Let's wait and see if it is true - false flag operations, terrorist attacks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

I stand corrected, he did drop bombs in 96 and 98 and missed him by a few hours after that. Wonder why nothing much happened after 1998?

---

Nothing more in his time in office?

Quote:

---

• In addition to a secret "finding" to authorize covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda's senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.

• The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.

• Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission.

• The CIA's directorate of operations recruited, trained, paid or equipped surrogate forces in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and among tribal militias inside Afghanistan, with the common purpose of capturing or killing bin Laden. The Pakistani channel, disclosed previously in The Washington Post, and its Uzbek counterpart, which has not been reported before, never bore fruit. Inside Afghanistan, tribal allies twice reported to their CIA handlers that they fought skirmishes with bin Laden's forces, but they inflicted no verified damage.

• Operatives of the CIA's Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda's tactical radios.

..."Until September 11th," said Karl F. Inderfurth, who was assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, "there was certainly not any groundswell of support to mount a major attack on the Taliban. This is just a reality."

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

Quote:

---

Gingrich and company derail the president and the country for two whole years over a minor sex scandal in the White House -- magnifying one act of oral sex into a full time, $50 million Independent Counsel investigation, weeks of House Judiciary Committee hearings, impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate -- and then they accuse Clinton of not staying focused on government business!

Have they no shame?

The truth, of course, is just the opposite. Given how distracted he was by the Lewinsky scandal, (which was of his own making, but blown out of proportion by his political enemies), it’s amazing Clinton was able to continue governing at all. And during that time, as The Washington Post reveals, he did a great deal to combat terrorism, much of it behind the scenes.

Clinton’s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile attacks of 1998, directed against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.

Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism.

So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas…

In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan…

Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart.

Conclusion: Rohrbacher, Limbaugh, Gingrich are dead wrong when they blame Bill Clinton for September 11. Did Clinton get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive?” No, but he came close, several times -- long before tracking down terrorists became a national priority.

---

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLI...umn.billpress/

Quote:

---

When terrorists first tried to take down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb in February 1993, there was no organized outcry of recrimination against George Herbert Walker Bush, who had left the Oval Office a scant six weeks earlier. Nobody sought political advantage by blaming Bush for the intelligence failures that had allowed the terrorist perpetrators to conspire undetected for more than three years.

And no liberal commentator attempted to pronounce that former president guilty of "criminal negligence" based on the sort of fabrications and falsehoods deployed since Sept. 11, here and elsewhere, against Bill Clinton. Yet recently, opportunistic critics have mounted a false indictment of Clinton, attempted to erase his administration's extensive record of action against terrorism and smeared him by suggesting he should have prevented the tragedy of Sept. 11.

---

And a whole lot more of what I've read in a few places here: http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/...ton/index.html

But I guess if you only count invading countries and shooting rockets as doing "something" then yeah, old Bill didn't do so much I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

...and turning world opinion against us in the process.

---

And I really wonder if any Bush supporter will ever admit (or should I say "realise") what sort of effect that's going to have on US security for a long time after Bush has left office imho?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Look at Loyal Rogue, he still thinks that talking about Plame's job was illegal. ;)

---

That's only because I choose to stick to the facts.
The special prosecutor already determined that she qualified on all counts as an undercover operative and leaking her real identity was a crime.
I'm sorry if you choose to believe FAUX news spin instead of the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Seems pretty effective to me... and he did it without needlessly spending half a trillion of our tax dollars, killing half a million innocent civilians, and turning world opinion against us in the process.

---

Shirley, you must be joking!

Arresting a couple guys involved in a world-wide network AFTER a successful bombing seems effective to you?

Yeah, that really deterred a lot of other terrorists, didn't it?

I said after 1998. I already ceded the point and changed my view on Clinton's efforts to stop Bin Laden ... it was one point in many of the original comment.

Another point on that bombing though, and this is a question, didn't that bombing result in them hitting a pharmaceutical building that didn't have any weapons in it?

Again, the nonsense about Monica was used to pull away from the whole thing. That's on the heads of the Republicans btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

About rallying the forces pre-911:
That's what leaders do. They know, before the general public does, who's planning what. There are tons of terrorists out there in the pre-9/11 era but Al Queda had made it a habit of bombing U.S. interests. After the, i don't know, fifth time ... someone should have told the American public about it. I'm personally disappointed that I didn't know jack about Al Queda before 9/11 and then found out they had been attacking U.S. interests for years before that.

