Well the US is bad, France is worse. Anything to be done about this? To my knowledge there has been NO progress of any kind on reforming agricultural trade.
FEATURES
SPECTATORS FOR AFRICA
In any discussion about the justifications for the war in Iraq, there comes the Zimbabwe point. Yeah, says the sceptic, but what about Zimbabwe, eh? If we go to war to liberate the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam, why won
How do you answer your own question? I sense you are hinting at a tacit approval of such imperialism, given the alternatives*. Does Big Dump’s endorsement of your post stretch to an endorsement of this sentiment?
If so, you are closer to my (and I suspect even Mr T’s) position than you might think.
After all, I never argued that the US was perfect - just the best among all the alternatives. The UN in theory should be the world policemen, but it was too slow to act (or even declined to act) even when there was a clear case. Kosovo, perhaps?
Which leaves us with the choice of putting the global policeman role in the hands of the most enlightened or most militarily powerful country.
In my view, there is a happy coincidence in that one of the most, if not the most, enlightened countries is also the most powerful.
And I do think that the US, with all its flaws, comes closest to upholding many desirable values, such as a stable, secular democratic state; individual freedom and personal responsibility; and free markets.
(But they ain’t no charming little innocent, either…)
*Of course, could have misread the tenor of your post completely… that’s just how it seemed to me.
I admit I’m confused as to what the “real plan” is in Iraq. It keeps changing. What, for example, ever happend to liberation? Isn’t that supposed to mean self-government or something? I suppose we’ll be stupid for expecting anything meaningful to come of that one anytime soon too.
I realize it’s a big problem not finding jack in Iraq after the big buildup and something has to be said and done about it but I don’t think “mass stupidity” or “just being difficult about it” are the best comebacks on that one. Afterall, there are a lot of people out there who think the only justification for invading another country and taking it over is because you think you’re on the brink of being attacked yourself.
Pretty much all of Great Britain, our right-hand country, thinks that way I’m pretty sure. They’re obviously way confused.
I think the real reason why “we’re all so confused” about the big picture of American foreign policy is President Bush himself. This is from the official Whitehouse.gov website, which is pretty much from the horse’s mouth itself. Somebody needs to tell President Bush to get “on message” so he stops confusing us little people out here so much. Tell him: it’s not the WMD, stupid, it’s the (insert reason of the month here.)
[color=blue]
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:02 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I’m honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions – its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq’s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability – even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action – why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we’ve discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone – because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, “The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.”
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today – and we do – does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles – far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations – in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren’t required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it. . . .
[/color]
whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 007-8.html
[quote=“Gavin Januarus”]
[quote]
I realize it’s a big problem not finding jack in Iraq after the big buildup and something has to be said and done about it [/quote][/quote]
indeed!
Who said that liberation, i.e., getting the Iraqis on their own feet with a democratic-minded government, was going to be doable in a short time???
We were attacked. And when we were attacked, many people asked what we had done to deserve such anger and hate directed at us. Many people believe that the basic problem is the US support of Israel and have identified that as the reason so many in the middle east hate us.
So Bush is attempting to deal with all of the problems that are obstacles to achieving a workable peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Iraq, as a sponser of terrorism and as a regime that had and or sought to obtain WMD was a major hinderence to that peace. Iraq, unreformed, was an obstacle to reform in Iran and Sryia, two other nations that sponsor terrorism. Until nations stop sponsoring terrorism, there is no chance for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I really don’t understand why some of you have such difficulty understanding what is going on. I’m not stating that I am certain Bush will succeed… but expressions of confusion regarding the overall policy seem, IMO, less than sincere. Perhaps your constant focus on individual stumbles along the way prevents you from seeing the big picture.
I have been diagnosed as clinically stupid before (long story) so I have a perfect excuse for being slow to catch on to things, even if they have been spelled out so clearly even an idiot can understand them.
I can change my mind though. Quite easily. That’s one of the few benefits of having mental abilities in the Zippy the Pinhead range. That and never having big student loans to pay back. I’ve found that if I shake my head really hard for an hour or two without stopping that I can pretty much change my mind about anything.
. . .
Okay, I’m back. My mind has been changed. W’oh! This is cool! I can see clearly now. Saddam is the son of Satan! How could I have missed that?
That’s not all. I can see the Bush Doctrine clearly laid out before me like some 10-Step Detoxification Plan and now I know clearly what Tigerman has been talking about all along.
