QuoteOfficial: Obama won't take any current war options
By BEN FELLER and ANNE GEARAN
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That push follows strong reservations about a possible troop buildup expressed by the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official. In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy - most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.
But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking.
I'm sure doing nothing will turn out to be the best decision of all.
Quote from: Kleves on November 11, 2009, 09:37:57 PM
I'm sure doing nothing will turn out to be the best decision of all.
If he'd just apply that to his domestic policy he'd be my favoritist (Dem) prez ever!
Huh?
There was a leak a couple days ago by an "unnamed White House source" that Obama was going to bet the whole 40. Until the official word comes down I'm going to assume they're just playing run-it-up-the-flagpole.
Legislating the Taliban out of existence is bound to work. Rat bastard.
Obama is voting "present" on Afghanistan.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 12, 2009, 12:02:03 AM
Obama is voting "present" on Afghanistan.
Just like Bush for the past 6 years? Let me guess, the window for action is *now*. :rolleyes:
Seriously though, he needs to go back and pick one of the plans.
HOPE!
Obama would make a good SVP at my company. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2009, 12:35:42 AM
Seriously though, he needs to go back and pick one of the plans.
Disagree. There is nothing magical about the plans
per se. He needs to promulgate a clear plan, true, but it doesn't have to be one of the plans presented - it can mix and match where appropriate.
BTW, I love the credulity with which Languishites accept the word of an unnamed "senior administration official." That source has been so reliable in the past (not) that his word should be treated as gospel! :lol:
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 12, 2009, 12:02:03 AM
Obama is voting "present" on Afghanistan.
Ok, I have I admit, that was one of the very rare times where you have a good one. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on November 12, 2009, 09:06:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2009, 12:35:42 AM
Seriously though, he needs to go back and pick one of the plans.
Disagree. There is nothing magical about the plans per se. He needs to promulgate a clear plan, true, but it doesn't have to be one of the plans presented - it can mix and match where appropriate.
Okay I agree. I don't care which plan he picks (I'm not a military strategist and don't know the differences between all of them), but he needs to pick one.
My concern is that Obama gives off the perception of being indecisive, which is very damaging just by itself, regardless of how justified that perception is.
Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2009, 11:58:46 AM
My concern is that Obama gives off the perception of being indecisive, which is very damaging just by itself, regardless of how justified that perception is.
Good point. And political foes will try to make him seem that way too.
Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2009, 11:58:46 AM
My concern is that Obama gives off the perception of being indecisive, which is very damaging just by itself, regardless of how justified that perception is.
Yep. Watching from afar, indecision is the only thing I have seen from him so far.
You guys are racists.
Quote from: Tamas on November 12, 2009, 12:11:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2009, 11:58:46 AM
My concern is that Obama gives off the perception of being indecisive, which is very damaging just by itself, regardless of how justified that perception is.
Yep. Watching from afar, indecision is the only thing I have seen from him so far.
Nothing wrong with that at all. Being decisive usually means being a fool.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Nothing wrong with that at all. Being decisive usually means being a fool.
Like in most things, there is a happy medium. Being either rash or indecisive is bad, especially in matters of war.
Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2009, 12:16:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Nothing wrong with that at all. Being decisive usually means being a fool.
Like in most things, there is a happy medium. Being either rash or indecisive is bad, especially in matters of war.
Irrelevant. He won the Peace Prize, not the War Prize.
Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2009, 12:16:04 PM
Like in most things, there is a happy medium. Being either rash or indecisive is bad, especially in matters of war.
True true.
I vastly prefer Presidents who are overcautious than those who make idiotic decisions in a misguided attempt to be a "strong leader" or whatever.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 12, 2009, 12:02:03 AM
Obama is voting "present" on Afghanistan.
I hate it when Hansmeister's snarky anti-Obamaism makes perfect sense.
Obama is looking for a way to "manage" Afghanistan. He can't openly advocate a cut-and-run because he knows he'll be blasted for "losing the war." He can't openly advocate a higher troop commitment without being blamed for "expanding the war."
Ultimately this is a live grenade for his Presidency because I don't think he or his people fully understand how it will affect him politically.
His strategy on health care reform has essentially been to push as much of it off onto Congress so that they take the worst of the beating. With health care reform he knows if he gets anything out he can placate any part of his base that feels the plan didn't "do enough" by pointing to Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats as reasons for it not being as robust as the far left would like. On the flip side people "in the middle" will probably end up with something that isn't so odious it's a deal breaker on voting for him again. He already knows he won't get the far right so (correctly) he isn't too concerned with them.
