Search the Community

You gave reasons for the mandatory items listed. Which are correct. You missed the point tho, the government forces you to do things that benefit the popluation as a whole. Thats the job of governemnt. Forced auto insurance is similar to forced health care insurance. Uninsured motorists are a drain on the responsisble people who get insurance for accidents, medical costs etc. Now, healthcare, why force people to have health insurance? Because uninsured people end up going to emergency care and cost the insured people more by gettting expensive care without paying for it. Thats why this bill removes the exclusions for pre-existing conditions, cap limits, etc. Now if everybody is paying healthcare premiums then healthcare premium's should actually go down. Emergency rooms being flooded should go down since they can access regular doctors. Personally, I would have not added the kids till 26 option. Make them buy insurance on their own. Factor a minimum earnings that they can afford insurance and subsize the people below that mark. A healthy 22 year old should not have to pay alot for coverage. Most are pretty damn healthy. Then they have coverage if hit by a runaway piano or something. This is all my opinion of course, but the democrats agree with me and most other countries in the nato aliance.

Regarding health care, when the president had committed himself to this idea of health care reform, most people were overwhelmingly supportive of health care, which most people still are, just not this one, but once people started seeing what was in this "reform", that's when people started running away from it, by that time, BO had spent too much political capital on this issue for him to turn back. In regards to Afghanistan, most people believe he made the right decision, which in my view there was no other logical decision to make than the one he did. All his military advisors Gates, Patraeus and McChrystal were advising him to move forward with hit, even the NATO commander was pressuring him to do so as well. In regards to global warming, most people believe that something has to be done, but once again, Cap and Trade just like Health Care Reform will prove to be unpopular.

That's just silly, the liberal way would be to have a bigger government, single payer health insurance, more unions, very limited involvement in NATO and foreign affairs, a more compliant attitude towards the United Nations, less free trade, more protectionism, smaller military defense spending, wealth distribution, more social programs, more apologizing to the world, and higher taxes. You know, basically the ultimate goal is to be a larger version of an English speaking France. Oh and I believe they were one of the countries that you listed as being a better place to live in than the U.S

It's because whenever we do provide proof to you, you disregard it, just like the Ft hood thread. When you knew you were wrong, you called us "sand-!@#$-haters" or when I provided proof that ACORN is corrupt, you called me "racist" or when LA Billz was calling you out for being a liberal you insinuated he was a homophobe. There has been plenty of proof that the US is great country, Who has funded the most money for poverty outside the U.S? Who has contributed the most funds to fight Aids? Who has funded the World Bank which provides loans to third world countries that many times don't have access to loans? Who has funded the IMF the most? Who has provided the most resources to NATO? The list goes on and on. I've lived in Germany for 4 years and in South America for 10, and I can tell you that most people don't realize how good they have it here until they have lived abroad.

We contribute more money, aid and resources to third world countries than any other, and it's not even close. Who funds the World Bank or IMF more than any other country? Who is the largest contributor of resources to NATO? The list goes on and on. Too many people take for granted of the little things we do.

Very few. Broadly speaking, most nations are restricted from operations outside of their area of deployment, and most are deployed in safe regions - even if available for combat in principal, in practice they cannot leave their defined zone, typically somewhere safe like Kabul or the quieter north or west. The heavy lifting, the fighting in the south and along the Pakistani border, is the problem of the US, the UK, and Canada. (Indeed, NATO didn't even extend it's operations into the combat zones until 2006!) Many countries have further restrictions which can prohibit things like operations in urban areas all the way up to prohibiting combat itself. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4286208

Well with the UE integration, Europe has find a way not to make war between its nations and for the long term... when you know the cruel history of our continent i can not think about a bigger possible action for peace than that in our history ... And well for peace in the rest of the world the contribution in the UN and NATO operations of the UK or France is probably on par per capita with the one of the US since WWII. we don't always choose to go in the same places but we act.

I thought it was some what strange that Army General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan was having these interviews regarding what we should do to win the war. Although I do agree with his assessment, I thought it was highly unappropriate of him to not go up through the chain of command. It definitely in my view places BO in a box, you have your field commander publicly telling the world what we need to do and if BO doesn't follow through with it (which I have a feeling he won't), then that leaves him open to even heavier criticism. I found it odd that McChrystal wasn't getting criticized for this up until this weekend, when Jim Jones, Obama’s national security adviser finally brought it up, and now today Gates did as well. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aytcfdrBzuhs

Uh, what? Yeah, nothing better than spending trillions of dollars we don't have protecting the stuff of our economic competitors. NATO's been utterly brilliant. I've never sat in any strategic meeting and thought it was a bad thing that others didn't know exactly what I was thinking. Honoring a single commitment isn't the same thing as hamstringing yourself because you shook hands one time or a hundred. Every situation should be judged on it's own merit rather than entered into blindly. Sins of the past don't have to be repeated... It hasn't. Hence the original point.

