quote: BRUSSELS, Oct. 16 — France and Germany decided to join Russia in support of the United Nations resolution on the future of Iraq not because they had been won over by new provisions, officials said Thursday, but out of concern over a spiral of violence in the Middle East coupled with a sense that few new concessions could be wrung from the Bush administration.
Here is the article.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'll be interested to see where this goes. The big 3 are all saying that they signed as a gesture of good faith toward their commitment to rebuilding Iraq, but there seems to be very little talk about what they're actually going to do. I know the States wants them to send troops and money, but I really don't know how much of that they're going to see. Frankly, I think it was an empty gesture.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
In the paper this morning it said that they will not commit any money nor troops. Way to go fellas. Big help.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
They don't want to commit their troops to American control. I realize that this resolution makes it American control of a UN sanctioned multinational occupation, but that's in name only. Powell also said he didn't expect any new doors to be opening for troops to come through. Although, I'm a little surprised that they're not giving *some* money. I guess we'll see what happens in Madrid. Japan has said it will pledge ~1.5 billion US dollars, maybe that will encourage other countries?
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Just want to offer you a foreign perspective:
Here in Brazil (at least in Rio de Janeiro), most people I know say openly how they would want U.S. Troops to die a bloody death in Iraq (or something close to that, with other words). Although I think the decision to invade was misguided, I do not wish for the suffering of iraqs nor american soldiers. The deed is already done, so the rebuilding should start as soon as possible and the country given back to its people.
If the majority here is pro war, my apologies. I guess the subject is closer to your heart than mine (there are americans dying out there, after all).
Nice to be with you all, folks.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You'll find pretty much the entire spectrum of opinion on what the US is doing in Iraq, Eduardo. Personally, I wasn't in favor of the war, but now that we're there I think it's imperative that we stay there, and succeed in rebuilding the country's infrastructure and fostering the creation of a stable government. What is the typical Brazilian belief about what would happen if the US were to just pull out?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
After Bush's administration announces for several months how he can invade without Congress or the UN, and then after public opinion wavered he appeared before the UN with an ultimatum but not much proof, and then used trumped up and inaccurate intelligence to invade anyway, and now finds us overextended and undermanned to do the job that the UN advised against doing in the first place, why in the world would the UN be reticient in sending us boatloads of money now, just because we won't give up any control over the situation? There's just no understanding some people. To get any money or support Bush is going to have to take a deep breath and tell them now that we've gotten rid of the threat, we could use some help rebuilding the government. And he's going to have to relinguish some control and some of the building contracts.
[ October 17, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
After the Clinton administration made regime change an official policy, due to its intelligence estimates of WMD capacity (which Clinton still stands by), and after Congress overwhelmingly voted to authorize military action to bring about regime change in Iraq, and after the UN itself passed 17 resolutions calling for Sadaam to live up to the terms of the ceasefire and immediately come clean or be forced from power, and after the US military conducted a rapid successful removal of Sadaam's thugs from power for a largely grateful populace, after which it proceeded to begin a reconstruction which is proceeding faster than any previous similar operation to date (including reconstruction of post-WWII Japan and Germany), but is dealing with minor insurgence from remaining Baathist thugs who would prefer to thrust Iraq back under the sway of terrorists and madmen, why would the UN refuse American security protection in Iraq, pull its humanitarian operations out, and try to obstuct the reconstruction efforts? And why would the Angry Left tie itself in knots taking unsustainable positions while hoping for US failure and the ascendency of thugs? There's just no understanding some people.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The U.N. had plans and a timetable for dealing with Iraq. Weapons inspectors were in the country. The Bush administration forced the issue, dove into a war that didn't need to be fought yet, treated the U.N. like a hated teacher that had to be alternately appeased or snuck around, and then had the audacity to ask for money without giving up any control at all or ever, even once, admitting that they might have been wrong in their estimations.
I'm not even going to use the standard liberal apologist qualifier "I'm glad that Saddam is out of power, but..." There was simply no reason to attack Iraq just then. None. No more than there's reason to attack quite a few other countries with power-mad dictators and oppressed peoples, including a few we're still friendly with. If Bush launched a cmapaign to bring them all down, one by one, I could see it and maybe even agree with it. But hard as they tried, there was no connection to 9/11, no connection between Saddam and bin Laden. At a time when the leader of our country had to be seen doing something and fast, Bush & Co picked an easy target and hoped no one would notice the card they were palming. Even that, I could forgive, if he took steps to include the U.N. in the government building decisions, or worked to keep the contracted companies from profiteering during the reconstruction. But Bush flatly refuses to admit he was wrong, or his people were wrong. It's not in him, he can't do it. If something goes wrong with his policies, it's someone else's fault. If a bill is passed over his considerable opposition, he takes credit for it. And it's inconceivable for him to oppose big business and gargantuan profit-taking.
Here's my prediction. Within six months, it will be revealed that the companies hired for Iraq reconstruction without any sort of bidding or fair competition will be found to be making ungodly profits in the hundreds of percent over costs. Let's see what happens.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Within six months, it will be revealed that the companies hired for Iraq reconstruction without any sort of bidding or fair competition will be found to be making ungodly profits in the hundreds of percent over costs.
Already happening. Does this mean that Iraq is NOT improved by their presence?
Are the companies that are rebuilding Iraq taking money from the Iraqi people? Are they doing anything unlawful?
I do NOT like the President's hard-line stance that the US alone should have power in Iraq. It's getting us nowhere. I don't blame other countries for not wanting to commit troops to be placed under American leadership-- I don't particularly want US troops put under, for example, French leadership. But there is room for compromise, and unfortunately, no one in the White house seems willing to do so.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Does this mean that Iraq is NOT improved by their presence?
Sure. The same way people forced to pay outrageous prices for pharmaceuticals still get better. Doesn't mean that someone isn't cheating someone else, or that the problem shouldn't be addressed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How are the companies cheating Iraq?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Open competitive bidding was not allowed in the iniital awarding of contracts. Instead a small number of firms were invited to submit proposals. Amazingly enough, these firms are big supporters of the Republican party and this administration, and the two biggest - Bechtel and Halliburton - are intertwined with this adminstration and received their contracts with virtually no information on how they were selected. Several of these contracts were signed well before the war. Overseas contracting only began after Britain complained.
Bechtel is under fire for poor performance in domestic jobs, such as the "Big Dig" in Boston which was priced at $3.5 billion in 1985 and is just now getting wrapped up for $14.8. One example: an entire arena was left off the plans, which cost the city another billion since workers felt free to lay utility lines across the area where the arena was supposed to go. There were a lot of cost-overrun problems like this, all attributable to Bechtel mistakes, and Bechtel paid for none of them. Here's a rundown of some of the others.. You'd think Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International Development, would know this: between 2000 and 2001 he was chief executive of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the organization with responsibility for the Big Dig. Glad we picked the most qualified company.
Go to a search engine and type in "Halliburton" and "scandal." Bring a lunch. They got the contract for capping the oil well fires, then recused themselves from the big contract bidding, then got it anyway. They're bad about cost-overruns, too, the cost of capping the fires is already triple what was projected at the start. And a May 2 letter that surfaced reveals that the Halliburton subsidiary that has the oil fire deal (Kellogg Brown & Root) also controls "the functioning of installations and distribution of product." Translation: they control the oil. This was supposed to be turned over to Iraqi bidding in August; that's been extended. Halliburton also had the contract for supplying soldiers, which has netted them $425 million so far. Members of Congress are asking for details of this, as this subsidiary was found to have excessively exaggerated invoices when doing the same job in Bosnia. Just this week they were criticized for price-gouging on imported gasoline, charging up to $.50 more per gallon than an Iraqi company would charge. The Iraqi company is not allowed to, of course.
DynCorp was given the hob of rebuilding the police force. Their history of scandals, including employees implicated in buying and selling prostitutes in Bosnia and class-action suits against them for their role in Plan Colombia which involves spraying cocaine crops with pesticides, pesticides which had the annoying habit of drifting over populated areas.
MCI was given the contract to set up telecom services in Iraq. Despite the fact that it wasn't bid, despite the fact that MCI (WorldCom) just came through a major accounting scandal and filed for bankruptcy, despite the fact that companies such as Vodafone, T-Mobile and Japan's NTT DoCoMo all arguably had more experience in setting up green field operations in developing countries. There will be bidding on the complete phone system reconstruction later on, but MCI will undoubtedly have a foot in the door.
These companies were given IDIQ contracts - indefinite delivery and indefinite quantities - which are usually assigned in situations where companies are competing with each other. That's not the case here.
The stuff that's popped up so far is chump change. I'm betting, based on the histories of these companies, that some major profiteering will be discovered within six months.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
With the exception of delaying the transfer of control over oil to the Iraqi's, I'm not sure that any of those qualify as an exact answer to my question. . .
And were there any Iraqi companies ready to take control of the oil in August?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
By definition Iraqis are being cheated if the best companies are being turned away from the contracts in favor of politically connected ones.
This is the remaking of a country, and to give contracts to companies known to be inexperienced, or known for corrupt practices, is cheating Iraqis out of fair treatment.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Good point, fugu. Thanks.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Scott -- you post at Nauvoo, right? Could you please suggest that she checks if the cat has diabetes?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't really hang out at Nauvoo, tristan. I haven't been there in a while.
I get my fill of Mormon whackos at church on Sunday.
I assume you're talking about the 'Cat' topic on the General Discussions page?
Yeah, I'll let 'em know.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Thanks, Scott.
Sometimes the no non-LDS rule at Nauvoo is a little annoying.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Bob, why the hell are we referring to the french, germans, and russians as the big three? France has never been a powerful nation, they hav eyet to successfully fight a war, germany and russia I can accept, but not france. And frankly, why should we give a crap what the UN says?
-Rhaegar
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Chris,
EXCELLENT summary of affairs. Very nicely done!