Unfortunately as Commander-in-Chief he can't distribute the blame to a bunch of suits in Congress and there isn't really a huge list of various alternatives. Sure there is a huge list of various alternatives but in reality and to the public there are two options: "slowly draw back" or "expand the conflict." Doesn't matter how many different shades those two options are colored in, those are the only two options possible and both have the potential to cause an immense uproar from Americans.
Ideally for Obama Afghanistan just continues to simmer on the back burner and isn't a big issue in the next election (there's a genuine potential for this), the danger is he makes a decision and then things get "big" and then whatever decision he makes is going to be used against him.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Nothing wrong with that at all. Being decisive usually means being a fool.
Being decisive often means recognizing that you are choosing the lesser of two evils and that deferring that decision for later only makes the outcomes worse. If he decides to withdraw a year from now the dead soldiers will have died for nothing. If he decides to increase troops in a year the Taliban will be that much stronger when we engage them.
Maybe Obama realizes that the whole campaign is pointless, but he has to reconcile that with his campaign strategy of running as a Afghanistan hawk (probably to appear centrist while running as a dove on the more topical issue of Iraq).
Quote from: alfred russel on November 12, 2009, 05:30:20 PM
Maybe Obama realizes that the whole campaign is pointless, but he has to reconcile that with his campaign strategy of running as a Afghanistan hawk (probably to appear centrist while running as a dove on the more topical issue of Iraq).
He has reconciled his campaign rhetoric a number of times. I think the difference this time is that his pollsters are telling him any real choice will have real negative political consequences for him. If he cuts and runs the right will flay him mercilessly and the center could get upset about the consequences of Taliban rule in (at least the Pashtun areas of) Afghanistan. If he ups the ante the left will blubber and the center will have a limited attention span to wait for positive results.
The left isn't going to bolt over an expansion of the Afghanistan war. It's too far away and involves too few individuals to produce anything similar to a Vietnam era liberal revolt.
I suppose the center may have little tolerance for increased causalities without short term results. But the alternative would be a Republican who advocates the same thing?
Quote from: Fate on November 12, 2009, 05:48:29 PM
The left isn't going to bolt over an expansion of the Afghanistan war. It's too far away and involves too few individuals to produce anything similar to a Vietnam era liberal revolt.
I suppose the center may have little tolerance for increased causalities without short term results. But the alternative would be a Republican who advocates the same thing?
There are political consequences short of voting for the opposition.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2009, 05:41:49 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 12, 2009, 05:30:20 PM
Maybe Obama realizes that the whole campaign is pointless, but he has to reconcile that with his campaign strategy of running as a Afghanistan hawk (probably to appear centrist while running as a dove on the more topical issue of Iraq).
He has reconciled his campaign rhetoric a number of times. I think the difference this time is that his pollsters are telling him any real choice will have real negative political consequences for him. If he cuts and runs the right will flay him mercilessly and the center could get upset about the consequences of Taliban rule in (at least the Pashtun areas of) Afghanistan. If he ups the ante the left will blubber and the center will have a limited attention span to wait for positive results.
That wasnt the reconciliation I was talking about--I was referring to the reconciliation between how the military mission in Afghanistan isn't accomplishing anything and doesn't promise to anytime soon, versus his campaign rhetoric of the Afghanistan fight mattering.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 13, 2009, 10:40:38 AM
That wasnt the reconciliation I was talking about--I was referring to the reconciliation between how the military mission in Afghanistan isn't accomplishing anything and doesn't promise to anytime soon, versus his campaign rhetoric of the Afghanistan fight mattering.
I thought that was what I was talking about.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2009, 03:02:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 13, 2009, 10:40:38 AM
That wasnt the reconciliation I was talking about--I was referring to the reconciliation between how the military mission in Afghanistan isn't accomplishing anything and doesn't promise to anytime soon, versus his campaign rhetoric of the Afghanistan fight mattering.
I thought that was what I was talking about.
Then I don't understand how he has reconciled it?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 13, 2009, 03:13:01 PM
Then I don't understand how he has reconciled it?
Ah. I meant he has reconciled his campaign rhetoric on other issues a number of times. :cheers:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 12, 2009, 03:05:35 PM
His strategy on health care reform has essentially been to push as much of it off onto Congress so that they take the worst of the beating.
