There’s a whole world celebrating W.’s reelection

[Naturalized-Texan]

There’s a whole world celebrating W.’s reelection (http://www.nationalreview.com/lerner/lerner200411100840.asp)

Americans who voted for George W. Bush on November 2 are celebrating this week, and despite the anti-Bush hysteria in much of the Western press, we're not celebrating alone. At what John Donne called "the round earth's imagined corners," other freedom-loving souls in their hundred millions celebrate with us, unseen. Like us, they're feeling joy and relief and renewed resolve, but they could use a little recognition too, because throughout this long campaign, John Kerry and the elite media, here and in Great Britain, have been insisting that they don't exist, that "the world" consists of old Europe, the U.N., and a bevy of NGOs and Arab states, all consumed with hatred and fear of us as a result of the "unilateral" actions of our president. The real world is a very different place, and this is a good time to take a fresh look at it, in order to recognize our friends as well as our adversaries, and get some perspective on both.

.....................

Here, then, is the list of 32 Coalition partners to salute, listed by population size, from largest to smallest within each region. EU members are starred.

Asia's 10: Japan, Thailand, South Korea, Australia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Singapore, New Zealand, Mongolia and Tonga. Total population: 295 million.

Eastern Europe's 15: Ukraine, Poland,* Romania, Czech Republic,* Hungary,* Bulgaria, Slovakia, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania,* Albania, Armenia, Latvia,* Macedonia, and Estonia.* Total population: 167 million.

Western Europe's 6: Great Britain,* Italy,* Netherlands,* Portugal,* Denmark,* and Norway.* Total Population: 155 million.

Central America's 1: El Salvador. Population: 6 and a half million.

A toast to them all!

{More at the link above.}

[Urbancannibal]

If you think the citizens of Great Britain are celebrating Bush's re-election, you're sadly deluded.

[Naturalized-Texan]

If you think the citizens of Great Britain are celebrating Bush's re-election, you're sadly deluded.
I'm sure that pro-terrorist leftists in Great Britain aren't celebrating Bush's reelection, nor would I expect them to.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

If you think the citizens of Great Britain are celebrating Bush's re-election, you're sadly deluded.
:whatever:

[Beowulf]

Hey, if the Brits wanna vote out Tony Blair and surrender to terrorism, we can shelve them too along with France.

[Urbancannibal]

Hey, if the Brits wanna vote out Tony Blair and surrender to terrorism, we can shelve them too along with France.
That's the oddest thing of all. Tony Blair is the leader of the Labour Party, which is, at least on paper, the furthest to the left of the UK's mainstream political parties. Labour has a long tradition of socialism, it set up the National Health Service in 1948 so that the British are all entitled to all the free healthcare they need, and even the present government has done plenty to benefit the poorest of our people - a far cry from the years when Mrs Thatcher was Conservative Prime Minister and very closely aligned with President Reagan. When Clinton was President, Blair worked very closely with him. Yet here we are with Bush, the most right-wing President in living memory, and Tony Blair, socialist premier, is hand in glove with him.

It's not that the British public, in the main, hate Bush or anything like that. It's just that he's so far removed from anything we've encountered before that we have trouble understanding why Blair seems to worship him so much, to the extent of getting us dragged into Bush's war. The reason the majority of Brits favoured Kerry was that we could at least understand him. Bush just seems to most of us to be completely unsuitable to be in charge of the only remaining world superpower.

Blair won't get voted out in the next election. Labour has too much of a majority - they've won the last two elections by landslides. As to what will happen when he steps down as Prime Minister and is succeeded by whoever it will be - well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

One thing is sure though, the British will never "surrender to terrorism" - in fact I'm not sure what you even mean by that. You can't surrender to terrorism any more than you can win a war on it. It's not a tangible enemy you can shoot, or blow up, or starve out - it's a fanatical philosophy. How can you defeat it?

[Urbancannibal]

I'm sure that pro-terrorist leftists in Great Britain aren't celebrating Bush's reelection, nor would I expect them to.
I agree. But don't make the mistake of thinking that anyone in Britain apart from a hardcore of lunatics supports terrorism. We were 100% with you in your grief after the atrocity of 9/11 - our countries have always been close allies and I hope they always will. But as to the direction that Bush is taking the US (and the UK) since then - it's that that the majority of British people have a problem with.

[DesertFox]

I don't think so, cannibal. I can see why you'd think that, though, if you follow the, uh, "mainstream" press here and in England and on the Continent.

Bush isn't different from anything you've seen before, but he's different from anything you've seen in awhile. Think back to Maggie and Reagan; they were very like Bush.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I agree. But don't make the mistake of thinking that anyone in Britain apart from a hardcore of lunatics supports terrorism. We were 100% with you in your grief after the atrocity of 9/11 - our countries have always been close allies and I hope they always will. But as to the direction that Bush is taking the US (and the UK) since then - it's that that the majority of British people have a problem with.
So, you're claiming that the majority of the British people oppose fighting the War on Terror. I don't believe that for an instant. After all, every military action Bush (and Blair) and the rest of the Coalition have taken - Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. - is a direct response to the 9/11 attacks. If you deny that, then you deny reality.

[Urbancannibal]

So, you're claiming that the majority of the British people oppose fighting the War on Terror. I don't believe that for an instant. After all, every military action Bush (and Blair) and the rest of the Coalition have taken - Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. - is a direct response to the 9/11 attacks. If you deny that, then you deny reality.
That's not what I'm claiming at all. The war in Afghanistan was a direct response to the attack on the WTC - Bin Laden was responsible, and it was a damn shame that the bastard escaped justice. The UK population, as well as its government, was right beside you in that fight, and rightly so.

But Iraq? I've said it before, I'll say it again, Saddam Hussein had no proven links with Bin Laden or al-Qaeda. The attack on Iraq wasn't in response to any terrorist threat. The attack was made because of the threat of WMD, and as we know now, there weren't any. The more cynical might say that it was President Bush's desire to finish off the job that Bush senior couldn't. Regardless, Iraq was no threat to the US, the UK, or anyone else apart from its immediate neighbours.

[kate]

I agree, the Irak was not a threat. The terrorists in it were though and are still. I dont think a total innocent folk would suddenly start to bomb themselves and attack soldiers if everything was fine and dandy down there.

Besides that, I know you didnt say it although it sounded like a hidden message but if I ever hear anything about President Bush trying to finish off his "Daddys job" I'll personally slap the person who said it. It's no arguement at all and bullshit and deserves no more mentioning or attention than this: http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/disagree/38.gif

[DoctorDoom]

Labour has a long tradition of socialism, it set up the National Health Service in 1948 so that the British are all entitled to all the free healthcare they need...Kid (I assume you're young based on your cluelessness), have you ever seen the acronym, TANSTAAFL? It means "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Do you seriously believe that UK healthcare is free? Buy a clue, Brit. SOMEONE is paying for it. When governments provide something "free", it's the taxpayers who foot the bill.

The dirty little secret with socialized medicine is the ability of the government to determine who is treated and who isn't, how extensive treatment will be, how much medical professionals can earn, etcetera etcetera. When a person is not free to choose his own medical care and must rely on gargantuan government bureaucracies, that person will NOT be better off than a US citizen who is able to make the decisions for himself.

The failure of the socialized medicine experiment in the UK is illustrated by this BBC article.

Not so long ago, telling someone that you were 'going private' left an unpleasant taste in the mouth. The words were spoken in a hushed voice - almost as if you had contracted a social disease. But now it's different. People are proud to announce the fact that they are able to have private medical care. For one reason it's seen as a statement of a person's standing; for another, it might just be common sense.

The NHS is trying its best, but the reality is that people can wait a long time to receive the medical treatment they need from it. So why wait and suffer longer than need be?

More people are opting to 'go private,' while in fact, the government is embracing the private healthcare business and encouraging its involvement with the NHS. For many people, it doesn't cost them anything because they receive private medical cover as a benefit from their employer. This is very attractive and makes sense since it means an employee spends less time away from work.Private health care in the UK - the basics (http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/talking/gp/private_care.shtml)

It would seem that Brits have developed a distaste for the NHS "free" health care. It seems as though the Labour Party stuck it to you.

[kate]

Ok, Doc, now that "free healthcare" is not "free" was clear to everyone. You don't have to try and teach others about their countries. I rarely disagree with you but this is not ok. I think the health care system in the UK works fine and our German system that is similiar to theirs '(when it comes to people on welfare or unemployed people) is working too. It's the companies failure and missmanagement when something that worked for ages suddenly does not work or fails. I wouldnt blame the system.

and still.. I dont mind tax-paid healthcare for those who cant afford it. I rather have them treated on the few cents out of my pocket that get spend on that issue than have them running arround with viruses and infections and spread them.

