The end is in sight

[Eeyore]

TheM wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...

You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt


Especially note how Sweden, a good example of country with scandinavian
"extremely" socialistic model, is considerably below USA.

But that list is old and will look a lot different for 2008/2009/2010.
At least in comparison US won't look so bad anymore

Not so sure about that.

Graham

 

[James Arthur]

Eeyore wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
You don't understand our government. These are the geniuses
who built the global financial crisis. They _already_ spend ~8%
of our GDP on healthcare;
16%, according to all the figures I've seen.

I presumed he meant just the Medicare element of it, in which case no-one's
pushing for value for money.

The US gov. pays half of all the bills (through many channels, not
just Medicare); the rest is private.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The US idea of 'socialism' is just plain daft. We'd call it Marxism
probably and wouldn't want it either. It's just an example of abuse of a
word through ignorance.

Despite our European 'socialism' and 2 World Wars that destroyed a lot of
Europe, today we are barely any less well off than USAans who have the extra
benefit of a huge continent and its resources from which to pick their
riches. Seems we've done rather well over here actually in comparison.
Are you or are you not a debtor nation, living beyond your means,
and relying on other countries to fund lifestyles you cannot
sustain or afford?

IIRC, we nearly totally cleared the national debt in the last decade or so. The
USA is hardly one to lecture on such matters.

Exactly. That's why we can't afford to spend an extra $2 terabucks /per
annum/.

USA national debt ( CIA figures ) 60.8% of GDP

UK 43.6%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt


We are such a nation, and it's socialism that's put us here.

You don't have socialism and what put you there were Republican policies.

Factually incorrect.

Roughly 2/3rds our spending is social spending.

By your figures our government spends as much on healthcare as yours
as a percentage of GDP, so that makes us as socialist as you, or more.
Bang-up job they're doing with it too, right?

Go drag out our historical spending stats by category & integrate
how much we've spent on welfare (the full galaxy, not just the one
program so-named) since it went nuts in the 1960's.

Last time I did that it totaled $6T, the entire national debt at
the time--I'm not wrong on this.

Finally, GWB's biggest spending was social spending--socialism.
Democrats, meanwhile, were screaming that it wasn't enough. They
wanted to spend MORE.

So you can can the "Republican" policy stuff. They thought they were
being "inclusive," reaching out. It just made Democrats hate them
more. The recent Republicans were socialist, and stupid.

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...

Sweden is VERY socialist and their debt is only 41.7% of GDP.

Denmark 26%

LMAO ! Russia 5.9%

Oil. Prior to that, a basketcase.

I don't think you've got a very good case there !

Why do these countries have any debt at all? Can't they pay
for their programs?

I think you're shooting from the hip. Journalism majors aren't
very good when it comes to figures--I wouldn't rely on them so
heavily.

USA-wise, I've crunched the raw data.


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Eeyore]

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

You don't understand our government. These are the geniuses
who built the global financial crisis. They _already_ spend ~8%
of our GDP on healthcare;
16%, according to all the figures I've seen.

I presumed he meant just the Medicare element of it, in which case no-one's
pushing for value for money.

The US gov. pays half of all the bills (through many channels, not
just Medicare); the rest is private.

I didn't quite get that. Bob is correct AIUI that 16% of US GDP goes into
'healthcare'. So how much of that is private spending and how much is Medicare ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.

There isn't anywhere like that. You're afraid of shadows in the dark.

Graham

 

[James Arthur]

Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
You don't understand our government. These are the geniuses
who built the global financial crisis. They _already_ spend ~8%
of our GDP on healthcare;
16%, according to all the figures I've seen.
I presumed he meant just the Medicare element of it, in which case no-one's
pushing for value for money.
The US gov. pays half of all the bills (through many channels, not
just Medicare); the rest is private.

I didn't quite get that. Bob is correct AIUI that 16% of US GDP goes into
'healthcare'. So how much of that is private spending and how much is Medicare ?

