Gotta Love Bush

The war was about 4 things..

1) Oil - I don't understand how people see this as 'bad'. Those same people screaming about how 'we don't need your oil war' are the same that piss and moan about gas prices being over $2/gal. Protecting or developing our oil interests makes our economy better. I just wish the administration would have said so up front.

2) Presense - I believe in some part the war in Iraq intended to put the world on notice after 9/11. It basically said 'We're not going to take shit from anyone.' and in no small part was telling 'Lil Kim' in North Korea to sit the fuck down and shut up or you're next.

3) Retaliation - I DO believe Bush wanted to kick down Saddam's door after he plotted to kill George H. Certainly not the right reason considering his position as leader of the strongest free world nation, even if I do understand it a bit. It's carved into his being.. 'You mess with my family.. you mess with me.'

4) WMD's and BMF's - I DO believe Saddam had some forms of WMD's prior to the war. There is also very credible evidence that he was trying to buy black market nukes. Regardless of all this, Saddam and Sons, Inc. was a nice little collective of Bad Mother Fuckers. They needed to go for no other reason than this actually.


As for the rest of the world.. I'm SO sick of hearing how 'The US is not the world's police force' and yet those same people will shake their fists, raise banners, and protest us NOT going in and policing some other area. You can't have it both ways. Were it me.. I'd tell the rest of the world not aligned with us to go piss up a rope. France wants to thump their chest and play 'concerned neutral power' while they backdoor military supplies to Iraq? Fine.. no problem.. just next time Da Fatherland comes knocking on your door.. learn to speak German, cause I we won't be there to bail you out again.

I would pull US forces out of every foreign nation and basically put the world on notice that if you screw with the USA, we'll turn you into a glass parking lot. Quickly, decisively, and with extreme prejudice.

Quote:

---

Yes, they have made a lot of their own problems. That doesn't mean we don't have some sort of obligation to help.

---

So you are saying that we have an obligation to help? To what end? Africa is worse off because of the "help" they get currently and have gotten for the past 30 years.

What EXACTLY can the USA (or Europe) do about Africa that does not hurt them more than help them short of going nation by nation, taking over the governments, re-building the economies, providing security and education then moving to the next after 5 years (maybe 10) and 500billion dollars spent per nation?

Do you actually think making drugs cheaper that prolong ones life if they have HIV is actually going to be positive for Africa? People stay alive longer to give them even more chances to spread AIDS to even more people? Some of the other programs that immunize them and such MAY have positive results but AIDS is totally fucking even that illusion.

Until there is a cure for AIDS AND the population levels in Africa get more in line to what their political/technological/society state are able to sustain, Africa will be the continent that proves that the totality of the human race is not yet to a level that they can totally snub the "only the strong shall survive" rule of nature.

Quote:

---

This thread is getting more and more ignorant.

---

Its generally not good form to call those that disagree with you ignorant.

And I see your sensationalist

Quote:

---

I am 100% sure, after you lose your first child to starvation that would change

---

and raise you a "I am 100% sure, after you lose your first child to a gang raping and murdering secret police that would change"

For Lydia: Good job describing the current state of affairs in Africa, now how can the situation be improved? As for your paragraph on the "right way" I was hoping you would address the question on the operational level and not the theoretical level. For a post that started by criticizing the ignorance of previous posters there sure was a lack of substance in your post. Would you care to address the much trickier question: how?

Eomer:

Quote:

---

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.

---

The ROW was pretty much against action under any circumstances and did their best to obstruct. This was either not going to happen or was going to piss off people. Personally I feel most of the opposition was political bluster and these current animosities will be all but forgotten as soon as "not-Bush" becomes president in 2004/8.

As to the prioritizing of help between Iraq/Africa: this is where the meat of debate really is. Africa is just plain really badly off and getting worse. Populations are growing faster then economies; straining what limited institutions they do have. In many parts of Africa the highest level of political allegiance is to one's clan. There is no pre-colonial set of institutions with which they can turn to. In short this situation is so bad that change will take generations. No matter how much we donate today, no matter how much good will we have these are not problems that can be eliminated in any short amount of time. Iraq is an entirely different matter as they do have pre-Saddaam institutions that were succesful and that they have a large educated population that has experience working with the ROW. In the long run Iraq is vastly easier to "fix" then Africa though it may not seem so from watching the news. Plus there were plenty of other benefits for the Iraqi operation.