Okay, let me see if I can interpret this for you since it’s all in my head right now and largely in non-verbal form:
Step 1: This war started over a contract dispute, not the normal reasons. (D’oh!). Most wars start because people are threatening to kill one another or have already started to kill one another over something. This one was different because Iraq had signed a contract saying it would do something and when it didn’t deliver the goods, the contract was broken and someone’s head had to roll.
Step 2: Stay away from the Whitehous.gov website and confine your reading to Charles Krauthammer’s columns and Tigerman’s posts. If you make the mistake like I did of reading what the Whitehouse is saying about the situation you’ll just end up hopelessly confused. Just stick to the bona fide sources and you’ll end up better off.
Step 3: Study contract law. Tigerman’s been way ahead of the rest of us on this one because he’s had plenty of formal training and experience in contract law so he saw the nuances long before the rest of us naysayers. My personal formal training in contract law had largely been comprised of watching LA Law and Ally McBeal so I’ve got a lot of reading and study to catch up on.
Step 4: Don’t assume you can’t get the death penalty for breaking a contract. This was Saddam’s big miscalculation. Break a contract, get the chair. That’s the law, my friend, like it or not, so remember that the next time you think about falling behind on your credit card payments.
Okay, any questions. Now stop all this whining about those stinkin’ weapons of mass destruction, you pansies!
Gavin, you old kidder you! Since you want to go right to the source to ascertain what Bush is up to, perhaps you’ll be interested in the excerpts of this speech given by Bush (remember, these are neither Charles Krauthammer’s nor my words… these are Bush’s words):
[quote=“Bush on June 24, 2002”]For too long, the citizens of the Middle East have lived in the midst of death and fear. The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage. The forces of extremism and terror are attempting to kill progress and peace by killing the innocent. And this casts a dark shadow over an entire region. For the sake of all humanity, things must change in the Middle East.
It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation. And the current situation offers no prospect that life will improve. Israeli citizens will continue to be victimized by terrorists, and so Israel will continue to defend herself.
In the situation the Palestinian people will grow more and more miserable. My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security. There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror. Yet, at this critical moment, if all parties will break with the past and set out on a new path, we can overcome the darkness with the light of hope. Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born.
I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.
And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East.
Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing, terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure. This will require an externally supervised effort to rebuild and reform the Palestinian security services. The security system must have clear lines of authority and accountability and a unified chain of command.
America is pursuing this reform along with key regional states. The world is prepared to help, yet ultimately these steps toward statehood depend on the Palestinian people and their leaders. If they energetically take the path of reform, the rewards can come quickly. If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine.
With a dedicated effort, this state could rise rapidly, as it comes to terms with Israel, Egypt and Jordan on practical issues, such as security. The final borders, the capital and other aspects of this state’s sovereignty will be negotiated between the parties, as part of a final settlement. Arab states have offered their help in this process, and their help is needed.
I’ve said in the past that nations are either with us or against us in the war on terror. To be counted on the side of peace, nations must act. Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media, and publicly denounce homicide bombings. Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel – including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. Every nation actually committed to peace must block the shipment of Iranian supplies to these groups, and oppose regimes that promote terror, like Iraq. And Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations.
Leaders who want to be included in the peace process must show by their deeds an undivided support for peace. And as we move toward a peaceful solution, Arab states will be expected to build closer ties of diplomacy and commerce with Israel, leading to full normalization of relations between Israel and the entire Arab world.
Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. Permanent occupation threatens Israel’s identity and democracy. A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for. So I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state.
I’ve asked Secretary Powell to work intensively with Middle Eastern and international leaders to realize the vision of a Palestinian state, focusing them on a comprehensive plan to support Palestinian reform and institution-building.
We must also resolve questions concerning Jerusalem, the plight and future of Palestinian refugees, and a final peace between Israel and Lebanon, and Israel and a Syria that supports peace and fights terror.
The Palestinian Authority has rejected your offer at hand, and trafficked with terrorists. You have a right to a normal life; you have a right to security; and I deeply believe that you need a reformed, responsible Palestinian partner to achieve that security.
I can understand the deep anger and despair of the Palestinian people. For decades you’ve been treated as pawns in the Middle East conflict. Your interests have been held hostage to a comprehensive peace agreement that never seems to come, as your lives get worse year by year. You deserve democracy and the rule of law. You deserve an open society and a thriving economy. You deserve a life of hope for your children. An end to occupation and a peaceful democratic Palestinian state may seem distant, but America and our partners throughout the world stand ready to help, help you make them possible as soon as possible.