But if his intent was not an absolute call to end all long term alliances, then how does that jibe with adaptability and keeping options open? There's also the other side of the debate that nobody will take US backing and alliance seriously if it's subject to waffling every year or so. The long term alliance with UK has proved successful on many fronts over many generations for obvious reasons, due to shared history, culture, language, customs & laws. USA's backing of NATO was important in the aftermath of WWII, while its mission has evolved with the changed fronts of the Cold War. Washington's view on long term alliances should be applied not to whether US should be committed long term to NATO, but which countries should be given entry to NATO's protection. Doing things for USA's economic benefit was the main cause of the Revolution, so I don't see how that would have changed over 233 years.

You have to stabilize the patient before you can get them better. You mean the two non-ballistic attack subs off the East Coast? It's the 10th anniversary of Putin's rise to power. This and his running around with his shirt off is for domestic consumption to counter the perception that Russia has become weak given the West's plans to put anti-missile sites in Eastern Europe and expand NATO to the Ukraine and Georgia. Nobody said it's booming, but it has shown steady positive growth which could lead to economic recovery if we continue the recovery policies that has instilled new confidence that that worst is behind us.

I love a new -ist more than the next guy but "Petro-Oligarchists?" Turning this thread into a Red Dawn tribute is my happiest hijack ever. "Prologue/Opening Narration: Soviet Union suffers worst wheat harvest in 55 years... Labor and food riots in Poland. Soviet troops invade... Cuba and Nicaragua reach troop strength goals of 500,000. El Salvador and Honduras fall... Greens Party gains control of West German Parliament. Demands withdrawal of nuclear weapons from European soil... Mexico plunged into revolution... NATO dissolves. United States stands alone. "

Waterboarding (Bush) - Victims are alive! Starving TEENAGE Pirates (Obama) - Victims are DEAD! NO, it was NOT up to the commander on the scene to make the call! It was up to Obama. If Obama wanted the situation to end peacefully, like European countries and NATO almost always do, it would have ended peacefully. On the first day! Or the second day! Or the third day! What the F was going on for 4-5 days? What the F was Obama and White House staff actually doing all that time? Creating a tough-guy image, perhaps? I think so! From DAY ONE the White House saw this as an opportunity for President Obama to look tough and they took advantage of it. Obama looked tough but the blood of three (now headless) teenagers are on his hands. Snipers: Ruthless Slaughter. Period! No denying it! And Republicans are too stupid to use it against Obama and Democrats.

Actually the intent of the teenage Somali pirates was to exchange the ship & crew for money, not to harm the captain. But after something like 4-5 days and no progress the situation deteriorated and the ship captain nearly got killed. What was Obama doing for those 4-5 days? Perhaps, trying to appear tough in front of the world? Obama could have had this situation ended peacefully - on DAY ONE! European countries and NATO would never use military snipers to solve these situations. The two situations are similar in that people were killed "execution style" when they didn't need to be. Obama-Liberals Lesson: "Ruthless slaughter" of starving teenage Somali pirates is OK but torture to gain valuable intelligence data is not. Republicans-Conservatives Lesson: Obama-Liberals beat the living s**t out of us regarding torture but when Obama needlessly kills people we're too stupid to turn around and use it against him.

Well, not to put too fine a point on things, I want to know what President Obama was doing for FOUR days to effectuate a peaceful outcome. How did he fail so miserably? Why do other countries and even NATO manage to end these situations peacefully almost all of the time? Why did President Obama feel the need to kill starving teenagers? All they wanted to do was eat!

You just don't want to understand! Why do other countries and NATO seem to resolve these situations peacefully most of the time? Why did the US have military snipers involved when NO other country and NATO do this? Why was the US Navy involved in the first place? What was the White House actually doing for FOUR days? What did the TEENAGE Somali pirates want? Why wasn't it given to them? WHY DID THIS LAST FOUR DAYS? Bottom Line: You CAN NOT tell me that there was NO way to have a peaceful outcome to this situation. President Obama got the result he bargained for. Three TEENAGE Somali pirates dead and absolutely NO investigation as to why.

