# america no. 1?



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

hi everybody! i ran across this article the other day, and i thought i would share it with you all here. what do you think about statements made? agree/disagree? discuss.

america no. 1? 

the author references a book called "the european dream" quite often. i haven't read the book yet, but i'm assuming that references are properly footnoted in the book. at least i'd like to think they are. i'm also not sure what he meant by south africa not being a developed country, but overall i think he makes a compelling argument that things have got to change in the good ol' u.s.a.

the other thing i'd like to see is how canada compares in all of the stats cited. i'd like to think we're doing better, but i can't shake the feeling that we're in a similar downward spiral as our friends to the south are. things like losing our manufacturing base and jobs to, for example, asia compare pretty well. another example: we keep hearing how our health care system is crumbling (i haven't personally experienced this, but apparently it's happening). also issues like crumbling (literally) public infrastructure (at least in ontario), politicians mis-managing our tax dollars, etc.

so i guess my questions are:

1) what do you think of the article
2) how do you think we compare in areas cited?

thanks for reading,

miguel


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

In 1985 my dad wrote a paper saying that the power (as in world n 1) would shift back to an European Union (was a plan at that time). This is rapidly tending to be so. Still have to see how Russia and China will come to Play in this power struggle, but Europe has the upper hand by far, thank god. 
today i heard on the radio that in a matter of months the Euro will officially be taking over the green-buck as currency standard, so even so this doesn't mean the US is done for, not remotely, but they should quickly get their act together. 

Canada? if the US is going down, they will drag Canada with them.
Face it , there are only 2 differences between Canada and USA

1) Quebec (thank god)

2) We despise Americans, even though we are pretty much the same.( go ahead and believe we are different).


I exaggerated a little(always do that, i guess to make the point) on most of the things i said, but i do wish Canada was less American. 
que sera,sera


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I do NOT "despise Americans"...thank you very much! 

And I do NOT depsise what they do as a country, either. 

I DO, however, openly despise the outright corruption that seems to come from one particular area of MY country though. And I rather think I may not be alone in this particular opinion. 

Is Europe "on the rise" right now? Hard to say. Certainly there are some limited indications to support this (A rising Euro among other things).

BUT...and it's a VERY BIG "BUT"....

Europe has a rapidly aging population. Worse than most of the other modernised regions of this world (with the possible exception of Japan). The only segment of the greater European population that is actually growing right now (and growing at a VERY fast pace indeed)... instead of actually shrinking...is the European Arab immigrant sector.

What does this mean for the future of Europe? Good question.
But we can certainly be sure of ONE thing. Europe as we know it will NOT be the same place about a decade from now. The demographic will have shifted noticeably by then.

Twenty or thirty years from now, it will probably be unrecogniseable compared to it's current form. Europe may still have a lot of great social programs in place that are working quite well, and may STILL have some of the most high-tech industries on the planet...or it may have begun to break up and devolve a bit under the onslaught of a whole new dominant culture. One that has a whole different set of ingrained priorities.

Or not.

But one thing is for SURE...the USA will STILL be attracting the very best and BRIGHTEST from ALL of the world's cultures into it's collective society of equals. Mostly because of the opportunities for great wealth that have always been the promise of America. Plus the fact that freedom and self-determination is an iron-clad guarantee in that particular land. It isn't, pretty much everywhere else.

The USA will still be growing and changing and enriching itself with new young blood in the next two or three decades...while Europe is fading and changing. And while Japan and Canada (amongst others) are shrinking and aging.

Guess who I'm bettin on?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> The USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and delusion.


I couldn't agree more.

Laterz


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

There will be changes, new nations will rise to a greater level of power, but America will not fall. In my opinion the great force behind all these theories is China changing its ways. That's great and all, but they are setting themselves up right now for some serous instability in the future. Simply put, you can't have a communist government running a capitalist society, while ruling a capitalist country. Sooner or later the hundrends of millions of the chinese poor will notice how they're being taken advantage of by the higher class, they work for the country while the rich work for themselves. China will fall much sooner, and much faster than America - without a doubt


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

We have TERRIBLE education!!! Parents don't take an active role. Teachers have no back up and no recourse. We are dumbing down as a nation plain and simple. 

"Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth"

Its hard to believe but I think this is the most important stat on the link. I mean really think about it. 1 out of 5!!!!! If that is really true we are a bunch of dummies.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Europe is most definitely a force to watch. This is a heterogeneous mix of cultures that is well over athousand years old. Their demographics in terms of age are barely different from the US and, unlike the US, they've tasted defeat and economic chaos in recent times. There are exemplary economic miracles at play in Ireland, Spain and the Baltic states. There are booming industries (e.g. Airbus). There are major challenges too, especially in Germany which is still trying to recover from the drain of the former Eastern provinces.

The biggest advantage of Europe is that they act with a longer term view. The contrast with the North American ideology of "here and now" is striking. Both cultures have a lot to learn from each other, but only one seems to have been taking notes.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> but only one seems to have been taking notes.


That's it. that's what i wanted to say. Disregard my despise mumble jumble, didn't come up with a more appropriate word at the time. But jwooget spoke my mind. 
sucks to suck at english.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

The US is a 2nd world nation currently lashing out at any and every other nation which has the temerity to "think different". The lashing out can take any form, but silly name-calling is the most telling. Remember Rumsfeld and his sneering "Old Europe" jibes? Bush and his "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists"?

Imagine what the US would be like were the rich and powerful to turn more of their energies inwards to domestic issues, and try to build a country fit for all of its citizens rather than just the well off.

But it's a whole lot easier and a whole lot more fun to make yourself richer by bullying and looting the rest of the planet than to solve internal problems and raise the standards of health education and welfare of your own people. Reminds me of the British and their wretched Empire, which enriched the few and left the many behind, while butchering/enslaving whole poulations.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> The US is a 2nd world nation currently lashing out at any and every other nation which has the temerity to "think different". The lashing out can take any form, but silly name-calling is the most telling. Remember Rumsfeld and his sneering "Old Europe" jibes? Bush and his "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists"?
> 
> Imagine what the US would be like were the rich and powerful to turn more of their energies inwards to domestic issues, and try to build a country fit for all of its citizens rather than just the well off.
> 
> But it's a whole lot easier and a whole lot more fun to make yourself richer by bullying and looting the rest of the planet than to solve internal problems and raise the standards of health education and welfare of your own people. Reminds me of the British and their wretched Empire, which enriched the few and left the many behind, while butchering/enslaving whole poulations.



We have millions enrolled on welfare. We have medicare for the elderly. We have medicaid for the low income. We have federal aid and grants for higher education for low income. We give social security payments for the disabled and medicare. We have a progressive tax rates which taxes the the rich more than the poor. We take in millions of immigrants. We have extremely high corporate tax rates. Sounds like a socialist state to me.

Think Different? There is no doubt the US has given money to some people here and some people there throughout time. But I really doubt you will admit that Iraq was a murdering oppressive nation. Or that Muslim Terrorists pride themselves on bombing soft targets. How about the food for oil. How about how these nations treat women. Are you going to admit this is bull as well? Doubt it!

Does Canada do business with such a bullying, looting, murdering, selfish nation? Tsk Tsk Benefiting from a nation that is taking advantage of the world. How could you. Oh Canada!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*The best and the brightest...*



MacNutt said:


> But one thing is for SURE...the USA will STILL be attracting the very best and BRIGHTEST from ALL of the world's cultures


This was true up to about 5 years ago. The main reason I and my family left Canada to work in Seattle was that the University of Washington was doing better research in my field than anywhere else in the world. We left (fled) Seattle in 2002 due to the economic & political chaos, insecurity (as foreign nationals, we had very little confidence that our rights were protected), and precipitous decline in research funding.



from the article said:


> Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore





MacNutt said:


> into it's collective society of equals.