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
By the way, if any of you are interested, the following is a rebuttal I wrote to an article in a local college paper back in April:
quote: In his article in the March 26, 2003 Youngtown Edition, staff writer Adam Ruggiero offers what he calls “A Modest Proposal” for France and Germany. He acknowledges his debt to Swift’s perennial satirical work for the title, but seems to have completely missed the point of Swift’s article.
Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” was a brilliant, despair-ridden attack upon the cruelty of the rich British aristocracy towards the starving Irish peasants who lived on what was at the time British soil. Swift’s proposal: since there is famine in Ireland and you Brits hate us Irish so much, why not kill two birds with one stone and eat the Irish? Swift’s proposal was disgusting and revolting, as was intended. Sometimes, unless we get such a harsh slap in the face, we can get so caught up in our own arrogance and narcissism that we overlook the needs and values of others.
Witness Mr. Ruggiero’s article if you have any doubt about this.
Ruggiero seems so caught up in being a war-monger that I don’t think he’s really thought through what he has been saying. In nearly so many words, he has called the French and Germans cowards, traitors, and selfish. And why? Because they have had the moral integrity (yes, integrity!) to refuse to capitulate to President Bush’s illegal war upon Iraq. If Tony Blair had this much integrity, I doubt very much that the resignations in the British government (including the Leader of the Commons) would have occurred.
Let me ask you: if you belonged to a group of ten or fifteen friends, and two of these friends (let’s call them, say, America and Britain) decided to become vigilantes, break into the acquitted O. J. Simpson’s home, and beat him to death, would you join in? Surely, if you were a good friend, you would, wouldn’t you? I mean, killing Simpson might be illegal, but hey, you’re supposed to help your friends, right? And if you don’t help them, you must be a coward, a traitor, and selfish, right? At least, that seems to be the gist of Ruggiero’s article: support us no matter what we do, or else you’re a coward, a traitor, and are selfish, too.
Regardless of whether Simpson deserves it, killing him would be an illegal act. And regardless of whether Iraq deserves it, launching a war against the will of the international community of which the United States is a part is an illegal act as well.
Yes, Iraq’s hands aren’t exactly clean. Yes, Saddam Hussein probably deserves all this and more, but do the ends justify the means? Bush has refused to let the United Nations weapons inspectors complete their inspections, has chosen to disregard the ruling of the international community, and has chosen instead to go into Iraq with guns blazing like John Wayne, John Rambo, and the Archangel Michael all rolled into one.
I guess it’s all a matter of definitions. When another country invades someone, we call it evil. When the United States of America invades someone, we call it “peace keeping.” (Besides, what’s the point of having all this nifty military hardware if we don’t get to use it occasionally, right, Mr. Ruggerio?)
Oh, by the way, in his sarcasm-dripping article, Mr. Ruggiero said, “If anyone knows [what the French have done for the United States], I’d appreciate being informed because at the moment, I am at a loss.” Since Mr. Ruggiero is at such a tragic loss, I now direct his attention to a little-known historical skirmish known colloquially as the Revolutionary War. You know the one: the British on one side, and the colonial Americans on the other. Yes, that Revolutionary War.
Surely, Mr. Ruggiero realizes, or at least he ought to realize, that the French were extremely instrumental in our fight for independence. Without French troops, arms, and the leadership of the Marquis De Lafayette, it is unlikely that there would even be a United States of America. (I know, Mr. Ruggerio, I know: but what have they done for us lately?)
So, now I have a modest proposal of my own for Mr. Ruggerio: perhaps he should spend less time spewing inflammatory rhetoric, and more time hitting the history books.
Jeffrey Getzin
[ October 19, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Jeffrey Getzin ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And frankly, why should we give a crap what the UN says?
Because the U.N. represents the rest of the world, and because we rely on the rest of the world to win the War on Terror (not to mention our economic reliance on them.) The truth of the matter is, if the rest of the world refuses to fight terrorism to help us out, we can't make them and lose the so-called war on terror. That's why it's essential what they think.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
And I wrote the following article in response to the letters I received regarding the first one:
quote:
quote: "Why, of course the people don't want war ... That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along ... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader April 18, 1946 - World War II Nuremberg Trials
Consider Nazi Germany for a few minutes and ask yourself how an entire country could turn evil. Were all German citizens evil to their cores, and not good folk like we Americans? Or was every German citizen merely stupid and gullible, much more easily misled than we are? Were they, in fact, very different from us?
These are not rhetorical questions. Take the time to honestly consider them, and then formulate answers. Avoid answering by rote; exercise your right to free thought and come to your own conclusions.
Now ask yourself another question: if a German citizen had spoken out against Hitler, against the death camps, and against the Reich in general, would the Nazis have considered that person a patriot? Looking through the mirror of time at sixty years ago, would you?
What does it mean to be patriotic? Does it mean supporting your government no matter what it does, even when it’s perpetrating evil? Or does it mean trying to steer it away from such evil, even at the cost of you being denounced unpatriotic?
It’s so easy to find good reasons to do bad things. Do you honestly think that the Nazi propaganda machine had said, “Hey, let’s do evil things because being evil is fun”? Or do think they were more insidious about it, wrapping their evil in a cloak of good intentions and lofty goals: we have to protect ourselves, improve the world, fix the economy, stop the menace of oppressors, we must make the world safe for democracy, and so on?
You can see where I’m going with this. As I anticipated, the response to my article in the April 24 edition of the Youngtown Edition has yielded many negative comments that criticized my patriotism. I wasn’t surprised. We’re all programmed from the day we’re born to have a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone questions authority. Someone who questions authority is a troublemaker, not a team player, an obstacle to progress, a stick-in-the-mud, a party-pooper, a traitor, a coward, and a communist.
A communist? Oh, that brings back memories, doesn’t it? Memories of when Senator McCarthy had the nation in the clutch of his sweaty little hands. When once again, those who spoke out against the lemming-like stampede towards the cliffs of ruin were branded unpatriotic. In retrospect, it’s easy to see how misled we were. Obviously, we should have spoken out, should have stopped that rabid Chihuahua from the start.
So why didn’t we? Could it be that what is obvious to us now was only obvious to a few then? What were the warning signs that we missed, the warning signs that the Germans missed in the 1930s and 1940s?
One such warning sign leaps immediately to the forefront: whenever dissent is considered unpatriotic, our liberty is in dire jeopardy.
I received one letter that decried, “I find it hard to read something from someone who has never been shot at, defended [his] country ... Sit back and enjoy the fact that [soldiers] ... give you the right to drive your car, vote, play nintendo as well as have ability to NOT LIVE IN FEAR OF YOUR LIFE.” (capitalization his)
Is pointing a gun at another human being the only way one can fight for one’s country? Does my not being a soldier somehow nullify my rights as a citizen? Isn’t that fascism by the very definition of the word?
And which wars did “President” George W. Bush fight in to defend our country? You know, the ones that gave him the rights that I seem to sorely lack? (You can email the list to me care of the Youngtown Edition, but remember that panty raids and drinking contests don’t count as wars unless there was gunfire and at least one enemy nation involved.)
It’s odd that author of the letter uses the phrase “give you the right”. I’ve heard that a lot, and it always disturbs me. I always thought that, “we hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal. That they are endowed ... with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence)
Maybe Tom and I were mistaken. Perhaps might makes right after all, just like Uncle Saddam always said. Maybe the United States has more in common with Iraq than it cares to admit.
I’ve asked a lot of questions in this article; more questions than answers. I apologize, but I really do think that we should all be asking ourselves these important questions, challenging the status quo.
The absence of doubt frightens me: it usually precedes someone being burned at the stake or imprisoned for life. No matter that you may be posthumously exonerated two hundred some years later as Galileo was; I’m sure it wasn’t of much consolation to Galileo. Whenever you’re certain about something (e.g., the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat, that’s William Shatner’s real hair, etc.) that is when you most need to stop and question the very things you are so certain about.
For instance, many of you are no doubt certain that Bush declared war on Iraq to free those poor downtrodden Iraqis. But can you guess one of the chief causes of their misfortune? We are. As Martin L. Haines reports in the March 6 Asbury Park Press:
“During the Gulf War, the United States deliberately bombed Iraq’s water system in violation of the Geneva Convention. After the War it promoted sanctions that would prevent Iraq from importing water-purifying chemicals. These facts are confirmed by documents obtained from the Defense Intelligence Agency. They are available on the Pentagon Web site.
“The documents prove that the United States was fully aware of the consequences of its destruction of Iraq’s water system and its sanctions. They refer to the likely outbreak of disease, especially in children, caused by the pollutants and bacteria existing in the unpurified water. In conclusion, they discuss a strategic plan designed to place blame for the water problems on Saddam Hussein.
“The United Nations estimates that more than 500,000 Iraqi children have died since the war ended; unclean water was a major cause of those deaths.”
So, as you can see, things are not always as they seem. That being the case, I humbly beg your indulgence for just a few more questions.
You see, this isn’t the first time that I’ve questioned Bush’s illegal war and in return have been accused of attacking our soldiers. So one of my last questions is this: since when have the two been synonymous?
The way I see it, our soldiers are doing their duty in this war. I do not blame them, any more than I blame the executioner who gives a lethal injection to a wrongly convicted (note that I didn’t say “innocent”) man. I do not fault our soldiers or even their cause. I only fault the “President” who first decided to attack Iraq, then made up a bunch of reasons --- some of them even valid --- why it was a good idea, and then finally, sent our brave, loyal, and honorable soldiers to sully their hands on his behalf.
Hate our soldiers? Nothing could be farther than the truth. I have nothing but outrage on their behalf, that they should be so misused by the man who stole the Oval Office. I want nothing more for our troops than to collectively embrace them, thank them for being so brave on my behalf, and promise them that I will somehow restore the honor that their “President” has stolen from them.
I have hopes that this quixotic goal can be achieved. Other presidents have purloined the military’s honor (Vietnam, Iran-Contras, et al.) but never for long. You see, the truth always surfaces and the real patriots are exonerated. But in the meantime, we who fight for the honor and integrity of our country --- you with your rifle and me with my word processor --- will have to endure the mudslinging of the McCarthyists among us.