Nice try, indeed. Come back when you know what you're talking about. There is a difference between hoping to not have to kill pirates and returning them to their governments for prosecution which is what you're referring to and what NATO countries, including the US have done in the past. The problem occurs when there is no formal government in place (like Somalia since '92) and no legitimate authority to turn them over to. That said, pirates, being classified as "enemies of humanity" may be sumarily executed by ship captains at sea if they deem it necessary. Secondly, the POTUS has the right to authorize the use of deadly force if American lives are in danger and military commanders have the right to carry out the order if, like those ship captains who have the right to kill pirates, they deem it necessary. If you had seen that pirate with the AK-47 pointed at the back of a US hostage's head, what would you do? No wait, you'd conduct a congressional investigation to see what/why/anything would/should/could be done. I've witnessed much idiocy on this BB before. Much if it self-induced. But you're taking it to a whole new level with this ridiculous crusade. What is your point? You don't like Obama? Is it because of the recent release of the CIA memos regarding detainee interogation and you think Obama needs a taste of his own medicine? What is your ulterior motive with all this? Seriously.

Nice try but the buck stops with Obama's authorization. Without that authorization the US military commander never would have had the Somali pirates killed. During the presidential campaign Barack Obama made an issue regarding talking with Iran. Well, did he talk with the Somali pirates? Did he find out what they wanted? That was the point of the Somali pirates hijacking the ship - they wanted money. Why wasn't he willing to give them what they wanted so they would leave the hijacked ship peacefully to avoid violence? Why didn't Obama do that? Once President Obama got involved he could have said "no, give the Somali pirates what they want. I want a peaceful resolution here - we'll worry about the money later." What non-deadly options were explored and ruled out before Obama gave the kill authorization? And why were the non-deadly options ruled out? Bottom Line: The Somali pirates may have been killed needlessly. A Congressional inquiry is warranted here. No other nation or even NATO authorize snipers to kill pirates. Only President Obama does.

We need to hear President Obama explain that he had NO choice but to have the US Navy snipers kill the Somali pirates. We need to hear him explain that peaceful, diplomatic, non-deadly options were fully exhausted before he gave the go ahead to have the pirates heads blown off. To my knowledge, no other country, not even NATO authorizes snipers to kill pirates like Obama authorized here. So, why did Obama have the pirates killed like that?

What exactly do you mean by 'not working?' You seem to continue to think that the purpose of reimbursements is to get them to like us - it is not. It is to show that we are attempting to govern our presence and behavior under a semblance of law. You can argue whether that is hypocritical all you like, but it doesn't change the intended purpose. When NATO runs exercises in Germany, we pay the Germans for every bullet fired into a tree. And yet they still B word and moan. Should we stop? By the same token, why do we investigate and try soldiers for wrongfull killings? By your reasoning, we should abandon the practice since it isn't working - no family of a killed Iraqi has ever said "they court martialed the guy who killed my brother, that's alright now." I actually don't agree with the program. I'm simply marveling that you are rejecting it (presumably because it started under Bush), while presumably embracing the idea that it matters what the world thinks of us and that we should set an example on things from interrogation to foreign aid.