Are you kidding?!? 'Society of equals' my ass. The only things that are equal are that my money's as good as yours. But whoever has the most cash is the most equal.



> Mostly because of the opportunities for great wealth that have always been the promise of America.


You're getting warmer. Greed is the fundamental motivation in a society of capitalism run amok.



> Plus the fact that freedom and self-determination is an iron-clad guarantee in that particular land. It isn't, pretty much everywhere else.


Um, yeah right. Unless you're an Arab, or a black, or gay, or atheist, or anything else the current ruling class finds threatening.

The Founding Fathers had the right idea, and they wrote one hell of a great constitution. It lasted a couple of centuries, a respectable feat, but I think they're cooked. Without a fundamental cultural shift, the American Empire is in decline. All the more reason to unhitch our wagon from that train-wreck while we still can. And I should point out that I really do care about the American people, and I really do respect all that they can and have done. There is lots worth salvaging from the collapsing empire, but I'm not sure it's collapse can be averted.

Cheers.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Don't quite catch your drift, D. Who's the "We"?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

U.S. 

Did you think I was talking about "We" the cubans?  

Just giving you a hard time.

I am really interested in seeing if you are going to agree with my second paragraph now that you know who "we" is.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Okeedokee. "We" is the US. (Could've been the Cubans, y'know .)

Now … this the paragraph?



> Think Different? There is no doubt the US has given money to some people here and some people there throughout time. But I really doubt you will admit that Iraq was a murdering oppressive nation. Or that Muslim Terrorists pride themselves on bombing soft targets. How about the food for oil. How about how these nations treat women. Are you going to admit this is bull as well? Doubt it!


"There is no doubt the US has given money to some people here and some people there throughout time." Nice little investment here and there's OK. No strings attached of course.

" … Iraq was a murdering oppressive nation …" Gulp. Um. Pots and kettles? Anyway, it was not so much oppressive as oppressed - by a very bad man who for some time was a friend of the West (US) but who isn't anymore so he's going to get a spanking, so that's OK then. We did the right thing. Both while he was a good man and a bad man. It was all worth it.

" … Muslim Terrorists pride themselves on bombing soft targets …". I'm sure they do. Ever wondered why? How's about our heroes at 20,000 feet with their hi-tech bombs. Bet they pride themselves as well. Not that they bomb soft targets. Well maybe a few by accident, but, y'know, it ain't easy.

" … food for oil …". What's that? Better consult the free people of Iraq about that.

" … how these nations treat women …". Shocking. Better send arrr boys over there and bomb some decency into the buggers.

As for "bull" well that's anybody's call.

Anyway, D, … here's some bedtime reading for you.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

So you admit he was a bad man and a bad country but instead of bashing them for years you decide to bash the US for years. Real balanced. You show how unbiased you view the world. The US since world war II has given billions of dollars to virtually every country on the planet. So who cares if we gave him money a long time ago. We buy oil too. So do you. 

You really show alot of intelligence comparing US soldiers to terrorists. Are you such a bigot that you have to compare US soldiers to Muslim terrorists to argue your point? Muslim terrorists bomb innocent people all over the world on purpose! The US does not! In fact the US gives foreign aid in many forms construction projects, food, medicine, peace keeping forces, loans, and disaster relief. Far more than your canada. That doesn't even include from private sources.

Do you really not know about the food for oil crap? Your anti war buddies France and Germany and others were making themselves and Saddam rich. While the people of Iraq were being taken advantage of. No wonder they didn't want Saddam out of power. Whats your reason? Because the US gave him money?

I don't want to go to war. I don't want to give foreign aid either. I just want to protect my country and do business. But if we did nothing everybody would hate us as well. Do you really care if Saddam is out of power in IRAQ? This really bothers you?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

D, what a terrible lot of (very incorrect) things to say about your correspondent. But I forgive you.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

HUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMM


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


OK. I think I'm calm now. Go ahead Snap let me hear what you got to say.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

I think you're a very cheeky boy.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Hey, D. Want to go again? I can wind you up real good. (Joke)


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Sorry. From american's perspective I am anti american but after visiting all the posts on this site I realize the rest of the world is either full of envy, hatred, or just pure bias. Its hard for me to just read everybody bag on the US and say nothing.

