“The Strongest Trans-Atlantic Relations…”
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee accused the Bush administration of having an “arrogant bunker mentality” on foreign policy. Secretary Rice responded:
We have right now probably the strongest trans-Atlantic relations … I would say in a very long time. (…) We’re working with allies in Europe, Russia and China on Iran. The (NATO) alliance is mobilized together in Afghanistan.
Phillip Carter over at Intel Dump believes “Condi succumbs to the Kool-Aid:”
Strongest trans-Atlantic relations in a “very long time”? Are you serious? I mean, maybe I’m nostalgic for the good old days of the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift, or even the good old days of the 1980s when NATO stood against the Soviet threat. I wouldn’t say our relations with Europe and the world are all that stellar right now. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there’s some super secret diplomacy going on, and the Germans and French are really our best friends right now. Maybe underneath all that anti-American sentiment and rhetoric on the streets of Europe, they still do think we’re that bright shining city on a hill.
I basically agree, except for the last sentence, which is far too black and white, even for provocative closing words. It sounds too much like: You either love us or if you don’t, you apparently must hate us. (Related: The Anti-Americans and the Manichaean Narcissists.)
IMHO Anti-American sentiment on the street should not be used as the main indicator of how good or bad transatlantic relations are. BBQs between our heads of government should not be used as the main indicator either. Instead, all that counts is how well we cooperate regarding Afghanistan, climate change, Middle East, trade, counter-terrorism, Kosovo etc. And here, I believe, cooperation is not as strong as it could and should be.
But, let’s face it: Have Europe and the US ever cooperated that much on such a wide range of global issues? During the Cold War transatlantic cooperation was limited to a few policy areas. European and American leaders did not bother themselves with doing something about climate change. NATO did not send 20,000 troops to some far away country.
Today’s transatlantic agenda is longer than it ever was before. Perhaps that is what Secretary Rice was referring to. Therefore it is okay, that we do not agree on everything.
Cross-posted from Atlantic Review.
EDITOR’S NOTE: TMV co-blogger Joerg Wolf writes for TMV from Germany.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
36 Responses to ““The Strongest Trans-Atlantic Relations…””
when NATO stood against the Soviet threat.
Yes Europe was our buddy when they were staring down the barrels of 5000 m72 tanks and 2 million Soviet Troops and listening to the bluster of years of Soviet Premieres who could not wait to inherit all of Western Europe.
Yes Europe welcomes the United States and her 550,000 Troops, her 1000 Tanks and her Anti Tank Killing Helicopters and Superior Weapontry to keep the Europeans safe.
Instead, all that counts is how well we cooperate regarding Afghanistan, climate change, Middle East, trade, counter-terrorism, Kosovo etc. And here, I believe, cooperation is not as strong as it could and should be.
AS I have stated elsewhere and will repeat here. Each and every nation has its own best interests at heart. They only cooperate with allies to the extent that they continue to keep their best interests at heart. When we long for the good old days we simply do not understand the nature of diplomacy or Nato Pacts.
The good old days was an evil bent on taking over the world. The good old days was rife with outwardly good feelings for each other because those who pretended to be our friends were the ones with the KNIFE to their throats. While those in the United States understood that a knife to the throat of Europe was also a knife to the throat of America as well.
Now the situation is reversed. It is the USA with the knife to her throat and the USA who is expecting pay back for 50 years of support and buddy buddy with the world and what we have seen is hesitation, and procrastination.
Why? Because in the end ALL nations have one over riding principal that dictates their relationships with other nations. First and foremost their wants and needs are more important then any other agenda of any other friend or foe.
In America during the cold war there was much resentment that the US was putting so much into the military. Sending so much aid to Europe. Wondering why they did not defend themselves.
Now today their is much Resentment in Europe wondering why the US does not defend themselves. How dare they ask for European help.
Until the knife is at the throats of our allies. They simply will not understand a nation such as Iran with Nuclear weapons. A nation such as Pakistan spiraling into the clutches of the Taliban or Al Queida types is indeed a knife to their throats as well.
Who has a knife to the throat of the US?
Really? So why did you elect so many politicians, who voted for an ever increasing defense budget?
First of all, you sent aid to Western Europe only.