As for colonialism. I'm going to take the radical position that Africa in general was better off after colonialism then it was before. Pre-colonial Africa was a collection of pre-literate, subsistence farmers/hunter-gatherers that were in constant conflict with neighboring tribes. I have to agree with you on protectionism though. Most every country that has "made it" has done so by protecting their internal market until they can compete internationaly. However at least in agriculture subsidies are here to stay, likely forever. No country wants to risk losing control of its own food supply.

Liberia. The situation in Liberia was quite interesting. US soldiers enforcing a cease-fire would have likely saved the failing regime. I've heard more then one informed source theorize that the US wanted the rebels to win. Take that with a grain of salt however.

What EXACTLY can the USA (or Europe) do about Africa that does not hurt them more than help them short of going nation by nation, taking over the governments, re-building the economies, providing security and education then moving to the next after 5 years (maybe 10) and 500billion dollars spent per nation?

Remove all trade taxes on products coming from those nations.

Do you actually think making drugs cheaper that prolong ones life if they have HIV is actually going to be positive for Africa? People stay alive longer to give them even more chances to spread AIDS to even more people?

That comment is sickening. Why not just go there and nuke them all, that would be even faster?
HIV spreads almost exclusively before its known. You own logic applies to the US and europe as well, I am sure you will make friends if you deny US citizens HIV treatment, cause they could infect others.

and raise you a "I am 100% sure, after you lose your first child to a gang raping and murdering secret police that would change"

If you compare the numbers of childs killed by some secret police to the number of childs killed by starvation, you likely see the ratio being somewhat in 1000000 to 1.


And "no" I don't know what would have been the best way to remove Saddam, as that depends on how you define "best". If you define "best" by how many people got hurt or killed in the process, that I assume it would have been a good idea to wait until he would have died to old age. Though keeping all the US military around for such a long time would have been stupidly costly.



Short extra note: Something I find pretty amusing.
I am pretty convinced that both the target (Iraq) as well as the timing
of the operation have been decided based on monetary values for a major part. (Interrest in Iraq's oil reserves, cost of having military around etc).
So why is it that the government cannot just say so? Isn't that odd?
Human nature is amazing. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lydia

And "no" I don't know what would have been the best way to remove Saddam, as that depends on how you define "best". If you define "best" by how many people got hurt or killed in the process, that I assume it would have been a good idea to wait until he would have died to old age. Though keeping all the US military around for such a long time would have been stupidly costly.

---

Coalition and Iraqi body count maximum figures is estimated at just over 12,000 deaths. Compared to the demonstrated 1.26 million alternative, letting him die of old age does not seem logical.

Quote:

---

You own logic applies to the US and europe as well, I am sure you will make friends if you deny US citizens HIV treatment, cause they could infect others.

---

This is the problem. You say deny... where the fuck did you get that. I advocate being careful in what you give... GIVE... GIVE damn it. Subsidising drugs for africa is GIVING acualling giving twice if you are honest about it. First the people who by choice send there dollar to TV adds and 2nd you are forcing the general public to pay for the subsidising of drugs destined for africa.

While I think its unfotunate that a few % of the people in the developed world have access to life prologing drugs wrt HIV I would not advocate deny'ing ANYONE treatment for HIV and my guess is that the vast majority of the people recieving a drug that prolongs life in the developing world are very unlikely to transmit the disease to others due to better education and such. Africa will be worse off with HIV drugs than without. People dying sucks, but not realising that half actions sometimes create more pain and suffering and more long term problems is worse IMO. But by all means, give your dollar to make sure Africa is worse off because half solutions are more cruel than letting that contenent get its act together on its own. If you think giving people money, drugs and food is the answer to ANY problem then we will disagree.

I fully support your right to give whatever you want to help africa, but I refuse to be happy about you trying to force me into giving to cause I dont believe. And I believe a majority of what aid orginazations and governments are doing in africa will cause more pain, suffering and death over the course of the next decaids then if we just left them alone and let good trends from the north and south start creaping into the rest of Africa.

Quote:

---

Remove all trade taxes on products coming from those nations.

---

Ok, so you are saying that because the US consumer does not buy enough african products africa is having problems. Could you elaborate since I see no way that increasing the US's trade deficate WRT African nations is in any way shape or form a fix. Removing taxes would increase demand yes, so are you saying that the us consumer has a moral obligation to buy african products over.... lets say austraila? Without you explaining this a bite more I see no way that increased trade is anything but a tiny fraction of any real solution.

Edit: oops, I did the same thing you did, sorry. please let me know if the words I put in your mouth are not acurate IE removing trade taxes is = to Consumers buying more african producs.

Quote:

---

If you compare the numbers of childs killed by some secret police to the number of childs killed by starvation, you likely see the ratio being somewhat in 1000000 to 1.