You and others throw out comments about the US and it sounds like you are defending other horrible people. As if the US is to blame for everything wrong in the world. Thats how I feel. Take it or leave it.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

You take it personally.
I wouldn't. Not on behalf of people who would swat me aside as soon as look at me I wouldn't. For instance: I refuse to attempt, even in parody, to "defend" the duplicitous creeps in "my" country who sent British servicemen to Iraq. These servicemen aren't defending the UK. They're engaged in hostilities on foreign soil at the behest of GW. Our simpering Prime Minister, trying to be big on the international scene, was overly quick to jump on the bandwagon. He should be in jail.

Further to that, I'll not be restricted in my criticisms of any institution, domestic or foreign, all the while I am able to speak aloud without being carted off to some secret police cell. Will my criticisms change the course of history? Will I allow myself to be browbeaten into acceptance or silence as long as I can say what I think? No and no are the answers.

When you see criticisms of the US (i.e. the Government and its foreign adventures) can you see why people say and think what they do? Envy doesn't come in to it as far as I am concerned I can assure you, nor does hatred. It's fear. People are s--t scared about what might be in the pipeline for them.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Bush and Powell talked publicly about the need to remove WMDs from Iraq and both said that was the reason for invasion of Iraq.

so far, WMD count = 0

911 Commission found NO LINK between Saddam and Al-Qaeda

so why did Bush and Powell say there was a link and there were WMDs and that was the reason for invading Iraq?

dead Iraqi civilians see http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

U.S. casualties see http://icasualties.org/oif/

if the justification for getting rid of Saddam was because he was a bad guy, then why didn't Bush just say so?

what's he got to hide?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> As if the US is to blame for everything wrong in the world.


The US is not to blame for everything just the majority of it, the US sticks it's nose into everything and play's the world like a game (ie: Noriega, Saddam, Bin Laden). I allways wonder how many more psychos your government has supported or given weapons too that will come back at a later date to become a inderence or a pain in the US's ass to make armed conflict necessary to remove them from power. The US invasion of Iraq was never about WMD's or saving the people of Iraq it was about and it only is about OIL and nothing else, the US couldn't get the OIL peacefully so they resort to the only way they know how to.

Laterz


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Snap please say whatever you want but when I think it is onesided I may jump in. Why do you and others on this forum choose not to criticize Al-Qaeda and Saddam and focus your (what seems to be contempt for the US) criticizim on the US is what I don't understand. Why does it seem that I am the only who can say the US made mistakes BUT........ 

Macspectrum, I don't remember all the details but weapons inspectors admited that there was stuff going on that shouldn't have been. It really isn't disturbing to me that we can't find the WMDs. Doesn't mean it wasn't going on. I think that you can logically come to the conclusion that there was WMDs there. This isn't new. Clinton made threats to Saddam as well. It was OK with all the liberals then but not now. No link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam? Alright. I'm still OK with that. They are friendly to Terrorists plain and simple. He was a hostile unpredictable man. How big of a threat he was is unmeasurable. I admit I don't feel near as threatened as others. 

It is entirely possible that Bush and his gang were sneaky about his intentions. But do you really have a problem with Saddam being out of power? Why does that offend so many. Many Many people looked the other way when Clinton was in office. Talk about a sneaky lieing piece of poop. Bush is no worse than any other past president. Anybody who can rise to that power has probably got some baggage. I don't know why he just didn't come out and say it. It seems like he is now. Listen to all his speeches lately. He is setting up his legacy of bringing peace to the world. He wants to try and be the guy that claims he brought democracy to the whole world. I hate it. I want us to mind our own business. But I am not going to say nothing when someone can't represent current issues from what I see is a fair position. I think I am the only one on this forum who says saddam was a bad man, terrorists kill innocent people, terrorists engage in cowardly war tactics, and Iraq treated their citizens like crap. 