When the Hungarians started their revolution in 1956, you encouraged them with little radio broadcast, but otherwise ignored them. Similar to the Shiite uprising in Iraq in 1990 perhaps.
Second, the US has based many troops in Europe because of US national interests. You wanted to win the Cold War. You wanted to defeat the Soviet Union.
You wanted to be first on the moon. Not for science, but for power, prestige and ego.
Likewise, you supported Western Europe, because you did not want the Soviets to gain power in Europe. You did not support Europe because of altruism. US defense policy was never charity. The US is like other countries in this regard.
Nope, there is no such resentment and wondering.
There is no news here, neither does it answer the question as to why “It is the USA with the knife to her throat” and whom is holding the knife. The only way for countries to form alliances is to look out for each other. Their wants and needs are not safe without allies and good international relations.
“Trans-Atlantic[ist]” BS and “Atlanticism” BS are just that. I can say that as someone who has lived in the older eastern USA now for years. Stop the form of -centrism that is so damned obsolescent. For all its hype 10-20 years ago, the Pacific Rim drivel at least had ascension behind it, rather than decline.
For the longest time, France has robotically, brain-stem-level-reflexively, opposed the US. No matter what the US does and no matter what the facts and morality are, France would respond negatively and quasi-defensively (neurotically is more like it). That has been its foreign policy for years. Sarkozy is a relief.
Really? So why did you elect so many politicians, who voted for an ever increasing defense budget?
Duh….hello……anybody home??
Did you miss the entire gist of my post?
Each and every nation has its own best interests at heart.
While those in the United States understood that a knife to the throat of Europe was also a knife to the throat of America as well.
I don’t know how to be more plain then this.
Who has a knife to the throat of the US?
???
True. Along with those best interests are allies to help protect them.
While those in the United States understood that a knife to the throat of Europe was also a knife to the throat of America as well.
I don’t know how you could be more general than that. Nice of you to speak for all of Europe and all of America, though.
Who has a knife to the throat of the US?
Keeping America’s Military Edge
Ashton B. Carter
(January/February 2001)
Proposes changes in the national security establishment to meet new missions, ranging from peacekeeping to dealing with terrorism.
The New Threat of Mass Destruction
Richard K. Betts
(January/February 1998)
A prescient discussion of the dangers of terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland and our failure to protect against them.
Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger
Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow
(November/December 1998)
Describes the deadly new forms of terrorism, the reasons for targeting America and what will be required to combat the new threats.‘
Beyond Border Control
Stephen E. Flynn
(November/December 2000)
Argues that the global economy has opened national borders to goods and people, legal and illegal; terrorists and their weapons enjoy easier passage than ever before. Corporations and governments must work together, developing new technologies and techniques to help border control keep pace with booming commerce.
Notice these are all from the Council on Foreign Relations (certainly not GWB’s supporter at all and in fact is pretty much left to far left)and predate George W. Bush into office.
Have you guys really bought into the antiwar slogans so much that you have firmly planted your heads in the sand so you cannot hear the discussions about a terrorist world that is growing more and more deadly by the day?
I could point to 100,000′s of these reports about the deadly escalation of terrorism around the world.
I don’t know how you could be more general than that. Nice of you to speak for all of Europe and all of America, though.
I am not speaking for all of Europe nor all of America. In fact a part of America…..mainly the loon left….thinks if the allies, mainly in Europe dont love us and want to hold our hands and praise us with showers of platitudes then we are an evil nation. I do not speak for them.
I do not speak for those on the right who wish to bully the Europeans into following us willy nilly into every military misadventure because “We said so”.
I speak for those of us who understand foreign policy as it should be.
A policy in which we do NOT operate under the assumption that we are always right and that no amount of wrongs can ever be wrong as long as we are “RIGHT”. That our being bigger and badder MAKES US RIGHT and this sad behavior gives us the right to run rough shod over the world.
I speak for those who understand that Europeans have wants and needs that differ from those of the United States. I speak for those who wish for diplomacy the way it was before Teddy Roosevelt picked up his big stick and started waving it around.
I speak for diplomacy that values the results no matter what it takes to get to that point. I speak for those who want a better world and that understand that terrorism is the bain of the world, that global warming will not destroy this world…………..Terrorists with nukes will do that long before we succumb to Global warming.