[Urbancannibal]

Kid (I assume you're young based on your cluelessness), have you ever seen the acronym, TANSTAAFL? It means "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Do you seriously believe that UK healthcare is free? Buy a clue, Brit. SOMEONE is paying for it. When governments provide something "free", it's the taxpayers who foot the bill.

The dirty little secret with socialized medicine is the ability of the government to determine who is treated and who isn't, how extensive treatment will be, how much medical professionals can earn, etcetera etcetera. When a person is not free to choose his own medical care and must rely on gargantuan government bureaucracies, that person will NOT be better off than a US citizen who is able to make the decisions for himself.
The failure of the socialized medicine experiment in the UK is illustrated by this BBC article.

Private health care in the UK - the basics (http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/talking/gp/private_care.shtml)

It would seem that Brits have developed a distaste for the NHS "free" health care. It seems as though the Labour Party stuck it to you.
What a shame your charm school closed before you graduated.

For your information, sunshine, I'm not a "kid", and I've spent the last fifteen years working in the government department responsible for administering the NHS. Of the two of us, I think I'm the one qualified to deliver a lecture on its pros and cons, should a lecture be necessary. But I'll try not to insult your intelligence, eh?

As I'm sure you're well aware, what I meant by free healthcare is that if I get hit by a car, or contract an illness, or gash myself on broken glass, I can go to my nearest hospital and be put right without having the choice of either wondering how I'm going to pay for it or not bothering to even get it done. At the same time, if I choose to and can afford to, I can sign up to a private healthcare system and check into a five star hotel disguised as a hospital, and have my treatment there, attended by highly skilled and obsequious medics and pampered by nubile nurses. You pay your money and you take your choice. There has been private medicine here since before the NHS was created - it isn't a new thing. Yes, every British taxpayer pays for the NHS, but we pay it indirectly through income tax. We don't have the option of withholding payment for it, nor should we. Personally, I'm no greater fan of Blairite Labour than I was of the old socialist variety, but I do regard the NHS as the finest achievement of any British government this century. We keep our choice to be treated where we like, but it gives us a safety net if we need it.

Now, from what I've seen of your particular brand of "debating" skills, you're going to respond with a tirade of childish abuse either directed at me, the British people in general, or both. Go ahead, if it gets you off. But don't try to tell me that you know more about what happens in the UK than I do. A lot of Americans are enlightened enough to take the same interest in other countries as we do in yours - but I suspect you aren't one of them.

[Urbancannibal]

Ok, Doc, now that "free healthcare" is not "free" was clear to everyone. You don't have to try and teach others about their countries. I rarely disagree with you but this is not ok. I think the health care system in the UK works fine and our German system that is similiar to theirs '(when it comes to people on welfare or unemployed people) is working too. It's the companies failure and missmanagement when something that worked for ages suddenly does not work or fails. I wouldnt blame the system.

and still.. I dont mind tax-paid healthcare for those who cant afford it. I rather have them treated on the few cents out of my pocket that get spend on that issue than have them running arround with viruses and infections and spread them. Well said, and thank you - I couldn't have put it better myself. Like you, I'm more than happy to pay a few pence in tax to make sure the old and the sick are cared for if they can't afford to pay for their treatment. There have to be safeguards, because there will always be those who'll abuse it, but as long as you have such safeguards then it's a fine system. I've always thought the US would do well to adopt something similar.

[Urbancannibal]

I agree, the Irak was not a threat. The terrorists in it were though and are still. I dont think a total innocent folk would suddenly start to bomb themselves and attack soldiers if everything was fine and dandy down there.

Besides that, I know you didnt say it although it sounded like a hidden message but if I ever hear anything about President Bush trying to finish off his "Daddys job" I'll personally slap the person who said it. It's no arguement at all and bullshit and deserves no more mentioning or attention than this: http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/disagree/38.gif
I didn't say it, and I don't believe it either, but it's a well-used and unfortunate smokescreen for those who want to hide the real issues. I believe that Bush and Blair went to war with the best intentions but for the wrong reasons. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his psychopath sons was definitely a good thing, and good riddance to them, but there is no proof of WMDs or a link with Al-Quaeda. I hope we can all agree though, that looking at where Iraq is in fifteen or twenty years time will be the best indication of whether the war was right or wrong. History will judge Bush's and Blair's actions better than you or I could.

[kate]

Oh that WMDs. I was surprised they didn't find any afterall but I think that a President who is being shown several reports that face him with WMDs in an enemy nation that is supposedly having a connection to Al-Quaeda it makes sense to me that a good President will react to the threat. (Not a really new threat after all) I mean, also, my aunt in the US told me there were several reasons discussed in the US before attacking Iraq.Not just the WMDs. Although at the UN security council the US mainly talked about weapons of mass destruction.

I am not surewhat to think about the existence or non-existence of them but I know that the decision was right just for the possibility that there might have been WMDs. You can't just wait until something happens. :/

[Warlady]

Doc no need to be insulting.

[Warlady]

You're right Kate. Every intelligence report around the globe reported that Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs. To not act after 911 would have been irresponsible. I think dicking around with the UN gave Saddam plenty of time to move them. They have found massive stockpiles of weapons unlike anything I've ever seen before. Saddam was buying every weapon he could get his hands on for years while his people were starving. The ones he wasn't massacring that is. Genocide was one of the reasons for war. Couple that with the threat of WMD and I fully supported deposing Saddam. He had been thumbing his nose at the world for over a decade. I wish Bush Sr or Bill Clinton would have deposed him. It would have saved many hundreds of thousands of lives. Not counting the women and young girls that were raped whose lives are ruined. One thing is certain. Saddam Hussein and his two sons are no longer a threat to anyone. They will no longer reap hell on Earth.

[Warlady]

Cannibal we have medicare and medicaid. We don't let our sick or poor go without health care. Hell our poor people are rich when compared to the poor in most other countries. Our poor on average have 2 color TVs, a VCR, cable TV, 2 cars and most own their own home. What we don't do is give health care to everyone including those who don't need government help. Why on Earth would we provide health care for Bill Gates? Socialized medicine is not the best. I have spoken to many doctors about this and they oppose it vehemently. Canadians come to America to get treatment. Why do you suppose that is? Look, if you guys want socialized medicine that's your business but please don't wish it on us because we don't want it. We have learned our lesson that private sector market based competition is the best way to go in most areas. Whenever possible we like to leave the government out of business. And as such we have the best health care in the world. What the Democrats don't tell you is that many of our uninsured choose to be uninsured. They either don't want to pay the premiums or they don't feel they need it...usually the young who feel they are ten feet tall and bullet proof. Are there people who fall through the cracks? Of course. That goes without saying and it's true in any country. But I would choose America over any other system of government on the planet. Apparently a lot of people agree with me since they are flooding our immigration dept with applications by the hundreds of thousands every year. We aren't perfect by any means nor do we claim to be but we must be doing something right.

Kate one more thing. Iraq may not have been a threat to you in Germany, per say, but he had declared war on the US. He had attempted to assassinate one of our Presidents and was shooting at our planes on a daily basis. Both an act of war. There were many reasons to take him out of operation. He was as you said harboring terrorists and as we have recently discovered through the oil for food scandal investigation was paying terrorists families with profits from that scam. The war on terror effects the entire globe in many ways including economically. Saddam's part in it would have eventually trickled down to Germany. I know I know. I'm preaching to the choir but I felt I needed to make that point.

[Donovan_McNabb]

Blair might be a socialist at heart, but he certainly doesn't govern that way. He's another Third Way politician, similar to Bill Clinton. Blair and Bush both have similar evangelical backgrounds. That's why Labor is so divided and the Tories so ideologically mury.

And while we may not have universal health care in this country, as Warlady noted our health industry is heavily socialized. Both Medicare and Medicaid have been around for forty years, and the two abominations are politically untouchable. It's unfortunate, because the free-markets that the Europeans criticize us for often don't exist. Once we start taking the government out of the health business, we can begin making comparisons.

[Apollo5600]

Yet here we are with Bush, the most right-wing President in living memory, and Tony Blair, socialist premier, is hand in glove with him.You know, that whole "Bush is a far right wing!!" that is repeated over and over again from liberals is old and just dumb. I might even go as far as to assume you buy into the "Bush is a far right wing fanatic! A plague to the world! He went to war for oil!" propaganda the hate America crowd believes in.