---

leaders like Churchill and Roosevelt? I really can't think of one good leader that rallied the troops pre major incident without lying (hitler and poland).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

That's only because I choose to stick to the facts.
The special prosecutor already determined that she qualified on all counts as an undercover operative and leaking her real identity was a crime.
I'm sorry if you choose to believe FAUX news spin instead of the facts.

---

I believe you need to double-check your facts. It was found early in the case that Richard Armitage was the one who leaked her identity. I'll let you go ahead and do the homework regarding whether or not he has been charged with a crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

Apparently, you did - although much of what he fought for against a resistive opposition party in the congress ultimately got killed or defused when Bush took over, that's a far cry from saying that 'nothing' was done. It's also blind to the fact that the president doesn't write legislation - Congress does, and Clinton had a hostile congress for most of his eight years, whereas Bush had a rubberstamp for 6.

I find it somewhat ironic that the list of measures you mention are exactly what he was trying to do in the 90s; a bit of googling may help you out from under that rock.

---

clinton had a friendly congress his first 2 years, "hostile" for 4, and a split his last 2.

bush had a split his first 2 years and friendly for 4.. hostile for 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAlexC

Nothing? No missiles were fired?

---

sure did get those dangerous aspirin factories... and really bombed the stink of bosnia.

Quote:

---

Clinton was criticized for doing it by the Republicans at the time? The 93 bombing warranted the invasion of an entire other nation? The Republican Congress at the time would've supported him?

---

The congress was democrat at the time.

That's what I was asking about. When I read that post by Japan-guy, I thought I had missed something. Now that I looked it up, I remember now that Clinton's admin bombed the Sudan yes ... they bombed an asprin factory because they thought it was housing weapons (chemical). They did bomb a spot in Afghanistan where they thought Bin Laden might have been at and missed him by a matter of hours.

Why did you guys leave that out in the reporting of all the things Clinton did? ... and ultimately, as we can see, Clinton's efforts weren't successful.

HOWEVER, Bush's are a disaster, so it's another case of "there ya are".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

Putting forth things doesn't mean you're getting anything done. I can say the same about the Dems in Congress right now, who are saying a bunch of stuff but haven't actually DONE anything to end the Iraq War. That's what I mean when I say the Clinton admin didn't do anything ... no excuses, results. That's why Congress' rating is the lowest ever, they haven't actually DONE anything.

---

Did you miss the part where the Dems kept the Repubs. in session all night last night to force them to actually fillibuster a resolution to bring them home? That hasn't actually happened since the early 90s - filibusters were more of a gentlemans agreement rather than an actual mours-long debate. And what happened? Even with many Repubs. publically saying the war was a mistake and should be ended, they ended up voting the party line because they "made a promise" to give the surge till September; basically, they said they know it won't work, but are bound by party loyalty to leave the soldiers in harms way.

That's getting things done? The repubs. have completely switched to the obstructionist tact since losing in 06 - they've said it outright that they plan to stop anything the dems try to do. So, is it Ds being ineffective, or Rs putting party loyalty over common sense and the common good?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

That's what I was asking about. When I read that post by Japan-guy, I thought I had missed something. Now that I looked it up, I remember now that Clinton's admin bombed the Sudan yes ... they bombed an asprin factory because they thought it was housing weapons (chemical). They did bomb a spot in Afghanistan where they thought Bin Laden might have been at and missed him by a matter of hours.

---

...Japan Guy?

Quote:

---

Why did you guys leave that out in the reporting of all the things Clinton did? ... and ultimately, as we can see, Clinton's efforts weren't successful.

---

It's not our job to educate you on this issue - especially when you come in here shooting off a sarcastic tyraid about what Clinton didn't do without bother to actually, you know, research it first.

And I'd put to you: Clinton bombs Bin Laden, he lives. Bush bombs the entire middle east, Bin Laden lives.

And yet, repubs are so much better than dems on security...

The minority party is always an obstructionist.. if you believe otherwise you are somebody's *****.




anyway back to the false flags.. here is Mr.Magoo warning about a iranian gulf tonkin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Gee-wiz Dave, you're such a cynic.

