TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- bashing America...
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer what right do those planes have to fly over cities threatening people? what a joke. the iraqi people live in fear of those planes because they have bombed them so many times before.

Do you even know why we are enforcing a no fly zone in that region? It's not to restrict trade or to seize oil. The reason why there is a no fly zone above the 36th parallel and below the 32nd is because of the Kurdish population and other ethnic minorities living in the area. If you read your history books you'll find out out that before teh gulf war Hussein sent in planes and missiles with chemical warheads to exterminate the population. Is preventing a massacre reason enough to have those planes up there? I mean really, do you think we get our kicks out of sending pilots up into dangerous zones where they get shot at for no reason? How about spending millions to maintain constant combat patrol in that region?

With regards to your second comment:

A) NOTHING happens to anybody if the Iraqis just sit on their asses and NOT fire on the planes. NOTHING. The planes are on a DEFENSIVE posture. So WHY would they be afraid of getting bombed??? Don't you think logic would tell you by now that if you DO fire on the planes you sure as hell are gonna get bombed???.

B) It's not like civilians are manning these anti-aircraft batteries. These are military personnel under the direct orders of their commanders. The decision to fire on the aircraft are made by military command knowing full well that their will be retaliations. Gimme a break you sound as if everybody on the other side are composed of ignorant, simpletons that can't understand the consequences of their actions, and as such we should treat them as if they were mentally retarded and play nice. They know full well what they're doing, they're fighting a propoganda war and it's sad to say that it appears like they are winning.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider They know full well what they're doing, they're fighting a propoganda war and it's sad to say that it appears like they are winning.

hehe.. yeah right.. i guess you dont get CNN @ your place

I dont want to flame the USA. I live in the USA and all, but I dont like how the USA sometimes buys countries through treaties. Mexico, if Mexico doesnt agree with the USA on the attack with Iraq, it will loose many privileges. Brazil, Colombia, all this countries have been in crisis, whenever they ask for some help, the USA ( president ) asks for something back, but that something is .. alley yourself to ATTACK IRAQ. Or else, we wont help you.
I know this because I have several friends from this 3 countries I've mention, and I have heard all this 3 presidents speak about. Im not too informed about it, but thats the info I know.

Just a thought I had to express. I dont believe the USA is the POLICE of any country just because it wants to, but because theres an interest in between.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX I dont want to flame the USA. I live in the USA and all, but I dont like how the USA sometimes buys countries through treaties. Mexico, if Mexico doesnt agree with the USA on the attack with Iraq, it will loose many privileges. Brazil, Colombia, all this countries have been in crisis, whenever they ask for some help, the USA ( president ) asks for something back, but that something is .. alley yourself to ATTACK IRAQ. Or else, we wont help you.

so dont do business...
mexico is not forced to comply to US pressure, if it belives attacking iraq is wrong then by all means it may do so. mexico has to decide if financil help is worth lowering its morals to that of the US. You cant blame the US for that at all, but rather mexico for making that desicion. if i gave you a million dollars to cut off your big toe would you? why blame me for giving you the offer its a free world and i have freedom of speech, all responsibilty is in YOUR hands.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy so dont do business... mexico is not forced to comply to US pressure, if it belives attacking iraq is wrong then by all means it may do so. mexico has to decide if financil help is worth lowering its morals to that of the US. You cant blame the US for that at all, but rather mexico for making that desicion. if i gave you a million dollars to cut off your big toe would you? why blame me for giving you the offer its a free world and i have freedom of speech, all responsibilty is in YOUR hands.

But I dont believe business should involve war .

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX But I dont believe business should involve war .

why not, why is war different?
have you heard of conscriptions (i think thats the word). people are payed for their service in the military, this has been done since way back when in the days of the roman empire (and even before). the romans would hire (ie pay) locals (such as britons, after they invaded it) for their service in the roman empire. thats a form of business, a country to person business but whats the difference between that and a country to country business? nothing

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy why not, why is war different? have you heard of conscriptions (i think thats the word). people are payed for their service in the military, this has been done since way back when in the days of the roman empire (and even before). the romans would hire (ie pay) locals (such as britons, after they invaded it) for their service in the roman empire. thats a form of business, a country to person business but whats the difference between that and a country to country business? nothing

It does when a country like Mexico, that depends greatly on the USA for trading and so on, and when MEXICO dont agree with something, the USA will cut some previleges just because it dont agree on something ... mmm well to one owns opinions, you stand out very good to defend the USA , which is good. :-) but I just dont think its right, I think its more like buying a country to go for something, just because they are forced to ( for the need of money ) .. and not because they want to. Just wrong..