However, you don't look like you go that far, ofcourse you could just be a closet one that doesn't want to inflame the local population to much lest you are torn limb from limb.

But since you said (amongst other silly things) that he is "the most right wing president in living memory.." the question is up in the air .. Now if you had said "recent memory", I would of given you slick willy. But you didn't, you said "living memory" and I really don't know exactly how to take that.

It could mean, in the history of the United States, that Bush is "the most right wing" in it's history. Or it could be in all history through out the ages.

Perhaps it means, in your living memory. Which means you were born around the time Clinton was president. Or you could just be repeating the ravings of a foaming at the mouth liberal who feels the urge to paint his foes as "far-right", fanatical, warmongering, yada yada yada . Ofcourse, only you can tell me what you really meant, and I beg of you if you meant the above, to change the error of your ways. (Actually, I already know what you were saying, I am just amusing myself by BSing you, so just change the error of your ways.)

Ofcourse it could also mean, recent memory, but since you said "It's just that he's so far removed from anything we've encountered before", and Britian has been around for along time. Soo who knows what you meant.

why Blair seems to worship him so much, to the extent of getting us dragged into Bush's war."Blair" worships Bush? Or could it be the people who believe that just want to paint him as Bush's poodle just because they hate America and dislike the fact we liberated a tortured and oppressed people, stopped the torture chambers, stopped the creation of mass graves, and put an end to a terrorist supporting evil regime that paid money to suicide bomber's families (amongst other things) while spineless corrupt countries made money from a corrupt oil for food program?

And because Blair saw the wisdom of going into Iraq, and did indeed take Britian in with America to do these great things along with other of our allies, then that must mean that Blair worships Bush!!! Oooo that wust be it! Don't you know America is eeeewil?

Edit: And Bush's war? I guess you would rather not be a part of no damn liberating of no damn arabs! Expecially not with America!

[DoctorDoom]

What a shame your charm school closed before you graduated.You picked a bad time to post what seemed to be another in an unending stream of anti-Bush posts.

For your information, sunshine, I'm not a "kid", and I've spent the last fifteen years working in the government department responsible for administering the NHS.And are we psychics that we should know that? We have had an invasion of teenage wonders over the past several months, and your post fit the pattern. And BTW, in what capacity are you employed? Every government agency includes numerous people who don't have a clue about what their agency actually does.

I worked for years at a naval ordnance plant that manufactured submarine missile guidance and fire control systems. It did not qualify me as an expert on them because my job didn't involve them. Ergo one's place of employment is not of itself an indication of one's expertise in what the employer does.

And your comment about "free" health care was a red flag signalling another bloody liberal. That's why I focused on it. I have met people who said in all seriousness, "I don't pay taxes. I get money back every year." That sort of economic naivete allows people to deceive themselves that anything done by the government is "free".

Of the two of us, I think I'm the one qualified to deliver a lecture on its pros and cons, should a lecture be necessary.See my above comment re that premise.

I cited the BBC, which stated in the article, "The NHS is trying its best, but the reality is that people can wait a long time to receive the medical treatment they need from it." IMO, that is not a selling point for socialized medicine. In fact, it's the norm. Ask the Canadians about it. One cannot put one's health at the mercy of nameless, faceless pencil pushers and expect fast, high-quality care.

When the infamous "HillaryCare" issue arose during Clinton's first term, one of the catchphrases was "quality of life", a standard for determining who gets what care. The premise was that if a person's "quality of life" would not be significantly improved, e,g., with a disease that could not be cured and would only worsen, care would be limited or denied because the person would be a burden on the system. Classic, inhuman socialism.

While the Guardian's political stance has a rather bad rep here, it obviously known what's going on in Blighty.

Bed numbers in NHS hospitals in England have increased for the first time in 30 years, according to figures presented yesterday by Alan Milburn, the health secretary, as the first fruits of expansion of the health service.

He said the average number of overnight beds available for patients in general and acute hospitals has risen by 714 to 135,794 in 2000/1.

It is the biggest rise since 1960 and marks a shift from the consistent view of past Conservative and Labour governments that the NHS was wastefully "overbedded".

The number of general and acute NHS hospital beds in England declined from 200,170 in 1981 to 135,080 in 1999/2000 - reducing capacity by nearly a third.

The squeeze reached its peak in 1990/1 when 7,219 beds were taken out of service, but the trend later slowed.First rise in NHS beds for 30 years (http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,8150,554968,00.html)

The UK population increased from 56,314,000 in 1980 (a figure applicable to 1981 within the margin of error for headcounts) to 59,247,000 in 2000, while the number of hospital beds decreased from 200,170 in 1981, one bed for about 280 people, to 135,080 or one bed per about 439 people. No one is going to convince me that the UK's quality of health care increased so significantly that reducing the bed count to 67% of its 1981 figure was justified when the population increased by 2.93 million.

It just another example of the "benefits" of government-run healthcare.

And, there are money issues.

How big is the NHS budget?

The NHS across the UK will spend £65.4bn in 2002-03, making it the second biggest area of government spending after social security. Recent above-inflation increases mean the NHS budget is now more than £25bn higher than it was in 1999-2000. NHS spending amounts to approximately 6.6% of national income (a further 1.2% of national income, known as GDP or gross domestic product is spent on health from private sources, such as personal medical insurance).

Will spending continue to rise?

Yes. Following the 2002 Budget, when the government announced a five-year programme of investment, the UK NHS budget will reach £87.2bn by 2005-06 and £105.6bn by 2007-08. This means that from 2003-04, when the programme begins, spending will rise by an average 7.5% annually, making it the largest ever sustained increase in NHS funding. This is more than twice the annual average increase during the 30-year period from 1971 to 2001. The Treasury-commissioned Wanless inquiry into UK healthcare funding requirements published at the time of the Budget in April 2002 predicts that the annual NHS budget may have to rise to between £154bn and £184bn at current prices by 2022-23 to ensure comprehensive, high quality services.NHS finance 2002-03: the issue explained (http://society.guardian.co.uk/publicfinances/story/0,12671,847924,00.html)

Per that article, "General taxation and national insurance contributions meet more than 90% of NHS spending." I am amazed at the gall of governments that call mandatory confiscation of wages "contributions", but use the present population of the UK and calculate the tax burden on every man, woman and child represented by 90% of the 2004-05 NHS budget. Does the quality of your health care justify that?

But I'll try not to insult your intelligence, eh?No one insulted your intelligence. If you plan to frequent Web BBs, see if the NHS covers grafts to give you thicker skin.

As I'm sure you're well aware, what I meant by free healthcare is that if I get hit by a car, or contract an illness, or gash myself on broken glass, I can go to my nearest hospital and be put right without having the choice of either wondering how I'm going to pay for it or not bothering to even get it done.That sounds good in theory, but whenever something is "free", it attracts freeloaders.

At the same time, if I choose to and can afford to, I can sign up to a private healthcare system and check into a five star hotel disguised as a hospital, and have my treatment there, attended by highly skilled and obsequious medics and pampered by nubile nurses. You pay your money and you take your choice.That's to your credit. Real socialist health care wouldn't give that option. HillaryCare did not. Thankfully, it was given the boot.

There has been private medicine here since before the NHS was created - it isn't a new thing.From the Beeb article:
Not so long ago, telling someone that you were 'going private' left an unpleasant taste in the mouth. The words were spoken in a hushed voice - almost as if you had contracted a social disease.That's an interesting PoV on it, n'est-ce pas?

Yes, every British taxpayer pays for the NHS, but we pay it indirectly through income tax.Your income tax rate is what?<pre> <b>UK Income Taxes</b>
2004/05 2003/04
Starting rate band to £2,020 £1,960<br>Tax rate 10% 10%<br>Basic rate on - next £29,380 £28,450<br>Non-savings income tax rate 22% 22%<br>Savings income tax rate 20% 20%<br>UK dividend income tax rate 10% 10%<br>Higher rate – income over £31,400 £30,500<br>Higher tax rate 40% 40%<br>UK dividend income tax rate 32.50% 32.50%<br>Trusts - tax rate 40% 34%<br>UK dividend rate 32.50% 25%<br><br>http://www.reespollock.co.uk/tax.htm</pre>Does the Inland Revenue (mercilessly parodied in the Doctor Who episode, The Sun Makers, as the "Inner Retinue") leave you anything to spend on yourselves?

