Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

That might have worked, if all the terrorists were in Afghanistan. nm

Posted By: Brunson on 2006-09-27
In Reply to: Yes I read the report... - Lurker

.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

It worked for me. It worked for LVMT. Must be something wrong with US, right?
From your attitude on this board, though, it's unlikely you would enjoy it anyway.
Obama/Afghanistan

Obama stated many, MANY times during his campaign that we need to focus on Afghanistan and that he would send more troops there if he was elected president.  He said it was a mistake to put our resources into Iraq when bin Laden most likely was hiding out in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border somewhere.


I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
I think you know exactly what I meant by leaving Afghanistan. nm
nm.
CNN video coming out of Afghanistan should

the human cost of war and consequences of our foreign policies.  It is too bad that it took an election campaign to prompt the media to abandon previous censorship of these images.  If we can wage wars and perpetuate policies that bring this kind of unfathomable misery and human suffering down on village civilains(who up until now have carried the monolithic media moniker of "collateral damage") then I believe it is the media's job to report this side of the story and present these images every single time they occur.  


The Vietnam war was the first televised war.  The images that visited our living rooms nightly during the evening newcast compelled Americans with a conscience to oppose that war and call for its end.  Better late than never, I guess, but who knows what kind death and destruction could have been prevented on both sides of the conflict if we had access to these images all along?  


As a postscript observation, the images show us exactly why the tradition why diplomacy matters.  Some of us have been following this side of the story for years now.  For those voters, the war and the absence of EFFECTIVE international diplomacy and alliance building strategies are every bit as focal as the national issue of the economy.   


It will just transfer to Afghanistan. Obama has already said...
we need more troops in Afghanistan. McCain agrees. Obama also says now that to just pull everyone out of Iraq would not be the thing to do. McCain agrees. So as far as the war goes...we are still going to be fighting in both places as we gradually withdraw...and those withdrawn from Iraq are going to be sent to Afghanistan. That is what they are both saying.
Grim Appraisal of War in Afghanistan

National Security Team Delivers Grim Appraisal of War in Afghanistan



by: Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post  


Munich - President Obama's national security team gave a dire assessment Sunday of the war in Afghanistan, with one official calling it a challenge "much tougher than Iraq" and others hinting that it could take years to turn around.


    U.S. officials said more troops were urgently needed, both from America and its NATO allies, to counter the increasing strength of the Taliban and warlords opposed to the central government in Kabul. They also said new approaches were needed to untangle an inefficient and conflicting array of civilian-aid programs that have wasted billions of dollars.


    "NATO's future is on the line here," Richard C. Holbrooke, the State Department's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told attendees at an international security conference here. "It's going to be a long, difficult struggle.... In my view, it's going to be much tougher than Iraq."


    Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, said the war in Afghanistan "has deteriorated markedly in the past two years" and warned of a "downward spiral of security."


    In addition to more combat troops, Petraeus called for "a surge in civilian capacity" to help rebuild villages, train local police forces, tackle corruption in the Afghan government and reduce the country's thriving opium trade. He also suggested that the odds of success were low, given that foreign military powers have historically met with defeat in Afghanistan.


    "Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires," he said. "We cannot take that history lightly."


    The White House is conducting a strategic review of the war in Afghanistan and says it will unveil the results before NATO holds a 60th-anniversary summit in early April.


    Obama administration officials have said they expect to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total U.S. deployment there to about 66,000. U.S. allies have a combined 32,000 troops in Afghanistan operating under NATO command. NATO officials have pressed European members of the alliance to send more, but few countries have been willing.


    Germany, which has 3,500 troops in Afghanistan, the third most of any country, has questioned the need for more combat forces. Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said more attention should be paid to training Afghan forces and to reconstruction projects.


    "We won't win with military alone," he said at the conference. "There will be no development without security. But without development, we won't have security, either."


    The debate over troops has led to a split within NATO. Jaap DE Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, told conference attendees on Saturday that European members of the alliance needed to do more of the "heavy lifting" in Afghanistan.


    British Defense Secretary John Hutton openly disagreed with his German counterpart, saying the need for more combat troops was the highest priority in Afghanistan. Reconstruction efforts, he said, would fail if the Taliban remains strong.