It’s the price we must pay if we are to keep our nation free for people like us to disagree with each other.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
The UN is not a powerful force, when in history have they ever made a single, useful, successful or powerful, military operation? NATO is a useful thing, The UN is a pointless community.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. It's a place where representatives from all nations can be addressed and implored. Just because it's not a powerful military force doesn't make it useless.
The European Union's demonstrations of fiscal strength have shown how powerful the international community can be when it acts in unison. If the companies that comprise the EU can force the United States to relent on trade issues, imagine what happens when you throw in South America, Africa, Australia, and Asia as well.
Jeff
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm afraid Rhaegar is right, historically speaking. The UN has been ineffective, fractured, and largely wothless. Countries run to the UN clamoring for unity when it suits them, and scoff at it as a useless and needlessly bureacratic when it tries to issue anything stronger than philosophical reevaluations of its own mission.
Which is not to say that it can't PROVE its effectiveness. Just that it hasn't yet.
[ October 19, 2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I have to completely disagree with the notion that the UN is useless.
While it doesn't have the military might of NATO, or the US, it has facilitated a number of important humanitarian missions and international conventions. Springing to mind is such treaties as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women ('CEDAW'), the Convention Against Torture, the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and so on.
Sure these conventions are not compulsory, and even if countries break them they may not be retaliated against (for exampled, the US is one of only 2 countries in the world not to have ratified the CRC - the other is Somalia) but I think they still play a very important role in the world community. They codify standards of human rights and provide and legal basis for their protection. This is especially important in countries such as France which have a monist system of law - international law is part of French law.
Furthermore they strengthen the legitimacy of campaigns to reform human rights in other countries: just recently the Arabic countries have instituted a panel to implement CEDAW, in part in response to international pressure.
From the perspective of an international lawyer, the UN is indispensible. On a more practical/tangible note the work such agencies as the Commission for Human Rights and High Commission for Refugees has done is incredible. Peace keeping missions have been (mostly) successful. It's not that UN is perfect, or hasn't had failures, but it is the only representative global body and works to address global issues in a democratic way.
Surely this is better than one country unilaterally deciding what is best for the rest of the world?
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Scott,
You mean when Dumya wanted the UN to sanction his war and they refused?
Hans Blix had a great quote when Dumya was asking for more time to find the WMDs. He pointed out that the US was asking for the very time it refused to give to the weapons inspectors when they were there under the UN mandate.
Do you mean that the UN is powerless to prevent an aggressive nation, like the United States, from attacking a country like Iraq? Well, in this instance at least, you appear to be correct. The UN is not powerful enough to stop the world's most powerful country from stepping all over the less powerful nations of the world ... at least not yet.
Jeff
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Jeff,
You express your ideas with such impartial respect for your opponents' positions, with such willingness to believe in at least the genuineness of their own belief in what they're doing, that you just inspire me to consider your well balanced argument, presented with such fair-mindedness. Keep up the good work. Progressives all over the US are furthered by your writing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm gonna have to go with DB on this one.
That is, if he can tolerate agreeing with someone who types "gonna" .
[ October 19, 2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Dumya
What does your derision add to this discussion, Jeff? I don't mind you attacking the president's position, and actions, but namecalling is just childish. Save it for your college newspapers.
Sadaam broke the treaty he signed with the UN. The UN did nothing. There are very few things more pathetic than a policing body that lacks the power to police. The CRC is a good example of philosophical inaction. Nice words on nice letterhead, but utterly worthless otherwise.
The UN was utterly incapable, and continues to be incapable of stopping human rights incidents in Africa and Russia without backing from the United States.
It would be nice if it were an effective, lawmaking body-- but the requirement to meet that is competence and good will of the delegates. And there isn't much of that going around, these days.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But Scott, the question has never been whether or not Saddam broke a treaty, or even if he deserved to be invaded. The question was and is, why now, and why us? Why when there are other battles more pressing, other countries more immediately dangerous? Why when our economy can't handle it, especially since this president has no other fiducial trick besides more tax cuts? Why when in so doing we've alienated every ally we ever had?
As a patriotic American, I feel an obligation to point out that our leader is dragging us down. He can't manage our money, he's pissing off our neighbors, and I don't want him representing me. Neither did half of the country, almost exactly, yet he continues to act as if he has a mandate. Or else he simply doesn't care what half of the country thinks. He certainly doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, and that's the core reason why the U.N. is holding back.
Posted by qkslvrwolf (Member # 5768) on :
quote: It would be nice if it were an effective, lawmaking body-- but the requirement to meet that is competence and good will of the delegates.
I agree. But the point is, the United States must be the first country to demonstrate that good will and that competence. Yes, the UN basically owes its existance and its functionality to the US, but that, to me, means only that we should set a good example, not do whatever our election donating corporate interests please.
America has the potential to be a true world leader. We haven't really managed to do a good job of that very often...and sometimes when we try, we get a black eye. (i.e., Somalia.)
Personlly, I think we ought to ask for volunteers who will not stand to gain from anythign in Iraq...no companies will be given contracts, no money will be paid...and allow them to administrate the change...including choosing the companies who do get contracts.
I actually do agree with the removal of Saddam. But it should have been done under UN sanction, and it shoul dhave been done in '91 or in '98, when the inspectors got kicked out. Bush's reasons were weak, are weak, and will always be weak.
At this point, i'll go finish my laundry rather than degenerating into a rant about Bush.
The asshole.
[ October 19, 2003, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: qkslvrwolf ]
Posted by rayne (Member # 5722) on :
It's better to have a semblance of world order than nothing, at least we have something to work with. The alternative to a crappy organization is not always a better organization. I think many of the goals and mission statements put out by the different departments of the UN are utopian and rediculous in the foreseeable future, but at least they're being put out there. Kofi Annan said it well a few weeks ago.
quote:I stand before you today as a multilateralist – by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty.
I also believe that every government that is committed to the rule of law at home, must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. All States have a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order.
Our founding fathers, the statesmen of 1945, had learnt that lesson from the bitter experience of two world wars and a great depression.
They recognised that international security is not a zero-sum game. Peace, security and freedom are not finite commodities – like land, oil or gold – which one State can acquire at another’s expense. On the contrary, the more peace, security and freedom any one State has, the more its neighbours are likely to have.
And they recognised that, by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together, they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any one of them acting separately.
If those lessons were clear in 1945, should they not be much more so today, in the age of globalisation?
On almost no item on our agenda does anyone seriously contend that each nation, or any nation, can fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims.
Only by multilateral action can we ensure that open markets offer benefits and opportunities to all.
Only by multilateral action can we give people in the least developed countries the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty, ignorance and disease.
Only by multilateral action can we protect ourselves from acid rain, or global warming; from the spread of HIV/AIDS, the illicit trade in drugs, or the odious traffic in human beings.
That applies even more to the prevention of terrorism. Individual States may defend themselves, by striking back at terrorist groups and the countries that harbour or support them. But only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all States, with constant, systematic exchange of information, offers any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities.
On all these matters, for any one State – large or small – choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience. It has consequences far beyond the immediate context.
When countries work together in multilateral institutions – developing, respecting, and when necessary enforcing international law – they also develop mutual trust, and more effective cooperation on other issues.
The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions – thereby respecting shared values, and accepting the obligations and restraints inherent in those values – the more others will trust and respect it, and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership.
Posted by rayne (Member # 5722) on :
In response to qkslvrwlf- you know, I agree about volunteers, or at the very least non-profs. And I was watching C-SPAN earlier tonight and happened to catch Clark talking about his New Patriotism/Service shpeal for 2004, and I think he has an excellent idea. This is what it is-
I would also like to point out that as a base requirement, I do not believe the government should offer any contract to a company that maintains an offshore headquarters or similar tax haven. All the money that goes to Halliburton and Bechtel stays with Halliburton and Bechtel. Such a provision has been suggested several times before and has always been shot down by the more flagrantly bought-and-paid-for members of government. Exactly what reason would there be for rewarding American companies who pay no taxes?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:He certainly doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, and that's the core reason why the U.N. is holding back.
I'll let you evaluate whose point this statement proves. . .
Why now, why US? Because the UN didn't have the political clout to get it done.
quote:Why when in so doing we've alienated every ally we ever had?
Well, we've still got Israel. Really, this is a tad bit of hyperbole, don't you think, Chris?
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
All I have to say is, screw the UN.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: especially since this president has no other fiducial trick besides more tax cuts?
We have heard much about the Clinton economy, and how well he did with the economy. I want to ask all of you out there who believe Clinton handled the economy well, to explain what it is that he did, that helped the economy.
Bush's tax cuts have brought the economy back up to its full strength, with over 3% growth last quater. Some analysts are projecting 5% growth next quater. I would say that the tax cuts have added money to the economy and done their job.
quote: Why when there are other battles more pressing, other countries more immediately dangerous?
I have heard this argument a lot recently. Which other battles do you refer to? North Korea? Should we have invaded Iran?
quote: yet he continues to act as if he has a mandate. Or else he simply doesn't care what half of the country thinks.
Would you rather have a president that does what he thinks is popular, or what he thinks is right? If you want a pres. who always takes the highest polled position on any topic, why have a pres. at all?
quote: core reason why the U.N. is holding back
The UN is holding back because most of the members would love to see the US fail in bringing democracy to the middle east. Countries like France and Russia have much to lose in this situation. France has already lost a huge amount of trade, legal and illegal with Iraq.
From the Kofi Anan thing:
quote: thereby respecting shared values
This is an illusion. The only value the UN shares is containing the US. What values do the non-elected leaders of east african countries share with the leaders of Eastern Europe? Not many. The idea that because the world agrees on something, that makes it right, is wrong. Multilateralism is good for small countries, with little influence outside the UN. They get an un-fair influence on world events.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:If the companies that comprise the EU can force the United States to relent on trade issues,
I am interested to know what issue this was. I was under the impression that they had no will to actually fight the US on such issues. The Steel tarrif being the first that comes to mind. The EU complained loudly about that, but accepted it in the end. Let me say, beside the point as it is, free trade is much more important than propping up and unsuccessful industry.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Well, we've still got Israel. Really, this is a tad bit of hyperbole, don't you think, Chris?