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit hehe.. yeah right.. i guess you dont get CNN @ your place

I don't watch cnn ... I prefer bbs or sky news because I think they are more impartial. But what are you getting at? You don't think Iraq is winning a propoganda war? Hmmm lets see ... the country is run by a corrupt dictatorship ... it disregards treaty obligations ... it has invaded neighboring, peaceful, sovereign, arab nations ... it has used chemical weapons against its own people in an attempt to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders ... it exhibits no humanitarian rights or system of civil liberties to speak of.

You know what? I couldn't think of a worse reputation to have. What positive influences or gains can you possibly think of that this country has made on the world? Can you see ANY positive example that this country has made that the rest of the world should imitate? YET despite this ridiculousness, this country has garnered the support of numerous nations across the globe. It has sparked an attitude of sympathy with half the planet. This country has even divided relations among NATO countries that have historically stood by each other through thick and thin. So are they winning the propoganda war? I'm sorry to say it but they are.

you have your points.. but why is the US in such a rush to disarm iraq.. When they have terrorism to deal with in the first place. Im not american but i feel that america is pushing and calling the shots on everything. Attacking Iraq will generate more problems then there already is. A war torn country will split up and uprisings will occur. Possibly new breads of terrorist attacks upon The US and neighbouring regions of Iraq. I see the US as being a bully in this senerio. Im sure there are plenty of other ways to deal with the ordeal. Its just that the US wants to get their hands on that oil or some personal vandetta. Dont you think there is a reason why the rest of the world disagrees? How can Iraq when the propoganda war when CNN is king of propoganda. They've instilled fear in most americans with their breaking news every 2 seconds. Whats wrong with just telling the story. Do you have to go into explicit detail and get commentary on everything? Its not a sportscast.... This is just my opinion again. Im sure i would think differently if i was an american. I feel very sympathetic for americans who lost their lives In the WTC incident and i definately would not to see a repeat of that senario. But by ignoring the terrorism and making new enemies. Id hate to see what would happen next. We live in the 21st century. War just leads to more wars. There always has to be an enemy for some reason. Why cant problems be solved in a more sophisticated way? I know i wouldnt solve my problems by pointing a gun @ someone. No matter what it came down too. This again is personal opinion...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I don't watch cnn ... I prefer bbs or sky news because I think they are more impartial. But what are you getting at? You don't think Iraq is winning a propoganda war? Hmmm lets see ... the country is run by a corrupt dictatorship ... it disregards treaty obligations ... it has invaded neighboring, peaceful, sovereign, arab nations ... it has used chemical weapons against its own people in an attempt to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders ... it exhibits no humanitarian rights or system of civil liberties to speak of. You know what? I couldn't think of a worse reputation to have. What positive influences or gains can you possibly think of that this country has made on the world? Can you see ANY positive example that this country has made that the rest of the world should imitate? YET despite this ridiculousness, this country has garnered the support of numerous nations across the globe. It has sparked an attitude of sympathy with half the planet. This country has even divided relations among NATO countries that have historically stood by each other through thick and thin. So are they winning the propoganda war? I'm sorry to say it but they are.

for the shit we did in vietnam, cambodia and laos, i think we shouldnt speak.

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer for the shit we did in vietnam, cambodia and laos, i think we shouldnt speak.

I'm sorry, but accusations of hypocrisy are a form of fallacious argument.

Cheers,

Arbiter

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I don't watch cnn ... I prefer bbs or sky news because I think they are more impartial. But what are you getting at? You don't think Iraq is winning a propoganda war? Hmmm lets see ... the country is run by a corrupt dictatorship ... it disregards treaty obligations ... it has invaded neighboring, peaceful, sovereign, arab nations ... it has used chemical weapons against its own people in an attempt to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders ... it exhibits no humanitarian rights or system of civil liberties to speak of.

Well ironically, despite all the faults of Iraq, it's the US that gets the brunt of the criticism. That's the part I dont understand. Maybe Saddam Hussein paid several european leaders off to spew anti-US sentiment.

I have said it before, and will say it again .. GO LOOK FOR OSAMA BIN LADIN !!!!! Iraq is less of a threat, they werent the ones after the terrorist attacks, theres no proof of Iraq helping Osama, and even so, Osama poses more of a thread for an attack agains America, more now that there was a video tape found, now, WHY IS MR BUSHY still after IRaq and disarming it ? they are not the ones threating us. IF the US sparks a WAR against IRAQ , it will spark MORE terrorist attacks, they HAVE their POINT on why they want to attack the US, and one of their points is because US wants to RULE the world and so on, and what is BUSH proving by going to IRAQ, without a CONCRETE reason to bother them, and spark a WAR ? ..