    "We kid ourselves if we imagine that other contributions right now are of the same value, because they're not," he said. Britain has 8,900 troops in Afghanistan and has said it will probably send more.


    Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his country had made large strides since the U.S.-led military invasion in 2001. He said Afghanistan was home to a thriving free press, 17 universities, and schools for thousands of girls who had been barred by the Taliban from receiving an education. In 2001, he said, Afghanistan had no paved roads; now it has 2,500 miles of new highways.


    U.S. officials said one of the thorniest problems in Afghanistan is its flourishing drug trade, which accounts for an estimated 90 percent of the world's heroin supply. But Karzai, who faces reelection in August, dismissed portrayals of Afghanistan as being run by drug barons.


    "Yes, we produce poppies. Yes, we are insecure because of that," he said. "Are we a 'narco-state,' as we've been called the past few years? No, we are not."


    Karzai said the only way to bring stability to Afghanistan is to eventually negotiate a deal with the Taliban. He also blamed Afghanistan's slow recovery on a lack of coordination among donor countries.


    U.S. and European officials agreed that poor coordination is a major obstacle. "I've never seen anything remotely resembling the mess we've inherited," Holbrooke said.


    But some officials suggested the Afghan government was also responsible.


    Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, cited a fumbled attempt by the United Nations last year to name Paddy Ashdown, a British diplomat, as the overseer of international aid projects in Afghanistan. Ashdown's appointment was torpedoed by Karzai, who saw it as an infringement on Afghanistan's sovereignty.


    Holbrooke replied that the Obama administration would revisit the idea of a development czar with Afghan officials. "The Paddy Ashdown fiasco - and there's no other word for it - really set back the international community."


    Last week, in an open letter to Holbrooke published in the Times of London, Ashdown expressed some sympathy for "poor President Karzai" and said NATO members were chasing different goals in Afghanistan, depending on where their forces operate.


    "The British think Afghanistan is Helmand, the Canadians think it's Kandahar, the Dutch think it's Uruzgan, the Germans think it's the Panjshir valley and the U.S. thinks it's chasing Osama bin Laden." He added, "Someone needs to bash heads together out there and if anyone can, you can."


    Also Sunday, Vice President Biden held talks in Munich with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a day after Biden said the White House wanted to "press the reset button" in its relations with the Kremlin. Ivanov praised Biden's speech, telling reporters that it was "very positive," and adding: "It is obvious the new U.S. administration has a very strong desire to change."


Iraq is a Middle Eastern country, Afghanistan NOT..sm
So Obama said correctly, 'I will bring troops home from the Middle East (Iraq) and send more troops to
Afghanistan.
And that is what he is doing, NO LIES HERE.
They forgot to mention what it was for & Afghanistan was part of the trip-a lot for 1 wk

Indeed, in a February 17 article, the ANSA English Media Service reported (accessed from the Nexis database): "Since arriving in Italy on Saturday, Pelosi has visited the American air base at Aviano in northeast Italy and the American military cemetery in Florence and is due at the NATO Joint Forces Command in Naples Wednesday." Further, a February 19 press release issued by Pelosi's office stated: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional delegation today were briefed by U.S. Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, and Commander of Allied Joint Force Command Naples. Admiral Fitzgerald and his NATO staff provided information on NATO activities in the Balkans, the ongoing training of Iraqi Security Forces, and operations against pirates off the coast of Somalia." The release further stated: "On Saturday, Speaker Pelosi and the Congressional delegation visited Aviano Air Base where the Speaker pinned the Bronze Star Medal on Technical Sergeant Phoebus Lazaridis for extraordinary service in Afghanistan. The delegation paid their respects to the more than 4,400 American World War II soldiers buried at the Florence American Cemetery on the outskirts of Florence on Sunday."


On February 21, Pelosi released a statement about her trip to Afghanistan, in which she said, "For the past two days, I have led an eight Member House delegation to Afghanistan to visit U.S. troops," during which the delegation "met with U.S. military leaders, and the U.S. Diplomatic team in Kabul to better assess the best course of action to further our national security interests in preparation for the completion of President Obama's strategic review of the Afghanistan policy" and "met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is sending his own advisors to Washington as part of the review process."


Obama did say he would send more troops to Afghanistan while he was campaigning - nm
x
Obama on his decision to deploy additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan..sm
"There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way," Obama said. "I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action."