This moment is both an opportunity and a test for all parties in the Middle East: an opportunity to lay the foundations for future peace; a test to show who is serious about peace and who is not. The choice here is stark and simple.[/quote]
You can read the entire speech here, Gavin… Bush’s words, not mine.:
bushcountry.org/bush_speeche … 062502.htm
In any event, it is clear that peace between Israel and the Palestinians is key to peace in the middle east… but until Arab nations stop supporting terrorism in Israel, there can be no peace. Do you disagree with this idea?
We know that Saddam provided money to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. Saddam supported terrorism in Israel… he thus was an obstruction to the peace that I think everyone seeks. We were fearful that he might sometime in the future supply WMD to terrorists who have stated their goal of warring on the US and US citizens around the world.
Reading above speech I cannot understand how the pro-war crowd still insists the USG never claimed that Iraq has WMD, did not pose a clear and present danger and does not indirectly links them with 911 - all of which was used primarily to justify the war. That such claims were made are facts, not accusations - just read above speech.
But that the “facts” named in those claims don’t hold true so far has also been proven beyond reasonable doubt. That makes them lies and poor evidence. And, IYBF, you may want to seach for “fax + nukes + Nigerai + US bullshit” to find proof that the US has presented faked documents as evidence. Hell, they even admitted to it later. Denial doesn’t make this an accusation - it’s a fact (but beware, I didn’t say the US faked it, I merely said they presented it and consider them at fault for not verifying it but instead presenting it in public to make their case).
Blix didn’t find any proof of WMD or facilities either, not even those indicated by US intelligence, neither have US troops at any of the hundred places searched so far. So what happened to those mentioned in above speech, shown on pictures presented on TV or mentioned in other speeches? Were the turned into civilian facilities at a push of a magic button (“Press here if you see a COW”), were the decontamination trucks quickly painted red to become fire trucks and others filled with water instead of chemicals to become harmless water tank trucks? And ventilation systems clearly indicating a facility to manufacture WMD were quickly replaced with normal fans? Unless you want to lecture me semantics again, i.e. what “poor evidence”, “fake” and “fact” means, then I am certain that these are exactly what they are: facts and nothing less.
I can’t help it that those facts speak against those the USG confidently presented, but denial doesn’t make this go away or become true.
Now talk about changing your mind - and compare it to ‘changing facts’ and you might see why people are upset with the US for invading Iraq.
Sometimes I am not sure which is worst: the represantatives selling us all the BS (and the fools buying it, signing up on the list) or those who blindly believe the crap, defend it to death and ignore all the facts speaking against them. But ignorance is bliss as they say … 
Happy holiday (what’s left of it). 
[quote=“Big Dunc”]Bush’s vision:
I see myself out on the river, a couple of fly cold ones. Me and the boys reminiscing about the good old days. Gosh, what a blast that was. Kidding the world that we “cared” about the people in the Middle East, when all we really cared about was getting that darn 2004 election in my back pocket and getting the economy back on track.
Hell, there was a while there when all those attrocities in Africa and HIV was garnering a lot of attention. But screw Africa, what the hell can that nation offer us homeboys, eh?[/quote]
Hey, Big D, you seem to be forgetting a little something: Bush has funded HIV assistance in Africa while the Europeans are sitting around with their thumbs up their asses refusing to send a dime.
Bush funded a program last year to help Africa with their AIDS problem (which, BTW, is entirely home-grown; the U.S. didn’t go down there and infect a bunch of Africans, they did it to themselves – tell me again, why is it that the U.S. is expected to pay for Africans’ healthcare??). But the pledge of US$15,000,000,000 (fifteen billion American dollars) over five years was contingent on the U.S. paying at most one third of the total cost of the program – the rest of the world had to chip in too for once.
And on Friday, Europe said screw it:
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 0620202748
[quote=“Agence France-Presse report”]
EU fails to commit on billion dollar AIDS funding
Fri Jun 20, 4:27 PM ET
PORTO CARRAS, Greece (AFP) - EU leaders failed to agree on pledging up to one billion dollars for a global fund to fight killer diseases including AIDS, a move that could have a knock-on effect on US aid.
