Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 16:29 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > >> > And to BAH - it's not *insurance* when the state does it. > >> > >> The mindset that it is insurance is indeed part of what we need to > >> change. > >> Call the government-supplied military "providing for the common defense", > >> and everybody accepts it. Call it "war insurance" and suddenly it takes > >> on a different tenor, as in "hey, you couldn't afford war insurance, I > guess > >> it's your turn to die today." Or to take this comical analogy one step > >> further, why not consider health care to be a "war on disease". There > >> are parallels to actual war...everybody is affected, it kills lots of > people, > >> and it has great societal costs if not taken care of. > > > > Interesting analogy. > > > > I've seen no-one suggest that the Army, Navy and Air Force be put under > > private ownership. > > Only a matter of time... Maybe the Chinese can do it cheaper ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 16:33 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>I don't think private companies are up to the task of providing critical > >>services like this very well. > > > > Ours are, too. That's because the pensions are transforming > > from a collected pot of money by the employees into an insurance > > policy. It's no longer real money. > > > > The same thing happened to medical pots of money contributed > > by employees and their employers. The pool of monies got transformed > > to insurance companies. > > Which is why a state run system is "better." Part of the problem in the UK > is our pensions got "privatised" and the providers have to turn a profit. And one of them rather spectacularly all but went belly-up. Graham
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 16:36 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4554EF54.F7F411B6(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> > And to BAH - it's not *insurance* when the state does it. >> >> >> >> The mindset that it is insurance is indeed part of what we need to >> >> change. >> >> Call the government-supplied military "providing for the common >> >> defense", >> >> and everybody accepts it. Call it "war insurance" and suddenly it >> >> takes >> >> on a different tenor, as in "hey, you couldn't afford war insurance, I >> guess >> >> it's your turn to die today." Or to take this comical analogy one >> >> step >> >> further, why not consider health care to be a "war on disease". There >> >> are parallels to actual war...everybody is affected, it kills lots of >> people, >> >> and it has great societal costs if not taken care of. >> > >> > Interesting analogy. >> > >> > I've seen no-one suggest that the Army, Navy and Air Force be put under >> > private ownership. >> >> Only a matter of time... > > Maybe the Chinese can do it cheaper ? Probably. Already a lot of what was previously a military function is contracted out to civilian defence companies (I know because my job hinges on it), so I wonder how long before it will be civilian companies which operate the UAVs, or the AWACs or the like. Eventually, even the ground troops _may_ find themselves out for tender.
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 16:37 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:bB55h.6678$yl4.4954(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:c3094$4554d332$4fe7132$32504(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> I am considered vermin in certain interpretations of the Bible. Does >>> this mean we need to wage a War on Christianity? >> >> You don't need to, but you do nonetheless. Poor Unsettled. It has nothing to add, but a compulsive need to post. What War on Christianity am I waging? I have no concerns as to the religion people practice in their own homes. I do object to being subject to religion-derived law though. > The rhetoric has now raised the stakes, to where disagreeing with the US > government's foreign policies has gone from "anti-American" to "treason", > and is now has reached the pinnacle of being a "War on Christianity". Is > anybody else getting a sense of what we *really* need to start being > afraid of? In my best upstate New York accent: "We have nothing to > fe-ah....but jingoistic rhetoric itself." :-)
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 16:38
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:h465h.6698$yl4.5849(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:FuudnUJttc5DecnYRVnyiA(a)pipex.net... >> >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> news:1ko8l25obt73evog3kn6g81jeimhc27str(a)4ax.com... >> >>>>When Saddam was "arrested," why did the occupation forces remain? >>> >>> --- >>> 1. To make sure the country wouldn't fall into worse hands than >>> Saddam Hussein's. >> >> Interesting argument. I assume from this that self determination is not >> an option in your opinion. > > In fact, many Iraqis seem to think it *did* fall into worse hands than > Saddam Husseins.... > > >>> 2. To rebuild the country. >> >> Iran has made the same claims. Why does the US have more right to do this >> than the Iranians? >> >>> 3. To help give the folks there a chance to govern themselves. >> >> You need to leave to do that. When a country is occupied it is not >> governing itself. What you may mean here is to give the folks the chance >> to set up an acceptable government. > > I wonder if he can honestly not see the hypocrisy in 3. It seems a lot of posters here cant. Strange really. I love the forced self determination argument. Its grrrrreat. |