Its like the cops showing up on the doorstep of a wife beater going in his house without a warrant and then the whole world doesn't mention how this guy brutally beat his wife. What gives? The guy is a piece of poop and the cops blatantly violated his rights. 

Really all things aside you have to see the aggression towards the US right? Thats all I am saying. I am showing a little aggression towards the other bad guys. Thats all!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah...Bush is responsible for so many "awful" things these days.

Like the fact that democracy is breaking out all over the middle east for the first time in history and the world's worst tyrant is now behind bars instead of sitting on huge pile of oil money while threatening everyone...including his own people.

But it's easy to lose sight of all that good stuff when you are too busy hating Bush.

Programming is sooo darned hard to shake off, after all.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

well, macnutt, just keep on shaking, baby. maybe you will break through it.

naah.

see you in hell, kid.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

vacuvox said:


> well, macnutt, just keep on shaking, baby. maybe you will break through it.
> 
> naah.
> 
> see you in hell, kid.



maybe there is something "funny" in that SSI water of his that keeps him leaning to the right
some sort of inner ear inbalance caused by this "funny water"

could be a big market for it bought by republican strategists for use in the "blue states"


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

D, you just go off the deep end whever you want. It's harmless. It must be like lancing a boil.

I for my part have no delicate patriotic streak. You'll not find me wrapping myself in the Union Flag and cursing critics of things British.

I'm not a terrorist sympathiser - but I think I can see why there is such strong anti-US, and anti-British, sentiment. Try and figure it out calmly.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Snap, I think you are just avoiding the discussion. Not sure why. Maybe no backbone, maybe no argument, maybe no time, maybe no patience, maybe you didn't expect someone would challenge your US bashing on this forum. But telling me to calm down or that you can wind me up is definitly avoiding. I'm totally calm. 

Besides your comparisons of US and slaughtering, enslaving, looting are all in the shallow end of the pool.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
> 
> "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.
> 
> Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).


Maybe the US should get it's house in order before telling the rest of the world how it should conduct it's own business.

But I forget the Great American Motto *"Money before people"*

Laterz


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...http://www.unac.org/learn/wrld/starvation.htm

"By reading the newspapers, magazines and informative stuff I found out that about 13% of the people are starving in Canada and 45% of them are kids"

Starving, not hungry once last year but starving! 30 million in canada, 13% equals 3.9 million starving, 45% equals 1.755 million kids starving in canada. You guys love your stats. Maybe you need to start a free food program for all. Then you can have long lines at the grocery store, rotten produce, lots of rice, fairness, and justice.

Oh yea and did I understand you correctly when you said the US tried to get oil peacefully? Its kind of like admitting that it was impossible to get oil from those people peacfully. And it happens to be such a commodity that if you mess with its supply you are messing with lives wouldn't you agree. The whole world depends on it including you.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> Oh yea and did I understand you correctly when you said the US tried to get oil peacefully? Its kind of like admitting that it was impossible to get oil from those people peacfully. And it happens to be such a commodity that if you mess with its supply you are messing with lives wouldn't you agree. The whole world depends on it including you.


it probably went like this since the US has a track record with Sadam

US = Sadam can we have some oil?
Sadam = nope, the Europeans have 1st dibs on it.
US = give us the damn oil or we will blow the crap out of you.
Sadam = nope
US = ok now you asked for it.

6-12 months later after killing upwards of 100,000 Iraqi civilians the US controls Iraq installs a puppet government that is for all time subservient to the US wich means the US controls the 2nd biggest oil reserve in the world.

Laterz


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

That was a funny dialogue.  

Europeans have first dibs because they were making money. You don't have a problem with that because it wasn't CEOs making money it was political leaders and that makes it OK. 

And don't forget who was commiting war crimes hiding amongst civilians. Who were the ones hiding in mosques? Who are the suicide bombers posing as families? The US is not deliberatly bombing soft targets. They bomb their own people. The US does not. Our media calls them "insurgants". What a nice politically correct way to label murder. If these were christian "insurgants" they would be labeled as religious motivated racist freak monsters.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Always nice to watch a spin doctor at work. Or someone who has obviously bought into all of the left/lib anti-Bush spin at the very least.