We don't have the option of withholding payment for it, nor should we.Of couse not. Someone with a hangnail might need "free" care, and your task, whether or not you decide to accept it, is to pay for it. The greatest abuse of "free" care is by people who could treat themselves with a Band Aid but head off to the ER.

Personally, I'm no greater fan of Blairite Labour than I was of the old socialist variety, but I do regard the NHS as the finest achievement of any British government this century.Your loyalty to your employer is commendable.

We keep our choice to be treated where we like, but it gives us a safety net if we need it.And it's interesting to see how many people "need it" because they get it "free".

I have spent this much time on one sentence you posted because the illusion that government health care is "free", and that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, is all too commonly found in people with very little acquaintance with reality.

Now, from what I've seen of your particular brand of "debating" skills...Might I point out that it is I who have backed up my statements with independent, verifiable information. You have offered nothing to support your PoV except your opinions. That is S.O.P. for liberals. What's this about "debating" skills?

... you're going to respond with a tirade of childish abuse either directed at me, the British people in general, or both.Golly gosh gee willikers! The above must be really disappointing.

Go ahead, if it gets you off.Responding to British leftists is hardly a stimulus for orgasm.

But don't try to tell me that you know more about what happens in the UK than I do.I've cited UK sources to support my position. You've given us your opinions devoid of confirming evidence. Which is more credible?

A lot of Americans are enlightened enough to take the same interest in other countries as we do in yours...Doubtless this "interest" in America is what provoked you to write in your opening post in this thread:

If you think the citizens of Great Britain are celebrating Bush's re-election, you're sadly deluded.I would respond, "If you think the citizens of America care one whit what the citizens of Great Britain think about our president's re-election, you're grossly overestimating your relevance."

And it inspired you to follow that up thusly:
It's not that the British public, in the main, hate Bush or anything like that. It's just that he's so far removed from anything we've encountered before that we have trouble understanding why Blair seems to worship him so much, to the extent of getting us dragged into Bush's war. The reason the majority of Brits favoured Kerry was that we could at least understand him. Bush just seems to most of us to be completely unsuitable to be in charge of the only remaining world superpower.No doubt you're acutely aware by now that your opinions on America's choice of its leaders have no significance whatsoever. If you're expecting us to elect a modern-day Neville Chamberlain, you'll be waiting a LO-O-ONG time.

... but I suspect you aren't one of them.I've always had a soft spot for Blighty. Any nation that can give the world Monty Python is IMO a class act. If I were to venture overseas, it would be a mandatory stop. However, it has more than its share of clue-challenged leftist morons who live with the self-deception that anyone outside of the UK gives a damn what they "think". We seem to attract them here with depressing regularity.

Your posts thusfar don't give me a warm & fuzzy feeling that you're the rare exception. BTW, if you're from KopTalk or RedCafe, it will explain a great deal.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

The attack on Iraq ... was made because of the threat of WMD, and as we know now, there weren't any.
:unsmile: Bald-faced lie, straight from the pit of Hell.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

[DoctorDoom]

LP, tch tch tch! You KNOW what happens to lefties when they're confronted with facts. It's not a pretty sight.

Of course, our Brit doesn't see the irony is his statement:

The attack was made because of the threat of WMD, and as we know now, there weren't any.Hindsight is always 20/20. Where were the leftist soothsayers BEFORE the action?

No one ever claimed that liberating Iraq was done on the basis of WMD. It was one consideration amongst several, including Iraq's demonstrated connection to terrorism.

What's appalling is how libs/leftists decry the fact that 50 million people were freed from a generation of living in abject fear of being placed on the S-list of Sodamn Insane and his hell-spawned whelps, and being tortured, mutilated or murdered.

How many families watched helplessly as the "boys" raped their daughters just because they needed to get their guns off? How many children were tortured or imprisoned because the Butcher of Baghdad decided that he didn't like their parents?

How many mass graves will have to be uncovered before the liberaloonies will admit that Saddam was NOT a nice guy? How many photos of the victims at Halabja will the blind fools have to see before admitting that Saddam DID have WMD and used them on his own people? How many more UN resolutions would Iraq have to ignore before the lefties realized that diplomacy was useless?

IMO, UrbanCannibal is just another glassy-eyed marcher in an endless procession of Euroleftists who are bereft of clues and are so transfixed with their ideology that they are immune to fact.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

LP, tch tch tch! You KNOW what happens to lefties when they're confronted with facts. It's not a pretty sight.
:moo: Yeah, I know, it's reminiscent of Mars Attacks, the way the Martian heads would explode in a bloody mess, at the mere sound of yodeling music. I think it's a hoot to watch.

[kate]

Kate one more thing. Iraq may not have been a threat to you in Germany, per say, but he had declared war on the US. He had attempted to assassinate one of our Presidents and was shooting at our planes on a daily basis. Both an act of war.
Hey do you have links to stories bout that? Im having a discussion bout this with a leftie and I would like to quote that since he just mentioned that WMDs were not found. Since I cant prove him wrong bout the WMDs this sounds like a good alternative arguement for war. Do you have links to maybe one or two articles bout that shooting of planes?

[Warlady]

Here's one link. If you do a google search you can find quite a few.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/crs/94-049.htm

[DoctorDoom]

Yeah, I know, it's reminiscent of Mars Attacks, the way the Martian heads would explode in a bloody mess, at the mere sound of yodeling music. I think it's a hoot to watch.The Brits had best be careful. Slim Whitman was very popular in the UK, and his albums are still there to wreak havoc.

AckACKACK ACKack ACKACK ACKACKack!

[Donovan_McNabb]

That was a good post on socialized medicine Doctor Doom. It's strange that liberals believe the rules of the markets apply in every area except for health care. There is no way to eliminate costs, as Kate and Urban suggest. Every kind of economy must deal with them, but the free market is best equipped to do so, while the government usually fails.

[DoctorDoom]

Danke. One thing that's a given is that when government does something, it's almost always a total bollocks. Bureaucracy can never compete with free enterprise. This is not to say that absolute isolation between health care and government is a good thing, but government should only assist those in real need to avail themselves of the health care system. It must never become another ponderous, inefficient, wasteful and corrupt government screwup.

Ask any Canadian who comes to the US for medical care about how good it is when the government is in total control.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Hey do you have links to stories bout that? Im having a discussion bout this with a leftie and I would like to quote that since he just mentioned that WMDs were not found. Since I cant prove him wrong bout the WMDs...
:moo: Did you check the link I posted for UrbaneCannibal?

[Urbancannibal]

Cannibal we have medicare and medicaid. We don't let our sick or poor go without health care. Hell our poor people are rich when compared to the poor in most other countries. Our poor on average have 2 color TVs, a VCR, cable TV, 2 cars and most own their own home. What we don't do is give health care to everyone including those who don't need government help. Why on Earth would we provide health care for Bill Gates? Socialized medicine is not the best. I have spoken to many doctors about this and they oppose it vehemently. Canadians come to America to get treatment. Why do you suppose that is? Look, if you guys want socialized medicine that's your business but please don't wish it on us because we don't want it. We have learned our lesson that private sector market based competition is the best way to go in most areas. Whenever possible we like to leave the government out of business. And as such we have the best health care in the world. What the Democrats don't tell you is that many of our uninsured choose to be uninsured. They either don't want to pay the premiums or they don't feel they need it...usually the young who feel they are ten feet tall and bullet proof. Are there people who fall through the cracks? Of course. That goes without saying and it's true in any country. But I would choose America over any other system of government on the planet. Apparently a lot of people agree with me since they are flooding our immigration dept with applications by the hundreds of thousands every year. We aren't perfect by any means nor do we claim to be but we must be doing something right.
Thanks for the info, Warlady. I wasn't trying to suggest that the US is like some third-world African nation, with the poor dying on the streets, but I still believe wholeheartedly in the NHS. In practice, the healthcare available on the NHS is generally good, but there's often a long wait for it, as funding-wise, the NHS is a bottomless pit. So the rich over here all tend to opt for private healthcare, where they can pay for the standard of healthcare they want, and query the bill if they don't get it, so it runs like any other business. Bill Gates wouldn't choose NHS treatment, believe me. At the same time, NHS resources are available for those who need them and genuinely can't afford to pay - and I'm talking about the old and the chronically sick, not people with cut fingers and sprained ankles. A lot of NHS treatment is means-tested, btw, and if you can afford to pay for it, you have to - opticians and dentistry, for example.