I disagree that was the reasoning. My read on Obama is that he's basically trying to do everything he can to avoid Clinton's first year. He is surrounded by Clinton veterans and I think it shows. Clinton had a torrid transition because he focused on the cabinet not the White House, Obama's transition was initially highly praised for picking a White House team that could work - though he later got into trouble over Commerce Secretary that's nothing compared to Clinton's three goes at Attorney General. Similarly Clinton made an unwise remark on gays in the military and promptly had Congressional grandstanding such as Sam Nunn touring submarines (even though the White House had explicitly said that gays wouldn't be on subs). Clinton's healthcare proposals were devised in the White House in a pretty centralised way, that meant that Congressmen and Senators felt they'd had no input and aside from the unhappiness with the policy (which may or may not have been that great) they felt snubbed and sidelined; Obama's healthcare reform involves the White House negotiating with Congress but it's involved Congress right from the start so they can't say 'we weren't consulted; we can't vote for this'.
Politics, like war, is somewhat cursed by fighting the last set of battles.
I don't think the people who were anti-Iraq war people really care about Afghanistan, yet. I mean opposition is wide but it's got no depth to it. And I don't think you'll ever seen enraged protests of the size you had about Iraq. The whole Afghan war, from newspaper editorial page writers to protesters seems to have a more in sorrow than in anger tone about it, which is entirely different from Iraq or Vietnam.
I think the threat of the left on this issue is preposterously over-stated. I think the threat to the war in Afghanistan (as it were) will come from foreign policy grandees, not the usual suspect.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 10:39:41 AM
Obama's healthcare reform involves the White House negotiating with Congress but it's involved Congress right from the start so they can't say 'we weren't consulted; we can't vote for this'.
Frankly, I don't think he had a choice. Experienced politicians like Pelosi weren't going to sit idly by and let the Obama agenda pass through. Recall what happened when it had been leaked that he wouldn't push for a public option.
At any rate, I wish they'd actually do something that was helpful rather than politics as usual. I think the perceived futility of the venture is why you get poll results like this:
QuoteFor the first time this decade, more Americans (50%) say providing healthcare for all is not the government's responsibility than say it is (47%).
QuoteTwenty-five percent of Americans say they think they will support the final healthcare bill, 33% say they think they will oppose the bill, and another 39% say their decision depends on some of the decisions that have yet to be made about the bill.
QuoteAmericans are more negative about the impact of a new healthcare bill on their personal situations than they are about its impact on the nation as a whole. By a 10-point margin, Americans are more likely to say a new bill would make their personal healthcare situations worse (36%), rather than better (26%).
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2009, 10:47:51 AM
At any rate, I wish they'd actually do something that was helpful rather than politics as usual. I think the perceived futility of the venture is why you get poll results like this:
I think it's tiredness. The second health-care passes (and I think it will pass) his approval ratings will go up because he'll talk about other shit and death panels won't be set up in every major city. By the time it comes in in 2013 people will generally wonder what the fuss was about and in another 5-10 years you'll start again as you try and fix the new system.
I think you are out of touch.
Also, sidenote, the English healthcare system sounds awful. "Oh yes you have healthcare and yes there is a drug that could help treat your condition but you're going to have to wait until someone else comes off of it because there are only so many slots."
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:05:42 AM
I think it's tiredness. The second health-care passes (and I think it will pass) his approval ratings will go up because he'll talk about other shit and death panels won't be set up in every major city. By the time it comes in in 2013 people will generally wonder what the fuss was about and in another 5-10 years you'll start again as you try and fix the new system.
I think it will pass too, but I'm not sure people are going to love this. If stories are on the news of unhappy people getting hit with several thousand dollar fines for not having insurance which they claim they can't afford, or insurance premiums spike, or some other negative thing happens, Obama may face a backlash.
Blacklash?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2009, 05:13:47 PM
Being decisive often means recognizing that you are choosing the lesser of two evils and that deferring that decision for later only makes the outcomes worse. If he decides to withdraw a year from now the dead soldiers will have died for nothing. If he decides to increase troops in a year the Taliban will be that much stronger when we engage them.
Being decisive often means recognizing the first shiny choice and taking it and having it blow up in your face. Then the dead soldiers will by dying to save your reputation after your horribly poorly thought out decisions.
