For those who think Bush is the problem...read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Well as this: [b]If people from places like Syria and North Korea can respect what George stood for...why cant others?

---

That doesn't say much. Some Russians respected Hitler so much that they joined his army and fought against their own country in WW2:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

That doesn't say much. Some Russians respected Hitler so much that they joined his army and fought against their own country in WW2:

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

---

I suspect you know that, but you've made a very unfair statement there. The Russian Liberation Army was about fighting against communists, not for Hitler. Or did the Finns also "respect Hitler so much" that they were on the same side?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristjan

I suspect you know that, but you've made a very unfair statement there. The Russian Liberation Army was about fighting against communists, not for Hitler. Or did the Finns also "respect Hitler so much" that they were on the same side?

---

Finns didn't fight against Finns in WW2, except the Terijoki Government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish...ratic_Republic

What I meant was that Bush didn't have the right to invade Iraq just because not all Iraqis liked Saddam's government, Hitler didn't have the right to invade the Soviet Union just because not all Russians liked the communist regime there and Stalin didn't have the right to invade Finland just because not all Finns liked the capitalist government of Finland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristjan

....If I were American, I'd miss Clinton, not Bush. Leaving aside what I think were the totally insignificant sex scandals, I think Clinton was an excellent president, for the US and for the world.

---

Though I'm a conservative, I can't say too much against Clinton, due to the fact that he maintained his stance on capital punishment and despite the ongoing criticism at the time, he was reluctant to get the US military involved in the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict until the UN/NATO finally got it right and realized the fact that military air strikes was a necessary ingredient to suppress the violent forces in the region.

He, like other presidents, of course, had his drawbacks as well as good points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

... but the reality is for the last 8 years I have heard over and over again by people who dislike Bush is how he is such a screw up and we shouldn't be in Iraq...and the reality is, the USA and UK are in Iraq, and THAT is a done deal. It is over...done...finished...the direction of history has changed for good on that score...

---

:up: I agree.

I'm not a Bush fan in any sense whatsoever, in fact I am glad he was president and his administration made some poor choices (namely Katrina) that this country got over its' racist self and voted in its' first African-American president, though I'm not an Obama fan either, since I regard him - so far that is - as another status-quo politician. I would have prefered Colin Powell myself.

But you're right about how Bush Jr., takes on too much flak for Iraq. It wouldn't have mattered if Al Gore was prez or for that matter, Tiny Tim and his ukulele, the US would have invaded someday anyways due to Hussien's actions.

I blame Bush Sr., for not getting the job done in the first place, as well as encouraging the Kurds and Shiites to rebel (after we left the region to a No-Fly-Zone policy), then being left to hang. Also the US should have halted their military support of Iraq once the atrocities committed against the Kurds was revealed in the 1980's. But that's another argument in itself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Finns didn't fight against Finns in WW2, except the Terijoki Government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish...ratic_Republic

What I meant was that Bush didn't have the right to invade Iraq just because not all Iraqis liked Saddam's government, Hitler didn't have the right to invade the Soviet Union just because not all Russians liked the communist regime there and Stalin didn't have the right to invade Finland just because not all Finns liked the capitalist government of Finland.

---

In the case of Russia, Finland or Germany, none were entrusted by the UN to enforce sanctions as passed by the UN for the end of the first Gulf War. Furthermore, the consequnces for not respecting the sanctions were spelled out and included the re-commencement of hostilities from the First Gulf War. Since Hussein could have just let the inspectors climb into his palaces but refused to, he handed Bush/Blair the rope, and put the noose around his neck didn't he? You REFUSE to admit this, because it destroys your argument. Nasty thing facts.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Petraeus did nothing without the White House OK. Just as Rumsfeld was Bush's fault, Patraeus was Bush's credit, sonny.

---

You can't even spell his name correctly twice in the same sentence! Not a great advert for your argument, sonny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

You can't even spell his name correctly twice in the same sentence! Not a great advert for your argument, sonny.

---

No, it just shows I fell into a bad grammatical habit even though earlier on, I spelled it correctly.
That is all it shows.

Now you trying to prove a political point via a typo/s, that is WEAK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

No, it just shows I fell into a bad grammatical habit even though earlier on, I spelled it correctly.
That is all it shows.

Now you trying to prove a political point via a typo/s, that is WEAK.

---

Wasn't trying to prove any political point at all. I was merely pointing out that, yet again, those on the American right who come on here to offer their views generally do so inarticulately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Does Cuba force students into medicine? No. They make a choice out of free will. Is medicine any easier to study for there compared to other subjects? No. Do they get paid less relative to the rest of the population compared to the US? Yes.

Do they have a recruitment problem for doctors? No. You are right about one thing though, the Cuban government does seem to promote medicine as a career as a duty to both the people and the state, something which helps recruit a different kind of person into the profession other than the moneygrabbing types that go for it in the US.

You'll have to point out a case where lowering doctors salaries has reduced the supply of doctors. There simply isn't one. I could talk about Germany too which has oversupply and how little they earn compared to the US or even Britain. We could talk about Russia where even though doctors earn more than back in the Soviet days there are fewer around purely because the training system collapsed. Its the training system that is the bottleneck, not final salary.

---

For years and years it was not difficult to get into med school in the usa.
Then beginning with the 1960's and medicare, the medical profession refused through the AMA and various state boards to increase in enrollment in both state and private med schools.

meanwhile the population skyrockets and at one point in time HALF of the residents in training at USA hospitals came from overseas, while the med profession did its best to avoid increasing enrollment, as in limit supply while demand is going up, then up goes those salary dollars... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Wasn't trying to prove any political point at all. I was merely pointing out that, yet again, those on the American right who come on here to offer their views generally do so inarticulately.

---

Well, trying to prove nothing, with nothing, amounts to nothing.