Britain and France led efforts to try to persuade other member states to cough up enough to ensure the UN’s Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, turberculosis and malaria received up to one billion dollars from the EU in 2004, diplomats said.
[…]
President George W. Bush, in announcing the US initiative on AIDS at the end of May, effectively challenged Europe as well as Japan and Canada to match its financial promises.
But doubts have been expressed over whether Washington will contribute the full amount pledged because of its commitment not to exceed one third of the Fund’s total income.
A US information document prepared for G8 leaders at their summit in France earlier this month said the United States already accounts for half of the 1.2 billion in the fund now and could not therefore put in the promised one billion dollars until other countries put in a total of 2.6 billion in new money.
In fact, the document conceded that the United States could not even put in another single dollar until other countries paid in 600 million dollars.
At the Evian summit, French President Jacques Chirac led efforts for Europe to match the US pledge, saying France would triple its contribution to the Global Fund from 50 million to 150 million euros a year.[/quote]
Wow, France is willing to send the equivalent of a whopping US$175,000,000 in matching funds, compared to the U.S. contribution of US$3,000,000,000 per year. What cheap bloody weasels those cheese-eating surrender-monkeys are.
Perhaps you should write some cutesy bullshit about Chirac pissing off the Eiffel Tower while eating brie. Meanwhile, Chretien could be whining about how every Canadian with half a brain has already left for warmer climes and better pay in the U.S.
Astoundingly astute observation, that. Care to list any countries with FP’s that are not?
[quote=“Big Dunc”]Quite frankly, it doesn’t give a damn about the stuff going on in Africa and it actively supports dictators if that dictator is of strategic value, which is determined by that nation’s value to:
a) the domestic politcal situation in the United States
b) the economic situation in the United States[/quote]
Astoundingly astute observation, that. Care to…
Okay, enough sarcasm. But c’mon, in the real world sometimes you have to deal with people you don’t like much if it’s in your own interests. And you make it sound as if only the U.S. has played at realpolitik, which is patently untrue. The only difference between the U.S. and other places is that sometimes the U.S. is able or willing to put its money where its mouth is. France and Russia and other countries are equally as morally suspect for continuing relations with Saddam after 1988 when he gassed 100,000 Kurds. But, as Christopher Hitchens tirelessly points out, doesn’t that behoove them even more to make up for past mistakes?
Forgive me, but I can’t restrain myself here. Why the fuck is it the U.S.'s responsibility to help those who are suffering? By what moral imperative are they to be in that position? But never mind. Which country in the world is more proactive in alleviating suffering than the U.S. anyway? Who gives more? And don’t give me that per capita shite, because that only takes into account government aid. There are private and church-related philanthropic organizations in the U.S. that give and do more in aid for those in need than do most other countries in the world.
How about some facts? I’d like to see a list of terrorist incidents over the last thirty years so that I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.
But more importantly, do you really believe that Al Qaeda would have closed up shop if the U.S. had simply let 9-11 pass? To quote Mark Steyn: “I think we have to take them at their word.” They want us all dead. Remember what the Al Qaeda loser said in response to a reporter who questioned the strategic significance of Bali, a place without a significant U.S. presence?
“It doesn’t matter, because they were all infidels anyway.”
This is what we’re dealing with. Can we not finally put to rest the canard of suffering/poverty as a prime reason for this kind of terrorism? Osama bin Laden is not the spokesman for the poor and oppressed around the earth – he is Jim Jones with a bank account the size of Fort Knox. Palestinians blowing themselves up in Tel Aviv pizza parlours are drinking Kool-Aid with dynamite in it, and the sickos cheering them on are the ones emptying the packets into the tub and stirring it in. Sure, their motive is to kill as many Israelis as possible in order to “drive them into the sea” (for those with leftist blinders on, that means they will not stop until Israel is, literally, history) so they do indeed have a strategy, a motive. But having a motive is no sign of sanity. Hell, that cult in San Diego had a plan, which was to meet the alien spaceships in the air with their sneakers on, or whatever the scenario was.