Yes making moronic decisions has an excellent track record at not making bad situations worse. :rolleyes: Besides you act like we have not already been there for eight years. Why the urgency just for the sake of appearing decisive? Nonsense I say. We have been there eight years we can wait for the leadership to make the best decision in service of our mission there.
OMG we must act now or the Taliban has won? Please.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2009, 03:37:44 PM
OMG we must act now or the Taliban has won? Please.
An excellent summation and subsequent rebuttal of your opponents argument! Well done, sir!
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2009, 03:44:21 PM
An excellent summation and subsequent rebuttal of your opponents argument! Well done, sir!
Yeah well I guess I fail to see why he needs to hurry up and make a decision before he is ready because the Taliban might be that much stronger. The Taliban has been waxing and waning and waxing again for eight years. I fail to be convinced by that argument.
I don't know. I would like there to be an actual plan. I'd feel more comfortable if our leaders had some idea what they wanted to do.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2009, 04:30:21 PM
I don't know. I would like there to be an actual plan. I'd feel more comfortable if our leaders had some idea what they wanted to do.
Well my philosophy is we are the United States we shouldn't need to take risks. Put together your plan deliberately if you need to and execute it professionally. Don't screw around leaving things to chance. If he needs some time to put together the winning plan then no problem here, especially in a eight year old war.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2009, 04:34:23 PM
Well my philosophy is we are the United States we shouldn't need to take risks. Put together your plan deliberately if you need to and execute it professionally. Don't screw around leaving things to chance. If he needs some time to put together the winning plan then no problem here, especially in a eight year old war.
Is that honestly what you think he's doing? Spending his time putting together the winning plan?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2009, 04:50:40 PM
Is that honestly what you think he's doing? Spending his time putting together the winning plan?
Well I certainly do not think he is spending his time putting together a plan he hopes will fail.* Why else would he want to wait a few weeks to announce his revamped strategy if he didn't feel like it could be improved?
* Or would he? :tinfoil:
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2009, 05:00:23 PM
Well I certainly do not think he is spending his time putting together a plan he hopes will fail. Why else would he want to wait a few weeks to announce his revamped strategy if he didn't feel like it could be improved?
I haven't heard or read anything about a revamped strategy. I thought the issue on the table was McChrystal's request for more troops. And there are plenty of political reasons to hold off on that question.
He may be taking his time to figure out how to put together a plan to bail. Or he may have no idea what to do, so is electing to do nothing.
I get the feeling he doesn't really want anything to do with Afghanistan, and just wishes it would go away. He has no clue how to deal with anything outside his rather limited expertise, and is in way over his head when it comes to military matters - but at the same time is not really willing to accept that, and let the pros handle things, because the pros are asking for more troops, and he has no clue how to evaluate that.
I am *very* worried. Maybe I am wrong, I certainly hope I am wrong, but he does not come across like someone who has an idea about what he wants, but just needs a little more time to formalize it.
Everyone wishes Afghanistan would go away. People have wanted that for centuries.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2009, 05:09:45 PM
Everyone wishes Afghanistan would go away. People have wanted that for centuries.
That is a valid point - I kind of wish it would go away as well.
Of course I know damn well it isn't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2009, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2009, 05:00:23 PM
Well I certainly do not think he is spending his time putting together a plan he hopes will fail. Why else would he want to wait a few weeks to announce his revamped strategy if he didn't feel like it could be improved?
I haven't heard or read anything about a revamped strategy. I thought the issue on the table was McChrystal's request for more troops. And there are plenty of political reasons to hold off on that question.
Ok first of all I was speaking generally, that I prefer Presidents take their time and be cautious and deliberate and I made that statement in response to Tamas' general assesment. If Obama is taking his time because he wants to be careful then I think that is awesome. But that sorta depends on that is in fact what he is doing.
Having said that "But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking." Sounds exactly like he wants something revamped or why would his questions alter anything?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2009, 05:09:45 PM
Everyone wishes Afghanistan would go away. People have wanted that for centuries.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2009, 05:13:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2009, 05:05:27 PM
Ok first of all I was speaking generally, that I prefer Presidents take their time and be cautious and deliberate and I made that statement in response to Tamas' general assesment. If Obama is taking his time because he wants to be careful then I think that is awesome. But that sorta depends on that is in fact what he is doing.
Having said that "But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking." Sounds exactly like he wants something revamped or why would his questions alter anything?
