia: Government has decided to ask parliament to authorize the deployment of a small number of troops.
Lithuania: Authorized use of airspace for U.S. backed mission to disarm Iraq.
Netherlands: A few hundred Dutch troops are stationed in Turkey to operate three Patriot missile defense systems, allowing movement of U.S. troops and supplies from Germany through the Netherlands en route to the Persian Gulf.
Norway: Offered to send 10,000 chemical warfare suits to Turkey.
Philippines: The Philippine National Security Council offered political support for a U.S. led war to disarm Iraq.
Poland: To deploy up to 200 troops in the Gulf region, which will perform an unspecified non-combat role, supporting the U.S.-led offensive. A few dozen Grom elite commando troops and transport ship already stationed in the Gulf area, as part of the Afghanistan campaign, could be enlisted.
Portugal: Made available NATO air bases and an air base in the Azores.
Qatar: Hosts a mobile HQ for U.S. Central Command; allowed Washington to expand an airfield to handle more combat jets.
Romania: Airspace and a base open to U.S. warplanes; sent non-combat specialists in chemical decontamination, medics, engineers and military police in response to a U.S. request. Will make available Black Sea air and naval bases.
Saudi Arabia: U.S. and British planes use its Prince Sultan Air Base to enforce a "no-fly zone" over southern Iraq.
Slovakia: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to a U.S. request. Has approved U.S. flyovers and use of its bases.
Slovenia: Signed the Vilnius 10 declaration supporting the United States
South Korea: Seoul will dispatch some 500 army engineers to support a U.S. led war on Iraq, in addition to post-war assistance.
Spain: Strongest ally of the United States and Britain. Promised use of its NATO bases for a strike on Iraq. Spain will send a medical support vessel equipped with nuclear, biological and chemical treatment facilities. A frigate and 900 troops will accompany the support vessel in the event of a conflict.
Taiwan: Taipei opened its airspace to U.S. military aircraft.
Turkey: Hosts U.S. planes enforcing "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq. Parliament has rejected a resolution to allow use of airspace and deployment of American troops for an attack on Iraq but the cabinet was to debate the resolution again on Tuesday with a possible parliamentary vote on Wednesday. (Update: 3/19 Turkey has granted the United States the use of its airspace.)
Ukraine: Agreed to U.S. request that it send chemical warfare and nuclear decontamination experts
United Arab Emirates: Base for U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and refueling; host to an estimated 3,000 western troops. Has pledged 4,000 troops supported by Apache attack helicopters, Leclerc tanks, BMP3 amphibious armored vehicles, a missile boat and a frigate to defend Kuwait in case of war in Iraq.
United Kingdom: Washington's chief ally on Iraq has sent or committed 45,000 military personnel, planes and warships.
I know you are really, really, really smart and are your own unimpeachable source and all, but a study of US history puts the lie to the above statement.
Anyone who would take the time to read the editorial cartoons from the early 20th century would see that politicians are treated much better these days. Believe or not, the newspapers back then went after presidents and presidential candidates on every possible level. They were much crueler than anything we see today. A little Googling will go a long way.
Is seems to me that you're not ready for a black president. You can't separate valid criticism from racism. Every president gets it from all directions. His skin color matters not.
Did you ever speak to an Iraqi before Saddam was overthrown? Have you spoken to one since?
I happen to know many people who immigrated from there doggie. They shared how life under Saddam was not great, but the war forced them to leave. One taxi driver told me he was from Egypt, but moved because as a Copt he had more freedom in Iraq. He fled during the war.
Sweetie, you are aware that Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds, are you not? I'm sure that Shi'a Iraqis would also disagree with you to a certain extent. Heck, even some Sunni Iraqis would probably disagree with you.
It's funny how many persecuted minorities from other nations seem to, sooner or later, find their way here. I wonder why that is?
I am aware of these things. This is no excuse to invade a country, and as I distinctly remember you were against the Iraq War yourself.
Did you ever speak to an Iraqi before Saddam was overthrown?
