|
|
Post by soundslikeimback! on Jan 5, 2007 22:42:10 GMT -5
oh of course there was no way I was going to bring the anger to anywhere else =P I love you guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertM on Jan 6, 2007 0:20:30 GMT -5
topic people.
|
|
|
|
Post by soundslikeimback! on Jan 6, 2007 1:43:58 GMT -5
Theres no use continueing to discuss this topic since we're all too set in our own opinions and no one else is contributing
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertM on Jan 6, 2007 10:29:32 GMT -5
No one has to convince anyone to think anything.
Just use counterpoints and argue for the sake of arguments.
Heres an interesting article that I found. It expresses my views nicely
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats.
A problem for American policymakers — for President Bush, ultimately — is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.
One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.
The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.
Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertM on Jan 13, 2007 0:45:43 GMT -5
Debate Club Is Scrapped. No More. Failure.
At 200 members I plan to revive it and try again.
|
|
|
|
Post by soundslikeimback! on Jan 13, 2007 1:08:27 GMT -5
good idea. It was a good try but we'll need a lot more active members first
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertM on Jan 13, 2007 1:34:31 GMT -5
You can lock this if you want.
But don't destroy it. It will be back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord of Hordes on Jan 24, 2007 10:30:37 GMT -5
NEW TOPIC:
Cost of Healthcare
Why does healthcare costs seem to rise at an exponential rate, but the quality of healthcare stays the same? Discuss....
|
|
|
|
Post by soundslikeimback! on Jan 25, 2007 16:03:38 GMT -5
but everyone needs healthcare... they can raise it all they want
Thats like asking why do the prices at grocery stores go up so much? The quality of the food doesn't increase
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord of Hordes on Jan 27, 2007 2:30:45 GMT -5
You think they should be able to keep raising the cost of healthcare? It will eventually become like Nazi Germany: survival of the fittest.....if you're healthy, you will live; if you aren't, you'd better be rich. I think there should be a cap put on how much doctors can charge for healthcare, based on national average income, so it could increase without becoming unaffordable. I think medical school should be cheaper, so alot more brilliant people would be able to attend. I think our senior citizens should be able to live comfortably for the rest of their days, without having to worry about whether or not they are going to get their heart medicine, or whatever. If healthcare wasn't so costly, health insurance wouldn't be as costly either. Alot of major corporate industries are pulling out of the healthcare business because it costs them too much, which means, the workers are left having to pay for their own insurance, and in doing so, people bring home less money, which equates to less market spending, and in turn, price inflation of all goods and services....economic disaster.
I truly believe we have lots of greedy doctors...not many doctors are in it because they like helping people...they do it for the money. Have you noticed that there has been 0 (zero) cures for any diseases discovered in the past several decades? It is because if there were cures for diseases, doctors wouldn't be able to "treat" the diseases any more. No, there are NO cures for anything, only treatments. There are no researchers trying to discover cures for diseases and illnesses, only new drugs to "treat" the diseases and illnesses. That's where all the research money goes....researching new treatments...not researching cures. Greed is always king.
|
|
