dizzy

For the sake of ending the singular focus onthis one point, I will bow to your point that I'm 'choosing' to not comment. I know you're asking for more info, which I won't provide in this moment without either: a. consulting them (I will, when I see them in a few months); or b. fabricating the story (I'll save my lying for life-saving situations) It was really an anecdote not meant for much more than to reiterate the point that not everyone gets served by the american system and that income is not the only barrier. A lot is shared in forums based on the assumption that info is competent. I don't have nay way of knowing that you're american or a woman, despite your name, or that you have parents who needed medical help. But there's nothing to be gained by not believing it's true. So, maybe the part of the problem lies in focusing our comments to the others' reality. Could you share with us what areas of the american system you feel need to be improved?

If you checked my modest post count here, you might discover that I'm not out to defend my healthcare system nor berate yours. I'm talking elements in each that are good and bad. I certainly haven't fussed when people decided not to follow up on questions or positions I've posed... For the record, their concern was 'preexisting'. I'm sorry that I can't provide more info at the moment. I will be pleased to share it with you when I have it. I'm moving in; I even have a avatar so I'll be here to explain when they do to me.

I haven't read any of their research on Iraq, only Afghanistan. They are a think tank, not pure research, so their work does reflect upon particular working suppositions. But they were were talking about the problem of poppy clearance on domestic security a year before anyone else. And they also were the first talking about the Hwy 1. They've got a good lens on development issues.

It's not only black people. Latinos, and those from certain geographic regions (kentucky, southern texas, etc) either do not have reasonable access or are physically abused by the system in the name of profiteering. Here's an articulate account of one region's experience: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

I'm going to wait to hear their story before I pretend to know it.

It's hard to measure the scope and success of the ANA and ANP because they still primarily interoperate with NATO forces and police. I don't think they have anything direct to your question, but a good general resource on afghanistan matters is the Senlis Council. http://www.icosgroup.net/modules/reports

Who is?

I agree. If only we had the resources. until then, we've got to find a way to focus and prioritize.

I do remember. But I'll refer back to my original point, which was that there were good reasons to depose Saddam but that, in that moment in history, these were not greater than the need to maintain operational intensity in afghanistan or to mobilize to deal with an active genocide in the Sudan.

Not at all. But the weapon capacity in Iraq demonstrated no risk to America, NATO or their allies. The reasons to jump into Iraq were less compelling than either maintaining force capacity in afghanistan or jumping to a place where active genocide was in play, like the Sudan.

I'm talking about the end of the Indian Act. Like the Nisga'a Treaty and the formation of Nunavut.

Saddam had used chemical warfare against the kurds. Saddam did not have WMD capability. The first is enough reason to depose him, IMHO, but the real motives and justification were less than pure.

Based on what? Past mistakes, like the diversion of american troops to iraq or the secondary war on drugs? Or do you feel it was a bad mission from the beginning?

+1. The stabilization agenda has to work harder to reach target. We can, with enough soldiers, provide security so that afghanis can feel confident moving forward. The last election demonstrated our weakness in this regard, but it will always be very hard to hold ground in the regions. Of vital importance is an ability to hold hwy 1 and the big cities. We must make economic development an option which, in an agriculture-based society, means space to grow product and infrastructure to transport it. McChrystal's call for a more judicious use of airpower is long overdue. I know that it might mean more casualties for serving men and women, but it is an absolutely critical part of any win strategy. If we are really there to secure some semblance of peace for the afghanis, allowing them to have greater confidence that there children won't die in their beds from a bomb drop is important. From a pure military perspective,it will make them better allies. Finally,to the OP, negotiating with the taliban is important. But,as Army Guy notes that this battle ground is different from the traditional fronts on which NATO forces have existed pre-bosnia, so too must our ideas about 'treaty' be different. Ultimately every soft taliban activist needs a real job. For example, it's no good enlisting people into the ANP if you're not going to pay them for months. People need food to fill their families' bellies, which is a daily affair, so our win on the treaty front should be more focused on economic development than cessation of hostilities type agreements.

This is starting to happen, mostly in the west. The government will waste no time celebrating this point in the upcoming olympics. But it's not the case in so many other first nations like the mohawks of Kanesatake and Kahnawake, who haven't yet recovered from the Oka crisis. I do agree, repeal the Indian Act and renegotiate all treaties toward an agreement for semi-autonomy within the framework of canadian society.

I think the people of Kahnawake should read their history books with focus on the chapters covering Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe.

what a fun way to spend a thursday night.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm happy to provide you with all of the answers in the world once they return.

You mistake my distrust of your intentions as a hatred of americans.

No,that's right where you belong.

The larger point is long gone from this thread.

Uh, they're in there 70s...

No one is doubting the great accomplishments of the american empire, but I do question your implied contribution. I suspect that you're just a taxpayer.

I'm not going to pretend that I know the finer details of their scenario. But I do know that supplemental (even in the most basic form) is quite expensive in the US. It does seem that the better option in terms of quality access vs. cost for them is to pay taxes to and utilize in Québec.

I'm becoming quite curious about this, too.