Not really. Who still supports us unreservedly? You can't say Britain. Blair still might, but most of Parliament doesn't. Israel may support the iraq war but they don't seem terribly receptive to Bush's road map.
quote:We have heard much about the Clinton economy, and how well he did with the economy. I want to ask all of you out there who believe Clinton handled the economy well, to explain what it is that he did, that helped the economy.
Is your only argument in favor of Bush's economy the fact that he's not as bad as Clinton? I have a somewhat higher bar for him to reach. Businesses are indeed profiting. Businesses will always profit under Bush, no matter how many school programs have to get cut, welfare programs have to go, veterans programs get axed, or regulatory boards get strangled.
quote:Bush's tax cuts have brought the economy back up to its full strength, with over 3% growth last quater. Some analysts are projecting 5% growth next quater. I would say that the tax cuts have added money to the economy and done their job.
Not so far, there was a dip in September. Still growing, admittedly, but I don't see any signs that this money is going anywhere below management level. Unemployment is still rising. And what happens next year when the state and national budgets are even tighter?
quote:Why when there are other battles more pressing, other countries more immediately dangerous?
I have heard this argument a lot recently. Which other battles do you refer to? North Korea? Should we have invaded Iran?
We should have continued to follow up on known terrorist cells, worked to improve relations with friendly countries so they would cooperate with our terrorist hunt, used the shared dislike of terrorists to improve our relations with previously unfriendly countries, worked to improve our intelligence, issued sanctions against countries that harbored terrorists, and worked at home to build up a war chest to pay for the hunt.
quote:yet he continues to act as if he has a mandate. Or else he simply doesn't care what half of the country thinks.
Would you rather have a president that does what he thinks is popular, or what he thinks is right? If you want a pres. who always takes the highest polled position on any topic, why have a pres. at all?
How does acting against the wishes of half the country translate to the highest polled position? When we were told there was a connection between Saddam and alQueda, we were all for attacking (well, some of us were) and that we'd know what is was soon enough. This connection has never been proven, and more and more people are starting to wonder what they've been sold. I want a president that examines the issues, not one that picks the result he wants and manufactures reasons to go get it.
quote:core reason why the U.N. is holding back
The UN is holding back because most of the members would love to see the US fail in bringing democracy to the middle east. Countries like France and Russia have much to lose in this situation. France has already lost a huge amount of trade, legal and illegal with Iraq.
Some of them, sure. Most? Yes, France and Russia lost big. And now we've gained big. This makes it ethical, that we replaced their profiteering with our own?
[ October 20, 2003, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
There is no foreign policy, just domestic politics played in other peoples countries, with other peoples lives.
The goal of US Foreign policy should be three fold:
1) The security of the United States and its people.
This was the main reason given for invading of Iraq. However, after looking back, this reason is found wanting. Apparently our intelligence was wrong, and the decisions of our leaders was, at best, misguided.
Hussein's Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US, other than to US dignity, for daring to exist despite our best efforts to crush it.
2) The promotion of states that provide for the future security of the United States.
Hussein is definately a leader who, if unwatched, could pose a serious threat to the US, and US interests, in the future. However, the way the war and the diplomacy leading up to the war, and the aftermath of the war have been handled, it has worked to the opposing view point. Now, people around the globe are rooting for our enemies, and see us in an unfavorable light, ranging from annoyed to out right hostile.
3) The promotion of business the increases the internal economic vitality of the United States.
While the business to be gained rebuilding Iraq is nice, our reputation world wide is hurting the US from selling products.
What is not a goal of the United States:
1) Policing the world, accept where it falls into area 2 above. However, as the sole super power we have been forced into this role.
2) Religious or Political Overlordship. Demanding other countries follow our morality is not what we should be worried about. Asking is fine, but, going back to #1, we are not the world police. Stopping Abortions in China, condom use in Africa, or alcoholism in Russia is not our goal. Only when their religion or politics is a threat to the US should we intervene (Saudi Arabia has a few religous leaders we should watch).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The UN is not a powerful force, when in history have they ever made a single, useful, successful or powerful, military operation?
There are many ways of weilding power without resorting to military invasion. If you'd like a recent example, consider the fact that it now appears that the U.N. successfully disarmed Iraq of its WMDs. We found no operating WMD program in Iraq when we invaded, which means the actions by the U.N. and international community successfully forced Iraq to eliminate it's WMD program (and I say forced because evidence suggests Saddam wanted to have it, yet evidently could not.) This seems to be a smashing success for the idea that the U.N. is an effective institution, when backed by the main powers of the international community. It eliminated a major nation's illegal weapons program without resorting to war (although war ended up occuring anyway, thanks to the U.S.)
quote:Why now, why US? Because the UN didn't have the political clout to get it done.
This is downright false, though. The UN chose not to invade Iraq. This decision was not made on the grounds of being incapable of invading Iraq but rather on the grounds that most UN members thought it was a mistake to invade Iraq.
[ October 20, 2003, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
quote: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
State of the Union, President Bush
I think that even president Bush agrees there was no immediate threat.
Also the UN: The UN is made up of countries who are Socialist or Dictatorships in which slavery runs rampant, human right violations are commonplace and with little to no rights we have here in the US. There are very few truly good countries in the UN. Why should we respect the wishes of countries where a woman will be stoned to death for daring to be rapped? These nations in the UN aren't peace-loving innocents.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Why should we respect the wishes of countries where a woman will be stoned to death for daring to be rapped?
Because if Osama bin Laden is hiding in that country, they won't help us catch him if we don't respect their wishes too, and ultimately Americans may die because of it.
[ October 20, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
So if we do nothing they will respect us? If they allow, or even support, a known enemy of the US in thier country then they don't respect the US; nor do they fear us.
Posted by Wayne Trent (Member # 5828) on :
The United Nations is not useless. Nothing is entirely without use. Where I and most Americans rightly take issue with is the idea being floated that the United Nations has much use. Unarguably, it does not. Yes, unarguably. In the world of reality, the UN is an emasculated, hypocritical organization that has wonderful ideals but little practical benefits when it comes to issues such as Iraq.
Note I am not disputing the idea that the UN could be extremely useful. That is as undeniable as its current minimal usefulness. The UN is not designed to be, has never been, and in its current form will never be anything approaching a form of world government. No organization purporting to be useful in reaching just resolutions to international problems can say, with a straight face, "We see nothing wrong with having any serious decision vetoed by five of the most powerful nations on Earth, for any reason whatsoever or none at all."
Such an organization has use, but what is its use? Among its uses is clearly not the capability to enforce its own will on nations, as witnessed by Iraq, North Korea, China, America, France, Sudan, Iran, Mexico, the former Soviet Union, Thailand, Israel, etc. etc. etc.
It does not have the means-lack of resources-or the will (crippled by any number of groups on any given issue) to do what is right, or what the majority decides as has been demonstrated by the state of constant warfare in Israel and Palestine, Iraqi unwillingness to adhere to peace treaties, American unwillingness to give the UN room to work-a decision I agree with since as is clear I don't think the UN can work-continuing world hunger, AIDS epedemics, pollution, etc.
To make a long story short, the UN is not useless but nor is it use[/i]ful[/i]. I do not count rubber-stamping and wrist-slapping among "useful" capabilities. This is not to say the UN should be flouted at will, nor that in its by-and-large impotence it does no good at all. But let's not kid ourselves. The UN is not nearly as useful as you, Chris, and you, Jeffrey, are claiming. Nor is it as useless as some others are claiming. And let's not forget the most important fact when discussing the UN-its impotence and minimal usefulness are congenital and cannot be cured without major surgery.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Doug,
Who said anything about doing nothing? Listening to them, via their voice in the U.N., when our decisions impact them will lead them to respect us more and be more willing to listen to us when their decisions impact us.
As for your second point, it isn't true. We have enemies of Israel in our country that we allow because we have standards of freedom of speech and freedom of belief. That doesn't mean we don't respect Israel. Other countries may have similar standards.
[ October 20, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Is your only argument in favor of Bush's economy the fact that he's not as bad as Clinton?
I said nothing of the sort, please answer my question. I asked what Clinton DID that made the economy do so well during his 2 terms. The economy was clearly much better then, I am asking what exactly he did, that made it that way.
quote: Businesses will always profit under Bush, no matter how many school programs have to get cut, welfare programs have to go, veterans programs get axed, or regulatory boards get strangled.
I wish he would END welfare programs, and heavily restrict spending on all the others you mentioned. The way to control an out of control budget, is to cut spending. We all know that tax cuts add money to the economy and make it easier for businesses to succeed, you admitt this yourself. What formula for economic growth would you have us follow? Would you like businesses to fail? Perhaps we should soak the rich?
quote:Unemployment is still rising.
Not true.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Percent of labor force unemployed
June 6.4% July 6.2% August 6.1% September 6.1%
quote: We should have continued to follow up on known terrorist cells,
Which ones did we not follow up on? In what contries are these terrorists, and how do you know about them even though the DoD does not?
quote:worked to improve relations with friendly countries so they would cooperate with our terrorist hunt
I believe just today or yesterday the philipine army siezed a bunch of terrorists in an al qaida connected group. The Pakistanis arrest terrorists every other day. Which countries should we have closer relations with, and why aren't these countries helping us now?
quote: used the shared dislike of terrorists to improve our relations with previously unfriendly countries
Which ones? You can say this, but without specifics, it is meaningless.
quote: worked to improve our intelligence, issued sanctions against countries that harbored terrorists
These two items are not properly being done, and should be done. Saudi Arabia should be slapped with sanctions until they cough up some more al qaida types.
quote:How does acting against the wishes of half the country translate to the highest polled position?