And as I promised, as of 1 April 2009, the UK MOD position on Piracy is as follows. I have taken the top bits from the briefing document that I use to brief journalists on a daily basis. The Royal Navy is actively countering piracy around the Horn of Africa and supports international efforts to do so. Events in the region have demonstrated not only the importance of our armed forces' global presence, but also the high level of UK cross-government engagement and international cooperation, necessary to counter-piracy effectively. The Royal Navy is actively participating in counter piracy activities off the Horn of Africa, as well as coming to the aid of those under attack. All its actions are in accordance with international law. We are at the forefront of the European Union mission – Operation ATALANTA – established to escort World Food Programme vessels bringing aid to Somalia, protect vulnerable shipping, and to counter piracy in the region. We are providing the Operation Commander and the Operation HQ at Northwood. The Royal Navy provides frigates to the Combined Maritime Force conducting maritime security operations in the region. As part of this, HMS PORTLAND is conducting counter piracy missions, on a case by case basis, through Combined Task Force 151. The UK continues to work with the International community to tackle piracy at its root – instability in Somalia – through the provision of humanitarian and development assistance. In 2008 the UK Government adopted a more proactive posture with regards to piracy off the Somali coast. The UK is engaged in efforts to combat acts of piracy off Somalia, latterly as part of Combined Task Force (CTF) 150 and more recently, when required, through the newly established, counter piracy specific, CTF 151. RN vessels are continuing to actively conduct operations to counter de-stabilising activities primarily aimed at deterring and disrupting acts of smuggling and counter terrorism. Following EU Ministers’ agreement on 10 Nov 08 to launch, the first ever ESDP naval operation, Op ATALANTA, declared Initial Operating Capability on 13 Dec with a one year mandate. The UK is at the forefront of this mission, providing the Operation Commander (Rear Admiral Phil Jones RN) and the Operation HQ at Northwood. The Royal Navy also provided a frigate, HMS NORTHUMBERLAND, for the first three months of the operation. ATALANTA is already regarded as a high profile political success for ESDP. Piracy is a symptom of wider issues and the UK continues to work with the International community to tackle them at their root, through the provision of humanitarian and development assistance. This year, the UK is providing £30m of humanitarian and development assistance. We are encouraging the European Commission and other partners to increase targeted support for governance/economic development, in particular in coastal areas. In line with UN Security Council Resolution 1851, the international Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia has met on two occasions to discuss an international response to piracy. The Contact Group is currently attended by 27 countries and 5 organisations, including UK representatives. The UK is leading a Working Group on how to strengthen international coordination, including taking forward work on regional capacity building. The UK set up an arrangement with the Kenyan Government which allows the transfer of suspected pirates to Kenya for prosecution. In cases in which suspected pirates are detained during operations, if it is considered that there is sufficient evidence on which to charge them they will be detained and transferred under the terms of this agreement for prosecution. Standing NATO Maritime Group 2, including attached RN units deployed to the region with a mandate which allowed them to conduct counter-piracy operations from mid-October. The NATO mission came to an end on 4 December. All actions taken by the RN are in accordance with international law. Under UNCLOS all States have a duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy. RN vessels and coalition forces in the region seek to deter and disrupt pirate activity, and RN vessels can actively search for suspected pirate vessels. These can be boarded and any piracy equipment can be seized and, if it is not practicable to keep it, destroyed. The RN can also take robust action to come to the aid of a victim vessel under attack by pirates in international waters. This can again range from deterring and disrupting the attack to the use of reasonable force to defend the victims. Every incident of piracy is different and RN personnel undergo maritime security training that provides them with the ability to deal with circumstances that require such intervention. Q. This increase in piracy will be a greater threat to UK shipping and UK crew members – what is being done about this? A. In most parts of the world, incidents of piracy and maritime armed robbery are decreasing; however, it is true that there is an increase in attacks off Somalia. Clearly any act of piracy causes great concern; however, the number of incidents remains relatively small and only affects a tiny percentage of merchant traffic (0.4%) in the area. DfT provides information to UK ships on threats they may face and the FCO is working with international partners to identify ways of preventing further attacks. Q. What will happen if the piracy off Somalia gets worse? A.. The threat from all illegal activity at sea in the Gulf region is constantly reviewed and employment of units adjusted accordingly – RN units be they part of an international mission or operating independently will be prepared to meet HMG’s obligations regarding piracy should the situation dictate and, if requested, may provide support to other Government Departments engaged in resolving incidents Q. What is the UK doing to assist the coordination of all the military vessels in the region? A. UK officials were in attendance at the international Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, which is discussing a coherent international response to this difficult problem. Subsequently the UK, with the support of the International Maritime Organization, is leading a Working Group addressing activities related to military and operational information coordination, including taking forward work on regional capacity building. However, coordination between international naval forces is already considered effective, notably between Op ATALANTA and the Combined Maritime Forces, resulting in an unprecedented amount of multi-national cooperation. This has been possible through the innovative use of a RN web-based chat room, FEXWEB, allowing registered military users to share information in a restricted access forum. CMF ensures that tactical deconfliction between all the ships and nations operating in the Gulf of Aden occurs and that there is a good level of shared awareness Q Should private security companies be used to protect shipping? A The MOD does not condone the use of armed security companies by the shipping industry to counter pirates in the region. A broad range of advice, including evasion tactics, can be sought from the Department for Transport, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Maritime Security Centre Horn of Africa website for ships transiting through the Horn of Africa.