I mean, I will not understand if any answers are given to this, but WHY isnt he focused on that OSAMA guy !!!!!!!! .. pisses me off .. they go on alerts, yet they give priority on sparking a war with IRAQ.

Oh goody..... another Iraq vs America thread.

quote:

Under the UN (not US) resolution, any hostile act against these planes is a violation of the resolution.

Actually, there was never a UN resolution supporting the "No Fly Zone" patrols. Or rather, there was, but it was never properly ratified.

The UN Security Council passed several post-Gulf War resolutions that Iraq agreed to (including, for instance, allowing weapons inspectors into the country) but the No Fly Zones resolution - as it was never agreed upon - is still technically illegal under international law. Theoretically, given that the UN SC has not given explicit authorization of these imaginery zones, Iraq has as much right, under international law, to shoot at American and British plains flying over sovereign air-space as the US and the UK would have to shoot down any Iraqi planes flying over the Whitehouse or Buckingham Palace.

quote:

Keep in mind the function of these planes are to enforce a no fly zone to PREVENT iraqi slaughtering of the kurdish people with chemical gas.

I think it's naive to assume that the American government gives two hoots about the Kurdish people.

Why?

Firstly, it may interest you to know that the US government in all-likelihood sold Iraq the gas used to kill the Kurdish people. Am I just making it up? Have I gotten this fact from some unreliable far-left newsletter or something? No, an American Senate report says as much.

Between 1985 and 1990, the US government approved licences for the export of some $1.7 billion worth of military, chemical/biological technology, a total of 771 licences in all during that period (only 39 licences were rejected). The substances include:

"Bacillus Anthracis (anthrax), Clostridium Botulinum (a source of botulinum toxin), Histoplasma Capsulatam (cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart), Brucella Melitensis (a bacteria that can damage major organs), Clostridium Perfringens (a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness), Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance), Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents."

It should also be pointed out here that the attacks that Hussein committed against the Kurdish people (that killed 5,000 and wounded 10,000) occurred, unless someone can tell me otherwise, in the year 1988 (although less catasrophic gas attacks began as early as 1984). The US government was so outraged by this attrocity that the exports of chemical agents to Iraq actually increased after the event, and - to my knowledge - the US government never condemned these attrocities (or bothered to stop exporting military chemical agents) until Iraq ceased to be the "enemy of the enemy" (namely Iran) and became hostile towards US interests.

The US government couldn't care less about the Kurdish attrocities at the time, yet - as soon as Iraq became the enemy in 1991 - they realised the propoganda value in condemning Hussein for these attacks after the event.

If you wish, you can read up on just how the US helped develop the enemy (remind you of the Taliban/Al Quieda situation?) here:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsear.../report_s01.htm

quote:

If you read your history books you'll find out out that before teh gulf war Hussein sent in planes and missiles with chemical warheads to exterminate the population. Is preventing a massacre reason enough to have those planes up there?

Once again, the US government has no interest in "preventing massacres". In fact, the World Health Organisation is left in little doubt about the fact that US sanctions have been responsible for more deaths than any attrocity Hussein could even dream of committing.

This report is fairly old now (1996) but the issues have not changed:

http://www.who.int/disasters/repo/5249.html

(Plenty of other condemning articles on the WHO site as well, for anyone interested).

quote:

The sanctions imposed on Iraq since 1990...... have contributed to delays or, in some cases, even cessation attempts by the Government to repair vital damaged facilities and programmes. As a result, the quality of life of the average Iraqi citizen has been adversely affected. Owing to the lack of financial resources from foreign exchange earnings, namely from oil, the import of food and medicine has been restricted.

quote:

The six-week Gulf war in 1991 resulted in the destruction of a large number of public facilities in Iraq, such as electricity generating and water purification plants and sewage treatment networks. As a consequence, provision of health care to the population was seriously disrupted. One example has been the complete disruption of the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI), the result being a decrease in the number of infants and children being immunized and as a result, an increase in many vaccine-preventable diseases.