If 50% of the people support something, that would be a majority. Very rarely is there a 50/50 split on any issue. If one side has 50%, you can bet the other has 47% or 45% or less. But you avoid the question. Would you rather the president make choices based on what he believes is best for the country, which is what his office is designed to do, or should he be windvane for political issues?
quote: And now we've gained big. This makes it ethical, that we replaced their profiteering with our own?
Other than added security, what have we gained? How are we "profiteering"? Is giving the Iraqi people $20 Billion profiteering?
quote: Because if Osama bin Laden is hiding in that country, they won't help us catch him if we don't respect their wishes too, and ultimately Americans may die because of it.
So did we go against the wishes of the taliban when they refused to help us get bin laden? Would we have been better off being friends with the taliban, paying them off, and begging them to give us bin laden?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: We have enemies of Israel in our country that we allow because we have standards of freedom of speech and freedom of belief. That doesn't mean we don't respect Israel. Other countries may have similar standards.
You are mis-representing the issue. The problem is not that nations harbor people who simply don't agree with us. As you seem to be saying here. The problem is nations harboring persons like Bin Laden who is actively trying to kill americans. When the US finds someone supporting Islamic Jihad or Hamas or some other terror group fighting to kill jews, the US DOES stop these people. The US arrested Sami Al Arian in Florida for these crimes.
When a country protects someone like Bin Laden, it DOES mean that they do not respect us, and wish us harm.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:To make a long story short, the UN is not useless but nor is it use[/i]ful[/i]. I do not count rubber-stamping and wrist-slapping among "useful" capabilities. This is not to say the UN should be flouted at will, nor that in its by-and-large impotence it does no good at all.
I agree with your overall sentiment.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:When the US finds someone supporting Islamic Jihad or Hamas or some other terror group fighting to kill jews, the US DOES stop these people.
Do we? If they violate U.S. laws we stop them. But if they don't violate U.S. laws, we are obliged by our Constitution to not stop them, no?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Do we? If they violate U.S. laws we stop them. But if they don't violate U.S. laws, we are obliged by our Constitution to not stop them, no?
We are not obliged by the constitution, but we DO. We freeze the assets of groups pretending to be charities, but who actually funnel money to Hamas and company.
We created more laws after 9/11 that made it a crime to support terrorist organizations. The government could easily choose not to enforce them against people hamas and IJ, but they do, becuase Isreal is our ally. If the US hated Isreal as most European nations, led by France, do, we would allow these people to continue raising money and leave them alone.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Is your only argument in favor of Bush's economy the fact that he's not as bad as Clinton?
I said nothing of the sort, please answer my question. I asked what Clinton DID that made the economy do so well during his 2 terms. The economy was clearly much better then, I am asking what exactly he did, that made it that way.
Well, when I questioned Bush's economic policies you didn't respond. Instead you asked me to defend Clinton's, which is odd since I hadn't mentioned Clinton at all. Clinton benefited from the rising economy inherited from Bush Sr. (which was recovering from the deficits that Reagan blessed us with) and was materially assisted by the techno bubble and stock madness. His main contribution was to protect the Federal Trade Commission and to keep friendly relationships with other countries (including the middle east) to keep money coming in. Your turn. How does granting more tax breaks help us now?
quote: Businesses will always profit under Bush, no matter how many school programs have to get cut, welfare programs have to go, veterans programs get axed, or regulatory boards get strangled.
I wish he would END welfare programs, and heavily restrict spending on all the others you mentioned. The way to control an out of control budget, is to cut spending. We all know that tax cuts add money to the economy and make it easier for businesses to succeed, you admitt this yourself. What formula for economic growth would you have us follow? Would you like businesses to fail? Perhaps we should soak the rich?
Just cut off all welfare? That'll do wonders for the crime rate. The way to control an out-of-control budget is to control spending. Businesses must have incentive to succeed, but people also need incentive to live, teach their kids, and buy the products the businesses produce. Go through the welfare programs and clean them up, certainly. Get tougher on people who abuse the system, but don't cut out the ones who use it to improve themselves and get out on their own. Stop rating schools based on a single test without regard for their population density, level of maintainence, or history, and stop giving their money to the schools that prove they don't need it. (I have a much longer rant on schools I'll save for another time, which essentially boils down to "Teachers, teach the kids. Principals and school boards, stop taking the lowest bids and sweetheart deals for construction and stop letting the parents jerk you around. Parents, support your school, some of you are just going to have to accept the fact that your kid's an idiot.) I can accept giving businesses breaks to succeed, but I insist on removing govt. contracts for companies who use out-of-country tax havens. I insist that regulatory boards be given the strength to actually regulate something, and that they be put in charge of someone committed to regulating and not the head lobbyist or activist against regulation for that industry, as has been the case for every one of Bush's appointees. I'll accept stronger tort reform to protect companies from frivolous claims, but only against cases proven to be trivial. Legitimate claims must not be blocked by anti-worker legislation. I don't want to strangle the free market, but I refuse to allow it to run unfettered so the crooks can take over. More so, I mean.
quote:Unemployment is still rising.
Not true.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Percent of labor force unemployed
June 6.4% July 6.2% August 6.1% September 6.1%
Depends on whom you ask. This article discusses how the survey of households provides a 6.1% figure, while a survey of businesses isn't quite as good. 93,000 more people out of a job in August.
quote:We should have continued to follow up on known terrorist cells,
Which ones did we not follow up on? In what contries are these terrorists, and how do you know about them even though the DoD does not?
Got me. But it doesn't look like there were any in Iraq (not before, anyway) and just imagine how much we might have accomplished if we took a quarter of the money and manpower spent and applied it towards nothing else but hunting down terrorist cells. We do know that much of the proof of terrorist connections to Iraq were false or exaggerated, yet we attacked anyway. Wouldn't it have made more sense to concentrate on a single goal, or would it have taken too long and not been as flashy?
quote:worked to improve relations with friendly countries so they would cooperate with our terrorist hunt
I believe just today or yesterday the philipine army siezed a bunch of terrorists in an al qaida connected group. The Pakistanis arrest terrorists every other day. Which countries should we have closer relations with, and why aren't these countries helping us now?
Saudi Arabia is an obvious one. There should be an organized worldwide hunt of terrorists and anyone else who threatens innocents to get attention. Every country should be involved in this, because it benefits everybody.
quote:used the shared dislike of terrorists to improve our relations with previously unfriendly countries
Which ones? You can say this, but without specifics, it is meaningless.
Any country that may harbor terrorists. I wasn't advocating that we magically resolve our differences, but after 9/11 we had an unparalleled chance to create a worldwide anti-terrorist manhunt. The bulk of the world was sympathizing with us, feeling our losses, and such a suggestion made to the U.N. would have received considerable support. You don't have to like us to want to track down murderous extremists in your country. If a country still wishes to protect them, the way Afghanistan did, then we have a more justifiable target.
quote:How does acting against the wishes of half the country translate to the highest polled position?
If 50% of the people support something, that would be a majority. Very rarely is there a 50/50 split on any issue. If one side has 50%, you can bet the other has 47% or 45% or less. But you avoid the question. Would you rather the president make choices based on what he believes is best for the country, which is what his office is designed to do, or should he be windvane for political issues?[quote]Follow his own mind regardless of expert opinion or evidence, or flipflop daily to the polls? Is there truly no middle ground between these two positions? It's not an either-or choice. The president must do what he feels is right, but it is sheer arrogance to ignore the opinions of that many people who advise against his course of action, including his own father and his father's senior advisors.
[quote] And now we've gained big. This makes it ethical, that we replaced their profiteering with our own?
Other than added security, what have we gained? How are we "profiteering"? Is giving the Iraqi people $20 Billion profiteering?
Sorry, when I said "we" in this case I meant American companies. The ones that got the contracts without bidding, without Iraqi involvement, the ones that are currently paying their employees up to $10,000 a month tax free, the ones with offshore tax havens, the ones that are being investigated for overbidding invoices. Didn't I mention all this already? And was it decided yet whether the Iraqis would be paying this money back? I didn't pay attention last week.
[ October 20, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lets try for a modicome of reality:
quote:I wish he would END welfare programs,
Do you really? End all welfare. Let the old and the unemployed starve. Let children who's only problem is that they were born from parents too stupid to get off their drugs die. Let children who could be our next brilliant scientists/politicians/artists/business men succumb to the weather, homeless, foodless, without hope because they can't get to a school because they have to sell their bodies to get enough food to eat?
Do you want the riots of hungry unemployed demanding enough to survive, or the bloodshed when the paid police and private protection companies stop those looters and lost from rampaging in frustration?
Do you want to work for a boss who knows that he does not hold your job in his hands, but your life. That if he fires you, you may well starve before you get a new job. (This may not happen to white collar workers, but it will happen to those borderline workers)
Do you want to be married to the abusive husband, who, if you leave or have thrown in jail, will leave you without a cent to live on. Your choices, selling yourself on the streets or staying with a man who abuses you and holds your future in his hands.
Welfare does more than feed lazy people who don't want to work. I know five different women, screwed in divorces, who had to rely on welfare to survive for a year or less. They and their children are alive today because of it.
It stops the Socialists and the Communists and those who want all your money being divided between everyone, from gathering enough supporters to force a bloody battle.
It has helped weaken Unions, by allowing people to quit bad jobs to find good jobs.
It has helped increase our standard of living by tightening the job market.
UN
What is the big deal about the UN supporting us? Whether the UN is strong or weak, or should be strong or weak, is unimportant.
It gives the US international permision to do what it wants. This is important, not in our eyes, but in the eyes of our detractors. In a cabaret in Iraq, Baath'st members are talking to unemployed Iraqi men right now saying, "The rest of the world thinks the US is evil. They do not support this invasion. The UN has condemned it."
They cannot say that any more. (Well they can, but it is a lie we can prove.)
When other countries tell our ambassadors, "We want to help you, but our people are against it. They say the UN won't support you, why should we." THey cannot say that any more. Well, they can, but it is a lie we can prove.
This is important news, and good news for our troops over there. Bashing the UN and hiding behind US Tanks and Missiles will only get those other countries madder at our arrogant attitude.