---

Yes more may starve but starvation is a problem that can be solved internally and without any sort of foreign govermental intervation. It may even be best to solve internally as to avoid dependance. Oppression of this magnitude on the other hand is something that can only be "fixed" by powerful entities such as states. You or I alone could prevent the starvation of tens of people alone (IE Singer's notion of giving till it hurts), but there is nothing you nor I can do to remove Saddaam as individuals. This is why a nation should focus on the problems only nations can solve and leave the "easier" solved problem of starvation to inviduals, charities, local agencies, etc.

Quote:

---

Short extra note: Something I find pretty amusing...

---

Oh how true. This is the product of many people in the West living in a fantasy land frankly. We demand clean hands and policies that require dirty hands simultaneously (ie bitching about gas prices). The result being that policy has to be hidden behind doubletalk and a shroud of lies. Our population loves to protest any little thing and if suddenly press conferences read like excerpts from The Prince you would have widescale rioting and that politician wouldn't win against a politician that was a better liar. This slimey nature saves the population from cognitive dissonance and I think many people realize this at least on some level.

so are you saying that the us consumer has a moral obligation to buy african products over.... lets say austraila?

Not at all, the us consumer can do all he wants for all I care.
You just asked how the US could help african or even south american countries. If the US is not willing to, it really does not concern me in any way.

Yes more may starve but starvation is a problem that can be solved internally and without any sort of foreign govermental intervation. It may even be best to solve internally as to avoid dependance.

He we disagree. For the most part, people starving do not do so, because their lands could not produce enough food. they starve, because large portions of those lands are used to produce things that can be used to buy western goods (weapons, luxury etc) for a minority of the population.
Some dictators kill their people with gas, others kill them by letting them starve, in the end the people dying are just as unable to do anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lydia

so are you saying that the us consumer has a moral obligation to buy african products over.... lets say austraila?

Not at all, the us consumer can do all he wants for all I care.
You just asked how the US could help african or even south american countries. If the US is not willing to, it really does not concern me in any way.

---

This still does not answer the question of how it would help. How exactly will increasing trade (what I assume you want to be an effect of removing tarrifs) help africa in a meaningful way?

Edit: I think a good case could be made that increasing trade would hurt since at least some of the economies are controled by the government and it would lead to even worse conditions.

Ok, so you are saying that because the US consumer does not buy enough african products africa is having problems. I think africa would be much better off, if europe and the us would not trade with africa at all. The trade of african luxury goods against western weapons is what kills most africans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waright

This still does not anwer the question of how it would help. How exactly will increasing trade (what I assume you want to be an effect of removing tarrifs) help africa in a meaningful way?

---

Ok - current trade rules are forcing selective production of goods in africa. Trade taxes are in, because those countries could produce those goods at a competive level. Given the fact that the people in charge are interrested in getting western goods, the trade taxes are forcing them to produce other goods (i.e. Coffee). Those other goods are produced in a less effective way (if that would not be true, you would not need the taxes, those lands would produce the more effective goods anyway). So in the end, those countries use up more of their resources to produce luxuries, leaving less of their own production for their own people.

If I get you right becuase of trade practices of the rest of the world that particular countries in africa are producing goods that are not in the best interest of said country. IE they should be making food instead of coffee to export.

I really don't know how to argue this. If I agree'd with you my position would be that the best thing we could do is embargo the country in africa in order to force them to use there resourses more wisely. I would not agree that removing tarrifs would help because consumers would still be buying the same things IE coffee weather or not there are tarrifs.

Thank you for explaining yourself but I still don't understand your thinking on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waright

If I get you right becuase of trade practices of the rest of the world that particular countries in africa are producing goods that are not in the best interest of said country. IE they should be making food instead of coffee to export.

I really don't know how to argue this. If I agree'd with you my position would be that the best thing we could do is embargo the country in africa in order to force them to use there resourses more wisely. I would not agree that removing tarrifs would help because consumers would still be buying the same things IE coffee weather or not there are tarrifs.

Thank you for explaining yourself but I still don't understand your thinking on this.

---

If coffee would be the most cost effective product those countries could make, would you need trade taxes on other goods? I don't see why.
If you would remove all trade tarrifs (that the right word?) people would grow what brings them the most money. Most likely that will be the things that are now selected for trade tarrifs (if not, then I don't see what the tarrifs are for). The result would be a) more wealth in africa, b) higher prices for coffee and c) unemployed workers in the western nations. As we are usually not very interrested in b) and c), a) wont happen.