I've talked about this many times with a good frend of mine in Wisconsin who has cystic fibrosis and requires very frequent hospital treatment. She likes the idea of the NHS but prefers to pay, even though it's costing her big bucks, because she knows she'll never have to wait for treatment and the facilities will be excellent - if they're not, she can take her business elsewhere. But if she was British, and was too poor to pay (she can afford to pay, but I'm guessing not everyone could pay the amount she does), she would have that safety net. If you regard it as just being a safety net and nothing more, then I still believe we're better off with it.

[Urbancannibal]

LP, tch tch tch! You KNOW what happens to lefties when they're confronted with facts. It's not a pretty sight.

Of course, our Brit doesn't see the irony is his statement:

Hindsight is always 20/20. Where were the leftist soothsayers BEFORE the action?

No one ever claimed that liberating Iraq was done on the basis of WMD. It was one consideration amongst several, including Iraq's demonstrated connection to terrorism.

What's appalling is how libs/leftists decry the fact that 50 million people were freed from a generation of living in abject fear of being placed on the S-list of Sodamn Insane and his hell-spawned whelps, and being tortured, mutilated or murdered.

How many families watched helplessly as the "boys" raped their daughters just because they needed to get their guns off? How many children were tortured or imprisoned because the Butcher of Baghdad decided that he didn't like their parents?

How many mass graves will have to be uncovered before the liberaloonies will admit that Saddam was NOT a nice guy? How many photos of the victims at Halabja will the blind fools have to see before admitting that Saddam DID have WMD and used them on his own people? How many more UN resolutions would Iraq have to ignore before the lefties realized that diplomacy was useless?

IMO, UrbanCannibal is just another glassy-eyed marcher in an endless procession of Euroleftists who are bereft of clues and are so transfixed with their ideology that they are immune to fact.
Oh come on, Doc. I've stated my opinion of Saddam Hussein and his insane offspring enough times. The Iraqis and the world in general are so much better off without those f*ckers that there aren't words to express it. As I've said before, many times, I don't have a problem with the result of the war. Iraq is pretty damn chaotic at the moment, but some way down the line, be it five years from now or be it twenty-five, Iraqis will be able to live in a free society without any of the fear that Saddam and his successors would have subjected them to.

What I do have a problem with is the justification for the war. Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the west - he was not a threat to anyone apart from his own people and his immediate neighbours, and he did not have links with Al-Qaeda. If Bush and Blair had advocated a war against Saddam to liberate Iraqi citizens and keep Egypt safe from harm, they'd have been laughed at. But a war to prevent Iraqi nukes from landing on London and Washington, or planes falling on the White House or Big Ben...that's a different matter. Maybe the end justifies the means, but a lie's still a lie.

[kate]

:moo: Did you check the link I posted for UrbaneCannibal?
I did but it was full of old articles and happenings in the 80's. I was more looking for recent stories and reports.

[Urbancannibal]

:unsmile: Bald-faced lie, straight from the pit of Hell.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
You're missing the point. Saddam Hussein used chemical warfare on the Kurds and on his own people, but he had a hundred other inventive ways of killing Iraqis. He was just as happy to order them raped and shot, tortured to death, or systematically starved. Nobody (apart from the most rabid of Saddam apologists) would dispute that. But the reason for going to war was that he had the means to launch WMDs against western targets, and we know now that he didn't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3736086.stm

But don't take my word for it when there's a much better source...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm

[Longhorn_Platinum]

But the reason for going to war was that he had the means to launch WMDs against western targets, and we know now that he didn't.
:unsmile: But, you said he didn't have WsMD at all. And you used that same phrase "we know". Who's "we"? Besides, just because these "means" haven't been found, doesn't mean they didn't exist. "We" don't know anything of the sort.

[Large_Al]

Here is a file I keep on the WMD's I have others at work I'll try to find
the last story I can't find a link to I'll look and post when I find it.
I think in one of these articles it talks about how we found hundreds of 55 gal. camouflaged Drums filled with two types of pesticides that if used separately they will kill rodents but combined they kill people. Also nearby the found Mixers and shell filling machines. Alone these are Pesticides and are being reported as such.....Remember the press must give Saddam all benefits of the doubt.



http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3399 (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3399)

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3453 (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3453)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005354 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005354)

http://www.iraqinews.com/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Editorials.db&command=viewone&id=4&op=t (http://www.iraqinews.com/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Editorials.db&command=viewone&id=4&op=t)

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)

http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323 (http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323)



Secret bunkers held chemical weapons, says Iraqi exile


A scientist describes Saddam's weapons and stealth technology programs, reports Russell Skelton.<O:p
For seven years, before he was tortured and sentenced to death, Rashid (not his real name) worked at the top of scientific establishment. He says he regularly met Saddam Hussein and his cousin and strongman deputy prime minister Abdul Tawab Huweish. After the Gulf War he was put in charge of a taskforce code named "Al lace" to develop stealth technology to make aircraft and missiles undetectable on radar.<O:p</O:p

Rashid, who now lives in lace, also claims to have had access as a trusted insider to secret underground bunkers where chemical weapons were stored. "Saddam gave me access to everything, he was so desperate to perfect the stealth technology," he says

Now Rashid's great fear is that Saddam loyalists still active in postwar <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com /><st1:City w:st=Babel</ST1 /><st1:City w:st=Melbourne</ST1 /><st1:country-region w:st=Iraq </st1:country-region>may get to the chemicals and weapons he saw hidden away before fleeing for his life.<O:p</O:p

"If those weapons still exist, the worry is that they will be used against the Iraqi people, the forces or even sold off to al-Qaeda. Maybe those weapons no longer exist, but I find it hard to believe they could disappear so easily," he says.<O:p</O:p

Rashid's days of working at the top came to an abrupt end in 1998 when he was arrested with a group of other scientists and army officers on charges of plotting to remove Saddam. He was taken to a high-security jail in the centre of Bag<st1:City w:st="on">hdad</st1:City>, run by the Mukhabarat (secret police), where he was tortured for three weeks, suffering severe spinal injuries.

Rashid was then transferred to the Abu Ghraib jail outside <st1:City w:st="on">Baghdad</st1:City> for execution. "Each morning prisoners were executed. Some were shot and some were hung. I could see the executions from my cell window. You lived in a constant state of terror because you never knew who was next."

Rashid says he escaped when a high-ranking military officer and close friend bribed the guards to swap his file with that of an executed prisoner. "On visiting day I just walked out. Everything had been arranged; I had false travel documents that got me and my family across the border to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Syria</ST1:p</st1:country-region><O:p</O:p

Rashid's problems did not end there. The Iraqi secret police came looking for him at <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Damascus</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> where he taught physics part time, and he fled to <st1:City w:st="on">Melbourne</st1:City> on an Emirates flight. He says he left his wife and family behind because the family had money to buy only a single ticket and at that stage he was the one whose life was in immediate danger.<O:p</O:p

Rashid has told The Age he knows of five secret storage bunkers around Baghdad, Basra and Tikrit, three of which he visited regularly as a top scientist and senior employee of Iraq's now defunct Atomic Energy Commission.<O:p</O:p

One, he says, was under an island in the <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Tigris</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">River</st1:PlaceType> near <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Saddam</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType>. Another was beneath the house of one of Saddam's cousins, and reached by a tunnel with a hidden entrance 800 metres away.<O:p</O:p

He described the bunkers as being built 15 metres underground, of reinforced concrete, and multi-storeyed. "Between these layers, pipes would rise up, through the building above to provide access for ventilation

"The lethal chemicals were stored in drums and the bunkers were air-conditioned. But there were also artillery shells and 122-millimetre rockets armed with chemicals."

He says the sites had been built using foreign construction companies, including a company from <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region>, and that nobody was allowed to approach without authorisation and extensive ID checks by the Special Republican Guard.<O:p</O:p

Rashid says meeting Saddam was always a bizarre experience. "Suddenly his people would appear unannounced. They would take you to a location and examine you carefully: mouth, hands, eyes and ears. Then you would be taken to another place and checked again. This could happen up to three times. Finally he would come into the room."

Rashid says Saddam was moody but was always on top of what was discussed, and read all scientific reports sent to him. "Nothing ever happened unless he approved it. That included the purchase of special equipment, sending people overseas to be trained. If you told him a project would take six months to complete, he would want it in four months."