The UN can do little to us. But if you want to sell your Monsanto made Herbicide, or your Coca Cola, or your Ford Truck over seas, you want people to respect theUS, not hate it.
Hate Too often I have heard this word thrown around, and usually by Pro-Isreali groups. Anyone who does not automatically agree with everything the Isreali government is doing is labeled with being Anti-Semitic. We either agree to let illegal settlements set up by Jewish fanatics grab land in other people's countries, or we HATE Isreal. We either condone mowing down the homes of Palestinean people because they may hide passing terrorist snipers. We either support your building a wall that puts the Berlin Wall to shame, and stretch it across Palestinean land to protect your own, or we Hate Isreal.
I love Isrealies.
I hate the stupid terrorists destroying both sides in this war.
I just disagree with how the present Isreali government is reacting.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Just cut off all welfare? That'll do wonders for the crime rate.
Not all at once, but eventually, yes, all of it.
quote: but people also need incentive to live, teach their kids, and buy the products the businesses produce.
People do NOT need to be given an incentive by the government to teach their kids, or to live. These are things people want to do no matter who there are, or where they live. The question is how does government best allow this process to happen. I would say it happens best when people are allowed to decide for themselves how their kids will be taught, how they will live, etc. When the government tries to control these things, it fails.
quote: Depends on whom you ask. This article discusses how the survey of households provides a 6.1% figure, while a survey of businesses isn't quite as good. 93,000 more people out of a job in August.
This point goes to you. I see how the 6.1% number is less related to the overall jobs picture, than it should be.
quote: Well, when I questioned Bush's economic policies you didn't respond. Instead you asked me to defend Clinton's, which is odd since I hadn't mentioned Clinton at all.
I didn't respond, I answered your question before you asked it. see below:
quote:Bush's tax cuts have brought the economy back up to its full strength, with over 3% growth last quater. Some analysts are projecting 5% growth next quater. I would say that the tax cuts have added money to the economy and done their job.
quote: How does granting more tax breaks help us now?
More money in the economy of course. You seem to want weak businesses, but a strong jobs market, how do you propose such a feat?
The main reason I brought up Clinton's economy, is to illustrate the point that President's generally have a small effect on the economy. The boom of the mid/late ninties was not due to some wonderful Clinton policy, but many of the factors you mentioned. Likewise, Bush's economy is the result of many factors. It is known that the economy was dropping before he took office. His actions to help the economy have been successful. However, it is not possible for the government to to just whip up some jobs. What policies to stimulate job growth would you propose?
quote: Wouldn't it have made more sense to concentrate on a single goal, or would it have taken too long and not been as flashy?
You present a false choice. This is why I asked for specific examples of actions we could have done, but did not. What did the Iraq war distract us from? As was proven, it is possible for the US military to do more than one thing at a time and succeed.
quote:There should be an organized worldwide hunt of terrorists and anyone else who threatens innocents to get attention. Every country should be involved in this, because it benefits everybody.
Sounds good to me, but how do you propose prodding countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran who do not cooperate? What if every country in the world doesn't want to help?
[ October 20, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
By the way, you were right, political opinion is rarely exactly 50/50. The latest Gallup poll (from 10/6-1/8) reported this: "Ratings of Bush's handling of Iraq have also hit a new low. Just 47% approve while 50% disapprove, the first time this approval rating has dipped below 50% in the year in which Gallup has tracked his handling of Iraq." Not quite 50/50, true. And I freely admit that opinion was strongly in favor of attacking Iraq before the war. I wonder if we knew then what we know (or don't know) now, if it would have been as uneven?
I was going to respond to the "kill welfare" line, but it's been done much more effectively than I could. How about Social Security? That thing we;ve been paying into our entire working lives which is getting drained now? Would that be considered welfare?
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
Tres:
quote: Who said anything about doing nothing? Listening to them, via their voice in the U.N., when our decisions impact them will lead them to respect us more and be more willing to listen to us when their decisions impact us.
I totally disagree. They don't want us to listen to them; they want us to do what THEY want, period. Most countries aren't open to an honest exchange of ideas.
quote: As for your second point, it isn't true. We have enemies of Israel in our country that we allow because we have standards of freedom of speech and freedom of belief. That doesn't mean we don't respect Israel. Other countries may have similar standards.
The US doesn't allow or support people who try to harm other nations. The government doesn't like the competition.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Do you want the riots of hungry unemployed demanding enough to survive, or the bloodshed when the paid police and private protection companies stop those looters and lost from rampaging in frustration?
Can you honestly tell me there are not enough jobs out there for those who want to work? These scenarious you put forth are not a defense for socialism.
Should we stop robbing peter to pay paul? Paul says no, paul says he will riot.
quote: That if he fires you, you may well starve before you get a new job.
People do not STARVE TO DEATH in this country because they got fired. As I said before, there are always jobs available to those who want them. This attitude is shameful. You have so little confidence in americans as to think they will simply wither and die if the government stops sending them a check.
quote: I know five different women, screwed in divorces, who had to rely on welfare to survive for a year or less.
Religious and other charities exist for just these sorts of situations. Charities can cover those who are truly in need.
quote: How about Social Security? That thing we;ve been paying into our entire working lives which is getting drained now? Would that be considered welfare?
And why is it getting drained? Who's money is it to begin with? The program is fundamentally flawed, it needs to be gradually phased out somehow. Those who paid in, should get what they paid in, and those who have 40 years of work ahead of them, should not be forced to fund the current generation's bad planning.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, there aren't enough jobs out there for everyone to work a job that supports their family in all locations.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I said:
quote: If the US hated Isreal as most European nations, led by France, do, we would allow these people to continue raising money and leave them alone.
Dan said:
quote: Too often I have heard this word thrown around, and usually by Pro-Isreali groups. Anyone who does not automatically agree with everything the Isreali government is doing is labeled with being Anti-Semitic.
You have a point. I would merely point out that the French government is very cowed by their 10% muslim population. The French have been notoriously anti-semetic in the past.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:People do NOT need to be given an incentive by the government to teach their kids..
Um, yes they do. When their children could be, instead, selling papers, shining shoes, walking the streets or any number of other quick income fixes for the family, going to school is not an option uncaring parents will make.
And this does happen, often. In other countryies that have not developed a culture of education, schooling is not the norm.
As far as living, yes, people need hope that things can get better. They need to know if they try for the better job and fail, they won't freeze to death the next winter. Otherwise, they remain dish washers their entire life, out of real fear.
You make assumptions that most people are smart enough to choose what's best for them, and for the country.
And those who are not?
You make no provisions for caring for them.
I guess we just let the fools and unfortunate die.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Facts:
Do you have any to support your view that there are jobs for everyone? That they can be aquired is a reasonable amount of time? That they will support people enough to live on?
You mentioned earlier 6.1% unemployment. I argue there are not 6.1% of American's who are too lazy to work.
What if you are right? What if 99.9% of American's can get a job. That .1% of Americans would do what? Live off of the Charities in the US? Sure, I mean every day I hear about charities saying, "Oh yes, we have more than enough money. We have more than enough to go around. Don't send us any more. Send us people instead."
Oh, wait, no I don't.
You said, "People don't starve in the US."
I disagree. The homeless are found all year around dead on the streets of our cities. They die from diseases caused by malnutrition.
However, we don't have the mass Starvation here. Then again, we have a Welfare program to stop anything like that.
Of course getting rid of Welfare, the safety net, and what do you have to stop it?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:You make assumptions that most people are smart enough to choose what's best for them, and for the country.
And those who are not?
You make no provisions for caring for them.
I guess we just let the fools and unfortunate die.
It is NOT the government's job to give direction to someone's life. As I mentioned before, private charities cover the unfortunate. I also say that philanthropy would increase greatly if people did not have to give away 40% of their income to the gov.
Will you knowingly let the government decide what's best for YOUR life? This is what the gov. forces on us when it takes our money and gives it to those who did not earn it.
Explain to me how people got along before the great society programs? Was their mass starvation? The answer, of course, is no. People got along just fine. What has changed that caused people to be unable to care for themselves? What has destroyed the minds of americans to such a degree that the government needs to give them a reason to live?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Robespierre, I think at this point there is nothing I can say to convince you. I urge you to volunteer at a woman's center, a Salvation Army, a soup kitchen, or other local service center that deals with out-of-work people. You appear to be as blind to that world as Mr. Bush, and so it's no wonder that my arguments have no effect. Saying that all poor people just don't want to work only serves as an argument when you can continue to shelter yourself from seeing it. Starvation isn't the problem. As you said, it is difficult to starve here. Housing is much more of a worry, which is why the poverty level should be measured on costs of housing (which have skyrocketed) rather than the cost of food (which hasn't gone up nearly as much in proportion).
I highly suggest reading "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. One day during a discussion of poverty with her editor, she mentioned that someone should do some "old-fashioned reporting," go out there and try for themselves what it was really like having to subsist on poverty level wages, on $6-7 per hour. She left home and family to try her luck as an unskilled worker, working as a waitress, housecleaner and Wal-Mart clerk. Before she started her experiment, she set some ground rules: she wouldn't depend on any skills gained from her education or usual jobs, she would take the highest paying job on offer and do it properly - no pretending - and she would try and find the cheapest (safe) accomendations she could find. She presented herself as a divorced homemaker reentering the workforce after many years, with three years of college as an educational background. She also decided to not take her experiment too far; if she didn't make enough from her job(s) to affort the rent, enough food or a car she used her own money to cover for it. After all, this was an experiment to see if people can survive on a minimal wage job, not an endurance test.
As it was she found that even working two jobs, seven days a week, she barely managed to cover living expenses. Food wasn't that much of a problem, but housing did her in every time. During her stint at Wal-mart she had to stay at a weekly motel because more permanent living arrangements kept failing to materialize.