You are off topic too Anyway this is a forum and people can participate as they wish .
We have common ground on that. If they don't like our rants, there's a nice little debate on religion going on in another forum.
At least we agree on something . I actually like participating on this thread or I would not post here .
LOL, I'm just observing and trying to learn how to debate. I'm all for peace!!!
LOL finding myself in at least partial agreement with SweetiePie and partial disagreement with LDT feels so weird Must be a jet lag
Obama is not a extreme socialist leader looking to redistribute all the wealth. However, I understand you see things a certain way, so I will leave it at that.
Sweeite, he has said that in the past.
So yes, he does believe in redistributing wealth. You cannot help the poor by impoverishing the wealthy.
He resigned, and you are a rude person. TK I try to be nice to you, but when you treat people this way they lose all respect. You do not treat many people on this forum well. As far as I am concerned I am a very intelligent person and never embarrassed by myself. You are rude though.
LOL! Here we go again!
Instead of just admitting you were wrong and leaving it at that (and hoping everyone would quickly forget your embarrassment), you AGAIN fail to resist the urge for unrelated emoting, and close with the ever popular, "I'm smart! I'm smart!"
Should all guns be taken away the only people with guns would be criminals. It is our constituional right to carry a gun. No, I don't own one but it's good to know if I wanted to own one I could get one.
The Obama administration is forcing their agenda on the American people with a much bigger government. More welfare etc. When people are dependent on the government they are held captive and the government can do as it pleases.
The right allows people to make more choices with less government. For those who think socialism is such a good thing, go and move to Cuba or some other Socialist nation. If Socialism is such a good thing why do Cubans want to leave?
Socialists try to pander to the weak and sympathetic individuals by promoting equality for all and what they perceive as injustice in the world. In theory that may well be successful but not in the real world.
Yes, there is injustice, but people have the right of free-will to make choices - I, and millions of others, choose to exercise our right of free will.
Other Americans cannot tell Americans to move. This health care debate has been around since the days of FDR, but this time around it is taking on new distortions. Back in 1994 Clinton was not called a socialist and Hitler. Still a nasty debate, but this time around it is just weirder.
At the beginning of the war, but the middle and now the numbers have gone way down. You can throw all the little tizzy fits you like, but I am correct in sharing that Iraq was the wrong war. Anyone justifying it just hates to admit maybe sometimes war is a dumb waste of resources and human life. Stability is yet and will not be achieved in a war zone such as Iraq.
...and now the qualification begins...
You were wrong AGAIN.
Wouldn't it be easier for you to check the facts before making declarative statements and embarrassing yourself over and over again?
You embarrass yourself TK. I have outlined so many good points in history, and the only embarrassment is your cheering for Bush and his war of choice, which is what they call it now by the way, or at least on the BBC where they report the real news. They are not in office anymore. Get over it, we are slowly pulling out of Iraq.
Pointing out your repeated factual errors does not embarrass me. It doesn't please me, but it is necessary.
My knowledge of history is very deep. I did not make errors and I write long pithy posts. Most of yours are just jibberish to be quite frank.
How is pointing out your repeated factual errors a "tizzy fit"?
I am getting my facts very straight thank you. As a student of history I have shown my points well, and you argue that the war in Iraq was justified. That is like arguing that a food fight in fifth grade was needed to get to sixth. Get over it the international community has recognized there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the irony is the Iraq War just caused more destruction- and distracted us from focusing on Afghanistan
You demonstrably have NOT. It's all right here in black and white.
Okay you were a school bully perhaps. In adult land we know the war in Iraq was not necessary, but you can wish whatever you think.
There is no need to descend into ad hominem and utter irrationality. Just admit when you are (frequently) wrong and move on with the discussion.
No I will not admit that I am frequently wrong as the majority of the time I am right. You on the other hand attack many, and not many people think you are a very rational person to discuss with. Even trying to convey this to you is sort of ridiculous as you thrive off these fallacies.
In the real world, mature people admit mistakes without being condescending and not allowing their opinions to become facts.