After arriving in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>, Rashid was issued with a temporary protection visa

Even though Rashid's wife and four children have been processed and found to be refugees by the UNHCR in S<st1:country-region w:st="on">yria</st1:country-region>, they remain stranded there. <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region> immigration laws prevent TPV holders access to family reunion and they have not been issued with a visa

Although Rashid is known to authorities in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>, he asked that his real name not be published, to protect him and his family from Saddam loyalists still active in Iraqi communities in and outside <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</ST1:place</st1:country-region>

"It's still too dangerous for us to speak out; I don't know who to trust. There are former army officers living in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region> who were close to Saddam," he says.

<O:p</O:p


<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

[Urbancannibal]

:unsmile: But, you said he didn't have WsMD at all. And you used that same phrase "we know". Who's "we"? Besides, just because these "means" haven't been found, doesn't mean they didn't exist. "We" don't know anything of the sort.
I'm referring to "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in the way that Bush and Blair referred to them. They didn't sell war to their people based on a few dozen, or a few hundred, canisters of mustard gas to be used on the Kurds. They based it on missile-borne chemical and biological weapons aimed at London and Washington. There's a world of difference.

And "we" means the people who can see past the rhetoric in order to get to the facts. The fact being that not a scrap of hard evidence that Saddam ever had these doomsday weapons we were warned about has ever been found by anyone.

[DoctorDoom]

Here's a nice, long list of quotes from DemocRATs who now spout the same sort of Bush-bashing drivel that you're giving us.


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."
-- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
-- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
-- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
-- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

”Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
-- Madeline Albright, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."
-- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."
-- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
-- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
-- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."
-- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
-- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."
-- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."
-- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."
-- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."
-- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


Spare us the libspeak. We're not impressed.

[DoctorDoom]

And BTW, the fact that we have not yet uncovered the caches does not mean that they don't exist.

Iraq has 432,162 sq km of land area, 1.79 times as large as the UK. Most of it is sand. Saddam had a long time to conceal the WsMD. And our troops are a tad busy at the moment with terrorists who are trying to murder them.

Q: given several years, could you stash a cache of WsMD in the UK where people who were constantly being shot at would not immediately find them?

"We didn't find the WMD, so they don't exist!" This is the lament of the Microwave Generation mentality that demands instantaneous results. They think that just because a major problem can be resolved on the telly in two hours minus adverts, that sort of time frame applies to real life.

I remind you that we found illegal MiG fighter jets covered by camouflage nets, and others buried in the sand, near an airfield. The UN "inspectors" missed them, and no one was trying to kill them.

Iraq is a damned big place to hunt for caches of WsMD that could be all stashed in a small warehouse. Stop demanding instant results. Real life isn't so obliging.

[Naturalized-Texan]

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)
Dr. Kay Had Maps with Coordinates of WMD Hiding Places in Syria (http://www.iraqinews.com/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Editorials.db&command=viewone&id=4&op=t)
Saddam WAS trying to purchase Yellowcake Uranium from Africa - Joe Wilson lied! (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005354)
Saddam, Uranium and Africa: What two investigations say about Bush's statements on Iraq, yellowcake and Niger (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005353)

[Longhorn_Platinum]

I'm referring to "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in the way that Bush and Blair referred to them. They didn't sell war to their people based on a few dozen, or a few hundred, canisters of mustard gas to be used on the Kurds.:unsmile: And, you seriously believe that SoDamn Insane wasn't looking for a way to deliver these weapons to his enemies in all parts of the world? Oh, but, it was only the Kurds, & since they're not worth your effort, screw 'em. Kurds aren't really people, are they? Racist.

[DesertFox]

Cannibal, why izzit so hard for you to accept that everybody who mattered, including the UN, Tony Blair, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton AND George W. Bush AND Saddam Hussein hizself, believed Saddam had WMD? Not to mention that WMD was only one of the reasons we went after the bastard. He supported terror worldwide, caused endless trouble in the region and was a vicious, sadistic tyrant in his own country. To argue against taking him out, for whatever reason, is to side with the idiots against plain reason.

[Urbancannibal]

:unsmile: And, you seriously believe that SoDamn Insane wasn't looking for a way to deliver these weapons to his enemies in all parts of the world? Oh, but, it was only the Kurds, & since they're not worth your effort, screw 'em. Kurds aren't really people, are they? Racist.
I am not a f*cking racist, you pinhead. Why not stick with the script and call me a lefty/commie/DemocRAT (sic)? You people are supposed to all sing from the same hymnsheet, aren't you?

If you're seriously telling me that President Bush declared war on Saddam Hussein's Iraq for the benefit of the oppressed people of the Middle East, to help out his fellow man, and to liberate all those poor downtrodden Muslims (or "ragheads", to use just one of the terms I've seen used many times on this board), then you're stupider than I gave you credit for. He did it a) because Iraq has oil, b) because after forcibly demolishing most of Iraq's infrastructure there would be lots of lucrative contracts for his buddies at Haliburton and Enron, and c) because he's "on a mission from God".

Now go ahead and have me banned. I'm sick of this place. For every one person on here who's prepared to engage in a constructive debate involving the facts, there are two or three of the likes of you and "Doctor Doom", who are so intent on wallowing in their own pig-ignorance that they wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit them. Hurling insults is much more your style.

Thank God you people are just the lunatic fringe, and aren't representative of America. There might still be hope for your country.

[DesertFox]

The lunatic fringe is yourself and your kind, Cannibal. There is no hope for the world if you and they win the culture war.

[Urbancannibal]

Cannibal, why izzit so hard for you to accept that everybody who mattered, including the UN, Tony Blair, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton AND George W. Bush AND Saddam Hussein hizself, believed Saddam had WMD? Not to mention that WMD was only one of the reasons we went after the bastard. He supported terror worldwide, caused endless trouble in the region and was a vicious, sadistic tyrant in his own country. To argue against taking him out, for whatever reason, is to side with the idiots against plain reason.
DesertFox, please go back and read the comments I've already made. I've never said that Saddam Hussein shouldn't have been deposed. I know what he did to his people, to his neighbours, and to the Kurds during the first Gulf War. I don't for a second condone any of that. He's better off dead, not just deposed. I won't ever change my opinion on that.

But nor will I ever accept that WMDs were anything but just an excuse to go to war. The evidence of their existence was flawed to the point where a ten-year-old could have picked holes in it. And not only have they never been found, but no evidence of their existence has ever been found either. Saddam might have had them in ten years time if he was still in power, who knows? But he didn't have them when George W sent in the troops.

That's all I've got to say. We could keep this up forever, but neither of us are going to change the other's mind, so why bother? Believe what you like, and I'll believe what I like.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

I am not a f*cking racist, you pinhead. Why not stick with the script and call me a lefty/commie/DemocRAT (sic)? You people are supposed to all sing from the same hymnsheet, aren't you?
:unsmile: I don't. I can think for myself, & your disregard for the Kurds,... well, since you're not one, it's easy to be cavalier about their wellbeïng.

If you're seriously telling me that President Bush declared war on Saddam Hussein's Iraq for the benefit of the oppressed people of the Middle East, to help out his fellow man, and to liberate all those poor downtrodden Muslims (or "ragheads", to use just one of the terms I've seen used many times on this board), then you're stupider than I gave you credit for. He did it a) because Iraq has oil, b) because after forcibly demolishing most of Iraq's infrastructure there would be lots of lucrative contracts for his buddies at Haliburton and Enron, and c) because he's "on a mission from God".
:unsmile: I'm sure that, before you ban yourself, you'll provide links PROVING all three, not just some editorials that speculate.

Now go ahead and have me banned. I'm sick of this place. For every one person on here who's prepared to engage in a constructive debate involving the facts, there are two or three of the likes of you and "Doctor Doom", who are so intent on wallowing in their own pig-ignorance that they wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit them. Hurling insults is much more your style.
:unsmile: You mean like, "pinhead"?

Thank God you people are just the lunatic fringe, and aren't representative of America. There might still be hope for your country.
:moo: No, we don't represent "America", just 52% of the United States.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

And not only have they never been found, but no evidence of their existence has ever been found either.
:unsmile: So, the massacre at Halabjah was just a hoax?

[Large_Al]

Urbancannibal Try reading some of those articles Myself NT and Longhorn posted.
I ask how can you not assume he had wmds???

[DoctorDoom]

Now go ahead and have me banned. I'm sick of this place.I'm sure that some kind admin will grant your request if that's what you want. Then you can go back and whine to King Cantona and other infamous Brit trolls about how we picked on you.

For every one person on here who's prepared to engage in a constructive debate involving the facts...Translated from trollese: "For every one person on here who's prepared to agree with me without questioning anything I say..."

... there are two or three of the likes of you and "Doctor Doom"...Being cited by a troll makes my day. Danke.