^^ Side note - many of these facilities were specifically targetted by the US forces:

"Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create post-war leverage in Iraq... Military planners hoped the bombing would amplify the economic and psychological impact of international sanctions on Iraqi society... Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war a 'collateral' and unintended, was sometimes neither..."
- Washington Post 23 June 1991

quote:

The per capita gross national product (GNP) is an indication of the economic status of a country. In 1989, before the 1991 Gulf war, Iraq had a GNP of about US$ 2 800. The effect of the six-week 1991 Gulf war and conditions surrounding the sanctions that were imposed on the country in 1990, is reflected by the GNP rapidly declining from US$ 2 800 in 1989 to US$ l 500 in l99l.

And so on.

Of course, you could argue that all Saddam had to do was let the Inspectors back in and everything would be okay - so in actual fault the sanctions are his fault for being such a bastard - but I would advise you to cast your minds back to a few months ago when Bush categorically stated that even Iraq allowing "uninhibited access" to UN inspectors would not result in the sanctions being lifted.

Admittedly, it's as much the UN's fault as it is the US (as the UN were the ones responsible for the instegation of the sanctions in the first place - justified as they probably were at the time), but it is Geroge Bush - with his dumbed down, barbaric war-mongering - who propogates the misery the sanction are causing. All he need do is accept that inspectors have - just today - flown into Iraq to inspect weapons facilities, back down from his misguided, dogmatic ideologies, and treat the Iraqi people with the humanitarian respect they deserve.

quote:

so dont do business... mexico is not forced to comply to US pressure, if it belives attacking iraq is wrong then by all means it may do so.

Yes, but the point is that America has such a strangle-hold on the world economy - and has also recently (or not so recently) adopted the "you're either with us or with the terrorists" stance - and if you put them together, then it's not too hard to realise that vehemently disagreeing with the US government is the quickest way to starve your own people.

I do wonder how much of the support for this war has been arrived at from an economic standpoint rather than from a moral standpoint, which, I would argue, is the perspective from which it would best be approached.

quote:

I think its more like buying a country to go for something, just because they are forced to ( for the need of money ) .. and not because they want to.

^^ Exactly.

quote:

You don't think Iraq is winning a propoganda war? Hmmm lets see ... the country is run by a corrupt dictatorship ... it disregards treaty obligations ... it has invaded neighboring, peaceful, sovereign, arab nations ... it has used chemical weapons against its own people in an attempt to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders ... it exhibits no humanitarian rights or system of civil liberties to speak of. You know what? I couldn't think of a worse reputation to have. What positive influences or gains can you possibly think of that this country has made on the world? Can you see ANY positive example that this country has made that the rest of the world should imitate? YET despite this ridiculousness, this country has garnered the support of numerous nations across the globe. It has sparked an attitude of sympathy with half the planet. This country has even divided relations among NATO countries that have historically stood by each other through thick and thin. So are they winning the propoganda war? I'm sorry to say it but they are.

You don't think the US is winning a propoganda war? Hmmm lets see ... the country is run by corrupt capitalists ... it disregards treaty obligations ... it has invaded peaceful, sovereign, arab nations ... it has condoned the use of chemical weapons being used by a country against its own people in an attempt to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders ... recently it has exhibited no regard for humanitarian rights or any system of civil liberties to speak of.

You know what? I couldn't think of a worse reputation to have. What positive influences or gains can you possibly think of that this country has made on the world? Can you see ANY positive example that this country has made that the rest of the world should imitate? YET despite this ridiculousness, this country has garnered the support of numerous nations across the globe. It has sparked an attitude of sympathy with half the planet. This country has even divided relations among NATO countries that have historically stood by each other through thick and thin. So are they winning the propoganda war? I'm sorry to say it but they are.

(Don't necessarily agree with that, just trying to show you how easily that argument can change depending on one's bias).

quote:

by ignoring the terrorism and making new enemies. Id hate to see what would happen next. We live in the 21st century. War just leads to more wars. There always has to be an enemy for some reason. Why cant problems be solved in a more sophisticated way?

Exactly.

There is absolutely no justification for the compromise of the inherent sanctity of human life. Anyone who deems human life expendible, or the loss of it as merely "collateral damage" needs their priorities re-examined.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Bush decides to invade Iraq, he is - in my eyes - directly responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent human beings. By the laws of his own state, he'd deserve to be put to the chair by virtue of what he is proposing to do.

Having said that, given that the inspectors are on their way to Iraq now, with the situation having largely resolved itself peacefully I'm not sure why there's any need for this discussion. Imagine if Bush had got his own way from the beginning? How many innocents would be needlessly dead by now?