Afghanistan - war on Al Quaeda and Taliban; Iraqi FREEDOM - kill Saddam Hussein
Two different wars based on entirely different premises.........
Well, it all worked out in the end

We aren't living high on the hog, and we've opened our home to those less fortunate. Over the past 25 years, we've had 10 people (friends not strangers) live with us until they could get back on their feet, rent-free, taking none of the money they could make, all meals provided.


Yes, welfare is very backwards, but if I knew of anyone abusing the system, I  would report them.  I don't know anyone on welfare or living in Section 8 housing since I now live in the country. If other people would do that, it would soon straighten out.


 


I worked

at the polling place yesterday.  Then we had a party.  There were only 4 present who voted for Obama and my husband and I were 2 of them.  We had an enjoyable time and on one thing all of us agreed.  ALL of us must get involved if we want to save this country.


I'm glad it's over.


I worked for a guy once

who neatly solved that problem. 


He owned the company and he when quit smoking (or more accurately, he quit buying) any time he wanted a cigarette, he would 'bum' it from one of his employees.  Since O cannot nip out and get a pack of smokes now, maybe he gets by this way.  Would some secret service guy or Whitehouse domestic employee refuse him? 


My old boss should have run for Congress, so out of touch was he with his 'little people.'  Payday was Friday and the checks were locked in his desk until 4:30 Friday afternoon.  (This was to prevent someone from going to the bank at lunch and never returning, I guess.)  And I might add this was back when bankers hours were truly that, not open until 6 on Friday, and until noon Saturday. 


Trouble was, sometimes he would not return from lunch, or at all on Friday, so we did not get paid until Monday.  But he helpfully said that nobody should be living so hand-to-mouth that they absolutely needed their 2-week check before the weekend.  I mean, if you can't go to the grocery and therefore cannot feed your kids, you obviously are not budgeting properly.  Another neat solution, don't you think?  If only I had listened to this man, I would be wealthy today.


Did you get this worked up when
the Bush administration eviscerated the Bill of Rights? When they targeted any vocal opposition in a position to be heard using clandestine means and government resources? When they doled out multimillion dollar no-bid contracts to their cronies paid for by taxpayer money and loans from foreign countries?
Let's see how worked up we can get now -
Did you see that President Obama is going to get to appoint a Supreme Court judge already? 
Why would that get anyone worked up.
Isn't that one of his responsibilities as President?


Why would that get anyone worked up.
Isn't that one of his responsibilities as President?

Serious question for you - Are you serious about your statement or are you trying to start something so more people will be bickering.


Worked for me
Don't put a space between American and solution, just americansolutions.com


Worked for me; thanks, LVMT

Posts to get you worked up
are obviously not what 'liberals' are about, any more than posts comparing Hillary to Hitler are what 'conservatives' are all about.  The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are pretty much useless anyway because everyone has their own definitions.  It's lumping together people that are not necessarily the same.
You might want to ask Obama how it worked for him....
coming out calling the NRL and others liars (saw the video where he said it, "Hate to call them liars but they are liars" and now is having to back up because...whoops. He is the one who lied. He should have taken your good advice and kept a low profile...
Okay, worked together. He was friends with Rev.
nm
You certainly have worked yourself up into a lather
Perhaps you may considering reserving your judgment of the situation until the story and the facts come to the light of day. If the woman shuns the limelight, papers her walls with photos of her nephew and sends small contributions to his campaign when she can, she obviously holds him in very high regard and is bearing no grudges over what you refer to a hording his wealth. Again, it taked a LOT of gall to sit in judgment of something you know absolutely nothing about. Get over yourself.
Dad (pharmacist) worked at
was Cunningham Drug Store.  He was the manager at the store from 1969-1981.
Did you see the one about the young guy who worked

at McDonald's for 4 1/2 years? He couldn't get another job and wanted to know what O was going to do about it. I was absolutely shocked!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TptsP4ryido&feature=related


We know a guy who never worked a day in his life

and collects SSD for his "mental illness." He checks himself into a state hospital when it comes close to the time when he has a review coming up. This is what I heard from my son, so I don't know how true it is, but I do know that he is healthy and doesn't seem to have any mental health issues.