What on earth would ever make you suspect that the group responsible for defrauding two elections, committing treason by outing an undercover CIA operative during a time of war, invading a country and killing over 500,000 citizens based on a pack of lies, embezzling $9 Billion in cash, and torturing POWs to death would ever stoop to something so low as running a simple false flag operation?
:rolleyes:

---

:) I think it comes from about 40 years of watching politicians lie and put their own interests before the well-being of their country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

anyway back to the false flags.. here is Mr.Magoo warning about a iranian gulf tonkin.

---

the guy doesn't make any sense. "our naval presence in the region" could cause war with Iran? so, now we should be worried about driving ships too close to a country that doesn't like us?

"...being used to justify having all options on the table". All options are always on the table, regardless of what people say they will and will not do. What advantage would be gained with Iran in saying "whatever you do, we won't do x, y and z." agreements are supposed to be mutual trades.

"rumors...!" so, we're in the business of gossip now? claiming rumors is fine between friends and co-workers. but, if you're supposed to be leading the country, it seems that you should make less room to speculate and let it be known who is saying what. we're talking about matters of a nation of people. not whether or not uncle Jimmy is rumored to have fallen off the wagon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

:) I think it comes from about 40 years of watching politicians lie and put their own interests before the well-being of their country.

---

I share that sentiment. That's why I don't understand why you guys think its better to have those monkeys in more control of programs than they need to be (health care, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I believe you need to double-check your facts. It was found early in the case that Richard Armitage was the one who leaked her identity. I'll let you go ahead and do the homework regarding whether or not he has been charged with a crime.

---

Actually Armitage is just one of several administration members responsible for leaking her identity and the trail of evidence continues to point to the VP office.
As to whether there can be any successful justice and prosecution of this crime with all of the lying and obstruction of justice is another matter entirely and has no bearing or relationship to the fact that she was an undercover CIA operative working on nuclear WMD investigations in the middle east.
Nor does it change the fact that by exposing her and her entire "Brassplate" company that the leakers also exposed and endangered every other undercover CIA agent that used her and Brewster Jennings as part of their own cover identities which at any time, but especially during a time of war, is not only illegal but an act of treason.
These are just simple facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

the guy doesn't make any sense. "our naval presence in the region" could cause war with Iran? so, now we should be worried about driving ships too close to a country that doesn't like us?

---

you can only fit so many carriers in the Persian gulf before you bump into somebody or accidentally shoot down an airliner.


and I really just wanted to call ron paul mr.magoo

Ahhhh, just like old times. :D

There you go, the new Bin Laden vid is actually five years old and already aired for the thrird time: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...oldfootage.htm

Fredi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subway

There you go, the new Bin Laden vid is actually five years old and already aired for the thrird time: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...oldfootage.htm

Fredi

---

Pfffft, you and your fancy, schmancy facts. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I share that sentiment. That's why I don't understand why you guys think its better to have those monkeys in more control of programs than they need to be (health care, etc.).

---

I can't get away from the principals I was brought up with. My father was a union man and a freemason. He believed in free early education (up to university level), he believed everybody should have basic access to some degree of medical and dental care. He taught me that no man is an island, that the real wealth and health of a society was reflected only by the poorest member.

That is why I favour government control over health and education. The trick is to get good decisions relating to those aspects of society, and sadly, you do not need to be well-intentioned, intelligent, or even honest, to be a politician.

david

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Actually Armitage is just one of several administration members responsible for leaking her identity and the trail of evidence continues to point to the VP office.
As to whether there can be any successful justice and prosecution of this crime with all of the lying and obstruction of justice is another matter entirely and has no bearing or relationship to the fact that she was an undercover CIA operative working on nuclear WMD investigations in the middle east.
Nor does it change the fact that by exposing her and her entire "Brassplate" company that the leakers also exposed and endangered every other undercover CIA agent that used her and Brewster Jennings as part of their own cover identities which at any time, but especially during a time of war, is not only illegal but an act of treason.
These are just simple facts.

---

You really have been busy.

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source who revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003, touching off a federal investigation, two sources familiar with Armitage's role tell CNN.

The sources said Armitage revealed Plame's role at the CIA almost inadvertently in a casual conversation with Novak, and it is not clear if he knew her identity was classified at the time.

