MonteZuma

Iraq was inconsequential in the period between Sept 2001 and the invasion. They had no military, no WMDs, they had no-fly zones, they had weapons and nuclear inspectors from around the world, they had an international naval blockade surrounding them - and this was all maintained by a relatively small number of soldiers and some political manouvering and coercion (of the Iraqi government and other governments - to support the sanctions, etc) at relatively low cost. The situation now is that massive amounts of men, machinary and money are being chanelled into Iraq. Terrorist activity has increased - in Iraq and world-wide. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts are dead. Thousands of citizens in other countries are also being killed. Those resources and the good will of dozens of nations have been squandered - for what? How has Iraq been a success in the war against terror? It has been an unmitigated disaster and a net drain on the war on terror.

Yeah...The Terminator (who the -*BAD WORD*- can spell Schwarzenegger?) said words to that effect. I thought it was ridiculous too. It is part of a republican campaign to smear the UN. I hope I'm mistaken, but it seems to be working in the US. Outside the US though (even in 'willing' countries), I think the UN has as much or more support now than it did before the Iraq debacle began.

Have you heard of the IRA? They're "christians".

--->This article sums it up<--- We get pretty good coverage of the US election campaign, and to me it seems way over the top - on both sides of politics. So much ridiculous flag-waving, capped teeth, hair spray, red, white and blue streamers and banners, hypnotised supporters, jingoism. Frankly, its sickening. I don't know how sane Americans can tolerate it? But the Republican campaign is bizarre. The real people behind the Bush government and the war in Iraq have disappeared from the scene. We only see the movie stars and the moderates. The whole thing smacks of evangelism. The religious connotations of the speeches are overt. Bush is presented as the saviour of the christian world - here to deliver us from evil. I think it is becoming obvious that the 'hawks' and many republican supporters hate everything that the muslim world stands for and want to crush it - old testament style. Islam has replaced communism as the tool to ensure that quasi-religious fear and fervour - often masquerading as patriotism - is maintained. There is a dangerous mix of religion, capitalism, militarism and fanaticism in the US at the moment. Why do many Americans need to think of the world in terms of good vs evil?

So long as you don't export it, you can do what you like with your culture. We both believe in freedom of speech right? I'm exercising it by voicing my opinion. That isn't oppression. Cannibal culture says that it is traditional to kill and eat people, yet we don't allow cannabalism. Some cultures (and sub-cultures) are bad. The world is better off without them.

Emulation is the sincerest form of flattery

You are too close to the action. You can't see the forest for the trees. On every gun-related statistic (longguns, handguns, murder rates, suicide rates) the US leads other nations by a country mile. Gun control is always an election issue in the USA...it isn't in most other places. Only in America (and Iraq) will you see Presidents or Presidential candidates waving firearms around befor the cameras. You have the right to own gun in your friggin cons!@#$%^&*ution. Just look at the TV that comes out of the US and compare it to TV from other countries. You fired a gun to scare away dogs -*BAD WORD*-. Of course there is a gun culture in the US. It may not be in your face all the time, but it is there a lot more than it would be if you lived elsewhere.

No. The proportion of the US population that lives in urban areas is about 75%. Some European countries are less urbanised than the US (eg France, Norway, Italy, Greece, Switzerland). By comparison with the rest of the western world there is a gun culture in the US. Not everyone is a part of that culture, but it exists, and it is a big part of US politics. In most other countries, gun regulation is rarely debated. Pfft. If you can speculate and hypothesise about a runaway US government that tramples on the rights of citizens then I think it is more than fair to also hypothesise that civilian trouble-making groups might use firearms. In any case, explosives are already strictly controlled. If you ever plan to take over a tank factory from your own government you are gonna need something more powerful than garden-variety firearms.