Anyway, I'm done. Have I gone too far this time? (I'm blaming it on the red wine ).

until a friend or relative of yours was killed because of terrorism and you were personally affected, maybe you should think twice before you speak.

quote:

Originally posted by BLATTMAN until a friend or relative of yours was killed because of terrorism and you were personally affected, maybe you should think twice before you speak.

Why? Does such unfortunate circumstances help you see things clearly? If that was the case, I cannot help wondering if what Palestineans and Israelis are doing is the right way to behave. They have both experienced losses and misfortune.

quote:

Originally posted by BLATTMAN until a friend or relative of yours was killed because of terrorism and you were personally affected, maybe you should think twice before you speak.

And you forgot to mention that the world revolves around you.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Why? Does such unfortunate circumstances help you see things clearly? If that was the case, I cannot help wondering if what Palestineans and Israelis are doing is the right way to behave. They have both experienced losses and misfortune.

Actually under those circumstances you would be less likely to be thinking clearly I suspect. After all, you would probably be quite emotional, and emotion is the enemy of critical thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Actually under those circumstances you would be less likely to be thinking clearly I suspect. After all, you would probably be quite emotional, and emotion is the enemy of critical thought.

I know. My post was an ill-fated attempt at sarcasm.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I know. My post was an ill-fated attempt at sarcasm.

Yeah, you were making a good point. I just felt it needed to be expanded upon a bit for the sake of clarity.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Once again, the US government has no interest in "preventing massacres". In fact, the World Health Organisation is left in little doubt about the fact that US sanctions have been responsible for more deaths than any attrocity Hussein could even dream of committing. This report is fairly old now (1996) but the issues have not changed: http://www.who.int/disasters/repo/5249.html (Plenty of other condemning articles on the WHO site as well, for anyone interested). Admittedly, it's as much the UN's fault as it is the US (as the UN were the ones responsible for the instegation of the sanctions in the first place - justified as they probably were at the time), but it is Geroge Bush - with his dumbed down, barbaric war-mongering - who propogates the misery the sanction are causing. All he need do is accept that inspectors have - just today - flown into Iraq to inspect weapons facilities, back down from his misguided, dogmatic ideologies, and treat the Iraqi people with the humanitarian respect they deserve.

I think you've pointed out the problem right here. The UN has proven itself to be such an ineffective organization - it's solution to the problem in Iraq was the sanctions you so detest, yet they have failed to achieve any of their goals while resulting in innumerable civilian deaths in Iraq. But now, when the US finally realizes that the only way it can ever accomplish anything is by bypassing the UN, the US receives criticism?

If I believed that the US would actually do what it takes to maintain long term stability in Iraq following a war, I would support the invasion of Iraq, with or without UN support. But I don't believe that, which is why I agree with your basic premise, which is that the war against Iraq would be a primarily economic decision(and, in my opinion, a strategically poor one at that).

quote:

There is absolutely no justification for the compromise of the inherent sanctity of human life. Anyone who deems human life expendible, or the loss of it as merely "collateral damage" needs their priorities re-examined. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Bush decides to invade Iraq, he is - in my eyes - directly responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent human beings. By the laws of his own state, he'd deserve to be put to the chair by virtue of what he is proposing to do.

I can't agree with that. The natural mechanisms for the regulation of the human population on the world have failed due to our tremendous technological advances. One of the few efficient ways left to maintain natural equilibrium of the human population is through warfare, especially in regions that are currently failing to adequately support their population for whatever reason.

Furthermore there is no objective evidence to suggest that by killing these people you are not doing them a favor. Socrates argued that since no one had ever experienced death, there was no one qualified to judge whether it was positive or negative.

I certainly have no fear of death, as it is foolish to fear the inevitable, and I think that were we to invade Iraq, our greatest concern ought to be for the survivors, not the slain. If the US truly wanted to make the lives of those survivors and their children better for generations, then I think the short-term loss of life would be far outweighed by the long-term benefits of improved social institutions and civil liberties. It's just unfortunate that the US would almost certainly be unwilling to make the investment of time and money necessary to make these changes last. I think we ought to be willing to pay that price of time and money, and the price of those lives that would be lost, because that is the price of progress. The only reason I do not support any war against Iraq is precisely because I don't think this price will be paid in full, and hence nothing will be gained.

Arbiter:

I don't really have the time to respond to everything you just said, but for now:

quote:

The natural mechanisms for the regulation of the human population on the world have failed due to our tremendous technological advances.