Graham

The govm't pays half, so 8% of GDP, ergo the rest must be
private-sector.

By way of administering the death of a thousand cuts[1], the US govm't
splits those payments across a zillion programs, the largest being
Medicare and Medicaid.

[1] I count at least four puns / ironies in that phrase.

Like the deficit and the budget, they use a variety of devices to
disguise and misstate the actual costs. The anointed can unravel
them and achieve true enlightenmint[sic] but it's a pain, so I'm
gonna beg off doing it for now...

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.

The Russian government did pretty much an Obama there (or Obama's
doing a few Putins, if you prefer):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom#Russian_Government_control

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.

Is the US the sole fountain of prosperity in the world? Is contact with
the US a /sine qua non/ for the success of socialism? Can't socialism
stand up on its own?

(Not to mention the years and years of wonderful "stimulus packages"
they got from the USSR. Surely, like with today's plans, those
"stimulus" packages "jumpstarted" Cuba's economy, creating untold
scores of "green" shovel-ready 20th-century jobs of the future,
making Cuba the economic envy of the world, just like they are today.)

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.

There isn't anywhere like that. You're afraid of shadows in the dark.

Graham

In his first 100 days Obama's already pulled a few Putins with the
bank, auto, and soon the medical sector; he has a silver tongue,
full run of the executive and legislative branches--to fawning
uncritical fans--and soon, the judiciary.

He's tripled GWB's Iraq expenditure, in a single year, on folly,
with debt.

He's giving private companies--e.g. Chrysler--to his political
supporters: the UAW. (Warren Buffett spoke against this recently.)

He speaks in populist phrases, then acts autocratically.

I fear for my country.


James Arthur

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:02:56 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

You should be nicer to us.

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.

There isn't anywhere like that. You're afraid of shadows in the dark.

Graham

 

[James Arthur]

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article <49FEE6E8.27DF4AF2@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

It's a scheme that works well across a lot of Europe - and it was
invented by a right-wing politician that even Jim Yarnik could love,
by the name of Bismark. Of course, the business is a natural monopoly,
and has to be carefully regulated, and the Repulicans might still be
able to mount a fillibuster to block the necessary legislation.
The recent changing of party allegiance by 'forget name' to the
Democrats would seem to preclude that.

If I recall correctly, Senator Arlen Spector of my USA state of PA
changing party from R to D reduces the R-count in USA's Senate from 42 to
41. 41 can sustain a filibuster. It takes 60 to "invoke cloture".

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Plus Al Franken makes 60.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:17:27 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:48 am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
The end is in sight...
Arlen Specter has defected to the Democrat Party (an hour ago).
Pelosi promises gun control :-(
Link?
Republicans and Democrats both have totally lost sight of their roots,
not to mention any clue of what reality is. So it's no surprise that
there should be some party switching going on.
They should merge into "The Party of Dippy Ineffective Extremists", and
allow some room for folks who want to see the country governed based on
some form of common sense, rather than knee-jerk litmus tests for
adherence to foolish Utopian* ideals.
You could almost say the same for the UK scenario.
Graham
Can I also blame you guys for inventing the system that we inherited?

Not really. The British electoral system was extensively reformed
around the middle of the 19th century, long after the U.S. had devised
a constitution that was probably more heavily influenced by the
example of the United Provinces of the Netherlands.

I was under the impression that the Founding Fathers pinched lots of it
from post-revolutionary France.

Quite the other way around. Toss world history 1700's at any search
engine and fine things like this:

http://www.abell.org/nal/PDFs/History/World%20History%20-%201700s.pdf

The American revolution started in 1776 and the French revolution
started in 1789, over ten years later.

8*|

 

[JosephKK]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:34:59 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:21:55 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:d7bev4thm46u1t8io05n85ilne48ts4mo7@4ax.com...
The end is in sight...
Arlen Specter has defected to the Democrat Party (an hour ago).

I don't think the democrats are necessarily all that much more attractive than
they've been in say, the past decade... it's more than the republicans have
kinda imploded and Specter is running for cover.