I do not speak for those who exhibit this mentality. Because it is cold war thinking and our current secretary of state is a cold war specialist who longs for the GOOD OLD DAYS and she is simply getting nothing accomplished in a world that has changed.
I mean, maybe I’m nostalgic for the good old days of the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift, or even the good old days of the 1980s when NATO stood against the Soviet threat.
The US spans an entire continent, is protected by two Oceans, has 300 million inhabitants, a GDP per capita of over $30,000 and the largest Military the world has ever seen. If you think that a handful of dumb-ass terrorist even with WMDs can destroy the US then you have far lower opinion of the US than most rational people do. The only way the US can be destroyed is if the people of the US do it as they are seem wont to.
Committing suicide for fear of death.
Don Quijote
If you think that a handful of dumb-ass terrorist even with WMDs can destroy the US then you have far lower opinion of the US than most rational people do.
Words cant even describe the lunacy of this statement, and you pretend to critique my views on foreign policy? Good Lord.
You have views on foreign policy? All I noticed were the inane slogans of a scared little boy, like that of most Republicans.
He certainly missed the 1970s and especially the 1980s here in the USA, to say the very least!
* * *
Second, the US has based many troops in Europe because of US national interests. You wanted to win the Cold War. You wanted to defeat the Soviet Union
Well, we, at least, held the Soviets at Bay. You were happy to have your little play-pen demonstrations from time to time (similar to the anti-Bush nonsense we see both here and there currently) and rather than develop and spend money on your own defense, let us do it while you spent money on social programs instead, programs that you’ll never be able to sustain — your future problems will be worse than ours. And when we stood down, your choices were exposed to the world when it came to the Balkan situation, where you depended on us to engage in European military operations because you were incapable of mounting them yourselves. (Fortunately some of you have become more sane and you’re developing your own military assets now.)
Which “people” of the US?
Link to scared little boys, please, Don Quijote. Do you mean Republican politicians, or are you too speaking for “most Republicans”?
Free Republic
LGF
Hugh Hewitt
The majority of Republican voters.
Republican politicians are just the manipulators who are inventing new boogiemen out of thin air for you to fear ( Secular humanist, the war on Christmas, illegal aliens, Jihadist, Islamofascist, Nuclear Iran, Iraq’s WMDs, etc, etc.. ) so that their backers can steal everything that isn’t nailed down while the population is to busy cowering in their gate communities.
The 50% of the eligible voters who didn’t vote, the 25% of the eligible voters who voted for Shrub.
Thank you for the links, but this is the intro that I read for Free Republic. Can you point out a specific news story or blog on this site that provides an example of “inane slogans of a scared little boy”?
You blame Republican politicians for “Politically correct” agendas, which is a primarily Democratic approach to acceptance of all cultures? I assume that is what you mean by “the war on Christmas”. Which “illegal aliens”? The ones trying to make life for themselves, or the murderers and drug dealers that infiltrate the U.S. border? These are “invented boogiemen to you?
And you blame misinformed voters, suggesting their choice is self-destruction? Got to blame someone, huh?
You have views on foreign policy? All I noticed were the inane slogans of a scared little boy, like that of most Republicans.
The 50% of the eligible voters who didn’t vote, the 25% of the eligible voters who voted for Shrub.
If you think that a handful of dumb-ass terrorist even with WMDs can destroy the US then you have far lower opinion of the US than most rational people do.
Bizarre.
You are the reason Republicans keep getting votes.
If you bother to go past the first page of FreeRepublic,
FreeRepublic
What?
O’reilly, Limbaugh and all their bodies on Talk Radio have spent the last few years telling us that there is a war on Christmas, now every year I see Christmas threes, wreath & nativity scenes all over the place and Christmas sales starting even before thanksgiving.
The vast majority of illegals are here to work, make a living and send money home. As in any large group of people, there is going to be a handful of assholes who will go out and commit despicable crimes. Such is life.
Now in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 I didn’t hear all those republican politicians who were running for office or in power complain about all those illegals when they had the power to do something about it. Could it be that it was because all those illegals were good for business (their real base) in that they drove down the cost of labor, but amusingly now that they can’t do anything about illegals, they will demonize the poor schmucks who crossed the border to get a job and put food on the table for their family.