Tk implies anyone who does not preach his viewpoint makes mistakes, and I happen to be proud of my knowledge of history. I read all the time, and you are the ones not allowing my viewpoint. Also, a popular theme on this thread is for the conservatives to stick together, which I find amusing. At least I can stand on my own two feet here.
Sweetie, not all of us are conservatives. Heck, try being in my shoes sometime, I get it from both sides.
Well you are not like that, but I have seen tk be rude to you too . I am tired of his antics and I feel people should be able to post without his incessant pestering to get us to admit we just do not do things as good as him.
*sigh* I'll try again:
Have I ever asked you to admit that? Come on now, we have to at least meet on some common ground of logic to have any kind of discussion.
That's why I don't feed the trolls, Sweetie, sooner or later they get tired of being ignored and go away. It's so elementary school playground stuff.
Still, we started out very antagonistic towards one another, remember. But I think we've both come to realize that the other has a sharper intellect than we realized. Education through conflict is one way to learn, I guess.
You are very right. I think I wasted my day off on this thread. I should have written a hub instead . Oh well .
How exactly is your viewpoint not being "allowed"?
If you are a student of history, why are your facts so often and so completely wrong? That doesn't sound like 'showing your points well.'
You are welcome to your 'opinions' but realize that is all they are.
SweetiePie, you sound very full of yourself, with some arrogance thrown in. Confidence is one thing arrogance is another.
I have shown my points well and shown how Iraq was not a necessary war. You on the other hand still believe the propaganda that everyone is happy and free there. That is pretty hilarious. We did not liberate the people of Iraq, and I am not sure how you believe this fallacy. Their lives are more unstable now than ever. Now we have to play patrol and babysit, which is a big waste of resources. I know I am a good student of history and do show my points well. By the way you are one of the most emotionally driven attackers on Hubpages, so do not even argue that conservatives are more logical.
Do you even realize how illogical statements like that are?
My statement is not illogical as you are incessantly trying to justify the need for a war that caused more destruction than was needed. Oh well tk, you only like it when people state things from your conservative opinion. Most of your comments are questions, put downs, and anything of the like. I really could care less as you will never change.
You try to justify a patently illogical statement with further illogic and an apparent misunderstanding of the distinction between opinion and fact. I don't know how you can expect to hold a discussion this way.
Yes, yes, I know...you are sooo smart...
No, we believe that everyone has the right to pursue happiness. You can't legislate happiness even by forcing us to pay for your health insurance..
My reply wasn't posted - much relief to some I'm sure. Yes, Misha, agree, GASP, we're being brainwashed one and all
It takes a person of integrity to admit making a mistake, not embarrassment.
Brainwashing is definitely the word of the day, Misha. Thanks for bringing humor to a tough topic
At your service
Without humor the only way out is to commit suicide
Oh, no, way too drastic. Drink maybe............:
geez...watching TV will be more productive than this...so long
Nah. It's OK. I'm pretty sure it was my own post, . But still...what, are you going to tell returning veterans who maybe saw some things they didn't like and decided they didn't support the war ( but who served their country anyway)--to leave?
And its OK, you have over a thousand fans! Must be doing something right...
Why do I feel Hubpages has been over run by crazy Glenn Beckians just recently?
I have been here for three years, so over time people will add you as a fan too . Yes Hubpages is being run over with crazies, and that is why I stopped posting to this thread earlier today. I even had another hubber send me an email regarding my real name, and boy was that a treat.
On earnesthubs hub about Barack Obama I dared to state I actually supported Obama, and I thought the guy who posted might be a bit to paranoid about ACORN. Anyway, we exchanged a few posts, and it ended with him saying how he uses his real name on this website, and I should use my name too. I told him well I do on other sites, but I feel perfectly comfortable not sharing my name on HP. Why did he want to know anyway? So he looked me up via my profile to find out my name over at the examiner, and then emailed me this morning addressing me by my first name. When I shared with him why I think it is kind of weird to want to know someone's name that badly he became a bit defensive about it.