What you say is true in a way. The world population, as it stands (6.1 billion?), is a far greater number than it would otherwise be in a globe where technology did not exist, so in this sense the human race has surpassed its "natural populational equilibrium" (however you wish to interpret that).

However, the technology that has pushed the worlds population beyond its natural equilibrium, is also the technology that can be geared to sustain it. Perhaps when the population growth rate begins to exceed the rate by which technology evolves, then we have a definite problem, but until then I think its quite clear that although technology has pushed us to the brink of global over-population in the "naturalistic" sense, it also has the potential to make these population levels sustainable.

For instance, in the past, with these current population levels, I don't think it would be too much to suggest that half the plaent would starve to death in the space of a decade. They lacked the technology to rapidly grow replenishing food stocks back then, as well as the technology to realistically transport it to neighbouring societies. There was no possibility for - to use an example - Division of Labour or Comparitive Advantage, both of which ensure that no country (or community) need be completely self-dependant. No country need grow the food it eats, so long as it can produce something in large enough quantities with a competitive value. In the "natural world" self-sufficiency (both within individuals and socieities) is the law the dictated whether a person or a group of people were able to survive. Two-thousand years ago, with six billion people on the planet and without the technology to transcend the binding, natural necessity for self-sufficiency, people would not have the resources they needed - given that more units of resources per capita would be needed to produce the same output we are capable of today, due to the inherent inefficiency of closed, technologically inferior societies - to produce enough to sustain themselves.

Even today, we can see the same problem. Large societies, that would otherwise be unable to sustain themselves, are today able to sustain a far greater population given that - with the advent of superior examples of technology - less resources are used to make more. The only areas where the population is unsustainable, quite simply, are the areas where technology is inferior (i.e. Africa, the sub-continent) or where they rely on self-sufficient, closed-to-external-trading means of production (i.e. most of the old communist countries - look at the mess the USSR was in in its latter years). These population levels are only unsustainable where resources are not being used as efficiently as we have the technology to allow for.

Having said that, I think that there is a plateau, where - regardless of the sophistication of the technology - there are simply too many people to feed. I think we're a fair way off just yet, but it's something we're going to need to be prepared for and to do our best to avoid.

quote:

One of the few efficient ways left to maintain natural equilibrium of the human population is through warfare, especially in regions that are currently failing to adequately support their population for whatever reason.

Sorry, I cannot agree with that.

As I said before, even in a society with a population too large to currently sustain itself, the problem is not lack of resources, but the lack of the technology necessary to utilize these resources properly. A better, more humane, possibly cheaper solution than culling off large amounts of a human population through warfare to ensure sustainability in a given region, would be to provide this region with the basic technological infrastructure to ensure greater total production from the same amount of resources. The trouble is, institutions such the IMF who are supposed to be helping third world countries by supplying large loans to help fund the initiation of this said infrastructure, often take more money in the end - through interest - than they provide. I think one source said that for every dollar provided to third world nations by the IMF and other nations, seven dollars are taken back in interest - put simply, if this synopsis is true (given that I don't understand it well enough to say it is definitely true) then the rich continue to get richer, while the poor begin to starve. Is it economic Darwinism? Is it just natural that the weak countries starve to death due to their inability to compete with the stronger nations? Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean we don't have the power to change it.

And while this view may seem hopelessly idealistic or naive, I don't find it any more idealistic or naive than the perspective that suggests that either killing off large percentages of a population - or even allowing other to do the killing for you - is the solution to any problem facing the world today..... much less this one.

quote:

Furthermore there is no objective evidence to suggest that by killing these people you are not doing them a favor. Socrates argued that since no one had ever experienced death, there was no one qualified to judge whether it was positive or negative.

Rather obtuse rationalism I'd say.

Perhaps you would like to murder a friend or a relative and see if you get any thanks for the "favour" of non-existence you provided to them (solving the world's problems in the process)?

quote:

I certainly have no fear of death

Non sequiteur.

Indifference to death does not mean that one does not value one's life. I'm not particularly scared of death either, but it doesn't mean I don't want to put it off for as long as I can.

quote:

I think that were we to invade Iraq, our greatest concern ought to be for the survivors, not the slain.

If death is such a liberation then - and such an altruistic gesture - will you gaily skip up to the gillotine when it's your turn to do something for your planet? If you see an altruistic pretense to the deaths of Iraqi civilians, perhaps - to avoid a sense of existential hypocracy (mauvaise fois) - you too should give up your life so that someone like you may enjoy a slight increase in his/her material well-being?