Yep. But now that they have total power the Democrats are into rape
and plunder.

...Jim Thompson

Just like the Republiscum before them.

 

[James Arthur]

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article <tZwLl.4351$b11.257@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

20/18,000 or 0.11% = 1,100 ppm of Canadians seeking US care.
LOL !
Why is that funny? That's what the study reported.
The idea that 0.11% is a substantial proprortion is hilarious !

Graham

0.11% could easily be a huge percentage of the really sick people.
It could mean that half their cancer patients come here.

I don't get why you can't understand that.

If only .22% of Canadians are cancer patients, then USA has a lot to
learn from Canada.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

I based that example on that fact that the entire death rate from
cancer--the 2nd leading cause of death--in the US was 200 per
100,000, or 0.2% in 1998. [1]

So yeah, I should've said that 0.11% could account for "fully
half of their serious cancers," or "half of their most critical
cancer patients."

In any event 0.11% is not as obviously trivial as the article tries
to suggest. That's dead wrong. 0.11% /could/ represent a lot of
desperate people voting with their pocketbooks and their feet, or
it could mean something completely different. We don't know.

Cheers,
James Arthur

~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1]National Vital Statistics, Vol 48, No. 11

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <49FF7240.DBF3E65@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

You don't understand our government. These are the geniuses
who built the global financial crisis. They _already_ spend ~8%
of our GDP on healthcare;
16%, according to all the figures I've seen.

I presumed he meant just the Medicare element of it, in which case no-one's
pushing for value for money.

The US gov. pays half of all the bills (through many channels, not
just Medicare); the rest is private.

I didn't quite get that. Bob is correct AIUI that 16% of US GDP goes into
'healthcare'. So how much of that is private spending and how much is
Medicare ?

James Arthur's claim sounds correct to me, that half is private and half
is "Medicare"
(I would translate to total government spending for healthcare, except
for employer contrinutions to health insurance premiums of government
employees working in agencies unrelated to healthcare, such as police
officers, court employees and public school teachers).

Each half has been said so far to be about 8% - that sounds correct to
me. And 8% of GDP is what government spends in nations with "socialized
medicine".

So Americans and their employers are paying 8% of GDP for healthcare to
have gubmint spending on healthcare limited from the 8% typical of that in
nations with socialized medicine to the 8% that USA's gubmint spends
without counting employer contributions to health insurange premiums of
public school teachers, police officers, court employees, and other
government employees working in agencies not related to healthcare.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <49FEE6E8.27DF4AF2@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

It's a scheme that works well across a lot of Europe - and it was
invented by a right-wing politician that even Jim Yarnik could love,
by the name of Bismark. Of course, the business is a natural monopoly,
and has to be carefully regulated, and the Repulicans might still be
able to mount a fillibuster to block the necessary legislation.

The recent changing of party allegiance by 'forget name' to the
Democrats would seem to preclude that.

If I recall correctly, Senator Arlen Spector of my USA state of PA
changing party from R to D reduces the R-count in USA's Senate from 42 to
41. 41 can sustain a filibuster. It takes 60 to "invoke cloture".

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:19:41 GMT, James Arthur
<bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote

The end is in sight...
Arlen Specter has defected to the Democrat Party (an hour ago).
I don't think the democrats are necessarily all that much more attractive than
they've been in say, the past decade... it's more than the republicans have
kinda imploded and Specter is running for cover.

Yep. But now that they have total power the Democrats are into rape
and plunder.
It'll be interesting to see if all the wingnut paranoia about Obama ends
up being justified.

It will indeed. He's been left a heck of a mess to sort out.

Graham


Some, but not much different from what Bush inherited from Clinton.

Really? Lets see the first balanced federal budgets in over 50
years. Dot.com starting to go dot.bomb. And something else, oh yeah,
banking deregulation that was so necessary to the financial meltdown.
I will give this a maybe.

Iraq's trajectory is already laid out, and the banking thing
would fix itself, if he'd only let it.