link here explains lots of detail: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/resea.../snbt-03794.pdf release from UK today: CMF and NATO Ships Help Thwart Two Pirate Attacks From Combined Maritime Forces Public Affairs MANAMA, Bahrain - The British military support ship Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Wave Knight (A389) working in support of the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), thwarted two pirate attacks on merchant vessels in the Gulf of Aden, April 18, which resulted in the release of 13 hostages and disrupted the activities of 14 Somali pirates. “This is a clear demonstration of how cooperation between more than a dozen international naval forces can result in the successful disruption of piracy activity,” said Royal Navy Commodore Tim Lowe, Deputy Commander of the Combined Maritime Forces. “In the last 72 hours alone, coordinated efforts of six different nations resulted in the release of 49 innocent merchant mariners who had been held hostage by armed pirates, as well as the interception of 46 suspected pirates.” Lowe cautioned that naval forces will not be the sole solution to piracy, but by coordinating international naval efforts, criminal acts of piracy will continue to be disrupted. While working in conjunction with international naval forces deployed to the region, Wave Knight received a distress call at approximately 8:00 a.m. from Merchant Vessel Handy Tankers Magic, which was under attack by pirates. The attack broke off before Wave Knight arrived, but the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship followed the skiff to a fishing dhow, later confirmed to be a pirate “mother ship.” Via radio, Wave Knight ordered the dhow to stop and used a Royal Navy armed force protection team as well as the ship’s own weapons team to provide cover. The pirate vessel complied. Dutch warship HNLMS De Zeven Provincien (F802), deployed as part of the NATO’s Standing Naval Maritime Group 1 (SNMG-1), arrived on-scene and determined there were pirates and hostages aboard the vessel. Ultimately, 13 fishermen who had been held hostage by pirates since April 12, were freed and able to return home to Yemen. Since the seven suspected pirates aboard the dhow were not captured in the act of piracy they were released, but they were disarmed and their weapons destroyed. Two hours later, Wave Knight received a second distress call from Merchant Vessel Front Ardennes. Wave Knight arrived on scene and successfully deterred the skiff and prevented the pirates from boarding the tanker. Following repeated warnings to move away, Wave Knight fired warning shots, which caused the pirates to break off their attack and flee the scene. With the assistance of helicopters from the NATO task group ships HMCS Winnipeg (FFH 338) and USS Halyburton (FFG 40), Wave Knight followed the pirate skiff for six hours, until relieved on-scene by Winnipeg, who conducted a boarding of the skiff. Wave Knight provided fuel and landing facilities for the NATO warships’ helicopters and was able to manoeuvre into a position to stop the suspected pirates, allowing Winnipeg’s boarding team to disarm and then subsequently release the suspected pirates. “RFA Wave Knight is a modern replenishment ship designed to be able to support a myriad of Coalition maritime operations,” said Royal Fleet Auxiliary Capt. I. N. Phillips, Wave Knight’s Commanding Officer. “Our primary role is refuelling and aviation operations, but we are fully capable of conducting anti-piracy operations in and around the Horn of Africa. We have been on station for over a year providing support to many nations, and we remain committed to helping ensure maritime security.” CMF is comprised of 23 nations whose role is to conduct Maritime Security Operations (MSO) throughout the region to help set the conditions for security and stability in the maritime environment. Maritime Security Operations help develop security in the maritime environment, which promotes stability and global prosperity.

Once again NATO catches and releases. UN needs to find a way to get a handle on this situation. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090419/ap_on_re_af/piracy The pirates hurled weapons into the dark seas as the Canadian and U.S. warships closed in. "The skiff abandoned the scene and tried to escape to Somali territory," Fernandes said. "It was heading toward Bossaso we managed to track them ... warning shots have been made after several attempts to stop the vessel." Both ships deployed helicopters, and naval officers hailed the pirates over loudspeakers and finally fired warning shots to stop them, Fernandes said, but not before the pirates had dumped most of their weapons overboard. NATO forces boarded the skiff, where they found a rocket-propelled grenade, and interrogated, disarmed and released the pirates.

The biggest problem is when they DO catch them often they let them go over jurisdiction matters. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_on_re_af/af_piracy Seven Somali pirates were detained, but they were soon released because "NATO does not have any detainment policy," Fernandes said. The seven could not be arrested or held because they were seized by Dutch nationals and neither the pirates, the victims nor the ship were Dutch, he explained. What message does this send to pirates? Sort of like NFLPA and players holding out with all of the player apologists.

Closer relations with Eastern Europe, including getting many of them in to NATO, doesn't count? Or a multi-national commitment to Afghanistan?