I think that's a signal for cutting and running. I suppose you could apply the description of "strategy" to that choice, sort of like Congress' strategy of cutting of aid to South Vietnam, or the Confederacy's strategy of surrendering.
Well...yes it could be. My false optimism sustains me.
I mean I think we probably should at least have a plan on how to leave and what leaving would look like but it should be done in such a way we can regard the enterprise as successful.
Heard on CNN that the first question asked at his China press conference (by a US pool reporter) was "what peice of information he was waiting for before making a decision."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2009, 06:45:59 PM
Heard on CNN that the first question asked at his China press conference (by a US pool reporter) was "what peice of information he was waiting for before making a decision."
Poll numbers?
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2009, 07:25:12 PM
Poll numbers?
Poll numbers are already in and I doubt they'll change much. He might be doing some focus group stuff to measure intensity of feeling, but I think the biggest factor is health care reform.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2009, 06:45:59 PM
Heard on CNN that the first question asked at his China press conference (by a US pool reporter) was "what peice of information he was waiting for before making a decision."
The obamateur wants to be the opposite of Bush. Bush was 'the Decider", so Obama is "the Indecisive".
This is simply the Obamateurs lack of competence showing. He has to be the Commander in Chief and suddenly realizes that he has to make a decision but doesn't have an obviously good one to pick from, so he dithers and postpones making the decision, asking for increasingly irrelevant information that only increases the confusion and seeking the advise from people who have no competence on the matter (Biden, Kerry, Axelrod, Rahm, etc.)
An experience executive knows how to make tough decisions even with incomplete information because he knows that the worst decision one can make is no decision at all. Who knew the presidency of the united States isn't a suitable entry-level executive job.
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2009, 02:14:25 PM
Also, sidenote, the English healthcare system sounds awful. "Oh yes you have healthcare and yes there is a drug that could help treat your condition but you're going to have to wait until someone else comes off of it because there are only so many slots."
That's not a description of the NHS though :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2009, 05:05:27 PM
I haven't heard or read anything about a revamped strategy. I thought the issue on the table was McChrystal's request for more troops. And there are plenty of political reasons to hold off on that question.
I'm very annoyed at the media coverage because they keep on saying about the need for a new strategy or a change in strategy. MacChrystal's report was barely about the need for more troops, that was about 5 pages, it was precisely about a change in strategy. If they just wanted more troops I'd be very suspicious, but they want both troops and a new strategy which could work.
Having said that I think you've got far more chance of getting more NATO troops than getting many NATO nations to sign up to the new strategy MacChrystal's suggested. And I think that everyone needs to decide what they're going to do about Karzai before re-committing to Afghanistan.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 06:25:59 AM
That's not a description of the NHS though :mellow:
That's exactly what happens though, unless the individuals were lying or their specialists lied to them. :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 10:17:37 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 06:25:59 AM
That's not a description of the NHS though :mellow:
That's exactly what happens though, unless the individuals were lying or their specialists lied to them. :mellow:
What's this story based on? So far as I know there's no waiting lists, whatsoever, for drugs. Once you get prescribed the only wait is as long as it takes for your pharmacist to order the drugs (assuming it's not common). There's a waiting time for treatment and this varies across the country.
The longest period is 18 weeks which is a long time, but the average from GP referral, through preliminary tests to treatment goes from around 4.5 weeks for outpatients and 8.5 weeks for inpatients - if there's an emergency or it's at a developed stage it obviously moves quicker
Also it's not because there's a quota of treatments it's that there's a limited number of specialists able to see people, or hospital beds to treat them, or operating times available. There's not some centrally decided number of cancer patients who are allowed treatment at any time and you have to wait for someone to die or go into remission.
Anyway I don't think anyone, anywhere has ever suggested that the NHS would be a good model for the US to adopt and though British people are very fond of it and loyal to it I think most people would agree that it could do with fundamental reform. The problem's a reverse of the US one really. In the US most people's experience of part or full government funded healthcare is probably the NHS or the Canadian system (which I believe has some similarities) so they don't get that there's a whole range of options including a number of social insurance models. Similarly for British people the foreign healthservice we know best is the American one so if you suggest a social insurance based model then they go mental because they don't want anything like the American system which is what they immediately associate with 'insurance' and healthcare.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 12:14:26 PM
What's this story based on? So far as I know there's no waiting lists, whatsoever, for drugs.