-100,000 Iraqis were NOT killed by the USA during the thirty day period that it took to remove Saddam from power. Most were killed (and still ARE being killed) by radical "Islamic" terrorists...usually by suicide bombings, some by attacking innocent crowds with automatic weapons, a few by beheading and torture. Many of the radical elements who are comitting all of this mayhem are from outside of Iraq. They would dearly love to destabilise this oil-rich country so that they could take control of it themselves and become the newest wealthy tyrants in the region.

Only the USA is stopping that from happening. So far, it's working. But at a huge cost to the Americans.The Iraqis have freely voted for their own chosen government...which WASN"T the one that the States had favored, BTW..and they seem to be proceeding on towards full democracy. Despite all of the attacks and murder that are being visited upon them by these death merchants.

And as near as I can tell, the US is not actually stealing any Iraqi oil just yet. Please let us all know when they do, okay? Just so I can readjust my brain and reset my ideology.

Or...maybe you might want to readjust yours, KOS.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Always nice to watch a spin doctor at work.


now i understand your attachment to CNN.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I trust you on this


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Hey, Miguelsanchez, great thread by the way!

This is fun.

Hey, Duderino, the US is no. 1. OK?


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

thanks, snap. i was hoping to spark some discussion, although i was hoping that it would revolve more around how we think canada is doing in the areas cited, and if we are following the u.s. down the same path. 

good to see some heated debate, though. the range of opinions is really interesting.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Hey, Miguelsanchez! Yeah, I hope I'm wrong but it looks to me as though we're all getting sucked into the great pan-American vortex. Not only that but we're supposed to wag our tails appreciatively and bow before the Great Oval One and his Pentagonal friends (thanks to Gore Vidal for that imagery) and all their deeds. 

The greatest pity about Pax Americana in the long term is the lack of diversity, apart from rich and poor, that will result from Planet Bush or whatever they rename Mother Earth.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

miguelsanchez said:


> thanks, snap. i was hoping to spark some discussion, although i was hoping that it would revolve more around how we think canada is doing in the areas cited, and if we are following the u.s. down the same path.


Yea I did provide some facts provided by the United Nations Association of Canada that shows 1.7 million children are starving in canada.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Errr..... Dudireno, that was a report from a grade 8 student (from a school just down the road from where I live). It is incorrect. There is poverty in Canada as well as malnutrition but if anyone is truly starving, it is because they are lost in a wood somwhere...... As the student points out, we do have food banks for those who are on low incomes.

I thought you posted it as a joke (with the wicked sense of humour that you have  )


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> -100,000 Iraqis were NOT killed by the USA during the thirty day period that it took to remove Saddam from power. Most were killed (and still ARE being killed) by radical "Islamic" terrorists...usually by suicide bombings, some by attacking innocent crowds with automatic weapons, a few by beheading and torture. Many of the radical elements who are comitting all of this mayhem are from outside of Iraq. They would dearly love to destabilise this oil-rich country so that they could take control of it themselves and become the newest wealthy tyrants in the region.


From what I've read on a few websites the number is closer to 200,000 civilians but the US military put there estimates down to around 20,000 so the truth allways lies somewhere in the middle that's how I came up with the rough 100,000. 



> And as near as I can tell, the US is not actually stealing any Iraqi oil just yet. Please let us all know when they do, okay? Just so I can readjust my brain and reset my ideology.


Really then what was the name of the 1st oil company to get a contract in Iraq after they deposed of Saddam? hmmm ex ceo is the currrent Vice-President hmmmm what was that answer? *Haliburton* and the last time I checked they were from the US so yeah I bet that contract was tendered without much competition from Europe, Russia, or even Canadian companys. That ladies and gentleman is grand theft.

