So in other words, it is unfair that we possess such great wealth and we should give it all away? It's a problem that we can spend a smaller percentage of our GDP on foreign aid and still be the largest provider of humanitarian aid in the world? I don't see a problem there and I don't see us as stingy. We support Israel for two reasons: 1. They are surrounded by hostile nations and have an enclave of their enemies within their own borders trying to carve a "state" out of their puny country. They need all the help they can get. 2. They are the only democratically elected govt. in the entire region and are the only reliable ally in the region. Their citizens are not trying to fly air liners into our buildings like the Arabs.
Bama, so if say Switzerland with roughly the same inome per capita as the US gives say 25% more aid per capita than the US per capita, but the huge US gives 50 times more, the US is 50 times more generous? I guess you would headline a news story. "Generous US gives 50 times more aid than selfish Switzerland". Your comment on Israel was out of the blue, but I will agree that the US is extraordinarily generous in aid to one country --Israel. I think we figured it out at $ over 1,000 per Israeli every year for the last 50 years. Or was it $10,000? Another thread awhile back when we had the figures.
Originally posted by MacBeth An imminent threat? We had the Japanese completely contained. They were surrounded, with no hope whatsoever of mounting any kind of threat against us, and we are on record saying so. The Nuke(S) we used were against civilian targets in an effort to get them to comply with our emand for absolute surrender, therefore saving more of our soldiers' lives. Get it? We nuke their civilians, where they are no threat, so that our conquest of their island ( which was necessary) came at their cost, not ours. I disagree with the assessment that Japan was contained, their aim (unless absolute surrender was realized) was to fight to the last man...There is no correlation of containment when an enemy's aim is to fight to the death...The decision to use the nuke was based on reluctance...However, the United States was on the defensive since Pearl Harbor from the get-go. Japan's decision to insurrect a unprovoked offensive cost them greatly, but I feel the nature of defending oneself burdens the responsibility of the cost on those who attack in the first place... I'll give an example,...If you break in my house with a weapon, and I empty a full chamber (7 or 8 rounds) of 12 gauge 00 buck rounds into you,...Your family might say that I did'nt have to cut you in half with repeated firepower...even though you were the one who attacked me while I slept...My response is that had I not utilized the firepower, you might have gotten up from lesser firepower to kill a family member...I wouldn't stand for this and I feel completely reasonable, and JUSTIFIABLE with my actions... My point was that the Kurds ( inspired by us, BTW) had risen up and attacked Saddam's government. Yes, we feel they were morally in the right, but militarily, they were the rebels/aggressors, what have you. And they threatened the safety of the government. SUre, it was a lousy, brutal government, but from the military terms you have chosen to rationalize our actions, Saddam responded in a smimilar fashion; use WMDs ( although much less damaging than nukes) on the civilians of the people attacking you in order to bring about their surrender in a manner which would cost you the least troops. You are assuming that this governmental process led by Saddam is legitimate and based on equitable implications with other governments...I disagree. When Saddam ran his government in a bad way like no other (i.e. allowed torture, allowed rape, allowed conventional mass killings)...When Saddam unprovokingly invaded another...and vocally, and financially supports terrorism...There is a complete illegitimacy of that government's founding...To say the safety of the government was threatened is to further imply that government has a natural right to defend itself...This is practically, almost the case anywhere with every nation or country...But when you lose the morality of representing your own people, then you absolutely lose the legitimacy of implied governmental rights...Saddam lost it, because of his actions...thusly, using WMD on your own people in this case is baseless as a right for self-defense as a governmental entity and process... And how would a responsible government have handled an armed rebellion? Different weapons, maybe, same results. Remember how we handled our last armed rebellion? Ended up costing many more lives than this did, and Saddam was facing civil war. I'm not defending his actions, just showing that the same defense you try and use for Nagasaki can be used for gassing the Kurds; neither one is justifiable, and again, we're no different. Additionally, we previously used germ warfare against our natives by intentionally pasing out blankets infected with diseases we knew they had no immunities for, killing millions. How do you think the United States would handle an armed rebellion today, MacBeth?...I know... I know...you're answer is we would nuke the general area, right?...c'mon! We have the tools, methods, rules and the such in place to utilize every less-than-lethal technique available first and foremost...That is how we, as a responsible government would have handled this, and they could have as well (if a governmental entity was in place which was legitimate,...which wasn't the case.) Again, you seem to arrive with the mindset that Saddam's governmental process was as legitimate as any would be with equitable reasoning for utilizing WMD with the assertion that we're no different, but we are,... because we are legitimate as a governmental entity and process...We are different because we haven't broken the moral connection with our citizens...We are different because we have the best representative type of government in the world...by the people, for the people...Perfect? no...Different? Absolutely... Everyone..everyone, EVERYONE says they invade for a reason. And everyone, everyone, EVERYONE agrees with their own reasons. Iraq invaded Kuwait, citing environmental issues and the need to protect it's own resources which were bing stolen by illegal slant drilling. The world disagreed that those were sufficient reasons. The United States invaded Iraq citing humanitarian reasons, and the need to protect it's people from Saddam's WMD's/9-11 connections. The world disagreed that those were sufficient reasons. Still don't see how our system prevents us from invading other countries, using WMDs, or torture. We have a system which, if we catch them and don't cover it up successfully ( remember, these tortures have been going on for years, as have the reports about them to US command..we only seemd concered with DISALLOWING this when we were caught with our pants down by the pics. By the by, 7 ain't anywhere near it, not even thr lowest estimation. The Taguba report states that the torture and abuse WAS SYSTEMIC, WIDESPREAD, AND OCCURED OVER MONTHS, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS FROM THE CIA AND MILITARY INTELLIGENCE. So, yes, sorry, this was our government doing this. As I said, none of your positions stand too much or any scrutiny. There is a distinct differance with unprovokingly invading for resources,...and the United States (among many others) taking action on this with MANY, MANY pleas, diplomatic agreements, and non-combative actions being exhausted before inclined to force,...especially after 9/11/01 and how we should engage terrorism offensively to net proper defense...the reasoning and justification is clear. I realize you don't live in the United States, otherwise you would know we have a system that doesn't allow Bush to come to your house to rape you or your family member,...We have rights. We have a contract...believe it or not...You seem to think there is nothing that would stop him, and this extends to the CIA as well...I also bet I am not allowed to rape and torture others if I get in the military...War is imperfect and ugly, and has always been, but it is necessary more than ever now...We can't stop the very, very few bad apples from ever doing something bad, but we can utilize controls and hold those responsible, and take action...and this will absolutely happen, and has happened...I still don't see where we have unprovokingly used WMD...I don't understand who would base any credibility towards how "these tortures have been going on for years", and such unfounded remarks... the resonance of my position is a clear differential as it deals with the legitimacy of the governmental process inconjuction with the assured rights of people here and abroad, as well as the nature of utilizing force reluctantly, but with applied clarity (given the scope of terrorism) as it pertains to defense...This is who we are, reasoned and justified...This is also how we are different...
