Iran, USA, what's the difference, really?
 

I just watched a show on PBS and it made me ask myself this question. What is the difference?

PBS-FRONTLINE-Death in Tehran

I know, there are many differences. I have to say though that the events in Iran this past summer could easily be repeated here in our own "free" country. I can't say that it's reached the point of government sanctioned thugs using live ammo to subdue protesters, but our government has used some tactics similar to ones used in Iran this past summer. Our government has marginalized, belittled, censored and even silenced some of it's critics.

Is it possible for things to escalate to something like they did in Iran, where people, innocent people, are shot to death because they gather with others to protest the tightening grip that their government is forcing upon them? I hope not. I hope that we don't have to see images like that of Neda to be heard by our representatives.

Are we like Iran? Are we like France? Are we like Briton? Are we like Cuba? Are we still the United States of America? If we are, for how much longer?

I'm sorry. I don't mean to bring people down. I know that many people believe that things will be just fine. In Iran, there were, and are, many people who support Ahmadinejad, dispite the conditions they live under.

I can't help but think that were going to need our own "Green Revolution" one day. Not the kind that Algore wants either.

You're right wittom, but most (not all) Americans are too narcissistic to care. If it doesn't personally affect them, it's all good.

For example, approximately 52% of Americans think the gov't (taxpayers) should provide health care for everyone. :eek:

Iran, USA, what's the difference, really?
 

Ask Sandra Lee Scheuer, Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, or William Schroeder.

I think that it would be a better question for then governor Rhodes.

While I see your point, I don't see a direct paralell between what happened at Kent State and what happened in Tehran and in other Iranian cities this past summer. It is true though, that in both events innocent people were killed by armed people representing a government.

In any event, it's hardly reassuring.

It's sad and tragic those 4 were killed, but you can thank the Socialist agitation group of S.D.S. (Students for a Democratic Society):

"The testimony of the students and Guardsmen is clear that several members of the Guard were knocked to the ground or to their knees by the force of the objects thrown at them. Although some rioters claim that only a few rocks were thrown, the testimony of construction workers in the area has established that 200 bricks were taken from a nearby construction site. Various students were observed carrying rocks in sacks to the 'rally'; others brought gas masks and other equipment from off campus in obvious anticipation of what was to happen. Rocks had been stockpiled in the immediate vicinity and cries of 'Get the rocks' were heard as the Guardsmen went onto the practice field. There was additional evidence that advance planning had occurred in connection with the 'rally' held at noon on May fourth."
Shortly before 12:30 p.m., while retreating under fire—a brick can be as deadly a weapon as a gun—the guardsmen suddenly wheeled at the corner of Taylor Hall and opened fire. Nine students were wounded and four were killed. The conspirators finally had the "martyrs" they needed—the martyrs they had incredibly faded to get less than two years earlier at the Democrat National Convention in Chicago.

The question arises of why anybody would be so foolish as to throw rocks and bricks at close range at a military unit armed with M-1 rifles. And the answer can be found in a remark by Guard Captain John Martin: "Agitators had those kids believing we had blanks. Somebody told them that."

That "somebody" was the S.D.S. agitators. And 4 students' blood is on their hands.

Every other developed nation on this planet (except for USA) provides healtcare for all of it's citizens. There are no other exceptions.

America stands alone in the world as the only developed nation where your ability to pay matters more than your health.

And every other "developed" nation has health care rationing, wait lists, and superior care for oligarchs and elected officials.

"There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it."--Milton Friedman.

Sorry, I just don't have the entitlement (nanny state) mentality. I would rather work for my food, health care, etc.

I've tried to stay out of the healthcare debates on here because it really is none of my business but I would just like to add my 2c worth here after Frank's last statement.
A few years ago, a very good friend of mine had an industrial accident whilst working on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico.
He was quite seriously hurt with head and back injuries.
After being flown ashore and treated for his immediate injuries, he basically ended up in court in some kind of crazy 3-way split between his own insurance (provided by his employer), the insurers of the platform and the platform operating company as to who was responsible for paying for his healthcare.
His own insurance didn't want to pay as they claimed the platform owners responsible who then in turn blamed the operating company.
This went on so long, leaving my friend in a wheelchair in the process, that he then had to pay out of his own pocket for further operations to restore his health,
Needless to say, the lawyers dragged it out so much that most of the settlement ended up in lawyers fees etc.
My friend ended up losing his health through lack of prompt treatment, his job because he couldn't work and his vehicles because he couldn't make the payments.
He just managed to keep hold of his house and that was only because his wife took on an extra job in addition to her teachers duties and help from friends and family.
All they had worked and saved for over the last 20 years is gone and they are virtually bankrupt.
What a sad state of affairs. My friend HAD insurance but his own doctors and the other doctors appointed by the other companies all had different opinions of the treatment needed (thus costs) which left my friend nowhere.

