Printable View
I don't believe anything I see on TV, it's only what they WANT us to see. My favorite example of this is Waco, TX. I saw it live, it was a grenade the police launched in that started the fire, not the people inside, but you'll never see that on TV again.Quote:
Anyone who opposes the war should go watch the history channel's
As for voting, I always do write in votes, "eliminate this government position", "pay all government jobs minimum wage", etc. Fen
Are you sure it was the police, since you did see it on TV......Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenudwin
The patriot act and banning heavy metal and rap music are two different things. Hopefully they'll vote not to renew that un-patriotic piece of shit though.
nt
My impression is that it took a hell of a lot of killing to get THAT so-called religion-free government in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lydia
I am speaking more specifically about the entire area -- it's just an explosive mixture with religions battling it out like middle-aged feudal lords.
It's not that I'm saying religion is the source of all evil in the world -- I think the line of Soviet dictators has proven that one. But it sure does give evil an excuse to breed, if I can use such an irresponsibly final word like evil in this case.
There are right and wrong ways to go about doing things Torrid. The ends do not justify the means. And giving the world and the UN the middle finger and going ahead with the war, and then 8 months later coming back and asking for debt relief for Iraq, military help, and election help from the UN is NOT the right way to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torrid
I've seen many people say similar things. What is the right way to go about removing dictators?Quote:
There are right and wrong ways to go about doing things Torrid.
Send Vidle over for an evening, with threats that more are to follow if they don't abdicate!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidmer
The problem is, the UN is too pussy to enforce their own fucking rules. Saddam blatently breaks serveral, and the UN does nothing. So we did. It sends the wrong message when you ignore blatent treaty violations.
Frankly, nations who give a shit about human rights should not leave people like Saddam in power. Doing nothing is exactly what evil wants. Good needs to stop being stupid.
While I agree Bush could have handled the situation better, and missed several opportunities to be the "bigger man," I am glad the people of Iraq are free from that psychopath.
but now they are being ruled by another psychopath....Quote:
people of Iraq are free from that psychopath.
Hey, I agree that it's good for damn near everyone that Saddam is gone. But believe it or not, there are worse dictators out there doing worse things, and nothing will be done about them. It's nice to get all idealistic and say we won't let any governments abuse their own citizens, but unfortunately that would mean being at war with a dozen countries at a time.
Not to mention that if your main goal was humanitarian, the hundreds of billions that will eventually spent in Iraq would probably have helped an order of magnitude more people if spent on food and medicine for the tens of millions of people starving and dieing every year in Africa.
You didn't even come close to answering my question.
Is your solution to this problem simply that since we can't help all we should help none? That we shouldn't prioritize help? To me it seems like you just want us to sit on our thumbs and hope these dictators will just "magicaly" disapear.
As a side note a one time cash contribution will not help africa in any way shape or form. If anything it may make them even more dependant on the West and further hinder necessary political, economic and cultural reforms.
Like I said, if we wanted to prioritize who needs humanitarian help the worst, Iraq is way the hell down the list. And I don't think you should just throw money at Africa, but like it or not, they could use an awful lot of help. Most countries can't even be bothered to relax drug patents so they can access cheaper generic medicines, let alone give them significant monetary help. Yet it's possible to spend hundreds of billions on a largely discretionary war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidmer
That depends entirely on how you rank need. Some may feel the need to be free to be a greater need then material poverty is. I am one those.Quote:
Like I said, if we wanted to prioritize who needs humanitarian help the worst, Iraq is way the hell down the list.
As for Africa I believe the saying "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" is appropriate. Handouts will not cure poverty in Africa anymore then it does in the US.
Now you still haven't addressed my question on what is the "right" way to go about removing dictators; I guess you just keep missing it.
Its the US's refusual to budge that is causing 3rd world nations to walk out of discussions on getting drugs in the hands of those who need, actually. Capitalism at work.
I absolutely agree with Vidmer in that throwing money isn't the way to go. Sometimes I wonder why shitty countries can't just "start at the bottom and work their way up" so to speak, and: farm enough to feed the population, build enough shelter, educate the population, etc. then they can worry about everything else. If we send them anything, it should be farming equipment and water purifiers.
i think that sentiment is in the right place torrid, but in overlord run parts of the world, who is going to enforce who actually uses said equipment? and what in the hell do you farm in africa, i really have no idea.
i think the real foundation of a nation is its government, which must be constructed with at least some form of economic model that doesn't rely too heavily on one thing (see: banana republics)
Bush is alright, but I prefer women who shav... Oh wait a second... Nevermind.
This thread is getting more and more ignorant. Just repeating old phrases over and over.
That depends entirely on how you rank need. Some may feel the need to be free to be a greater need then material poverty is. I am one those.