Terrorism in the Middle East is pathological and sinister, spurred on and funded by wackos who are driven to distraction by the very existence of loathesome, yet powerful, infidels who drink, dance and have laws that prohibit throwing acid in the faces of women who would dare not cover themselves up from head to toe. If they could ignore us, perhaps they wouldn’t be flying airplanes into skyscrapers, but the problem is is that we’re in their faces. Israel is in their faces. And Israel’s not going away. The refugees of the past 50 years, the Jews, Germans, French, Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese and millions of others, have settled where they settled and got on with the business of living. But Palestinian grandchildren in Jordan, now Jordanian citizens, insist on the “right of return” to a place they have never seen or known. Fer crissakes, there already is a Palestinian “homeland” – it’s called Jordan!
[quote=“Big Dunc”]So when kids are dying in the Congo, and the kids in Palestine miss out on education and micro-nutrients – and the United States turns a blind eye to this, and fails to condemn these attrocities and show some compassionate leadership – people start to lose hope.
The United States has done nothing thus far to change this particularist policy. It is about time it did, before it screws it up for everybody.[/quote]
I’ve got a better idea…instead of waiting around for the United States to open it’s “blind eye,” how about opening your own blind eye? Instead of waiting for compassionate leadership from the U.S., how about demanding the same of your own governments?
Actually, there are some people demanding just that of their own government as we speak. They are Iranian students, and the bravery they are showing in confrontation with the theocratic thugs who run their country is something I suspect neither you nor I could possibly know intimately. You might not have heard about this; leftist opinion zines and websites have ignored the monumental events taking place there, most likely because the Iranians are not rising up against “U.S. hegemony.” Instead, they have even had the audacity to ask for U.S. support, and to suggest that the fall of Saddam next door has emboldened them.
You think?
BTW, the numbers I mentioned above, regarding French support for the U.N. AIDS program as compared to the U.S.'s support? That works out to France’s government giving less than one third the amount, on a per-capita basis, of what the U.S. government gives.
Which, as the infidel . . . er, I mean PorcelainPrincess mentions, doesn’t take into account the private charities in the U.S., which are HUGE donors to the third world – far more than in any other country, especially those selfish bâtards in France.
[quote=“tigerman”]
In any event, it is clear that peace between Israel and the Palestinians is key to peace in the middle east… but until Arab nations stop supporting terrorism in Israel, there can be no peace. Do you disagree with this idea?
We know that Saddam provided money to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. Saddam supported terrorism in Israel… he thus was an obstruction to the peace that I think everyone seeks. We were fearful that he might sometime in the future supply WMD to terrorists who have stated their goal of warring on the US and US citizens around the world.[/quote]
Tigerman,
I agree with everything President Bush said in the speech you quoted. It all seems true to me. I also agree with what you say above.
I really am trying to be honest and fair about all these issues we’ve been debating. If that means having to admit error or change my mind about things, I’ll do it, even at the expense of my ego.
Saddam was a bad actor. We’re all in agreement about that. I think we also all agree that the world is better off without him in power. The only debate was about whether the ends justify the means.
And my only caveat about President Bush’s and Colin Powell’s peace plan in the Middle East is that it truly follow one simple principle: treat each other in the process like you want and expect to be treated yourself.
I agree with Porcelain Princess. Why in the world should the US provide health care and funding to countries that are poor. It is charity not an obligation.
I do not believe that aid programs can ever be useful and sometimes are counterproductive.
In my experience, Argentina was given lifeline after lifeline after lifeline by the IMF and World Bank and then whammo, the country is US$140 billion in debt. No one should have given the corrupt leaders of that country 10 cents but there you are and now that money will have to be paid off somehow over the next 100 years. All those repeated lifelines did was postpone the inevitable. Argentina is based on patronage. Provincial governments were employing 30 percent to 50 percent of the workers in some areas. Communism could not have done a better job. Actually it was more like feudalism with the caudillo being the Big Man, the ultimate of whom were Peron and Menem.
Africa has been given aid up the you know what since most of these basket case countries gained independence in the 1960s. The only way to tell, the old joke goes, when a country gained independence is by looking at the infrastructure. The better, the later. Giving more money for AIDS programs (US$15 billion) might make the US feel better and might actually have some impact on the streets (doubtful) but I doubt that this will do any more than any of the other many programs with all their good intentions. Hope I am wrong, but I have seen it all way too many times before. Maybe Alley Cat could comment on this too.