In countries (such as the UK) with socialized medicine, this absolutely would not happen.
There's no arguments over treatment. It wouldn't be rationed. You would receive immediate care and not be bankrupted.
Sure, there are waiting lists for what is really "non essential" procedures but that's part and parcel of it. If you want to pay a bit extra and go private, you can and it doesn't cost that much extra.

I really cannot understand the argument for not paying a fair tax towards healthcare especially if your insurance payment is removed from the equation.
You pay for everyone's military. You pay for the police and fire departments which are for all.
Why is healthcare different?

As a Canadian I wonder the same thing.
As an outsider looking in, this resistance towards Health-Care Reform seems so incredibly selfish.

“Boo hoo hoo, I’ll pay for mine, you pay for yours”

Like Adam said, why stop with health-care? There was another member from Chicago who brought up the example of having a fire department, if your house catches on fire, why pay for a fire department to put out your neighbour’s fire? Screw him, he can put it out himself, and you worry about yours. That’s basically how it sounds.

My wife & I don’t have children yet a certain % of my property taxes goes towards education, if I took the selfish health-care argument, I could say “Hey, you pay for your kids schooling, and I’ll pay for mine? I could make the same argument, why should I pay for your kid’s education; same like you say why should you pay for my health-care. It all balances out.

It’s funny how the most vocal opponents to Health-Care Reform are always quoting how bad Canada’s system is, and using that to strengthen their argument, but you don’t ever hear how bad it is by Canadians, it’s always some guy who has never even been to Canada who happened to hear it from a friend of a friend.

Another observation that I find extremely fascinating and ironic is how many Christians there are on this message board who are so vehemently opposed to Health-Care Reform, and how they are so vocal about “you pay for yours and I’ll pay for mine”
What happened to helping your neighbour and all that good stuff? Funny how that works.

I get a sense from some of the posts that certain people think a person gets sick because he is irresponsible and didn't do things properly, and you resent paying for someone's mistakes; but this isn't always the case, sometimes bad things happen to good people and regardless of how careful you were or how responsible you were, bad things will still happen.

What's so wrong with helping someone in need? I'm happy to have the health-care we get in Canada and I wouldn't trade it with any of you guys if you paid me; that's how terrible I think it is.

Seriously?
What part of your text doesn't apply to Kent State?

:lol:

In order to give someone healthcare, money is needed to pay for it. Not enough Americans are able to give freely to support everyone. So government and their democratic supporters must achieve more money.

There is 1 way to do it. Take it with force. Now what is so 'christian' about stealing from someone with force? The very heart of government control and their supporters (democrats) is violence.

Where did Jesus use force? Where did Jesus steal? Where did Jesus redistribute? Where did Jesus punish someone for not engaging in charity?

Charity is giving your money freely, not being taken from the government.

A democrat will run into the streets and say, "Look what I have done! I have taken money with force from this person, and have given it to the other person. Look at how caring and noble I am!"

I would say the biggest difference is that Iran is not engaged in active Empire building. They are not Killing Hundreds of thousands of civilians in foreign countries like we are.

Empire building?:confused:

We have liberated many places, and became trading partners with them.
But what have we taken for ourselves?

I'm not trying to be smart or confrontational. But what empire? States were populated, and then asked for statehood. We finished a canal and gave it away. Puerto Rico, I'm still not sure about. Guantanamo is a Cold War leftover.

Take it for what it's worth.

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

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

Different viewpoint that could be taken as an Active Empire.

We so called "liberate" your country, setup military bases on it, (kind of like the mafia) then they trade with us. Are they forced to, don't know as much, but when we put the person in power, you would think they would do as we ask or else. Then we pay them in our currency (export inflation) so now they hold US dollars, what else are they to do?

I would call it an Empire in the sense they really don't have much else of a choice.

You can agree or not, we still have the right in the US... for now.

I do believe the Japanese and half of Europe are happy. But like wiki said. It is a matter of opinion.:beers:

From the second link;

Clearly, these are diplomatic instalations in UN countries, we have nothing to do with the day to day operation of these countries.