Well. It might be a good idea to leave it up to local government to enact regulations if it was difficult for guns to be shipped and used across borders. Artificial boundaries like that make gun regulation difficult to enforce. Europe, as a whole, is less urbanised than Australia and North America. In fact, even in some of the most industrialised parts of Europe there is usually a lot of agriculture. The 'need' for guns is probably similar in all western countries. Australia isn't following Europe's 'lead' on this matter. In any case, farmers and hunters and others can still own a gun in Australia and Europe. There are different rules for people who need guns, and there are allowances for some groups that want guns - sporting shooters for instance. There is no gun ban, there is simply tighter gun regulation. True - and there are a lot more factors that come to play when you do look at murder rates, but the stats tell a similar story. For industrialised nations, based on murder rate, USA in first position and Finland is in 3rd position. I believe those rates would be less if those countries didn't have a gun culture. I am more worried that elements of society might run away on us. Look at the anarchists in Greece and the anti-globalisation protesters all over the world. Look at religious fanatics. Lets keep the guns out of their hands. If our governments get out of hand we won't be able to keep them in check with ordinary firearms. We'll need to be a lot more clever than that.

1) Swinging voter 2) I've crossed several socio-economic boundaries over my life-time. Both the left and right side of politics have advantages and disadvantages. Good government requires the right people for the right time. 3) In my country: More issues are in my mind now than in most election periods including: Honesty in government, international cooperation. domestic harmony, national sovereignty and security, infrastructure development, environment and sustainability, health care and social services.

Agreed, I have seen some BUTCH women though. But if I'm not mistaken, Marines do not put women on any of there front lines. This is so for several reasons including the physical ability of them. Also men tend to want to protect the women, rather than complete the mission if she where to become in evident danger. -triG No. Men and women generally have different physical and mental characteristics. Women are different morally too. If you've ever lived with one (aside from your mother or sister!) you'd know this.

I don't think our beliefs are all that different. But a right to bear arms? C'mon. >95% of people live in urban areas and have no need for a firearm. A 'right' to bear arms implies that there should be minimal regulation. I think there should be maximal regulation. 2nd amendment: In the 21st century, this amendment doesn't help make the US "a free state". It inhibits freedom and security. Murder statistics help tell the story.

Because they take steroids?

Yea. Who knows what might have happened if you just banged a garbage can or something? Someone might've got hurt. Wtf? Do you live on a farm in the woods or something? Sheesh. I'm glad my next door neighbours don't use a pistol to scare off strays.

US Department of Health and Human Services, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. More likely it is because of the high rate of gun ownership. There is a corelation. I'd like to see the NRA charts so that I can pick those apart too. Comparing the US to the country that has the third highest murder rate in the industrialised world hardly proves anything. The right to bear swimming pools is not written in the cons!@#$%^&*ution. Swimming pools and ladders serve a non-lethal purpose. And, in any case, where I live local government approval must be sought to install a swimming pool. All swimming pools must be enclosed by a childproof fence and gate and CPR instructions must be posted near the pool. Why the -*BAD WORD*- should it be easier to get a gun to put under your pillow than it is to get a swimming pool??!! Well yeah. I was just being an opportunist Maybe. But I think that it does make it politically more difficult to make regulations, even in local governments.

Maybe. But to get back on topic with Aileron, I think one of the tangents that I have taken is that freedom is a state of mind. Your state of mind is affected by the environment you live in. Sometimes living in a society with more privileges actually reduces your personal freedom. If we lived in a state of anarchy for example, I suspect that we would enjoy less freedom than we do in an ordered democracy.

The more freedom you have to drive a car, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to carry a club, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to swim, the more likely you are to drown. The more freedom you have with knives, the more likely you are to cut yourself. The more freedom you have to cook, the more likely you are to burn yourself. Get the point? The more RPG launchers you have, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more fissile material you have, the more likely you are to be killed by fissile material. Get the point? We are talking about the impact of having the right to own a tool that is designed to kill people. We are not talking about a tool designed to cut chicken.