If you think illegal aliens are an issue put more people on the border to prevent them from coming across, and start enforcing the laws and penalizing businesses who employ them. Have the Republicans done either of these things in the last six years?
All you have done here is link to a page of articles under the keyword: homosexualagenda.
You said this to “Somebody”:
What were you talking about?
I never listen to talk radio, because I don’t have the time. The early Christmas products are in the stores primarily for profit, to give shoppers an “early start”, and have less to do with the actual celebration of Christmas. I’m not sure why you are using store marketing in comparison to what talk show hosts say, that doesn’t even make sense.
Not only are you confusing me with the lawmakers, you are confusing me with the Republicans. I am a Libertarian/Centrist. I certainly agree that the laws should be enforced, but to focus blame on one political party is not going to solve the problem. You lost your patience with me and told me to put more people on the border.
Well Im convinced that he did not even read my posts other then perhaps a cursory skimming just enough to THINK he knows what I was saying.
I do not speak for those on the right who wish to bully the Europeans into following us willy nilly into every military misadventure because “We said so”.
My foreign policy does not include democrats nor Republicans because neither have really had a clue about diplomacy for a very long time. Even Roosevelt lorded it over Churchill and we ended up with a communist Eastern Europe. But FDR had the bigger stick. Had England had the bigger stick perhaps we would have seen a drastically different Europe because the invasion would have taken place around the French coast and a serious push to split the germans from the beach and the Soviets in the east.
Diplomacy is about embracing your allies wants and needs…..not forcing them to accept yours at the expense of ours.
The knife at the worlds throat since 1945 was the USSR and communism. The knife at the throat today weather you like it or not is Terrorism and WMDS.
Like it or not that is the facts. When I heard Bush give his preemptive speech I about passed out.
You read I am in favor of Republican diplomacy when in fact that is far from the case. Republicans do not practice diplomacy. They practice waving a big stick around. Democrats do not practice diplomacy they practice appeasement.
Neither is nor ever will be diplomacy.
Longing for the good old days of 1980 is simply a pipe dream. The world spent trillions of dollars to prevent the spread of communism and now we act as if its a horrific crime to spend trillions to prevent the spread of WMDS and terrorism.
Get a grip and embrace reality. Like it or not terrorism must be dealt with and it must be dealth with stiffly and with resolve.
Another weasly word for Republican.
Good Luck…
How is that Iraqi Occupation working out in that respect?
How is that Palestinian Occupation working out in that respect?
Get a grip and embrace reality. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter ( Ask the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Irish, the Tamils, the French, etc..).
When you say something like that, it indicates you don’t really know what either are. Oh, no you don’t. Answer my question. “Weasly”? Look who’s talking.:
Point out his “inane slogans of a scared little boy”, or are you going to cop out again and insult me? Is that your last resort?
“Somebody” is right, you know:
eading this debate here it seems we have a clear difference in perceptions.
ON the one hand, some argue that there is an implicit threat from terrorism that is profound and actionable.
This characterises a substantial degree of U.S belief although there is scepticism there too.
Alternatively, there is the “Euro/world” view (if this term applies), who subscribes to the view that the threat is over magnified (for purposes best known by its adherents) and is poorly solved by wars.
This polarisation is in itself a problem as it manifests itself in widespread anti american feeling around the world where the sceptics disagree with the believers. The transatlantic chasm widens as Joerg notes as a result. As an Australian, one notes that there is also a trans pacific chasm too regarding this matter, with Australians (my country) and other peoples in the region also incrasingly expressing scepticism and rejection of this terrorism threat and its proper handling with concomitant increases and indeed public antipathy toward the U.S akin to levels in Europe.
Voting out a U.S servile government here recently was one manifestation of that public disapproval. It suggests that the chasm between the U.S and Europe is one aspect of a wider chasm replicated between the U.S and Australasia on the same subject matter. The wider question to be asked, are the people of Europe nd Australasia both wrong on this issue if widely separated people can arrive at similar conclusions or is the U.S wrong and the anti american feeling here and in Europe an obvious manifestation of that disagreement and disapproval?. I will say though that Australians are culturally and in outlook more attuned to Europe as most of us come from there (especially the U.K) and our sensibilities are similar too. Others in Asia to our north also are sceptical of the U.S and the terror ‘threat’ as well. Widely separated people arriving at similar conclusions, mitigates against the U.S position methinks. Thanks for your time and a revealing debate here.