His one brother is on disability because he was on the drugs so much, they fried his brain and another brother had cirrhosis. He couldn't get help and died.


If her hubby worked an outside job
or paid into the system, she could collect half of his SS.
thanks, JTBB, now it worked....
I wished I could zoom in into those testimonies whciha re in teh mail to the court!
thanks, JTBB, now it worked....
I tried to zoom in into those testimonies in the mail to the court! Didn't work!
Republicans and Democrats worked together on

So why do you keep trying to demonize the Democrats.  Both parties made compromises - I believe the Democrats initially wanted about $20 billion more for the program, but they negotiated with the Republicans to secure their votes.


You seem so worried about the cigarette tax not covering the program, and yet what we spend in Iraq in a day would cover the S-CHIP program for a year.  The money is there, but people don't want to make it a priority.


Why is it so hard for you to believe that Democrats that voted yes on the bill (and don't forgot some Republicans did too) actually CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN?  Is it so hard to believe that they actually want to do something to help kids?  I'm glad they are getting headlines, not because they are against Bush, because really - could public opinion get any worse for him?  I am glad because this is an issue that needs TONS of attention drawn to it.  I don't really care if more people dislike Bush over this issue.  People who like him will continue to and people who don't will continue not to like him.  I see bad headlines about him every week, but that is not my concern.  My concern is affordable healthcare for all children, no matter how high or low their parents' income level is.


Thanks gourdpainter...the cut and paste worked. nm
nm
DH and I have worked hard and have earned everything

that we have and WE should decide who to give it to, not Nobama. We are living the American Dream and will be penalized for it. If your child got all A's in school and the teacher told you that some kids got C's and B's and your child would have to give up some of their A's so the others would be on equal ground, would you object? Probably so. There is no incentive in socialism to work hard to acheive things when you can have the gov't provide everything for you. Don't you people know that you are playing right into the hand's of more gov't? You are being fed a bunch of lies and you won't even realize it until it is too late.


Coud'a Worked 80 hours too
But after 12 years at my other much better paying job that included 22 years with the company, they eliminated all 8 of our jobs. So here I am still at Medquist and a daughter just turning 18 and not working at all. Would you believe they did this on 11/04. Then I voted for McCain. I was disillusioned with Obama even when he was still running.
Years ago I worked with a rad tech who used to be an MT
I think anything in medical records management or ultraound tech or something like that. DH told me that pcp's are quitting. Must be the same article you posted.

This country is just getting more and more depressing.
Has government interference EVER worked?
nm
Not the 1st time Coburn and O worked together for
They co-sponsored (along with John McCain) the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act back in 2006 and succeeded in getting it passed.
My father worked in a factory

for 30 years at GM.  He was a salvage worker so he wasn't one of those guys who sat on his butt all day long making a ridiculous amount of money.  My dad retired in his 60s because his health didn't allow him to continue working or he would have.  I know how unions work and how they "protect" the employees.  I've also seen the proven statistics about how non-union states are more production and have higher job growth and as far as protecting your job.....no ones job is protected especially nowadays.  People are getting fired left and right so where is the protection.  What good was that auto bailout when all that money pretty much went to pay off the unions.  Unions are nothing but democratic pushed BS. 


Here is a tad bit on unions:


 


The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and industries they control. The essential goal of the unions is to compel the payment of higher wages for the performance of less work and less productive work. Unions are notorious for their hostility to labor saving machinery and to any form of competition among workers, for featherbedding practices, indeed, for “making work” by deliberately and arbitrarily increasing the number of workers required to accomplish a given task and sometimes even by compelling the disassembly or destruction of products already produced.


It should be no wonder that the percentage of the labor force controlled by unions tends progressively to decline. Where the unions hold sway, companies cannot compete. Their market share falls and they ultimately go bankrupt. The only way that unions can maintain any given share of the labor force is by finding new victims to replace the ones they have sucked dry. The finding of new victims, by means of new government intervention is the unstated agenda of  Mr. Stern, Ms. Milkman, and The New York Times.


The actual effects of labor unions are arbitrary inequalities in wage rates, mass unemployment, and substantially lower real wages for the average worker. Labor unions are aptly described as a leading vehicle of what von Mises called “destructionism.”