... who are so intent on wallowing in their own pig-ignorance...Translation: "... who dare to post verifiable, independent information that I can't glibly dismiss..."

... that they wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit them.The word "truth" coming from a liberal is a pathetic parody.

Hurling insults is much more your style.Tch tch tch. It's fascinating to watch the reactions of liberals when they realize that they can't baffle us with their BS.

BTW, kid (your claim of being an adult rings very hollow in view of your immature reactions to having your unsubstatiated opinions and assertions challenged), my previous posts responding to you contained no insults. Ergo, your reactions to them tell us far more about you than you realize.

[Faithful_Servant]

Here we go again....


If you're seriously telling me that President Bush declared war on Saddam Hussein's Iraq for the benefit of the oppressed people of the Middle East, to help out his fellow man, and to liberate all those poor downtrodden Muslims (or "ragheads", to use just one of the terms I've seen used many times on this board), then you're stupider than I gave you credit for. He did it a) because Iraq has oil, b) because after forcibly demolishing most of Iraq's infrastructure there would be lots of lucrative contracts for his buddies at Haliburton and Enron, and c) because he's "on a mission from God". Are you completely stupid or do you just save it all up for us?
War for oil. What a stupid concept. If we wanted oil all we have to do is ask for it, it's there in quantites beyond your comprehension (more than four). Russia, Eastern Europe, the gulf of Mexico, the Athabascan tar sands in Canada, North Slope, S. America... the sources of oil go on and on. Why would we do something so stupid as invade Iraq for oil when there's far more than we can refine easily available already?

Haliburton and Enron? You are too stupid for my words to describe. I will leave the describing of the depths of your stupidity to the experts DD and Wyatt. If all we wanted to do was create contracts for Haliburton, why didn't we just do it here at home? There's thousands of opportunities that would have created far more goodwill here and abroad w/o the loss of lives. Using them as a excuse makes absolutely zero sense.

On a mission for God? If pursuing the righteous cause of protecting innocents against evil is being on a mission from God, then so-be-it and pass the ammunition. If we don't stand for what's right, then wrong will prevail. Evil is like cancer, if you don't stop it, it kills you.



Thank God you people are just the lunatic fringe, and aren't representative of America. There might still be hope for your country.

I've got some bad news for you, cannibal. We aren't the fringe, we are the mainstream and growing every day. We are our contries greatest hope, we are men and women who are willing to stand up for what's right, to sacrifice when called to, to defend the weak. We ARE America. With every abortion and gay relationship, the left grows weaker and the RIGHT grows stronger. You are killing your future, we are creating and defending ours. It is a future where men and women are free, righteous, God-fearing citizens of the greatest country on Earth. You are the fringe, you are the aberrations, you are the greatest problem this country faces.

[Peachdiane]

LOL! I wouldn't be surprised if King Catatonic, King Kenny, and the rest of the RedCafe gang were still popping up.

I'll never forget when they said I needed a dirty sanchez. I found that a real hoot considering they were likely fudge packers. :D

I'm sick of this "No WMD" chatter. Anyone with common sense knows Saddam had 'em. And recently more arms and chemicals have been found. I wish more people would also read "Saddam's Bombmaker" by Hamza who describes how he helped Saddam design a nuclear bomb over the course of 22 years. And the "Threatening Storm" by Pollack.

But what the hell, you give 'em a thousand links and book titles and they still keep their head up their ass. :whatever:

[Urbancannibal]

:moo: No, we don't represent "America", just 52% of the United States.
YOU represent 52% of the United States?? Hahahahahahahaha!!! The arrogance of you!!

Materially rich, but morally bankrupt, and still you're convinced you're something more than dinosaurs. The far right is completely inexplicable.

And now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and wash in very hot water. I feel quite unclean after mixing with you people.

[DoctorDoom]

Don't fret about being further exposed to us. Your days are very short here. And it certainly didn't take very long for you to expose the lie of your being an adult. If you're over 16, I'd be astounded. No adult could be so clueless and immature.

Give Cantona and the other freaks my regards.

[Urbancannibal]

Don't fret about being further exposed to us. Your days are very short here. And it certainly didn't take very long for you to expose the lie of your being an adult. If you're over 16, I'd be astounded. No adult could be so clueless and immature.

Give Cantona and the other freaks my regards.
Oh no!! You mean I might have to stop coming here to play with my nice little friends the Freak Conservatives? Oh mama...say it isn't so! :rolleyes:

I don't know this Cantona bloke you speak of. But whatever his politics, I bet he's a more worthwhile member of the human race than you, you prick.

And if I'm a kid at 39, then I hope that would make you at least 80, which is good, because that means you'll soon be dead. Unless 80 is just your IQ.

Sayonara, sucker! It's been...realistic.

[DoctorDoom]

39? Well, it might be your chronological age, but intellectually you're just out of puberty.

And don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. The impact could cause severe brain trauma, and the NHS won't cover such things.

Still, I must confess that...

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Ants.jpg" /></center>

[Riverboat]

Materially rich, but morally bankrupt.
Not as rich as Soros, though.

Go finish your business in the bathtub, now. Be sure to scrub that O-ring well. Sometimes it gets a little impacted when your thumb has been stuck in there too long.

[I Love My Country!]

Well if republicans are rich, then that means more and more people in America</ST1:p are becoming richer. :)

<O:p

More and more people are registering and voting republican. If the democrat’s are for the poor then that means there is less poor people because less and less people are registering and voting democrat. FACT. :)<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

It also might be the fact that abortion is destroying the left. I went over this in detail in another post but since you're here I would like you to offer you some advice.<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

It's VERY obvious that we're becoming MORE and MORE conservative (the United Sates). Every since abortion has been legalized the right has been destroying the left in ALL three branches of Government. FACT! <O:p</O:p


Every time a conservative couple gets pregnant they have the child even if they consider it to be a burden because it's the right thing to do. Most conservative families are large. Four or more children. Now, a liberal is going to have an abortion (especially if they consider it to be a burden). They will have either no children or very few.<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

Ok, the way you pass on your torch is through your children. Say if I have five kids and pass on my torch... I've got 5 red torches out their burning bright. When a liberal passes on their blue torch, their either going to pass on 1, 2 torches (3 kids is pushing it), or their looking around trying find some one to pass that blue torch onto. In essence the left is systematically destroying themselves with self induced extinction. It's ironic that the very lifestyle liberals so vehemently protect is the very lifestyle that will be their destruction. In the end the big guy upstairs has the last word in everything. For every action there is a reaction... cause and effect. Also I could say that abortion is the best thing to ever happen to conservatives. Please continue to destroy your offspring. Every time you do, that is one less liberal on the face of the earth, you’re only making us stronger. Same with fags, they'll have noe one to pass their blue torch onto either.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

I had this discussion with a professor. The discussion started about how republicans where taking over all three branches of the government. The class was pretty much was coming to the conclusion that the right was using dirty tactics, cheating and destroying votes. I disagreed with them. It was pretty much me and two others against the entire classroom and the professor. I continued to press my argument. By the time I was done I could see the horror on everyone’s faces in the class room. They were struck by the obviousness of the truth. It was like a ton of bricks hitting them in the chest. A reality check, if you will. Never again did they try to gang up on me after that argument. The professor would not even look at me for 2 days until he approached me and said that my words made him look at life in a different light. He told me, "not in 23 years of teaching, has a student altered my thought process on abortion, bravo Mr. *******".


I know I changed some minds that day about abortion I could see it in their faces. What's so messed up is... they didn't change their stance because abortion kills innocent children... rather that is kills their very way of life. No offense, but the left is one *ucked up bunch. Have you ever heard saying that, children are the furture? So true. Without children YOU HAVE NO FUTURE. Please by all means continue to destroy yourselves.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

[DoctorDoom]

Add to that argument the fact that abortion rates are statistically higher for minorities than for whites, and that Margaret Sanger, the founder of PPFA, was a racist bent on eugenics.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?Planned Parenthood (http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html)

Undeterred by data demonstrating otherwise, Democratic leaders like Reps. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) and John Conyers (Mich.) continue to complain that the black community will suffer disproportionate casualties in a war with Iraq. Their erroneous claims that blacks are more likely than whites to come home from war in body bags have led them, and others, to support the return of the draft for reasons of "racial equality." The truth is, although blacks enlist in the armed forces at slightly higher rates than whites, and stay longer (bringing their overall participation in the military to 21 percent), they have historically suffered casualty rates far below their participation rates. Contrary to the claims of Conyers and Rangel, 12 percent of Americans killed in Vietnam were black — a figure that is proportionate to their numbers in the overall U.S. population.