At the end of the day, I still say from my experiences in Latin America and in Africa, the only way that things are going to change is if France stops holding back the liberalization of agricultural trade and the US and Europe are going to have to stop protecting their textile industries. Then these countries may have a chance. May. Nothing changes the fact that they all have corrupt as hell governments, no tradition of valuing education (a la the Indians or Chinese), family units break down in urban (not village) environments, tribalism, poor savings habits and infrastructures, no infrastructures, mineral wealth (this can often be a curse) ever read the study of oil wealth and how it actually drove up prices, inflation and skewed the economy. For most countries, oil has proved a curse (I cannot remember the article’s name, but…)
That’s it for me today.
Princess
[quote]Big Dunc wrote:
the US’s foreign policy is based on its own interests. (Even Tigerman agrees with this)
Astoundingly astute observation, that. Care to list any countries with FP’s that are not?[/quote]
This was not meant to be some all-revealing revelation. Nevertheless, it is extremely important to be aware of this at all times when listening to Bush, Powel and Co as they stand there on the podium. I would suggest that Colin could ensure that this driver of foreign poilcy is not forgotten by grabbing a shoe box from somewhere and some crayons (he can probably get these from the hotel nuresery) and write “Our policies are driven by our own interests” on the box. He could just stick the box in front of him. While this may not be revealing to informed people such as yourself, it serves as a very useful reminder.
Was it Spider-Man who was told that:
“With great power comes great responsibility”?
There is a book forthcoming which discusses the issues of power and responsibility:
Love, Fear and the Destiny of Nations: Evaluating the Impact of the Evolution of Human Consciousness on Business and World Affairs, due to be published in 2004.
To say that all nations “look after their own interests”, so it is therefore acceptable for the United States to operate the way it does (that is, with extreme particularist policies) is a very superficial, and short-sighted way of looking at the current problems we face in the world today.
In line with the Spider-man quote, powerful nations should take the initiative when dealing with weaker nations. This requires real leadership.
Sorry, but it is not as simple as “which country doesn’t look after its own interests”.
Dunc
Big Dumc:
Let’s take a vote. If I had to choose one country to run world foreign policy or a policeman if you will, I vote for Bush and the USA. Forget the IMF and World Bank. Despite all the whining you hear from countries, many citizens of those countries are fully cognizant of what is good or bad for them. Should have cut Argentina off at the trough 10 years ago.
Should have whacked the Muslim fundamentalist terrorist 24 years ago despite fears of the Arab Street.
Does the US act in world interests. In my book yes. Has your nation benefited or suffered because of US policies? Sit back, take a look and decide.
[quote=“fred smith”]Big Dumc:
Let’s take a vote. If I had to choose one country to run world foreign policy or a policeman if you will, I vote for Bush and the USA. [/quote]
I think Dunc prefers the world of Marvel Comics. Big, outrageous, caricatured villians in an evil conspiracy to control the world.
Me? The world is an absurdity. The “Last Gasp” view if you will.
[quote=“fred smith”]Big Dumc:
Does the US act in world interests. In my book yes. Has your nation benefited or suffered because of US policies? Sit back, take a look and decide.[/quote]
whoa. [like Joey]
Fred
You have just exposed the other end of the universalist-particularist continuum. The US at the particlarist extreme and the IMF/UN/World Bank at the universalist other.
There is no ONE correct answer. What IS needed is a reconciliation of these two extremes.
Whether we see this happen in the coming months is beyond our control but I think we will see it happen. It has to happen; and this is why I have been so critical of the position that “US foreign policy is good just because it’s ours”.
Blueface!
I prefer the Beano!
Dunc
I can only speak for myself, but I suspect others who defend US policy will agree to some extent…
I have never stated that “US foreign policy is good just beacuse its ours”.
I have never started a thread declaring the greatness of the US or of US policy… I only defend against what I believe to be unfair or incorrect statements re the US and US policy.
There’s an enormous difference.
I even suggested that the original thread title be changed to read, “American Foreign Policy Isn’t Perfect”.
You can’t pin your above accusation on me.
When Menem was president of Argentina, he talked about having carnal relations with America. I was, am and will always be for it. Like I said, US foreign policy any day compared to the others I have seen. When I see something better then and only then will I re-evaluate.
When the incompetent IMF and World Bank loaned money like there was no tomorrow to countries, what were they thinking? It’s not like credit card debt.
Then when the Argentine govt nationalizes bank accounts (in us dollars of course) not a peep. But naturally any debt whether mortgage or what not is still in US dollars. Should that not be whacked into pesos too?
So, moral of today’s lesson. Show me something better. Until then, leave your theories in Political Science 101. I want to see it in practice.