Armitage was not indicted by the federal grand jury that investigated the disclosure of Plame's name to Novak and other journalists. Deliberately revealing the identify of a CIA operative can be a crime.

The revelation that Armitage was the source of Novak's column is somewhat anticlimactic for Bush administration critics who had used the story as a weapon in Washington's partisan battles.

During the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003, Armitage was viewed as one of the more skeptical voices in the administration about the need to depose Saddam Hussein by force.

...

Last month, Plame and Wilson filed a civil lawsuit alleging a conspiracy that "was motivated by an invidiously discriminatory animus towards those who had publicly criticized the administration's stated justifications for going to war with Iraq" and culminated with the disclosure that Plame worked at the CIA. This revelation destroyed Plame's career with the agency, according to the suit.

The scenario described by the sources familiar with Armitage's role, however, appears to contradict those arguments.

...

Novak has said he would not reveal the identity of the original source unless the source came forward. However, he said the special counsel in the CIA leak investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald, learned who the source was independently.

Fitzgerald has said he does not plan to bring any charges against Novak's original source.

...

In September 2003, Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Illinois, was appointed as a special counsel to investigate whether any laws were broken with the disclosure.

No one has been indicted for leaking Plame's identity, but Libby has been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators for allegedly giving false information about his discussions with journalists about Plame.

Libby has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

Fitzgerald notified Rove that he wouldn't be charged in the case, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said in June.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...age/index.html

Nobody was endangered. No operations were jeapardized. The whole thing has Nifong written all over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

I can't get away from the principals I was brought up with. My father was a union man and a freemason. He believed in free early education (up to university level), he believed everybody should have basic access to some degree of medical and dental care. He taught me that no man is an island, that the real wealth and health of a society was reflected only by the poorest member.

---

Quite understandable. But, the principle, in the end is the goal. The best role for government should be the one that delivers that goal best, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

That is why I favour government control over health and education. The trick is to get good decisions relating to those aspects of society, and sadly, you do not need to be well-intentioned, intelligent, or even honest, to be a politician.

---

Right. But, we could function perfectly well under a monarchy, if only the king (or queen) made "all the right decisions." At some point, don't you have to recognize that humans are not infallable? The people behind government and private endeavor are all equally prone to the weaknesses of men. The main difference is in what happens when each effort fails. Private efforts go out of business when they fail, losing ground to competition. When government efforts fail, they almost invariably end up becoming campaign fodder for politicians, are near impossible to change and become more expensive over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Right. But, we could function perfectly well under a monarchy, if only the king (or queen) made "all the right decisions." At some point, don't you have to recognize that humans are not infallable? The people behind government and private endeavor are all equally prone to the weaknesses of men. The main difference is in what happens when each effort fails. Private efforts go out of business when they fail, losing ground to competition. When government efforts fail, they almost invariably end up becoming campaign fodder for politicians, are near impossible to change and become more expensive over time.

---

What can be worse is if private enterprise doesn't fail. Private enterprise will almost always place profit over performance, no? And as is very obvious in medical coverage, if the top 20% are making them the profits then they don't really care about the lower 80%.

That's fairly common business practice, no?

Hence why having a public health system providing basic essential coverage, with a private system for those who want a little more, would certainly seem to make more sense.

As an example.

Given competition, private enterprise does not have the option to "place profit over performance" because if they do, their competition will take all of their business. That is precisely why free market economies work well. It is also precisely the problem with many government run programs, there is no competition.

The idea that the top 20% makes the profits for the health industry is complete nonsense. Where did you pull that out of? Only 4.5% of the working population is unemployed. Most of them are probably covered by their parents policies. Most businesses provide health coverage for their employees. That includes the vast majority of the country and the "lower 80%". The top 20% is not more profitable than the "lower 80%" because they also cover themselves medically with insurance. Why would they spend more out of their pocket for $150k medical procedures when they could have insurance like anyone else? A person in the lower 23.5% with medical insurance can go and have a $150k procedure done just the same as the top 20% can.

[The people who get screwed most are the ones who have to pay for medical insurance out of pocket. Not that that would be a bad thing if the system wasn't broken. But, what happens is that the health industry isn't under pressure to offer competitive prices because the people incurring the charges don't have to pay for them (their insurance does). Naturally, prices have become inflated and the margin game is in insurance policies with tricky caveats instead of in which hospitals provide the best care for the lowest price. Businesses and the self-employed get stuck with the bill for the inflated prices.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

The idea that the top 20% makes the profits for the health industry is complete nonsense. Where did you pull that out of?

