INIT915

I think we need to agree that this is not a constant. There are career EMS agencies which are run professionally and efficiency. There are career EMS agencies which are run with a lack of both professionalism and efficiency. There are volunteer EMS agencies which are run professionally and efficiency. There are volunteer EMS agencies which are run with a lack of both professionalism and efficiency. This sentiment can also be used when considering fire and law enforcement agencies.

A subjective term that can literally be defined differently by every single agency.

http://www.firehouse.com/topics/top-headlines/frozen-hydrants-hinder-ny-efforts-put-out-house-fire-injured-seven-ffs

Interesting. 1) Who has said anything about not being willing to use our strength? 2) I agree 100% with your "poker chip" analogy. I honestly do. In my time in Korea and other places in Asia, I saw that all the time. It doesn't actually negate the fact that NK is still actually receiving shipments that we would like to end. 3) You seem to now be taking the point FF70 was going to with - 'Well, our unilateralism didn't actually affect the regime, it affected the people.' The people of NK have been 'affected' for well over 8 years, so, not really sure how that supports your original hypothesis. NB: This is my last text in this thread. It's become boring and not very intellectually challenging.

Also, to support your contention, could you perhaps cite some examples of where the N.K. leadership was weakened as a result of our unilateralistic foreign policy?

Oh, we've haven't ignored them. So, that mean's we engaged them??? Interesting take on the situation. And you seem to be focusing on the "Korean People". Interesting point of view.

You continue to ignore the original question posed. (That's more like Groundhog Day then your example.) Please answer THIS question: Is N.K. better or worse off then 8 years ago. Alternately, did ignoring them for 8 years put us in any better position? If you choose to continue to ignore this premise, I don't see any point in responding. And do you think the only thing China gives them is rice!?!? And as an aside, I think everyone agrees that nations understand strength. No one in this debate has proposed giving up any of our "strength."

Your ignoring the question that began this debate. Did ignoring them for 8 years yield productive results? They continued with their nuclear ambitions. They developed missile technology. If they are no weaker then they were 8 years ago, how do we call this a success? People make the argument they're isolated. Yes, from us. Not from other nations that continue to deal with them. Notably China. N.K. has a huge friend in China. There is no empirical evidence of substance that suggests N.K. is any worse off then they were.

Interesting how you respond emotionally and offer no actual facts to rebut the argument. Guess that kind of bolsters my point. Thanks for playing!

I have to agree with you. The notion that either Iran or North Korea have changed their ways based on our recent past practices is laughable. Or, rather, it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Both continue to aggressively pursue nuclear arms, missile technology, not to mention the human rights violations and treatment of their own citizens. To suggest that things have changed the course due to the recent elections in Iran is just as absurd, in my humble opinion. There has been no regime change and the leaders of the opposition have, for the most part been jailed or executed. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575030483299887178.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world). It's that's success, I'd hate to see what we consider a failure!!!

Over the top? Yes.

If you honestly feel that way, especially about North Korea and Iran, then we have two very different interpretations of world politics.

We're discussing various foreign affairs policies, not "fault". Try and keep up if you can.

Would you call the last 8 years of "hard-line stances" a success? And specifically with North Korea and Iran?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/29/massachusetts.fire.hose.deaths/index.html?hpt=T2

48%? That's more than double George Bush's approval rating.

That's what's great about America. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Anyone aware of any upcoming Paramedic Refresher classes?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/emt_duo_on_break_let_preg_mom_die_mrj8Jv8kjmS0Z3FNO4DmiL

Is your argument, we, the most powerful nation in the world, should withhold aid from impoverished nations, because they can't do the same for us??? (Aside from "provid[ing] wicker baskets?)

They did use Stewart.

NYSP

That's completely false.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100102/NEWS05/1020353/Court-urged-to-reject-one-plan-to-diversify-FDNY?GID=ozsOfbFrNeZ3srY71SjJA1IABaw+3eMOosTGvpfJ8o0%3D

Agreed. This lawsuit started under Pres. Bush (who you may recall was White and Conservative) and was continued under Pres. Obama. Any indication the race of the President is a controlling factor comes off as ignorant at best.