1. It's beyond the point of "help". The United States is providing MUCH more than "help" to Israel. 2. Get it straight: The plane went into the building because you're supporting Israel. It's not like you decided to support Israel AFTER 9/11.
My last post was right before I left work and I wondered driving home if I did just express myself very poorly. Perhaps I did. I've been musing on the subject to myself for weeks so I think I've assumed some conversation that hasn't actually taken place out loud. Basically, what I've been wondering is why is it that recent American attempts at nation-building -- in Iraq and Vietnam to name the most notable -- were failures when there are actually many historical examples of relative success -- Japan and Germany but also Phillipines, South Korea, and even many foreign colonial examples. And, my feeling on it is that these ends were likely achieved but less than noble means. In one of these examples, the US killed something like 500,000 Filipino civilians upon the first occupation. I'm not here making a value judgement as to whether the ends justify the means or whatnot. I'm just reflecting on the fact that we had a free hand for the most part in rebuilding conquered nations. Rapes committed by soldiers would not create some kind of crisis for the occupation because there was little expectation of better treatment (Japan accomodated the Americans with prostitutes to avoid the problem of rape before it started). Now, there is such a microscope on our actions and so many people waiting for any impropriety that the Americans are seriously handicapped in asserting authority to the point where they cannot really control a chaotic situation while being held to the high standards we ourselves have set. It's a problem created by the Communication Revolution. It's a problem created by our own Champions of Democracy claim. So, essentially, I think it can't be done anymore. This is a model from the colonial age (and even then, only the British could do it well). There was a time when we could be democratic at home and authoritarian abroad and use that authoritarianism to export democracy. But we're not in a position to use authoritarianism anymore so we don't really have any vehicle at all for export.
Wow. Must remember to restrict my Sane post readings to the GARM. He seems so much more....um...'sane'...there.
Published on Thursday, May 6, 2004 by the Nation How to Get Out of Iraq by Howard Zinn Any "practical" approach to the situation in Iraq, any prescription for what to do now, must start with the understanding that the present US military occupation is morally unacceptable. Amnesty International, a year after the invasion, reported: "Scores of unarmed people have been killed due to excessive or unnecessary use of lethal force by coalition forces during public demonstrations, at checkpoints and in house raids. Thousands of people have been detained [estimates range from 8,500 to 15,000, often under harsh conditions] and subjected to prolonged and often unacknowledged detention. Many have been tortured or ill-treated and some have died in custody." The prospect, if the occupation continues, whether by the United States or by an international force (as John Kerry seems to be proposing), is of continued suffering and death for both Iraqis and Americans. The history of military occupations of Third World countries is that they bring neither democracy nor security. The laments that "we mustn't cut and run," "we must stay the course," our "reputation" will be imperiled, etc., are exactly what we heard when at the start of the Vietnam escalation some of us called for immediate withdrawal. The result of staying the course was 58,000 Americans and several million Vietnamese dead. The only rational argument for continuing on the present course is that things will be worse if we leave. In Vietnam, they promised a bloodbath if we left. That did not happen. It was said that if we did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima, we would have to invade Japan and huge casualties would follow. We know now and knew then that this was not true. The truth is, no one knows what will happen if the United States withdraws. We face a choice between the certainty of mayhem if we stay, and the uncertainty of what will follow if we leave. What would be a reasonably good scenario to accompany our departure? The UN should arrange, as US forces leave, for an international group of peacekeepers and negotiators from the Arab countries to bring together Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and work out a solution for self-governance that would give all three groups a share in political power. Simultaneously, the UN should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the United States and other countries, as well as engineers to help rebuild the country. The one thing to be avoided is for the United States, which destroyed Iraq and caused perhaps a million deaths through two invasions and ten years of sanctions, to play any leading role in the future of that country. In that case, terrorism would surely flourish. It is for the United States to withdraw from Iraq. It is for the international community, particularly the Arab world, to try to reconstruct a nation at peace. That gives the Iraqi people a chance. Continued US occupation gives them no chance. link
I am against the war but it's probably to late to just leave, maybe try to get more allies and balance the burden. It will be hard to get help from other countries with the administration that is leading the country right now though.