---

http://www.google.com/search?source=...=Google+Search

Fairly well known business principle. I thought you of anybody would have been aware of it.

I probably haven't heard of it because it is practically useless and absurdly arbitrary.

"for many events, 80% of the effects comes from 20% of the causes."

yeah? for many MORE events, 80% of the effects do not come from 20% of the causes.

the existence of this abstract concept does nothing to further the idea that there is any empirical truth that the health industry gets all of their profit from the top 20%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I probably haven't heard of it because it is practically useless and absurdly arbitrary.

---

You're allowed your opinion, however I know of many business folk - and especially sales people - who agree with this basic principle of profit making and running a business.

Quote:

---

The original observation was in connection with income and wealth. Pareto noticed that 80% of Italy's wealth was owned by 20% of the population. He then carried out surveys on a variety of other countries and found to his surprise that a similar distribution applied.

It also applies to a variety of more mundane matters: we wear our 20% most favoured clothes about 80% of the time, we spend 80% of the time with 20% of our acquaintances etc.

The Pareto principle has many applications in quality control. It is the basis for the pareto chart, one of the key tools used in total quality control and six sigma. The Pareto principle serves as a baseline for ABC-analysis and XYZ-analysis, widely used in logistics and procurement for the purpose of optimizing stock of goods, as well as costs of keeping and replenishing that stock.

In computer science the Pareto principle can be applied to resource optimization by observing that 80% of the resources are typically used by 20% of the operations. In software engineering, it is often a better approximation that 90% of the execution time of a computer program is spent executing 10% of the code (known as the 90/10 law in this context).

In business, dramatic improvements can often be achieved by identifying the 20% of customers, activities, products or processes that account for the 80% of contribution to profit and maximizing the attention applied to them.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

And if private enterprise can make a greater profit by directing their efforts to the top 20% who are going to make them the greater profit for effort ratio, then of course they will. Private enterprise by its very nature isn't in it to provide a service, but to make a profit.

For a very simple, real world example, that can be seen with bus services. Where the service is government run and the priority is on the service rather than profit, it means low demand areas still receive adequate services. However where it's privatised that service becomes far less than adequate. And I have plenty of real world examples that show this.

My view is that yes, some services can be privatised, however not all services by any stretch due to this fairly standard business principle. Your view seems to be that all government services could - and indeed should - be privatised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

You're allowed your opinion, however I know of many business folk - and especially sales people - who agree with this basic principle of profit making and running a business.

---

I perused some of the other links in the google you posted. It seems that this is most often applied to the idea that "you don't have to fix everything to be happy".

The idea that applying an 80% to 20% ratio to anything is going to result in profits or improvements is baffling to me. Surely, if you can deliver your best service to 100% of the customers instead of just 20%, your profits will be even better. Or, how about just 21% of the customers. Wouldn't that be an improvement?

I guess it is just a matter of opinion. If the ratio for something happened to work best at 80-20, I would be embarrassed to try and re-inforce it by claiming the Pareto principle. in my view, that would just be where the right numbers landed.

anyway, this is distracting from the subject and this thread is distracting from work where im working on the Flashlackey ratio of 100% work and 0% fun! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I guess it is just a matter of opinion. If the ratio for something happened to work best at 80-20, I would be embarrassed to try and re-inforce it by claiming the Pareto principle. in my view, that would just be where the right numbers landed.

---

Just happens to be a principle that seems to have a lot of believers, and seems to be accurate for many businesses.

Quote:

---

anyway, this is distracting from the subject...

---

True

Quote:

---

...and this thread is distracting from work where im working on the Flashlackey ratio of 100% work and 0% fun! :D

---

Sucker!





*glances at own to-do list and grimaces.

Private enterprise IS in it to provide a service or product. That is the entire premise behind a free market. That two parties trade things that is seen as more valuable to the other. A private company offers a service in exchange for money. The person buying the service values the service more than the money and thus agrees to the exchange. Profit occurs when lots of people value the service more than lots of money.

Anyway, you're right, I do believe that we would benefit if most things were privatized and that we should always look for ways to minimize the size of government. Very few things really need to be under government control in order for leadership to live up to the responsibilities they are supposed to be limited to.

