The sanctions provided for humanitarian need and the UN also established the Oil for Food Program. Saddam squandered billions in oil revenue that he could have used to improve the conditions of his people. How is it our fault??? It's <I>partially</I> our fault because this was a completely predictable outcome of the sanctions. Did we really think Saddam wasn't going to try to get around the sanctions and use the money to rebuild his military? The real solution is to remove Saddam, he is preventing his people from a better life. Even if there were no sanctions, how much better would his people be? I doubt that he would have spent any more money to improve the quality of life of the average Iraqi citizen. The Iraqi quality of life was far better before the Gulf War than it was after. The Iraqi people were amongst the most educated, most literate, and financially successful in the Middle East. Iraq was a cultural centerpiece of the region in terms of the arts. What makes you think that wouldn't have continued if they had been left alone after the war? I'm not saying leaving them alone to suffer under Hussein was the right solution, but there's no question the sanctions severely degraded the quality of life of the civilians in Iraq.
I can't believe people are sticking up for the writer. Didn't you guys here, we stop supporting our troops once they are no longer active and become veterans. Duh.
I never said that "devoting your years to studying the relevant issues" is bad. You are arguing a straw man. I was implying that academia is biased to the left, which is true.
Ummm...does that mean that people to the left are more interested in learning, or that people who learn are more to the left?
You will note, or you might if you weren't johnheath, for whom no fact is relevent if he disagrees, that it was Mr. C whosaid that more academics are left, not myself....I was just asking him to clarify this otherwise inexplicable phenomena of left leaning thinkers migrating to academics in droves, as he would have it.
They are less interested in doing, I'd say. Watch out now... They create workplaces which are funded by the government or enjoy the academic "freedom" that tenure affords them. And we scream about Cato's security....
Ahh..working in academics precludes 'doing', does it? Apparently not the case for this ex-Marine, wouldn't you say? And what 'doing' are you refering to, which academics would otherwise be better off spending their time doing? Computer programming, maybe? Lawyer, perhaps? Accountant? Factory worker? Dental hygenist? What professions qualify as 'doing' something beneficial to society more than academics? Or by 'doing' do you mean making more money for yourself? Researching/studying areas of learning, and passing that information on to waves of future 'doers' somehow makes you a non-doer?
Still can't answer a simple question, huh Bob? All of the left never made so much as a whisper concerning sanctions, the no-fly zones, Somalia, or Kosovo when Clinton was in the White House, and they continue to ignore DIRECT questions concerning this very matter. Major-- In an effort to prevent futher hostilities, the UN imposed sanctions an Iraq that were virtually unenforceable inside the Iraqi borers. Saddam, being the evil b*stard that he is, OF COURSE didn't use Oil-For-Food for his people, nor did he take the opportunity to follow UN mandates to prevent hardship to his people. While it can certainly be argued that no one expected the sanctions to work, I think most would agree that it was at least worth it to try. I will forever be of the opinion that Saddam Hussein had 14 years to comply with the mandates and sanctions imposed on him by the United Nations. It was the UN's own damn fault for not living up to its half of the bargain, and the UN has paid the price by not living up to its own imposed mandates. The coalition needed NO further resolution to go back to Iraq. The coalition had that power through the treaty that "ended" the first Gulf War. Saddam thumbed his nose at the world all by himself, knowing full-well that Clinton would never do anything about it other than lob a few missles here and there every once in awhile, and also knowing full-well that the UN wouldn't ever do anything about it other than impose sanctions that did nothing but strengthen his own power base. This time around, Saddam figured he'd let the UN and countries like France sit around with their thumbs up their collective butts until Bush was no longer in office. He didn't count on the resolve of this administration. This time, Saddam figured wrong. This time, its the end for him because the world has the resolve not to put up with him anymore.
Not really anything new, groundbreaking, or insightful in this guys article. Sure, he was a Marine, but it can hardly be unexpected that out of all the people who serve 'some' of them will turn against the use of military force. Having been a Marine really doesn't establish more legitimacy for his points than they would inherently provide otherwise. He obviously was not a 'lifer' in the Marines, and was definitely not involved in most of the conflicts he presumes to speak about, if any. As for being an academic, I know plenty of stupid Phd's, and plenty of smart ones. Having letters behind your name really is not something to be impressed about. Anyway, how much can you expect from a 'jarhead.'
First, get over the idea that people in academia are more interested in learning than people in other professions. Second, if you don't think academia in general leans to the left, then what's wrong with you?
You might want to qualify this by saying it depends on the academic discipline. Just like a majority of journalists lean to the left, a majority of liberal arts PhD's do as well. However, I think you'd find that a lot of engineering PhD's lean to the right. (which is what I think was meant by the 'doers' not being in academia)
The percentage of pro-war professors are definately higher amoung political scientists than English or other "softer" departments.
Which is worse...left wing nuts in ivory towers or right wing nuts in corporate towers? Nuts is nuts is nuts. I prefer somewhere in the middle away from the both of them.
Sino, You consider political science much different than English as far as "softness"? What kind of degree do you have? (Not meant in an adversarial way, I am just curious)