Sadly, however, Conyers, Rangel, Sharpton, et al. continue to miss the real story of racial disparity in casualty rates: the disproportionate numbers of black casualties in the war on the unborn. While Sharpton and the other Democratic presidential hopefuls celebrated the 30th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade at NARAL's gala, the black community continued to be decimated by abortion rates that are nearly three times the rate of whites.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control indicate that while 56 percent of all women who obtained legal abortions were white, the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 per year) for black women was 2.9 times that of white women. For every thousand black women, 32 have abortions, as compared with 11 for every thousand white women. Likewise with numbers of abortions per 1,000 births: The abortions/births ratio for white women was 184 abortions per 1,000 live births; for black women, it was 543 abortions per 1,000 births. This means that abortion ratios for black women were 2.8 times greater than those for white women. Sadly, black women were also more likely to obtain riskier abortions late in their pregnancies, while white women were significantly more likely than black women to obtain abortions before 16 weeks.Blacks and abortion (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/comment-hendershott013103.asp)

You could see into the reception area from the street. The walls were painted in soft pastel colors. The furniture seemed - to my six-year-old eyes, at least - to be quite elegant. The staff seemed to be entirely made up of cheerful-looking young white women. The sign said "Planned Parenthood." My father lifted an eyebrow and said something that made no sense to me at the time. He said, "Not everyone who smiles in your face is your friend." I started to ask my father what he meant by that, but - even at that tender age - I realized that, when my father was deliberately vague, the conversation was over.

Years later, I have had occasion to ponder my father's seemingly cryptic words. At that time, our neighborhood lacked a grocery store. The nearest thing was a small market five blocks away. If you couldn't find what you wanted there, the next option was a trip to the open-until-midnight Giant. Unless you owned a car, however, this trip involved taking two buses or paying for an expensive cab ride. We did not have a bookstore, drugstore or a dry cleaner. The elementary school was so bad that my parents found it necessary to make the financial sacrifice of placing me in a private school. In fact, we had little of the conveniences that my parents said other neighborhoods possessed. But, somehow, someone had been happy to provide us with this beautiful new abortion clinic.

We were not alone. According to LEARN (the Life, Education and Resource Network), an African-American pro-life organization, an astonishing 78% of all abortion clinics in this country are in or near minority neighborhoods. Black America is 12% of the general population, yet we account for a whopping 40% of the abortions. How did this come about?

In the late 1930s, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, came up with the idea for the infamous "Negro Project." Sanger, despite the rosy and saint-like portrait the organization presents of her, was a frank racist. Judging by her public statements and private letters, the woman thought that blacks - southern blacks in particular - were simple, child-like brutes whose fertility needed managing the same way a farmer needs to tend to his breeding stock of sheep or cows.The Big Lie (http://www.rightgrrl.com/1999/biglie.html)

For women in most age groups, the abortion ratio increased from 1974 through the early 1980s and declined thereafter, particularly for the youngest and oldest reproductive-aged women (Figure 3). Abortion ratios for women aged less than 15 years have been and remain higher than those for the other age groups. Although abortion ratios increased slightly for women aged less than 15 and 15-19 years from 1995 to 1996, these ratios remained among the lowest ever recorded for these age groups. The abortion ratio for women aged 20-34 years (i.e., the group with the highest fertility rate) (7) has remained stable since the mid-1980s.

In 1996, approximately 54% of reported legal induced abortions were obtained at less than or equal to 8 weeks of gestation, and approximately 87% at less than 13 weeks (Table 6). Approximately 16% of abortions were performed during the earliest weeks of gestation (less than or equal to 6 weeks), approximately 17% at 7 weeks, and approximately 21% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few abortions were provided after 15 weeks of gestation -- approximately 4% of abortions were obtained at 16-20 weeks, and 1.5% were obtained at greater than or equal to 21 weeks (Figure 4; Table 6).

Almost all (98%) abortions were performed by curettage and less than 0.5% by intrauterine saline or prostaglandin instillation (Table 8). Hysterectomy and hysterotomy were used in fewer than 0.01% of abortions.

Approximately 57% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were white (Table 9). The abortion ratio for black women was 555 per 1,000 live births; this was approximately 2.7 times the ratio for white women (202 per 1,000 live births). The abortion ratio for women of other races (360 per 1,000 live births) was approximately 1.8 times the ratio for white women. In addition, the abortion rate for black women (31 per 1,000 women) was approximately 2.6 times the rate for white women (12 per 1,000 women).Abortion Surveillance -- United States, 1996 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss4804a1.htm)

The same disparity is cited in the 1999 report (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm).

http://blackgenocide.org/images/graph.gif

Minority women constitute only about 26% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 10 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions.Abortion and the Black Community (http://blackgenocide.org/black.html)

Personhood is always redefined to exclude the intended victim class.

• In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws codified the exclusion of Jews from German society. The next year, the Reichsgericht (Germany's highest court) essentially legalized the Holocaust. Cartoons routinely depicted Jews as pigs, dogs, rats, and other vermin.

• In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Blacks "...a subordinate and inferior class of beings..." in [Dred] Scott v. Sandford. Black slaves were often assigned diminutive names, such as "Mingo," that were normally reserved for pets.

• In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court found that "the word 'person,' as used in the [Constitution], does not include the unborn." Today, unwanted children are spoken of in dehumanizing terms: "embryo," "fetus," "products of conception," etc.

Genocide often framed in the language of "choice."

• The Nazis asserted that the racial make-up of the German nation was an internal matter for the German people to decide. They also emphasized Hitler's choice, his "Will to Power," as a Nazi propaganda film put it.

• In the Senatorial debates of 1858, Stephen Douglas said that he was personally opposed to slavery but that each state should have the right to choose whether to be a slave state or a free state.

• Pro-abortion advocates argue that if pro-lifers don't like abortions, they shouldn't have them. Abortion is not mandated; it is a matter of personal "choice."

Victim class tends to be people who have what we want or get in our way.

• Eastern Europeans owned land that the Nazis wanted for lebensraum ("living space") for the German people. Jews owned material wealth that Nazis wanted for themselves.

• Blacks owned the work product that slave owners desired for themselves. The loss of this uncompensated work product would deprive slave owners of material wealth they desired to maintain.

• Killing babies is often justified based on the desire to acquire material wealth and /or maintain lifestyle. Babies get in the way of career development, women's rights, sexual freedom, etc.Comparing Abortion to Other Forms of Historical Genocide (http://blackgenocide.org/abortion.html)


Since liberals are almost uniformly pro-"choice" (except for the choice of the unborn), it is obvious that they also support eugenics. That's the most evil, cold-blooded kind of racism.

[nene]

I
Thank God you people are just the lunatic fringe, and aren't representative of America. There might still be hope for your country.
"Lunatic Fringe", sounds like the name of an 80s hair band.

[DoctorDoom]

And one more powerful indictment of abortion's war on blacks...

Abortion is racism in its ugliest form. Because of some very suave planning by abortion supporters and providers, abortionists have eliminated more African-American children than the KKK ever lynched. This is one truth that is very disturbing. Think about it. From 1973 to 1992, abortionists have snuffed out the lives of over nine million African-American children before their first birthday. Over nine million beautiful black children were prevented from ever having the opportunity to become artists, musicians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, judges, taxi drivers, ambulance drivers, nurses, secretaries, senators, representatives, salesmen, sales clerks, computer programmers, analysts, managers, waitresses, waiters, tellers, leaders, followers, ordinary people, extraordinary people, parents, grandparents, and ancestors. They were robbed of the most essential of all rights -- the right to life. They were robbed of their opportunities, and those of us who remain are robbed of their contributions to humanity.

When liberal racists defend abortion as a way to help blacks, I challenge them to show me the bodies of the dead African-American children the abortionists have helped.

When a plantation Negro says he supports abortion because he cares about the sisters, mothers and daughters, he is a hypocrite of the lowest order. To deny the next generation of brothers and sisters the right to live is the ultimate self-destructing mechanism in the African-American community.Abortion: The Robbing of a Heritage (http://www.pregnantpause.org/racism/robherit.htm)

[Warlady]

cannibal if Bill Clinton had opted to depose Saddam would you still be against it? I think not.

[Warlady]

Doc you are mistaking his age for his IQ.

[I Love My Country!]

Wow thats some good info Doc! Now I've got some more ammo! :)