We heard it from almost every Rheumatoid Arthritis patient we interviewed. Our moderator even told us at one point that there were so little spots for the newer drugs that people were protesting in London...although I didn't look that up to confirm.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 12:21:40 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 12:14:26 PM
What's this story based on? So far as I know there's no waiting lists, whatsoever, for drugs.
We heard it from almost every Rheumatoid Arthritis patient we interviewed. Our moderator even told us at one point that there were so little spots for the newer drugs that people were protesting in London...although I didn't look that up to confirm.
I've looked up the Rheumatoid Arthritis thing.
So far as I can tell the drug was launched in the UK on the 8th of October but it's still being appraised by the body in charge of such things so there's no national policy on it. There are trials nationwide being run right now and aside from that it's at the discretion of the primary trust (the geographical sections the NHS is cut into).
It doesn't look, though, like it'll get nationwide approval because it's not considered cost-effective. But the full findings haven't finished and that'll probably be appealed, if that's what they finally decide.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 12:14:26 PM
Anyway I don't think anyone, anywhere has ever suggested that the NHS would be a good model for the US to adopt and though British people are very fond of it and loyal to it I think most people would agree that it could do with fundamental reform. The problem's a reverse of the US one really. In the US most people's experience of part or full government funded healthcare is probably the NHS or the Canadian system (which I believe has some similarities) so they don't get that there's a whole range of options including a number of social insurance models. Similarly for British people the foreign healthservice we know best is the American one so if you suggest a social insurance based model then they go mental because they don't want anything like the American system which is what they immediately associate with 'insurance' and healthcare.
I think Canadian attitudes are very much as you describe. The only two systems that they know are the American system, and the Canadian system, so any attempt to change or reform medicare is immediately labelled as being in favour of "American-style health care".
It is rather funny, really.
Everyone hates their own system, but is convinced that the only thing worse is the "other" system.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 01:02:56 PM
It is rather funny, really.
Everyone hates their own system, but is convinced that the only thing worse is the "other" system.
:lol: I know. We need to find the country that's happy with their system and then we can all copy it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 12:54:39 PM
I've looked up the Rheumatoid Arthritis thing.
So far as I can tell the drug was launched in the UK on the 8th of October but it's still being appraised by the body in charge of such things so there's no national policy on it. There are trials nationwide being run right now and aside from that it's at the discretion of the primary trust (the geographical sections the NHS is cut into).
It doesn't look, though, like it'll get nationwide approval because it's not considered cost-effective. But the full findings haven't finished and that'll probably be appealed, if that's what they finally decide.
The drug? There are many drugs available in the UK. Recently one drug might have gotten approved and I know that one drug now has a new formulation.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 01:02:56 PM
It is rather funny, really.
Everyone hates their own system, but is convinced that the only thing worse is the "other" system.
I don't hate the American system although I do think it is broken.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 01:13:56 PM
The drug? There are many drugs available in the UK. Recently one drug might have gotten approved and I know that one drug now has a new formulation.
There's a drug that's had a good response for people for whom existing treatments don't work. That's the only one arthritis charities are worrying about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 03:09:11 PM
There's a drug that's had a good response for people for whom existing treatments don't work. That's the only one arthritis charities are worrying about.
Well I can tell you that there are several treatments that require refrigeration that are often seen as the standard of care after trying out less effective medicines. (I believe the NICE guidelines are that you have to have failed on two of the less effective meds first). Patients reported being denied access because there were too many other people on it. So like I said before, if what you say is true, either they lied to us or their specialists lied to them.
Or you're lying to us.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 03:13:56 PM
Well I can tell you that there are several treatments that require refrigeration that are often seen as the standard of care after trying out less effective medicines. (I believe the NICE guidelines are that you have to have failed on two of the less effective meds first). Patients reported being denied access because there were too many other people on it. So like I said before, if what you say is true, either they lied to us or their specialists lied to them.
Okay. You know more about this, but it's not something I've heard of before.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 01:02:56 PM
It is rather funny, really.
Everyone hates their own system, but is convinced that the only thing worse is the "other" system.
Doesn't this pretty much describe our approach to everything, not just health service? :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 06:31:00 AM
I'm very annoyed at the media coverage because they keep on saying about the need for a new strategy or a change in strategy.
During the Bush administration the media started using the word strategy to mean "results" because it made them sound sophisticated and thoughtful. The public and the media are not qualified to evaluate different counterinsurgency strategies and are not all that interested.