Laterz


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

K_OS said:


> what was the name of the 1st oil company to get a contract in Iraq after they deposed of Saddam? hmmm ex ceo is the currrent Vice-President hmmmm what was that answer? *Haliburton*


Actually, Halliburton is not an "oil" company as such. But they do service oil companies; Unocal, Exxon etc. So they stand to profit whenever new wells and refineries are recquired - or whenever oil facilities ones are damaged - by war or insurgency. Halliburton also services the US armed forces - and, interestingly, the British armed forces (notably, British subs... according to Halliburton's website). They have long specialized in building prisons and made a tidy profit from the American prison boon in the 4th quarter of the 20th century (average of one prison built every week) resulting in their current dominant business position.

Building prisons was excellent training for building forward military bases. So not surprisingly, they are currently busily occupied building military bases and prisons (and operating them) in Iraq (now that's infrastructure!) and elsewhere - as well as feeding and laundering the US army, navy and airforce and supplying gas for their vehicles etc etc etc - and building, rebuilding and maintaining oil production facilities, of course. So, I don't know, it seems like they might be pretty happy whenever the army is mobilized (or whenever insurgents are mobilized for that matter) resulting in destroyed infrastructure and prisoners. In short; peace... BAD for business: war & chaos... GOOD for business! I guess that's why it makes sense for the ex-president of Halliburtion to be the current vice president of the country that spends more money on their armed forces than the next 26 most militarized nations put together. DUH!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

jwoodget,



> Errr..... Dudireno, that was a report from a grade 8 student


The author of that report - wasn't someone by the name of Rude Dino by any chance was it?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Errr..... Dudireno, that was a report from a grade 8 student QUOTE]
> 
> 
> But her writing was so eloquent didn't you think.
> ...


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Eloquence is one thing, complete factual error is another. For an eighth grader, her essay was quite good although her understanding of starvation leaves much to the imagination (presumably because she, like most Canadians and Americans, has never experienced starvation). In our over-weight society, saying "I'm starving" is about as accurate as Bill Gates saying he's feeling impoverished this month.

I'm not defending the 18,000 people dying because of lack of insurance as I have no idea where that statistic came from. Sounds like hyperbole to me.


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

*could be*

That sounds about right

if the U.S. population is 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.) CIA factbook

then 18,000 would be a small percent

also that number does not aggregate the exact cause of death only the lack of heath care is said to have been the root .


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Alright. We agree.

I just don't think those that are quick to blame the US for everything would look at it with as much of a clear head as you jwood.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

goobertech said:


> That sounds about right
> 
> if the U.S. population is 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.) CIA factbook
> 
> ...


"Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)"

Well it says cause. It is an unmeasurable overexaggerated stat. Notice the little propoganda that goes along with it comparing it to 9/11. Come on. You just want it to be true so you can point your finger.


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

No really I think that is a good number , the person putting it next to the 9/11 stat was going for shock value .

Here in canada they put on cigarrette packs that 40,000 die each year from cigarrettes

I believe the 18,000 before I would believe that one from my own government

More so having once been dating a Doctor of public health I think that the number is accurate and is a _Good_ number .

the numbers can lie a bit though 

A man develops colon cancer and dies
If caught early, through regular check ups the cure rate increases
he had no medical coverage so he did not get regular check-ups 
Ergo he died from lack of medical coverage

I have all the medical coverage in the world , I still don't get regular check-ups and don't let the doctor stick his finger in my bum .

A thing to think about is more people die from medical accidents and over-medication ... maybe these people are better off with out medical coverage. 

And I have Big fingers


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

From CNN


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More people die each year in the United States from medical errors than from highway accidents, breast cancer or AIDS, a federal advisory panel reported Monday.

The report from the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine cited studies showing between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year because of mistakes by medical professionals.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Goobertech, he died of colon cancer, not having medical insurance coverage just contributed to his early death. 18,000/300,000,000 is a very small number. The comparison to 9/11 is just sensationalistic journalism (if you can even call it journalism). Pick another disaster that is apropos of a given time frame. That's 10 times as many people that perished in the Titanic disaster, or some such stupid comparison.