There is probably a point at which the pain of life becomes worse than the fear of death, but I don't think it is reached often enough to suggest that the dead are ever the ones to envy.

quote:

If the US truly wanted to make the lives of those survivors and their children better for generations, then I think the short-term loss of life would be far outweighed by the long-term benefits of improved social institutions and civil liberties.

Would you happily live in utopia, though, if you knew that a large amount of people had to die unwillingly to get you there? Or, so goes the analogy, would you be comfortable sitting in heaven when you know there are others suffering in hell?

Even if it could be demonstrated that there could a good chance of increased quality of life after a war on Iraq, I still don't believe that the deaths of innocents justify such an outcome when a more peaceful solution - such as the removal of trade sanctions - can bring about an immediate increase in the quality of the Iraqi society. War - which obviously means the death of a great many human beings - should only be the absolute last resort in a desperate situation, and only if this last resort could be shown to be more beneficial than merely doing "nothing".

Perhaps a war would improve Iraqi life somewhat in the long run (though, as I have argued several time before in this topic, I doubt it will) but the proposed war does not justify the hypothetical ends - especially when there are solutions available that can deliver an equivelent increase in the material quality of life without a drop of blood being spilt.

Anyway, I think that's about it.

Sorry, if that was off-topic at all.....

U.S. government DESERVED the 9-11 attack
the American people didn't. New York is one of the nicest places to live in my opinion. But you really have asshole politicians with big mouths that can't shut the fuck up

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade However, the technology that has pushed the worlds population beyond its natural equilibrium, is also the technology that can be geared to sustain it. Perhaps when the population growth rate begins to exceed the rate by which technology evolves, then we have a definite problem, but until then I think its quite clear that although technology has pushed us to the brink of global over-population in the "naturalistic" sense, it also has the potential to make these population levels sustainable.

You make two good points, firstly, that technology can help compensate for increasing population, and secondly, that resources are not being used as efficiently as possible. However, in the case of Iraq, for instance, any benefits the people could gain through the provision additional technology would almost certainly be subverted to a select few. Similarly, Iraq's resources cannot be used to efficiently sustain its population so long as those resources are being monopolized by a corrupt government.

This is one of the reasons a war is necessary - because without reforming Iraq's government, which can only be accomplished by means of war, those alternatives are not viable to reduce the suffering of the Iraqi people.

quote:

And while this view may seem hopelessly idealistic or naive, I don't find it any more idealistic or naive than the perspective that suggests that either killing off large percentages of a population - or even allowing other to do the killing for you - is the solution to any problem facing the world today..... much less this one.

You clearly see the principle of equilibrium by death in everywhere in nature. Populations of some species are regulated by other species which hunt them, and those predator species' populations are regulated by the availability of their prey. Such mechanisms, however, do not work for human beings, because they are both at the top of the food chain and have the ability to sustain themselves through agriculture. This does not, however, mean that we ought to allow as many humans to live as possible, because although it might be sustainable, it is far from optimal.

quote:

Rather obtuse rationalism I'd say. Perhaps you would like to murder a friend or a relative and see if you get any thanks for the "favour" of non-existence you provided to them (solving the world's problems in the process)?

I think that's pretty spurious. Overpopulation is not so much a world problem as it is a regional problem. The middle east is a region where it is a problem (following from the present conditions of the general population), while the United States is not. The issue of whether death is good or bad should not be resolved by assuming it is good or assuming it is bad. It should be resolved by assuming neither and allowing neither belief to affect your actions. Since I don't assume death is good, I would have no reason to kill someone as a favor to them, but also, since I don't assume death is bad, I would have no reason to preserve their life as a favor to them.

quote:

Non sequiteur. Indifference to death does not mean that one does not value one's life. I'm not particularly scared of death either, but it doesn't mean I don't want to put it off for as long as I can. If death is such a liberation then - and such an altruistic gesture - will you gaily skip up to the gillotine when it's your turn to do something for your planet? If you see an altruistic pretense to the deaths of Iraqi civilians, perhaps - to avoid a sense of existential hypocracy (mauvaise fois) - you too should give up your life so that someone like you may enjoy a slight increase in his/her material well-being?

Again, I am not asserting any altruism to the death of Iraqi civilians, I'm merely denying any altruism to the preservation of their lives. Since we have no way of knowing one way or the other, we ought not to even make it a consideration. Your accusation of "existential hypocracy" (which is a tu quoque fallacy, I might point out), fails to recognize several important differences between me and an Iraqi citizen, but I don't think I ought to waste space further refuting an argument which is fallacious at its very base.

quote:

Would you happily live in utopia, though, if you knew that a large amount of people had to die unwillingly to get you there? Or, so goes the analogy, would you be comfortable sitting in heaven when you know there are others suffering in hell?