Crassus had the right counter insurgency strategy.
I've been invited to give a speech about Afghanistan strategy on January 11th. I'll post the video afterwards.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:28:02 PM
I've been invited to give a speech about Afghanistan strategy on January 11th. I'll post the video afterwards.
Will it be on Glenn Beck?
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:28:02 PM
I've been invited to give a speech about Afghanistan strategy on January 11th. I'll post the video afterwards.
Have you worked out what the general theme will be yet?
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:28:02 PM
I've been invited to give a speech about Afghanistan strategy on January 11th. I'll post the video afterwards.
Have you worked out what the general theme will be yet?
He's still waiting on Obama. ;)
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:28:02 PM
I've been invited to give a speech about Afghanistan strategy on January 11th. I'll post the video afterwards.
Have you worked out what the general theme will be yet?
My audience will mostly be opposed to our involvement in Afghanistan on either libertarian or jacksonian grounds, so I will in part have to make a case for our long-term comittment to Afghanistan. I'll have to explain the difference between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. I'll also will have to be prepared to talk about Obama's decision (if any) and obama's decision-making process, though I'm not sure if I address it as part of my speech or only during question-ad-answer session. That will probably depend in part what decision (if any) Obama eventually makes.
I'll have over a month to get ready so that is plenty of time. I only had two days to prepare the speech about the evolution of military tactics during GWOT and less than two weeks for the speech on Iran, so this gives me a long time to prepare.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 06:31:00 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2009, 05:05:27 PM
I haven't heard or read anything about a revamped strategy. I thought the issue on the table was McChrystal's request for more troops. And there are plenty of political reasons to hold off on that question.
I'm very annoyed at the media coverage because they keep on saying about the need for a new strategy or a change in strategy. MacChrystal's report was barely about the need for more troops, that was about 5 pages, it was precisely about a change in strategy. If they just wanted more troops I'd be very suspicious, but they want both troops and a new strategy which could work.
That was my understanding also, that MacChrystal's recommendations were about changes in strategy along with the request for numbers of troops.
What are the Jacksonian grounds for opposing involvement in Afghanistan? :huh:
You're talking about Meade Jacksonians, right?
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 18, 2009, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:28:02 PM
I've been invited to give a speech about Afghanistan strategy on January 11th. I'll post the video afterwards.
Have you worked out what the general theme will be yet?
My audience will mostly be opposed to our involvement in Afghanistan on either libertarian or jacksonian grounds, so I will in part have to make a case for our long-term comittment to Afghanistan. I'll have to explain the difference between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. I'll also will have to be prepared to talk about Obama's decision (if any) and obama's decision-making process, though I'm not sure if I address it as part of my speech or only during question-ad-answer session. That will probably depend in part what decision (if any) Obama eventually makes.
I'll have over a month to get ready so that is plenty of time. I only had two days to prepare the speech about the evolution of military tactics during GWOT and less than two weeks for the speech on Iran, so this gives me a long time to prepare.
I suggest lots of crotch chops and insulting their saint Rand.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2009, 04:50:51 PM
What are the Jacksonian grounds for opposing involvement in Afghanistan? :huh:
You're talking about Meade Jacksonians, right?
Andrew Jackson, actually. It's a "don't fuck with us" attitude that supports punitive expeditions but not long term committments.
Watch out for shoes, Hans
The sound like commie liberal traitors. Their views are unimportant and should be ignored.
Carl Levin and David Obey have proposed paying for any troop increase in Afghanistan with....a tax surcharge on the rich! :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 01:05:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 01:02:56 PM
It is rather funny, really.
Everyone hates their own system, but is convinced that the only thing worse is the "other" system.
:lol: I know. We need to find the country that's happy with their system and then we can all copy it.
Taiwan.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 18, 2009, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:28:02 PM
I've been invited to give a speech about Afghanistan strategy on January 11th. I'll post the video afterwards.
Have you worked out what the general theme will be yet?
My audience will mostly be opposed to our involvement in Afghanistan on either libertarian or jacksonian grounds, so I will in part have to make a case for our long-term comittment to Afghanistan. I'll have to explain the difference between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. I'll also will have to be prepared to talk about Obama's decision (if any) and obama's decision-making process, though I'm not sure if I address it as part of my speech or only during question-ad-answer session. That will probably depend in part what decision (if any) Obama eventually makes.