She wasn't buying luxuries. She wasn't drinking it or snorting it or gambling it away. She was an intelligent woman and a hard worker, and she literally took whatever job she could get as soon as it was offered. She had no chance for savings, and like those around her she was living from paycheck to paycheck, with no cushion for emergencies. That's the reality of low-wage living.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:You appear to be as blind to that world as Mr. Bush, and so it's no wonder that my arguments have no effect.
I love this. This is the perfect example of the attitude that is created by the welfare state. You can't win right away, so there must be something wrong with me. Its not YOUR fault, how can you be expected to support yourself?
You haven't explained how people got along before these programs were created.
Dan_raven
quote: You said, "People don't starve in the US."
Robespierre:
quote: People do not STARVE TO DEATH in this country because they got fired.
quote: During her stint at Wal-mart she had to stay at a weekly motel because more permanent living arrangements kept failing to materialize.
Here we go, the living arrangements failed, not the woman trying to get them. Why do you want a society where no one is allowed to fail? This is not something granted by the constitution, nor should it be. There is no RIGHT to health care, there is no RIGHT to nice housing. If you want these, things, they must be earned.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:You haven't explained how people got along before these programs were created.
Well, there's always feudalism.
But let me get this straight. Because people were able to survive before the creation of welfare programs, those programs are bad and should be discontinued? People were also able to survive before the discovery of fire. Should we retroactively get rid of all that fire has brought us?
Just a thought.
Edit:
>> There is no RIGHT to health care, there is no RIGHT to nice housing. <<
I'd argue that those things are filed under "pursuit of happiness." But what do I know? I live, quite happily, in Canada.
[ October 20, 2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'm curious, what do you think is a right?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:You appear to be as blind to that world as Mr. Bush, and so it's no wonder that my arguments have no effect.
I love this. This is the perfect example of the attitude that is created by the welfare state. You can't win right away, so there must be something wrong with me. Its not YOUR fault, how can you be expected to support yourself?
Oh, I can argue for days. I just don't see much sense when I'm defending a concept you seem to treat with contempt and a class of people you consider mythical.
If you do not believe that there is anyone on welfare who is not doing their damndest to get off welfare and is struggling day to day to get by, then what could I possibly say to convince you otherwise?
quote:Here we go, the living arrangements failed, not the woman trying to get them. Why do you want a society where no one is allowed to fail? This is not something granted by the constitution, nor should it be. There is no RIGHT to health care, there is no RIGHT to nice housing. If you want these, things, they must be earned.
I didn't say nice housing. I said housing. Minimum wage is $5.15. If you never get sick and don't take vacation, that's $10,712 per year, of which the government and withholding and insurance will take roughly a third. Round up to $7000. Rent, if you're fortunate enough to find someplace that cheap, will be at least $300 a month. That leaves us $3,400. Take out $30 a week for food, we're at $1840. Transportation is tricky. Car payments would eat that and more, or you could buy a cheap car and pay constant repair bills. Let's go with public transportation - you are still allowing public transportation, yes? - so maybe $12 a month for the bus if you can get reduced rates. $1696 left. That leaves $141 a month left for clothes, medicine, daycare, doctor's visits, emergencies, and savings. Take a single parent with a child and a minimum wage job, and make the numbers work. Feel free to move them around if you wish.
A 2001 U.S. Conference of Mayors study found that 37 percent of adults seeking emergency food aid were employed. Officials in 63 percent of the cities surveyed identified low-paying jobs as a primary cause of hunger. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s September 2001 report Out of Reach, “The national median housing wage, based on each county’s housing wage for a two-bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent weighted by Census 2000 population estimates, is $13.87 an hour, more than twice the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. This means that on average, there must be more than two full-time minimum wage workers in a household in order for the household to afford a two-bedroom housing unit at the Fair Market Rent.” America’s Second Harvest reported in October 2001 that among client households (who receive emergency food assistance from soup kitchens, food pantries and shelters), four out of 10 (38.9 percent) had at least one employed adult. Of the adults in client households, 17 percent (or 2.5 million adults) worked full-time. One reason for such poverty and need among workers is the eroded value of the minimum wage. In the past, the minimum wage provided enough income to lift a family of three out of poverty. During the 1960s and 1970s, the poverty level for a family of three was roughly equal to the yearly earnings of a full-time, year-round worker earning the minimum wage. The minimum wage, however, remained unchanged at $3.35 an hour from 1981 until April 1990, and thus minimum wage earnings slipped significantly below the poverty level. Recent increases have not restored all the lost value. To reach the poverty level for a family of three in 2001 ($14,129), a full-time, year-round worker would need to earn $6.80 an hour—$1.65 more than the current minimum wage.
Overtime can help, but that's being taken away too (sorry, it's to be placed at the discretion of the employer, who as we know always puts the worker's needs above profits).
quote:If you want these, things, they must be earned.
And that's fine. But they can't be earned at a reasonable rate of exchange, or even an unreasonable one. A person living alone at the minimum wage level has to work two jobs to get by, especially if they have a kid. That leaves no time for schooling, better job hunting, or any other way of improving their situation. There's a fundamental flaw in our economy that a single nonprofessional person can no longer support a family on one paycheck. Fix that, and you can kill welfare.
Oh, and what did they do before? Well, when they could hunt or farm freely they did that. When they lived in the bigger cities, they worked long hours at miniscule wages. They lived packed in apartments and tenements, which made it easier for diseases to spread. And yes, some starved. There's a reason for the child labor laws, the fair wage laws, the labor laws, because so many companies were using their workers like cattle. Kinda the way some American companies use overseas sweatshops now, in fact. But mostly, they died young. Perhaps that fits your needs, I don't know.
[ October 20, 2003, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
So, Rob, if I'm reading you correctly, you're buying into the right-wing paradigm of a world filled with lazy, drug-addicted morons on welfare who want nothing more than to suck all the money they can from you and belt out another couple babies. And, of course, steal your SUV while executing children. Right?
(Note: My mistake. It's a conservative position to execute minors -- it's a liberal position to execute fetii.)
Please, oh please, let me do a little speculation. You're a white male. Born upper middle class or richer. Probably well educated (at a private school?). From a between-the-coasts state, predominately white, and probably heavily conservative? When asked about racism, you rattle off the names of some of your black friends? You believe Middle Easterners (excepting Israelis, of course) tend to be blind religious fanatics who use the innocent United States as a scapegoat for their own problems and a target for their meaningless hatred? C'mon, tell me how much of this I got right.
Just to crown it, out of interest, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh on your way into work (your work being a white-collar job, probably management or administration)?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
By the way, sorry if I sound obnoxious. I'm pulling more than a little David Bowles right now. Please consider Chris to be the Rude Liberal Cabal's spokesperson rather than me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm still only quasi-liberal. I tend to favor the free market, only I also believe in completely open government and some sort of structure to keep corporations honest. And I do think that a percentage of the people on welfare are lazy, drug-addled wastes, I know for a fact that there are people willing to milk the system for all they can get. But I also know for a fact that not all of them are, and I suspect that the wastes are a very small minority of welfare recipients indeed. I think Clinton tried too hard to be liked and didn't try hard enough to govern. I don't really care if he got some on the side but I was annoyed he did it on my time, and he should have had the grace to refuse comment or apologize rather than lie. And the timing of his bombings on the mornings of significant findings in his case offended me deeply. And I think Bush is either too arrogant or too blind to understand anyone not in his tax bracket. He has an end in mind, whatever it is, and he's barreling towards it no matter what, and frankly it scares the crap out of me.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: you're buying into the right-wing paradigm of a world filled with lazy, drug-addicted morons on welfare who want nothing more than to suck all the money they can from you and belt out another couple babies. And, of course, steal your SUV while executing children. Right?
This is fantastic. You guys have said more about what I think than I have.
Now we encounter the arch-liberal arrogance. I am accused of arrogance because I say that the government has no right to control people's lives.
quote: Please, oh please, let me do a little speculation.
You on the other hand, have become the ghost of christmas past and are graciously giving me a look back at my horrible life.
quote: You're a white male. Born upper middle class or richer. Probably well educated (at a private school?).
Very good profiler! I am white! Welcome to racism land, where all people who belive in self reliance are white.
quote: Born upper middle class or richer.
Sorry profiler! Guess again!
quote: When asked about racism, you rattle off the names of some of your black friends?
You sicken me. Do you even live within 30 miles of a black person? I bet you are afraid to refer to blacks as "black" when you speak with them. No of course not, your liberal guilt cripples you and you use the term "african americans."
Welcome to the discussion, you coward.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But let me get this straight. Because people were able to survive before the creation of welfare programs, those programs are bad and should be discontinued?
Again, show me where I said this is the reason they need to go. Why do you intentionally misrepresent my arguments?
The reason they need to be abolished is because they are destroying the poor of this country. They have created a class of government slaves. since the Great Society was introduced to try to spend our way out of the great depression, these programs have been building up a class of people who are taught that they cannot provide for themselves and that there is no hope.
quote:I'd argue that those things are filed under "pursuit of happiness." But what do I know? I live, quite happily, in Canada.
Pursuit, canadian, not achievement. In America we do not guarantee the achievement of happiness. Only the right to PURSUE it without violating the rights of others.
quote: I'm defending a concept you seem to treat with contempt and a class of people you consider mythical.
I do hold redistribution of wealth in contempt. You seem be saying that I think there are no poor... explain what you mean.
quote: Take a single parent with a child and a minimum wage job, and make the numbers work.
You forget the earned income tax credit of course. Which adds $1000. But of course we get back to responsibility. Why does this woman have a child she obviously cannot support? Now don't jump on me and say I hate single mothers, because we will have trouble if you people go down that road. However, at some point, people are responsible for their own actions. Or is this one of those situations where you want to government to make some life decisions for her?
quote: There's a fundamental flaw in our economy that a single nonprofessional person can no longer support a family on one paycheck.
If you cannot support a family, why create one? Who is negligent in those circumstances?
quote:Perhaps that fits your needs, I don't know.