Of course! I live happily in the United States, a country that came into its very existence by means of winning a war in which a large amount of people had to die unwillingly. For that matter, who dies willingly - only those who commit suicide. So certainly I can be happy living in a world that is able to exist precisely because people, animals, plants, and bacteria are constantly dying unwillingly. And if their deaths served to allow for a true utopia, I could hardly think of a more honorable death those people could ask for. If I could die today to create a utopia for all who lived on, I could ask for no greater honor than the opportunity to do so.

quote:

Even if it could be demonstrated that there could a good chance of increased quality of life after a war on Iraq, I still don't believe that the deaths of innocents justify such an outcome when a more peaceful solution - such as the removal of trade sanctions - can bring about an immediate increase in the quality of the Iraqi society. War - which obviously means the death of a great many human beings - should only be the absolute last resort in a desperate situation, and only if this last resort could be shown to be more beneficial than merely doing "nothing".

Well I agree that the trade sanctions should be lifted. I just don't think that it does enough for the Iraqi people. It doesn't improve their civil liberties, for example. There is no peaceful solution that solves the whole problem. Hence, war is the last resort, and while war would be a tremendous short term sacrifice, it could theoretically result in an even more tremendous long term benefit, which is exactly why I would say it could be better than doing nothing.

quote:

Perhaps a war would improve Iraqi life somewhat in the long run (though, as I have argued several time before in this topic, I doubt it will) but the proposed war does not justify the hypothetical ends - especially when there are solutions available that can deliver an equivelent increase in the material quality of life without a drop of blood being spilt.

Here we finally agree. I think a war in Iraq could improve Iraqi life in the long run. But I agree with you in suspecting that it would fail to do so, my reasoning being that the U.S. government would almost certainly be unwilling to continue to pour resources into maintaining stability in Iraq for a long enough period of time as to allow Iraq to rise above its legacy of problems. Furthermore, you are correct that the plan of action being proposed by U.S. leaders does not appear to be one that would create those long term benefits. This is the reason, and the only reason, that I am opposed to the war against Iraq which the U.S. government seems so intent upon.

While it is apparent that I disagree with you on many matters, I do appreciate your intelligent response.

Arbiter

quote:

We all know terrorism has been around for centuries, however we did nothing to help Ireland squash their IRA problem, we probably should have... The Columbians also have terrorists attack their government for years, and now the Russians have been victims of terrorists. The US should form a joint world alliance vs. terrorism... Lets start with Ireland and search for terrorists house to house, and then help the Russians with their Chechen terrorists.

Hhmmm help the Northern Ireland and British government get rid of the IRA as much as I totally don't agree with you at all on that one, you won't ever accomplise it, If the US ever helped the British in Northern Ireland, I tell you there would be uproar, and you won't be holding that view, when your troops come home in body bags. For every member of the IRA that gets killed theres another to fill the other persons boots as simple as that.

Another thing Northern Ireland has two sides commiting terrorism its not just Republican groups like the Provo IRA, Real IRA, Contiunity IRA, the Loyalists have groups too like the lovely UVF, UDA, Red Hand Defenders, orange Voulenteers, and so who stir up so much shit its un fucking true, you know their honour goe's as far as shooting dead unarmed taxi drivers, and post men, their honour goe's as far as blowing up 33 people in one day in County Monaghan and Dublin, and you know what no one ever mentions that but when its comes to Omagh when the real IRA blew up 28 people its here there and fucking everywhere, on every newspaper getting shouted from every rooftop, Please if everyone see's every single Nationalist viewed Irish person as a terrorist please PM me and put your theories wrong.

Terrorism isn't something you can stamp out that easy, and if your forces want to start raiding houses, one country they should be in is Pakistan because I guarentee Al Queda cells are all over that country, including top men in the organisation probably Osama himself is hiding there, because the Afghan Pakistan border is not the best guarded border in the world, and if theres one tip for Northern Ireland you could learn, is hire the SAS have them set up survallence post which they done many times in Northern Ireland in some cases it was a 8 by 5 foot pit, carrying a two man team that wouldn't move for weeks, taking photo's gathering intelligence, then going out for the kill once they'd established things were being planned, theres a lot you can learn from the SAS when it comes to terrorism.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.