I am 100% sure, after you lose your first child to starvation that would change.
Sometimes I wonder why shitty countries can't just "start at the bottom and work their way up" so to speak, and: farm enough to feed the population, build enough shelter, educate the population, etc.
Have you ever wondered where some of the products we use come from? Starving people don't farm coffee for themselves.
The people who rule those countries care very little about their people. They want wealth and power. So they sell us coffee, bananas, ananas, tropic woods, to buy weapons from us. On other products, that we can produce ourselves, we put high trade tax to protect our own interrests.
On top of that we export our own waste to those countries, so they can pollute theirs.
We live on top of the foodchain there. The situation in africa, etc is not changing, because we are pretty happy with it.
For Vidmer: I'd define the "right" way to remove a dictator, as the best way to remove a dictator. Quite a lot of people would think it a good heuristic to define "best" as "least people harmed", maybe putting a second value on "least innocent people harmed". If someone agrees to that definition, I highly doubt that the war was the "right" way.
IF you define "best" as "least of our own people harmed" with a second value on "minimizing the complete cost of operation", then the war might valued differently.
I personally see little wrong in what I see to be the reason for the war: The cost of stationing military around Iraq to keep Iraq from becoming a threat again, was too high to sustain over years and years. The area had to be protected because the western world needs the oil there. So to minimize the costs and to still keep the oil, Iraq had to be invaded.
If you seriously think oil was not the most important reason why the war took part, send some gratulation cards to the media; your brainwash was a success.
Oh just a short add-on.
I personally am a person used to luxury. I use cloth that is made with child labor, I eat food that is produced by people who are starving just because they produce it. I use electronic devices and other luxury goods that are produced in a way that brings on a major climatic change with massive effects on the world. I drive a car, well knowing that the terrorism in the world is almost exclusively funded by the profit on oil trade.
Knowing all this, I am still currently not willing to change my way of living.
I am even happy the US invaded Iraq and even more happy that I don't have to pay for it. That still does not mean I believe the US moved in there to "help" the iraqui people.
My bad, I guess I did. There is no "right" way to remove a dictator, really. At least not realistically. But there ARE better and worse ways, and pissing off nearly the entire world while in the process of doing it is probably not one of the better ways. Like I said, I agree that Saddam had to go sooner or later. But the timing and manner of this war was based solely on politics and oppurtunism, nothing more.Quote:
Now you still haven't addressed my question on what is the "right" way to go about removing dictators; I guess you just keep missing it.
So what you are saying is, it's more important to save 20-30 million people from an admittedly brutal dictator, than it is to help an entire continent survive from disease, starvation, and civil war? Just because the people in Africa are supposedly free? How do you exercise freedom when you are born with AIDS and dead before your first birthday. How do you exercise freedom when *insert another tragic commonplace thing in Africa here*? Not to mention that many in Africa are also not "free", what with all the warlords, rebels, and militias running around.Quote:
Some may feel the need to be free to be a greater need then material poverty is. I am one those.
It's not as simple as that. For one thing, most of Africa was more or less taken over by various European powers. Most of their valuable farm land was owned by rich white farmers (see Zimbabwee or however you spell it) and passed down through the generations (also see Zimbabwee for a perfect example of how NOT to redistribute land). Most of their resources were or are getting raped from the land while the people see little benefit (see Nigeria and it's oil), not even jobs to extract their own wealth. It's tough to develop your nation's economy when it's rife with civil war, disease, and starvation. And your three neighbours are all on the verge of collapse and civil war, and might just happen to decide to fuck with you will they are at it (see the Congo).Quote:
I absolutely agree with Vidmer in that throwing money isn't the way to go. Sometimes I wonder why shitty countries can't just "start at the bottom and work their way up" so to speak, and: farm enough to feed the population, build enough shelter, educate the population, etc. then they can worry about everything else. If we send them anything, it should be farming equipment and water purifiers.
Not to mention that most of the world's current "developed" economies got to where they are not only through making enough goods and food for themselves, but also by selling them to other countries. Problem is, as they passed through the door they locked it behind them, and have spent the past 100 years adding more locks. Hundreds of billions are spent every year by developed nations to subsidize their own farmers, thereby making third world farmers completely unable to compete on the market. And there is trade barrier after trade barrier after trade barrier. Of course, the developed countries are perfectly happy to talk "free trade" as long as they don't lose jobs to China/India/whatevercountryisinvoguetocomplainabout.
Yes, they have made a lot of their own problems. That doesn't mean we don't have some sort of obligation to help. And judging from how eager the US was to "help" Iraqi's, you would think it would be willing to do the same in Africa. But it was like pulling teeth to even get a few dozen marines into Liberia, when both the rebels and the government were asking for it.