Quote:

---

a) more wealth in africa

---

I disagree with the premise that africa needs more wealth to fix its problems. I think it needs better institutions, education and infrastructure. Wealth alone does not do this, and I will argue that wealth (along with higher populations) without better institutions, education and infrastructure will actually make it harder to get said foundations.

Quote:

---

b) higher prices for coffee and c) unemployed workers in the western nations

---

Dunno, we have suposubly shiped millions upon millions upon millions of jobs oversease and we still have about the same (or less) unemployment rate as 50 years ago. This is an example of how well formed institutions, education and infrastructure can help protect ones own contries from changing world economies.

I still do not understand how " Remove all trade taxes on products coming from those nations." helps an african country build thriving sustainable nations. Thier culture, economies, infrasturcure, governments, educational systems, ect are in my mind the problem. There is no way you can handle a disease like AIDS without ALL of those. The population growth of some of these nations complicates the issue of addressing these problems. Changing trade practices just wont help these underlying problems.

If you can't see it that way, try it the other way around.

There are three possibilities on how those trade regulation influence the development of africa:

a) it helps them solve their problems
b) it does not change anthing
c) it hinders them solving their problems

I believe c) is true, and I have said why I think so. b) is highly unlikely, as regulations almost always have an effect (why else have them).
So that leaves a). I am pretty interrested how the trade taxes the US and europe have on african goods, could help the african nations. ;)

Export based isn't necessarily bad. What is bad when the profit from such business is then invested in Europe/Asia/North America because such investments tend to be safer rather then in the local economy. If you could discourage capital flight then pretty much everyone wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lydia

If you can't see it that way, try it the other way around.

There are three possibilities on how those trade regulation influence the development of africa:

a) it helps them solve their problems
b) it does not change anthing
c) it hinders them solving their problems

I believe c) is true, and I have said why I think so. b) is highly unlikely, as regulations almost always have an effect (why else have them).
So that leaves a). I am pretty interrested how the trade taxes the US and europe have on african goods, could help the african nations. ;)

---

We will have to disagree on this one. I could see posible arguments for A, B or C but they are all red herrings in my mind for the reasons I have detailed in length above. Besides wholesale takover/rebuilds of nations in africa (which I don't want my tax dollar going to at this time) or time for "darwin", for lack of a better term, to sort things out in africa... Africa is just screwed, trade practices or not, giving money or not, drugs or not. As I said before I think half solutions are worse long term and are more cruel.

So Lydia thinks trade with the modern nations is killing hundreds of thousands, openly admits he doesn't want it to change for his own benefit, but Vidmer's comment sickens him.

And people can't farm enough to feed themselves because of a greedy/evil minority huh? Gee, wouldn't it be nice to remove evil dictators who fuck their people like that? oh wait a minute...

We will have to disagree on this one. I could see posible arguments for A, B or C but they are all red herrings in my mind for the reasons I have detailed in length above.

If neither a), b) or c) are true, then there has to be a d) as they are mutually exclusive. I'd be surprised if you could name a d) though.


So Lydia thinks trade with the modern nations is killing hundreds of thousands, openly admits he doesn't want it to change for his own benefit, but Vidmer's comment sickens him.

Waright's comment on the aids isssue was how not treating them is for their own good. My comment was on people starving, for my own prosperity.
The hypocrisy is to say not making aids treatment available to africans is for their own good, when it is in fact just to protect the interrests of the pharma industry.

To say "We can't give them our medicine for free, because then no one would develop new medicine" is something I find rather reasonable, "We can't give them our medicine for free, because if they live longer they will just infest more" is quite different for me.


Gee, wouldn't it be nice to remove evil dictators who fuck their people like that? oh wait a minute...

I am all for removing "evil dictators", there are basically at least 2 major points to decide; who defines what makes someone an "evil dictator" and how many people are you allowed to kill in the process.

The United States used over 90% precision guided munitions in gulf war 2. You'll excuse me if I roll my eyes at your bad mouthing of my country for "not trying hard enough."

So, what are all the other developed countries doing to stop the evil regimes in the world? France is doing some shit in west Africa, and failing. Thats about all I've heard. Meanwhile the US has stopped several genocides, and got criticised for it.

BTW, Saddam's previous occupation was contract killer. He read off random names of Iraqi leaders to be executed until they started chanting his name in support, then had the survivors pull the trigger the next day on them. He gased thousands of his own people in north Iraq in an attempt to exterminate them. Saddam idolized Joseph Stallin and employed his methods. He had an advanced nuclear program until Israel destroyed the plant. I think he qualifies as "evil enough."