Whenever a union succeeds in obtaining above market wage rates for its members, it also reduces  the number of workers who can be employed in its field. This is because of the operation of one of the best established principles of economics: Namely, the higher the price of anything, including the wage of any kind of labor, the smaller is the quantity demanded of that good or labor service.


Thus, workers who could have been employed in the lines controlled by labor unions are instead displaced and forced to seek work elsewhere. The added competition of these workers in other lines then serves either to depress wage rates in those other lines, thereby resulting in an arbitrary, union-imposed inequality in wage rates, or, if those other lines are also unionized or are forced to pay union wages in order to avoid becoming unionized (which is often the case), to cause still other workers to be displaced. It should be clear that to the extent that the effect of union activity is to depress wage rates in other fields, the union slogan “Live Better, Work Union” turns out to mean “Live Better by Forcing Other Workers to Live Worse.”


If wage rates in all lines of work are forced above the free-market level either because labor unions are able to impose their wage scales everywhere, or because upward union pressure on wage rates is joined by minimum-wage legislation, the effect is mass unemployment. In this case, there is simply no branch of the economic system that is allowed to pay wage rates low enough to make possible the absorption of workers displaced from elsewhere by the imposition of union wages. The result is the kind of situation presently existing in France and Germany, where unemployment is in excess of ten percent. And, of course, the cost of supporting the masses of unemployed falls mainly on the workers who manage to keep their jobs. Here higher taxes are their reward for “working union.”


 


For the full article:  http://mises.org/story/1861


How come it hasn't worked for the last 8 years?
Messiah of MT Stars - tells us oh revered and feared of the freak forum!
Wonder how many who worked at the WTC felt safe on 9/10/01?
I'd bet about 100%. Doesn't mean much, does it? In fact, the majority are often wrong when it comes to things like this.
He did not take the case pro bono. The firm he worked for did. SM
You might want to check that out. I could be lying.
Yes, worked with a girl -"gonna have another baby
nm
Yes, let's continue with tax cuts to the wealthy, that has worked so well.....NOT!
Or better yet, let's sit on our hands and do nothing - let the market take care of it! I wish you were in charge of making decisions for this country - I'd feel sooooo much safer!!          KAAACKKKK!
Yeah, that whole scam worked, didn't it?
he was bailing out the insurance companies and drug mfgs - didn't give a squat about the people. And the rich get richer........
..Oh Yeah! And that worked real well, didn't it?
Trickle down economics is the lamest excuse for Republicans to give all the money and tax breaks to THE RICH! It has never worked and will never work because of one thing - GREED!

Now THAT is Economics 101.
It apparently worked in stopping attack on LA
nm
My statement was more sarcasm because it seems to me everyone gets worked up over nothing here latel
Sorry if I offended!
Yeah, well, I've worked 80+ hours this week....sm
like I do every week. I've been busy watching the spell Obama has over you......so gullible. And I'll be watching to see how long it takes for you to become disillusioned.
Well, we all know the old "trickle-down economics" of the past admnistrations has not worked,
ever more greed, and then the removal of the banking regulations really set up the rest of the debacle. The President is fighting a GOLIATH here when it comes to all the problems he has INHERITED, we should pray for his wisdom, strength, and security, and at least he is acknowledging short-falls and problems, trying to reach out to both parties, and trying to ACCOMPLISH something real and LASTING for this country, all Bush could do was give checques away, which was supposed to be a quick "shot in the arm" the for economy, but he did not open his eyes to see that when middle to low income families are living in debth and cannot pay for anything, that they are going to pay bill and save some of their money, not go out and buy more cars, TVs, other big ticket items, as he thought. Good solid work programs was what put the country back on its feet back during the Great Depression, it is not a "quick" fix, but a lsting one that reaches into multi levels of the ecomony, the worker, small businesses, etc. Lets's PLEASE give the President a chance beyond his first week!
My family members have worked in fields and orchards and on farms
and my sons would gladly do that now if the opportunity existed for them--but it doesn't. It's no secret that those jobs are systematically reserved for illegals for purposes of cost savings, and yes, there is resentment among many of us because of it. I'm sure there are a lot of lazy Americans, but most of my friends and relatives are hard working, decent people who think they are not too good to accept any kind of honest labor that will help put food on the table.

The idea that illegals are needed to fill the jobs Americans refuse to do is a myth.