Libertarian: Someone who believes that the only valid functions of government are law enforcement ( Police & Courts) and defense, all other functions now performed by the government should be and would be better performed by private actors be they individuals or Corporations.
Centrist: Someone who’s political views are to the left of the Republican Party (not hard to do) and to the right of the Democratic Party (a little more challenging since most Elected Democrats are no more than Eisenhower Republicans).
You can be a centrist or you can be a libertarian, but you can’t be both at the same time, so when I hear someone call themselves “Libertarian/Centrist” I safely assume that they are Republicans so ashamed of the last 6 years of Republican Rule that they would rather call themselves anything else.
The wider question to be asked, are the people of Europe nd Australasia both wrong on this issue if widely separated people can arrive at similar conclusions or is the U.S wrong and the anti american feeling here and in Europe an obvious manifestation of that disagreement and disapproval?.
Those who actually took the time to read and digest what I had to say will find that I totally agree with what you are saying. Because as I was criticized for being too general the fact remains that each and every nation has its own best interests at heart and you quite aptly point that out as being the primary reason why Europeans and Austrailians do not agree with the war on terror that the USA has chosen to fight.
Our foreign policy, not just under Bush but since Teddy Roosevelt has been one of domineering and waving a big stick around because we can. The one president that tried to revert to a pacifistic form of Foreign policy was met with The fall of Iran, the invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran/Iraq war in a very brief period of time.
I do not believe that the war on terror can be solved with WARS……….I believe that it must be solved with the covert and subvert and open assistance of all civilized nations of this world.
Terrorism is a bane to all countries. It keeps countries like Pakistan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia teetering and totering instead of offering people a life worthy of living. It only offers them fear and trepidation and a sincere lack of freedom.
Don Quijote:
Your definitions are completely wrong about me and the words themselves. I’ll be back later to elaborate.
Don Quijote said to Half Past Midnight:
Now, the only reason I can think of as to why you would come up with such a spiteful statement is because you are annoyed with my agreement with “Somebody” that you were the reason Republicans keep getting votes. For that, you have my sincere apologies. But, going forward:
I have absolutely no shame over mistakes in judgment, or for having been a Republican. I am not ashamed of my friends who are Republicans, either. They are great people with a lot of strength. I also choose to forgive the President if I think he’s done anything unethical or amoral, and try to look ahead to constructive problem solving. You can safely assume that I’d rather be called anything else than a Republican? Certainly not a Democrat or a Liberal, who would prefer me to be “ashamed”, rather just forgive, try to learn from mistakes and find solutions.
There are basically two main types of libertarians. Mine, by definition, is closest to that of the Rights theorist which asserts that all persons are the absolute owners of their lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty. (Live and let live.) They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property—with force meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone—who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle. They do not oppose force used in response or resistance to initiated aggressions such as violence, threat of violence, fraud or trespassing. I am also a centrist because my independence allows me to review all sides before determining what is the best possible choice in a given circumstance, regardless of the absolute partisan definition. I really don’t care if you agree with my perspective or not because recent revelations have helped me come to my own conclusions. (Yes, I did get part of this from Wikipedia, but only because it saves time from taking those damn tests again and showing you the results.)
I have not seen you disclose your affiliation, btw, unless you did on another post. Would you be so kind as to do so?
I am solidly on the far left of the Democratic Party, I am pro-labor, pro-environment, pro-media reform, pro single-payer health care system, pro-choice, pro-peace, pro civil liberties, pro the Bill of Rights (you know those first ten amendments that Bush has used to wipe his a** ), anti drug-war, anti military-indutrial complex and just plain anti-republican, I just don’t like them ( Bunch of ChickenHawks eager to send other people’s kids to fight the wars they start and in which they make damn sure they don’t get to participate see GW Bush as perfect example ) . Some people would claim that I suffer from RDS.
Generally speaking I trust American Business and their lackeys the Republican Party almost as far I can throw an elephant.
Does that answer your question?