Yeah...you know when they are being invasive, and when it's OK. I just don't understand the mentality...you don't find most of the liberals here spewing talk show host rhetoric all over like it is the word of God and following conservatives around questioning or demanding debate...or what have you.
What I have learned is my hub score drops points any time I participate in these debates, so I probably should stay away. I noticed that did not happen to my little questioner, so I do not know what to say about the whole thing. I am sure he would delight in that anyway lol.
No, it means you should try to do a better job of it.
I know I am doing a better job than you. Anyway, you are so rude, but forget it. You will never learn doggie.
How so, when you have been proven wrong on a factual basis several times and you are consistently illogical in your discourse?
I have not been proven wrong on a factual basis at all and you try to construe things to make it so. Even Lita, whose boyfriend has fought in the Gulf region, has pointed out these conflicts are not always so popular with the people that go over there. The Iraq War was an unnecessary war that cost the tax payers unneeded money, and by 2006 the majority of Americans had changed their minds about it. Sorry that you love to try and make people look wrong at every turn, but I catch you in so many fallacies. The international community does not support this war anymore, so that is not illogical. I have shared so many good historical points, and maybe one day you will get it. Your comments are illogical most of the time anyway.
You have admitted to it YOURSELF twice in recent posts.
I catch you and correct you all the time tk. You are still trying to defend an unncessary war, and you believe this war brought stability to Iraq. You still have failed to realize that back when Saddam's policies were in line with the US no one criticized his actions, such as his brutal bombing of cities in Iran. It was not until he started declaring his autonomy from the US in the region that US administrations started having problems with him. The Gulf War solidified it. If you read the biography of Queen Noor you might learn that as interestingly enough Americans align themselves during the Cold War against any country that was against their enemies. Iran was not Communistic, but it was considered a threat after the hostage crisis, so no one really critiqued Saddam's actions during the eighties. It was not until he invaded our ally nation and started declaring his autonomy in the region that he was seen as a threat. King Hussein was made out to be the ally of Saddam during the Gulf War, when in fact he wanted to be neutral. People misconstrued people in Jordan protesting in favor of Hussein as Jordan itself supporting Saddam.
You haven't yet so far. You have expressed, in extremely illogical ways, that your opinion differs from mine, but you have yet to correct me on a matter of fact. I welcome such correction when appropriate. Really.
I just corrected you on your illogical theories about the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein. The US did not even consider him a human right violator until the late eighties when he started acting huffy and puffy at meetings with Bush sr. The truth is during the eighties no one mentioned his treatment of the Kurds and other political killings conducted by Saddam because he helped to keep Iran in check. Saddam has always been a brutal dictator, and only being recognized as such when he declared himself an enemy of the US is rather amusing.
Have I offered any such theories? Are you really this 'challenged'?
You continue to 'respond' to comments, theories, and conclusions that come from your own feeble imagination as if you were responding to my own comments. Do you honestly have no idea what constitutes logical discourse? I'm beginning to feel that you are simply incapable of reasoned discussion.
TK first you imply I am challenged, which shows you love to attack. Second, you have said on several occasions it was right for the US to fight the Iraq War, and even talked about how it brought stability to the region. Third, I can make a point with quoting you and I remember things that you said. As for illogical you are the only one I see as being so. Your comments are emotionally driven towards me and not based on fact. Do you really think people consider your comments logical? Some people have admitted to not even talking to you because of your berating remarks. Have you noticed I am one of the few people that even tries to communicate with you much? I even ignore some of your comments as these are all attacking really.
Ok, show me the quote and then we can discuss it.
Ok, how so? Show me how and where I've been illogical.
People that declare other people illogical are usually expressing those thoughts themselves. As we have seen some conservatives such as yourself are not immune to emotional swipes. Maybe if you could display some maturity and stop berating people it would help too.
You two are really into each other. You've been bickering for almost 24 hours.
Sweetie, it's OK to be wrong time to time, we all are humans at the end. There is no shame in admitting it.
Dunno! Lot of dog pictures. They are evolving.