I'll have over a month to get ready so that is plenty of time. I only had two days to prepare the speech about the evolution of military tactics during GWOT and less than two weeks for the speech on Iran, so this gives me a long time to prepare.
Hansy must be doing the Robert Bork Roast over at The Federalist Society.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2009, 07:11:54 PM
Carl Levin and David Obey have proposed paying for any troop increase in Afghanistan with....a tax surcharge on the rich! :D
They need to pay their fair share.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 23, 2009, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 01:05:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 01:02:56 PM
It is rather funny, really.
Everyone hates their own system, but is convinced that the only thing worse is the "other" system.
:lol: I know. We need to find the country that's happy with their system and then we can all copy it.
Taiwan.
Wrong, Taiwan is not a country. Nice try.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2009, 07:33:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 23, 2009, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 01:05:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 01:02:56 PM
It is rather funny, really.
Everyone hates their own system, but is convinced that the only thing worse is the "other" system.
:lol: I know. We need to find the country that's happy with their system and then we can all copy it.
Taiwan.
Wrong, Taiwan is not a country. Nice try.
Fuck you. Their national healthcare system sure as shit isn't managed from Beijing, you commie cocksucking douchebag.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2009, 07:33:49 PM
Wrong, Taiwan is not a country. Nice try.
Don't be evil. :)
I heard Obama said yes to everything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2009, 04:50:51 PM
What are the Jacksonian grounds for opposing involvement in Afghanistan? :huh:
No Indians there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2009, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2009, 04:50:51 PM
What are the Jacksonian grounds for opposing involvement in Afghanistan? :huh:
No Indians there.
But they're not that far off either.
-_-
My spouse is Native American and as such I am SEVERELY ANGERED (on her behalf) by the use of the term 'Indian' to refer to Native Americans. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on November 25, 2009, 03:39:47 PM
-_-
My spouse is Native American and as such I am SEVERELY ANGERED (on her behalf) by the use of the term 'Indian' to refer to Native Americans. :mad:
redskins.
I'm supposedly Indian and I am SEVERELY ANGERED (on my behalf) by the use of the term 'Indian' to refer to Native Americans. :angry:
Quote from: Caliga on November 25, 2009, 03:39:47 PM
-_-
My spouse is Native American and as such I am SEVERELY ANGERED (on her behalf) by the use of the term 'Indian' to refer to Native Americans. :mad:
I like the term "Aboriginal American". It is much more accurate than "Indian" (obviously) or "Native American", which is just as lame since *I* am a native American, as is anyone born in America.
For some reason the term "aboriginal American" isn't all that popular though...
Australian natives got dibs on "aborigine" or "aboriginal X". :(
Quote from: Caliga on November 25, 2009, 03:39:47 PM
-_-
My spouse is Native American and as such I am SEVERELY ANGERED (on her behalf) by the use of the term 'Indian' to refer to Native Americans. :mad:
Princessa has a job, and is thus not truly native. She's an Uncle Tom.
Quote from: Caliga on November 25, 2009, 03:39:47 PM
-_-
My spouse is Native American and as such I am SEVERELY ANGERED (on her behalf) by the use of the term 'Indian' to refer to Native Americans. :mad:
My understanding is that, nowadays, American Indians no longer object to the term "Indian." It is hard to keep track of the PC merry-go-round, though.
Quote from: Siege on November 25, 2009, 01:55:41 PM
I heard Obama said yes to everything.
Apparently so.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqyaFh_efr-brDq0rMLF1hkop0tgD9C6VFKO0
Take that Nobel Peace Prize Committee! :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2009, 07:11:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 25, 2009, 03:39:47 PM
-_-
My spouse is Native American and as such I am SEVERELY ANGERED (on her behalf) by the use of the term 'Indian' to refer to Native Americans. :mad:
I like the term "Aboriginal American". It is much more accurate than "Indian" (obviously) or "Native American", which is just as lame since *I* am a native American, as is anyone born in America.
For some reason the term "aboriginal American" isn't all that popular though...
The term "First Nations" works well. Aboriginal isn't as popular, but is also correct.
That being said, some generic term like "First Nations" or "Indian" is as generic as saying "European". If you want to be truly accurate and respectful, call someone by the name of their individual people. Don't use "Indian"" - use Cherokee, or Navaho, or Cree. Or in my neck of the woods - call them Kaska, or T'lingit, or G'wichin.