Aileron wrote: You think that 1.5% of kids under 15 being killed by firearms (1% by homicide!) is a good result? I'd say that the US, Finland and Israel results are appalling. The following 10 or so rates are also bad, but the US rate is shocking. The child death rate from firearms should be negligible. What I have said from the start is that the second amendment is stupid. I am safer because my next door neighbour doesn't have a 'right' to bear arms. I'm saying that the second amendment makes the US a more dangerous place to live. Ridiculous. Guns should be banned in some places. Schools and aeroplanes for example. I agree that they should be highly regulated - that is pretty much my point. The second amendment makes it difficult for US states to implement sensible regulations because they impinge on so-called 'rights'. What I've proven is that high levels of gun ownership are directly linked to high levels of gun deaths. Nothing more. What I believe is that this demonstrates that the second amendment does nothing to advance the freedom or security that Americans enjoy. It actually reduces your personal freedom and personal security. I'm not interested in debating whether or not guns should be banned. All I know is that I am happy that my next door neighbour, the guy in the next office with the twitchy left eye, and the guy next to me in traffic don't have a 'right' to own a firearm. They all have to jump through lots of hoops before they get one.

You think having a gun under your bed is gonna stop some dude flying a plane into the Pentagon?

The murder rate and accidental death rate are the relevant statistics if we are talking about the effect of gun ownership on personal freedom and liberty, although I could also put forward a case that high levels of gun ownership contributes to higher suicide as well. Finland and Israel are both countries with a -*BAD WORD*-load of guns under beds. Its no surprise then that the US, Finland and Israel have the highest <15yo gun-related murder rates in the industrialised world. The US - and Finland and Israel - would have less homicides, less suicides and less accidental gun deaths if they had more gun control.

At first glance it sounds dumb, but the plan is to give military doctors an opportunity to practice their skills. Is that really such a bad thing? Medical training using silicone implants isn't all that different to military training using blanks. In any case, a woman who'd subject her body to a trainee doctor for the sake of vanity deserves to be canon fodder. Send 'em to Iraq.

Using your logic it is impossible to compare anything. (1) Size doesn't come into it. In any case bigger and smaller countries have lower death rates than the US. (2) Population doesn't come into it. These are death rates per 100,000. Some population densities are higher than the US and some are lower. (3) Well yeah. Exactly. Thus your post proves nothing. Somewhere along the line you missed the point. The more freedom you have to carry a firearm, the more likely you are to be killed with a firearm. Fact. Has the second amendment brought you more freedom? No. It has actually supressed it. I'll take freedom from violent gun death over freedom to carry a weapon any day.

The facts speak for themselves http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/00001168.gif Firearm deaths per 100,000 people http://www.ozemail.com.au/~montie/gundeaths.gif

I'll be the judge of that! Yes we do. A compassionate society tries to cater for anyone with a disability or disadvantage. Maybe. But a scraped knee or a sprained ankle is one thing. There was a story in the press here of a chronic migraine sufferer going to an ER. He was given panadeine or something and told to go home and lie down. The next morning he was dead. It is dangerous to ignore a person's fears and dismiss their illness as minor. If someone is prepared to wait in an ER for hours they obviously think they have a serious problem. I think it is best to give the person the benefit of the doubt as much as practicable. How long does it take to put a band-aid on a knee scrape anyway? You know. The point is, these people need care. Whether it be an emergency or not is fairly inconsequential in the end. Here is another idea. Why not have a GP's surgery inside the ER to cater for these situations? Then again, what difference does it make if the doctor is part of the ER or inside a surgery? These people are sick. Treat them. Its not really that simple. Again, if someone is prepared to wait in a ER for hours to get a band-aid on a cut finger, the least a doctor can do is put a friggin band-aid on it and send her back to the hostel she escaped from. Picking apart is fun!

I'd say most compensation claims aren't based on malicious intent. They are probably based on negligence. Based on my experience with ERs, when it comes to non-emergencies I think that they are designed to cater for the poor and for 'dumb -*BAD WORD*-s'. Everybody else goes to the doctor because the parking is better and the service is faster. They even have more and better magazines . Nevertheless someone needs to look after dumb -*BAD WORD*-s. Apparently Mrs.NaturalSelectionAtWork was not in a position to understand the extent or seriousness of her own injuries - and neither was the nurse behind the gl!@#$%^&* window at the ER. Only a doctor is qualified to give medical advice that is in any way conclusive. She went to an ER for professional advice and treatment. She got none. I can't see any practical way around it. If someone turns up at a hospital they must be examined and they should be given advice and treated. Dumb people are people too.