If you are over 40 and you go for regular check ups you will get a finger in your bum. Although if you are in good shape, and ask your doctor for a physical, he will usually be baffled by the request. Seems you need to be fat and sickly for them to want to give you a check up.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"The report from the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine cited studies showing between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year because of mistakes by medical professionals"


That seems far more measurable.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Carex I completely agree


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Goobertech:


> Here in canada they put on cigarrette packs that 40,000 die each year from cigarrettes


The Canadian Cancer Society says that 47,500 Canadians die of tobacco-related disease each year. The CCS is a not-for-profit organization and the number is derived from the summation of tobacco-induced lung cancer, heart disease and strokes. In each case, the evidence is compelling that the deaths were due to the smoking of the person, rather than background (the most obvious clue being the age of death compared with non-smokers who succumb to the diseases). Lung cancer occurs in non-smokers but the relative risk is greater than 20:1 (and the prognosis for non-smokers is typically better). I'm sure there is some rounding and extrapolation in the figures but I do not doubt that the overall burden is both realistic and accurate.

The good news is that the incidence of smoking is steadily declining in Canada - to 20% currently. In 1999, 25% of the population aged 15 and older smoked. In 1999, 28% of teens aged 15-19 smoked.


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

The point was to show that in truth that the peson died of colon cancer but could be caught up in the umbrella of "died because he had no health coverage " I don't know how strict or loose the critra was ...

but 18,000.... it sounds pretty strict and as I say a good number 

People with wealth are more likely to have reason to get annual check-ups 
I don't know if it still holds true today but when my father was made C.O.O. he was made to have a medical check up , also for his life insurance and when he was to travel overseas. 

on the smoking death thing
I've smoked for twenty three years , The government loves my taxes and doesn't seem to want to help me quit , in stead it tells me to drink a glass of water or go for a walk instead of smoking
Haahahahaha

I might as well burn every thing I own and go staight to prison with out stopping go ( I have a tough enough time keeping my temper with out nicotine withdral )

on the finger in your bum thing
I have complete homosexual panic ... Only one doctor ever tried , that was in the Armed Forces and he tricked me by telling me to touch my toes

 

I thought he wanted to see if I could touch my toes .

I came back up with my fists swinging


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Hey there, D!



> Snap that hurts my feelings. After all that talk about how inconsiderate I was. You of all people.


Not "inconsiderate", D, "incorrect". And I did forgive you in your moment of torment, despite your extreme impertinence.

By the way, sorry about the Rude Dino thing, U Doe Rind.

Now, back to the theme of the thread: "Is America no. 1?"


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

goobertech


> on the smoking death thing, I've smoked for twenty three years. The government loves my taxes and doesn't seem to want to help me quit , instead it tells me to drink a glass of water or go for a walk instead of smoking. Haahahahaha


There are several government sponsored programs for assist in smoking cessation (the first link has many links to programs, the second is more focussed on Ontario).

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/quitting/
http://www.healthyontario.com/english/features.asp?aggregate_id=42

I hope you do quit goober, since ciggies benefit only two organizations, big tobacco and the government.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Snap. I sincerely hope there is no hard feelings. I realize I irritate people here and its not just because of my point of view but also because how I say it. But I would venture to guess it is more because of my point of view. 

Anyway just wish you would have kept going with the issues you queef.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Hey there, D.

No hard feelings at all. And be assured that I bear you personally no ill will whatsoever. Even if I did - so what? Who am I to you after all? A complete stranger living 7000 miles away. A bit insignificant in your life eh?

My postings are the result of decades of sober pondering over events on the world scene. My viewpoint has not been hurriedly put together. 



> Anyway just wish you would have kept going with the issues you queef.


Now you're calling me a queef! Sheeesh.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

it was the only thing that came to mind to make fun of your name snapple Quaffer


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

OK, One Druid, I get it.

Making fun of a feller's ehMac name is a low blow.


----------