This is why we can't have nice things. You went and got all crazy. Seriously, what is it about my views that gets you guys so foamed at the mouth? I am accused of endorsing sweat shops, becuase I think people should have the freedom to pursue happiness?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: By the way, sorry if I sound obnoxious.
No problem, just don't talk anymore and we're even.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I'm curious, what do you think is a right?
These funny old things. Go ahead, see if it guarantees happiness.
Posted by rayne (Member # 5722) on :
Robespierre, I think I agree with your general sentiment. I don't think you're saying society should stop trying to help people in need, but that you'd like to rid people of the mentality that a government-run welfare program must exist because... some people... just... *shrug, bite lip sympathetically*, aren't going to be very successful.
What do you think would be a workable way to have a progressive society that has room for those who can't keep up the pace? I'm really serious, I'm not baiting you.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:What do you think would be a workable way to have a progressive society that has room for those who can't keep up the pace?
A good question. One of the government activities which you all may be surprised I support is education. State universities are spectacular. However, every level below the universities is corrupted. If the elementary school program can be fixed, and the highschools fixed, that would go a LONG way towards fixing the problem. Knowledge is one of the best ways to solve many problems.
Posted by rayne (Member # 5722) on :
That's the answer I boiled it down to, too. Looks like anyone who cares is stuck trying to fix the damned education system. I swore I would never, ever, ever have anything to do with education, but guess what I'm studying now.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I totally disagree. They don't want us to listen to them; they want us to do what THEY want, period. Most countries aren't open to an honest exchange of ideas.
Most PEOPLE aren't open to an honest exchange of ideas either, yet democracy still functions - people still abide by a government where everyone has a say and believe such a government is valid. The same goes for the U.N., except you have countries instead of people.
[ October 20, 2003, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by rayne (Member # 5722) on :
Some things are non-negotiable, though- the more surely people can be moved out of the "my opinion counts, blah blah" arena into the more objective reality of cause/effect, the better- not to squash opinions, but to put some reins on the process and keep things in control. We live in a society where the general population runs on successful persuasion rather than wisdom; as long as that's acceptable, we're looking at a future where democracy means Arnold Schwartzenegger becomes governor.
What we're looking at with the UN is a collection of human beings trying to keep the world in order. All the world's different philosophies and cultures are built up on a relatively small plot of common ground, the more firmly rooted people are in those basic, fundamental truths we have figured out, the better our chances of finding stability as a global population.
Not that schools can make that happen. But I agree, it's about education in a broad sense.
edited because I read Tresopax's post. Now I don't think mine makes sense.
[ October 20, 2003, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: rayne ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Again, show me where I said this is the reason they need to go. Why do you intentionally misrepresent my arguments? <<
I asked for clarification. That's hardly a 'misrepresentation.' You clarified:
>> The reason they need to be abolished is because they are destroying the poor of this country. They have created a class of government slaves. since the Great Society was introduced to try to spend our way out of the great depression, these programs have been building up a class of people who are taught that they cannot provide for themselves and that there is no hope. <<
So rather than the de facto class structure in America holding them down, your view is that it's actually the welfare system? Is there any data that supports this claim?
I'm Googling as I type this, but haven't been able to find any. I've found lots of anecdotal evidence, but the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.' I have also found that during Clinton's term, welfare expenditures increased and so did the number of people on welfare; however, what I did not find was that those people were lazy and unwilling to work. Even an increase in the poverty rate does not imply that. So I'm not sure where you're getting this notion that the mere existence of welfare programs has created a culture of dependence.
>> Pursuit, canadian, not achievement. In America we do not guarantee the achievement of happiness. Only the right to PURSUE it without violating the rights of others. <<
So if I'm a bum on the street, the fact that I have, in theory, the same chance of pursuing my happiness as a big shot lawyer living in downtown New York means we're equal?
This is why I lean to the left. Equality versus equal opportunity. They are not one and the same. In other words, as far as I'm concerned the hard-working and/or fortunate successful should have to prop up the lazy and/or unfortunate unsuccessful, simply because they're the ones who can afford to do it.
I'm a university student. I've never taken a loan in my life and I'm about to graduate with a small monetary surplus and an engineering degree that promises to be fairly lucrative (in fact, in America my chemical engineering degree is the second most lucrative first degree in the country). I already pay out a good-sized chunk of my income in taxes and the size of that chunk is only going to increase. The difference between you and me is that I don't mind doing it. I do not object to paying taxes – and taxes in my country are much higher than yours. In fact, I oppose tax cuts in the current Canadian economic climate. In our recent provincial election, I voted against the party that promised to cut provincial taxes; I voted for a party that promised to cancel further planned tax cuts. 'Trickle-down' is a phrase that Conservative governments in Canada use to justify balancing their budgets by selling off provincial assets while cutting taxes for large corportations, slashing funding to universities, and otherwise wrecking things for the next government that gets elected when people finally wise up.
I'm okay with the fact that some of the taxes I pay (I don't think of tax dollars as "my hard-earned money," which is another key difference between us) will subsidize the lifestyles of some do-nothings, because it will also help out plenty of deserving people. I believe it makes more sense for the federal government to redistribute the wealth than to do it on a small-scale local basis.
Taxes are not "the government taking my money." Taxes are what you give the government in exchange for the privilege of living in their country.
>> These funny old things. Go ahead, see if it guarantees happiness. <<
For someone who accuses others of intentionally misconstruing his arguments, it's interesting to watch you do the same thing to others. BtL never mentioned happiness. But I did give your Constitution a gander, all the same.
>> Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. <<
The section does not enumerate things like shelter and medicine in the "providing for the general welfare of the United States" category, but I expect that's where the government files welfare programs. Welfare is certainly not disallowed by your Constitution; nor is it outside the scope of the government's power as far as I can tell.
Edit:
>> A good question. One of the government activities which you all may be surprised I support is education. State universities are spectacular. However, every level below the universities is corrupted. If the elementary school program can be fixed, and the highschools fixed, that would go a LONG way towards fixing the problem. Knowledge is one of the best ways to solve many problems. <<
I agree completely, though I'm curious as to what you think should be done to "fix" elementary school and high school programs.
[ October 21, 2003, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
Tres:
But in a democracy the government isn't afraid to confront those who break its laws, while the UN seems to be.
Don't get me wrong; I would love to see a strong UN. You know me, I'm USA #1 all the way but a strong UN would keep everybody safe, or at least safer than they are now, and would bring everybody else UP to us; not us down to them as many people want.
Robespierre:
While I think some of your points are valid, you are missing the mark on a few of them. Most unemployment is transitional; people moving from one job to another. Second, unemployment figures only count people who are looking for a job, not those who have given up or just stopped looking for some reason. The numbers should only be used as a loose guideline when looking at other data, not as gospel.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But in a democracy the government isn't afraid to confront those who break its laws, while the UN seems to be.
Any evidence of this?
If you're going to say the Iraq situation shows this, that would be a bit like saying our government is afraid to punish tax evaders because we refuse to put them to death. The U.N. DID punish Iraq severely with sanctions and inspections - it just felt invading Iraq was unnecessarily severe. And, considering it now appears the sanctions and threats were sufficient to get Saddam to eliminate his WMDs, it seems they were right in this judgement.
Posted by Wayne Trent (Member # 5828) on :
The United Nations is long on confronting, short on doing more than verbal confrontation. Concerning Iraq, let's be clear the sanctions were, at best, sufficient only to get Saddam Hussein to dismantle his current operational stocks of WMD, they obviously have not convinced him to scrap his programs. The most forgiving thing that can be said about Saddam is that he was waiting for the pressure to be off him, then he was ready and obviously willing to start it up again.
And who, exactly, was providing the pressure? The United Nations? Nonsense. The United States was applying the pressure under the auspices of the United Nations. The nations in the UN had neither the will nor the means to apply pressure to force Saddam Hussein to do anything, with the exception of the United States and Great Britain and those allied with us against Iraq. The pressure you speak of, Tresopax, would have existed without the UN, and would not have existed without the United States.
Where is the UN confrontation towards constant human rights abuses all over the world? Where is the confrontation you speak of, Tresopax, towards the PRC, N. Korea, Israel, USA, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, where's the confrontation across nearly all of Africa?
The UN would be an effective and just group in resolving disputes in, say, Pluto or the Crab Nebula, where none of its members-particularly the permanent Sec. Council members, have even the slightest "personal" agenda at stake. Otherwise? It's largely hamstrung and hypocritical from the start, by its very design.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The U.N. has no army. Hence, it relies on member nations to back up it's word. That's how it works. The U.N. was putting pressure on Iraq via the U.S. and Britain and Russia and France and all the other members willing to back it up. Without the U.S. it would still have been putting on pressure, since Britain, France, Russia, China, etc. would still back it up. Obviously it would be less pressure and the U.N. would have less to work with, since the U.S. has a gigundo military.
Also, the U.n. should not be expected to be magic. It cannot solve all the world's problems. It must weigh the costs and potential problems with military intervention before advocating it, and in the case of Iraq, N. Korea, China, Isreal, etc. it has decided the costs outweigh the benefits of using war to stop human rights abuses. This does not mean they do not confront those problem, though. The U.N. uses other, more subtle methods when war is unwarrented.
First in foremost, the U.N. can use it's moral authority. Don't discount this verbal method of confrontation. It is fairly effective considering it's low cost. It could not stop the Iraq war, but the U.N. refusal of support for it could cost George Bush an election in 2004 and result in the end of the preemptive strike doctrine. That's pretty good considering it cost no money and lives to do it.
[ October 21, 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: but the U.N. refusal of support for it could cost George Bush an election in 2004 and result in the end of the preemptive strike doctrine.
You make a good point here. However, I do not think the concept will be swept away so easily.
Suppose a democrat wins in 04, which is possible at this point. If this president sees a state that poses a threat to US, this president will be under intense pressure to attack. Not only from the right, but from the left, who does not want to be blaimed for the next 9/11 attack. I think a democrat president would jump at the opportunity to prove he is not "soft" on defence.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Well, we've still got Israel. Really, this is a tad bit of hyperbole, don't you think, Chris?