Almost…
“Bill of Rights (you know those first ten amendments that Bush has used to wipe his ass )”*dude!*
Anyway, I’ll assume that you are primarily referring to Republican politicians and American Business you may also be working for. We all gotta “suffer” from somethin’, until there is an alternative. (not necessarily meds or euthenasia) And if you will forgive my ignorance, what you mean by “single-payer healthcare system”? Are you suggesting socialized medicine? If so, what’s so great about it?
Here is the original link under Almost, it didn’t work for some reason: http://www.worth1000.com/entries/136500/136645LRTQ_w.jpg
Never mind. The picture was a miniature elephant. I just thought it was a cute pictoral rebuttal, and it backfired.
If that’s what you want to call it. I think of it as Socialized Insurance, Medicare for all citizens.
Every Industrialized country that has socialized medicine has better health outcomes than the US, People live longer, healthier lives and spend substantially less to get those results.
And you don’t get to read this sort of crap:
Funeral Held for Northridge Girl Who Died after Insurance Company Delayed Liver Transplant
or this
Hospitals Accused of Dumping Patients on Skid Row
Thank you – Somebody said- for your thoughts today in reply to my comment. One accepts that nations act in their self interests and indeed here in Australia, the price the recently defeated Howard government paid was in terms of self important and indispensible hubris serves as a lesson for others who put a foreign country ahead of that of their own. Howard was so madly American, it never occurred to him that other people disagreed with his self romantic view of America, so by the end he automatically assumed that his views were everyone’s views.
Oddly, the signs are there for all to see about the country where anti american feeling is now open and de rigeur across the community.
Ironically taking Australia down the American path lead to his own defeat. Its a precident that todays and future governments will adhere too, as Howard was wrongly seen as a canny reader of the public mood and if he can be ‘hit for six’ (cricket term) or going too far down the U.S path, then any governement here can.
Also I take your point about the U.S using a big stick approach since WW2 about the world. Here that is widely seen as to the key problem with the U.S, the bullying element. Its very off putting to people in Australia and elsewhere.
Amusingly, its only because of escaping infrastructural damage in WW2 and by systemic plundering of a technically more advanced Germany post 1944-46 and later applying the same plundering tactics in Western Europe generally in the decades hence (the so called brain drain) that the U.S has been able to dominate others.
One wonders what would have happened if Europe has kept its talent and the freedom and resources to exploit its capability had it not been ‘nicked’ by the Americans.
Perhaps we’d be seeing less carping by the Americans these days about ‘free riding’ by Europe on defence. As a physicist myself, one is aware of this commonly held knowledge.
Finally my friend, we are in agreement on the vexed issue of how to handle the terrorism issue. Wars don’t work and just alienate and annoy friend and enemy alike, leading to more determination to oppose the bullying aggressor. With supposed ‘close friends’ like Australia ‘off side’, due to this current approach, its testiment to the failure of this mechanism. Your comment on using quiet intelligence and police action is a better approach.
Best to criminalise the terrorists, deprive them of the legitimacy they seek . As a fan of British culture (most Australians are), there is a growing feeling that terrorism is best addressed by a popular 1970′s TV show called ‘The Professionals’ that was well received here as well as the U.K.
Stop terrorism etc, behind the scenes, with proper people and resources and let normal civil society go on as normal, no ID cards, spying on people, removing freedoms etc. The stopping of the Howard Goverment de facto I.D card by the new Rudd govenment here is a positive move in the right direction as few here wants to live in a surveillance state with I.D cards etc.
Thank goodness that silly idea is now gone, a real victory for freedom in my view and something Australia has gotten right!.
Many thanks for an interesting discussion, good health to you.
The Medicare system has a lot of problems right now. I have an HMO that’s pretty good. I only had to schedule two weeks ahead of time. My co-pay for appts is $20, $10 for prescriptions and only $50 for emergency room. In Canada, I’m sure you’ve read about three month waits for serious illness. I’ll find the links for you if you want. The only difference between socialist medicine and single-payer is the govt doesn’t own the hospitals or employment of personnel. But GOVERNMENT STILL CONTROLS THE MONEY. This has made me wary from the get go, Don Quijote. The links you provided are certainly tragic, but there is no guarantee that govt controlled healthcare would prevent such circumstances.