The thing is I was not even wrong about the things TK is trying to prove I was wrong about. It is sort of silly too. I actually know a lot about these topics as I read, and discuss these things all the time. I do not have to apologize for being wrong about topics I have a lot of knowledge about .
You are not wrong, just trying to keep the peace . TK just likes to berate, and that is what I take issue with.
Now you are typing in caps. That is considered screaming and bad form on a forum. I really think you are obsessed with using that emotional swipe.
TK's entire existence on the forum is to lance some victim (usually female...though not always) and somehow, through disingenuous questioning, to show his very, very imagined superiority.
Which is a joke, because it is always extremely clear that his opponents are much better spoken and more informed on every issue. In fact, he seems to go after those types, especially.
And Misha, good heavens, TK is nothing but a huge, boring annoyance, period.
OK, my work here is done.
Anyone who considers themselves a "victim" because they are disagreed with on a discussion forum has some enormous issues.
Anybody who can't see what he's doing and has problems with as many people as you do online (or anywhere) seriously has psychological issues. But I'm sure I didn't need to say that, actually.
Not really fun. They say the antisocial cannot be helped.
Of course you don't know that is you, . Classic symptoms. (And I'm actually serious.)
I'm truly touched by your concern. You're really smart, right?
Who needs TV, watching you two spar is better than reality programming.
Trust me, it's as boring as cleaning up dog sh*t off the carpet...you just sometimes have to hold your nose.
I know some people think it is fun or cute when people try and converse with tk, but to be quite frank it is the royal pits. He loves a controversy and stirs the pot quite frequently.
TK, all that you have proven is that you are just as emotional as any liberal that you accuse of being "hypersensitive". I still find it amusing that a small number of conservatives think they are the only logical and thought based ones, when the truth is both sides are driven by emotion. You have this emotional desire to be right and prove me wrong, as evidenced by your last comment. That is amusing .
When I point out your failures of logic it is not a matter of emotion. Please feel free to apply the same standard to me.
The thing is I do not have a failure in logic here, and you seem to be projecting. You feel emotionally drained to realize a lot of people do not support the Iraq War, so rather than admit yes this was an unnecessary conflict, or the war of choice as the BBC has titled it, you have now started calling me illogical. When you start accepting the information I have given you I think you will be a happier person. So what if I am elitist or arrogant for knowing I am right about many facts I share about history, but the truth is your stances are based on ideology and not reality. People who quote others do not necessarily have logical comments.
Okay I will leave this thread alone .
by Mike Russo 10 years ago
I watched Piers Morgan's show twice, once with Alex Jones as his guest and then again with Ben Shapiro as his guest. Both of these people believe that is necessary for citizens to have high capacity assault weapons, like AR15's to protect themselves from the eventual tyranny of their own...
by Evan G Rogers 11 years ago
I've been told numerous times that "creating money out of thin air" is a good thing. And when I argued against it, the "conscience of the liberal" told me I was ignorant.Then, when I pointed out that the money went straight into companies that didn't deserve it, they said...
by Credence2 2 years ago
Here in Florida was passed a ballot initiative allowing ex felons who have served their time and were not convicted of specific crimes to be allowed to vote. The ballot measure was passed in 2016.But aware of the ever present treachery of the Republican Party, this many people now having access to...
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
Bloomberg was right. Trump is a con man. The question is which will you prefer? A con man or a liar?It is odd that this election cycle has given us two flawed candidates. You have the former mayor of NYC calling Trump a con man, yet he endorse the DNC hand picked Hillary Clinton - a proven liar....
by William R. Wilson 12 years ago
He wants to gut the 14th amendment, and get rid of the 16th, 17th, and 26th.He also discussed taking away voting rights for non property owners. They keep showing their stripes: racists, working for the rich. They make it so obvious - how people can continue to support them is beyond...
by TMMason 11 years ago
Yes, the "Summer Of Recovery", what a joke.Two years after the official start of the recovery, the American people remain pessimistic about their current economic circumstances and longer-term prospects. Fewer than a quarter of people see signs of improvement in the economy, and...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|