Doubtful, besides Bush gave out the first bailout to the very scum
that helped engineer the problem in the first place.

Obama wants to go a-conquering in Afghanistan--I'm not sure why.

No, it was Bush the lesser that went a'conquerin'; though why Obama
would like to continue is a bit of a mystery.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 02 May 2009 01:28:15 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:17:34 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Caps on salaries,

So, now you show your true stripe as a dyed-in-the-wool Communist.

The caps we need are on government spending, but unfortunately, it
seems that none of the sheeple have the balls to even try.

Well .... if we take your recent cite http://zfacts.com/p/318.html And
follow some of the advice "Of course there's also the problem of the
banks. Obama should stop saving the bankers, and just take over the bad
banks.

Shades of the Communist Manifesto.

Silly comment. Is an Insolvency Practicioner a Communist ?


He should have let the bad banks tank; maybe then they'd have got a clue.

I have some sympathy for that view but what would have happened to ordinary
everday account holders who lost ALL their money. You'd have a FAR worse
situation on your hands.


After all, it was only the ones who wrote impossible loans to people whom
everyone _knew_ they couldn't pay off - they were all betting on the
bubble.

It's done. It can't be undone. Punishing the innocent for the 'crimes' of the
guilty makes no sense.

And the current rewarding of the guilty makes anti-sense.

When someone goes to Monte Carlo and loses the family's life savings at
the baccrat table, do you use tax money to reimburse their gambling
losses?

If they are rich enough. It has happened before and just happened

again and will likely continue happening. Why is this news to you?

That wasn't the overall scenario. Bad comparison ?

If the Gov't 'nationalised' the banks in distress in return for their
hand-outs, they could cut the fat and sell them back into the private sector
when they were in better shape. That's the kind of intervention that
governments NEED to do. It might even benefit the shareholders, which may be
your pension fund.

Graham

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 20:01:27 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 01 May 2009 07:55:29 +0000, James Arthur wrote:

Bush inherited a catastrophic economic collapse, declining revenues,
a stripped military, and then he was attacked.

We'd be better off if he'd been personally attacked, but he ignored
the 9/11 disaster until somebody slapped him upside the head, and then
he (Well, actually, Cheney - everybody knows Dubya is nothing but a
sock puppet) used it as an excuse to go half-way across the world and
attack people who had nothing to do with it.

9/11 was simply revenge for the Israeli devastation of Beirut, on the
taxpayers' dime.

I wonder how many of the 9/11 victims were lawyers, and/or Zionists?

Not very many, most were cooks, servitors, and low level

administrators, expediters, and other low paid "menials" preparing
things for the lawyers, trade moguls, and Zionists.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <tZwLl.4351$b11.257@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

20/18,000 or 0.11% = 1,100 ppm of Canadians seeking US care.
LOL !
Why is that funny? That's what the study reported.

The idea that 0.11% is a substantial proprortion is hilarious !

Graham


0.11% could easily be a huge percentage of the really sick people.
It could mean that half their cancer patients come here.

I don't get why you can't understand that.

If only .22% of Canadians are cancer patients, then USA has a lot to
learn from Canada.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:30:42 -0600, qrus19@mindspring.com wrote:

On Sat, 02 May 2009 01:56:22 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



qrus19@mindspring.com wrote:

Try pre crusades Spain and the Moores, Islamic terrorists

No, not terrorists, they were just seeking to widen their influence. Spain has
adopted much Moorish architecture btw.

By your measure, the USA is currently a terrorist nation.

Graham


They murdered Christians in a Christian land. Not just soldiers
either. Yes and No, The US had no business going into Iraq but once
there we have to TRY and get it right. Personally I blame most of the
present problems in the middle east on the alied forces in WWI.
Destroying the central government of the region and then carving out
new borders rather like the Europeans did in Affrica and the Americas.

Kuurus

Western Europe has been carving and recarving middle eastern borders
for almost 500 years. But history gets lost and fades, then only hate
remains.