I think you will agree that we wont get anywhere trading anecdotal examples of getting bad customer service from a private company. Like I said before, humans run government and humans run private companies. They are all prone to the same faults. Private companies can die and new ones can emerge. Government programs have a long track record of staying the same, success or fail.

Private enterprise is in it to make a profit. IF that comes from providing a certain level of service to a wider range of people, great. However IF greater profit comes from providing better service to a smaller number of people, meaning less effort/expenditure on their part, then that is what they will do.

And there is more than "anecdotal" evidence of this happening time and time again.

Anyway, you were saying something about your work... ;)

Are you saying uncle? ;)

Government is more inclined to service...

Like Ma Bell?
How about the DMV? No happy jingles or greeters at the door there.

Maybe your issue is in the government services you have experienced?

So perhaps it's your government that's the issue?

;)

I certainly don't agree that examples of bad government services outweighs the many good examples that exist in many countries around the world, Australia being one of them. On the other hand, the general principle that private enterprise is in it first and foremost for the profit, and that in most cases the greater chance of profit comes from servicing those with the greater capacity to pay is fairly standard globally.

The core outlook that appears to be where we differ is to do with what we each believe are our responsibilities as a well functioning society. You seem to have the principle that everything should be "user pays", whereas I see an underlying facet of a well functioning society is the principle of "shared burden", that the delivery of a basic level of service across essential services (excuse the double use of "services", I'm tired and busy) to everyone in the community is the responsibility of all of us - via taxes - even if it means that those of us in better off, built up areas where more opportunities are available are contributing towards those in less well off, more sparsely populated areas with less opportunities. I see that as a basic underlying principle of a well functioning, democratic society.

And hence why perhaps we'll never agree. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

...Japan Guy?
It's not our job to educate you on this issue - especially when you come in here shooting off a sarcastic tyraid about what Clinton didn't do without bother to actually, you know, research it first.

And I'd put to you: Clinton bombs Bin Laden, he lives. Bush bombs the entire middle east, Bin Laden lives.

And yet, repubs are so much better than dems on security...

---

Yeah, i should have said Clinton didn't ACCOMPLISH anything instead of DO since we're hung up on the definition of the word "do" (kind of like the word "is"). I thought at first that you had brought up something that I didn't know, but it turns out it was the bombing of the aspirn factory that actually isn't a great showing of Clinton's effectiveness against Bin Laden ... but hey, he did something. I thought you had brought up an actual strike on Bin Laden's group, not the number of times that they missed him and hit the wrong target.

And to be fair, it is your job to not spin stuff and go "I have a piece of information that says x" and then I take it and go "oh, he's right, there's something that says x", only to go on later to find out it's actually "z" which is something I already knew about.

I don't know why this is a personal thing between you and I Japan-guy, but you don't have to put to me that Bush is worse than Clinton ... I think I said before that Clinton was a way better president. Because I'm critical of him not accomplishing (replacing the word "do") anything against Bin Laden doesn't mean I think Bush or the Republicans have done a great job either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

I can't get away from the principals I was brought up with. My father was a union man and a freemason. He believed in free early education (up to university level), he believed everybody should have basic access to some degree of medical and dental care. He taught me that no man is an island, that the real wealth and health of a society was reflected only by the poorest member.

That is why I favour government control over health and education. The trick is to get good decisions relating to those aspects of society, and sadly, you do not need to be well-intentioned, intelligent, or even honest, to be a politician.

david

---

I think you answered your own reason why government should NOT be in control ... because they are not informed or intelligent people in that field. They're not doctors, they're not business people, they're not teachers ... they're people who perform to get votes.

America is supposed to be the every man is an island nation. If that's what it is, that's what it is. You succeed or fail on your own steam. The government is supposed to be there to make sure the playing field is even ... although it fails at that sometimes. If they can't even regulate the playing field, do I want them running it?

I think the issue of who has "accomplished" more is just as debatable, imho. There are many who will argue that - security-wise - we are certainly no better off than we were prior to 9/11 (and that includes many non-US countries/citizens, hence why I think I'm qualified to give an opinion). In fact, many would also argue that we are in fact worse of, with a far greater chance of being attacked due to the actions of the current US admin over the past 6 years.

So "effectiveness"? As I said, just as debatable.