| Subject: Saddam and Hitler and Kerry and Healthcare... A fractured post... |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/26/04 7:34am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "One aspect" on 09/23/04 9:48am
Damocles:
>It's as though the UN didn't
>really have any stake in Iraq since they didn't have a
>war with them where they emerged the victor.
That's an interesting (and true) point you make. The UN is a funny sort of organization - it's not a country, it's not a government (well, a not real one anyways), it doesn't have citizens that depend on its leaders.
But members the UN have all of those things, and they act and vote according to the interests of their countries. So that begs the question, "what, then, is the UN good for, if it's just an association of countries that each try to get the whole of the UN to do what's best for their own country?"
>I always compare this to winning WWII and leaving
>Hitler in power. Hitler impudently refuses to let you
>inspect for weapons. What do you do? Do you sit back
>and assume he has none, or do you bend him over on
>your knee and spank his ass until he lets you inspect?
The Hitler-Saddam parallel you draw is an interesting one, and I want to point something out that might allow us to look at our decision to go to war with Iraq in a bit more charitable light.
"Everyone" knew that Hitler was evil. Why did we think that? Because he committed mass murder, and he invaded his neighboring countries. There was no question then, and there's no question now, that had he not killed himself, we wouldn't have left him in charge of Germany after the war. In fact, Hitler became an icon in our struggle against Axis forces in Europe and Africa. We saw WWII, partly as a war against Hitler, not just Germany, not just the Axis. So, apparently, it's OK to go to war against a leader we classify as "evil."
But what if Hitler's military commanders hadn't been so capable, and he had only been able to invade, say, Poland before his military went kaput? Would we have gone to war then? I think the answer is probably "No." (I mean, we didn't go to war until much later, anyways...)
But he would've still been "Hitler," and he would've still been "evil," right?
The asnwer is that I think we have a fuzzy set of actions (and the relative magnitude of those actions) that are classified as "bad enough" to cause us to label a world leader as "evil" and that warrant war against that person and country. But, like almost all of our determinations, it's not cut and dried.
It's the way we, as humans reason. So Saddam, I think, happened to fall near the border of being classified as "evil." He committed mass murder. He invaded another country. He did many of the same things that Hitler did, but to a lesser degree.
So is he "evil?" Sure - I'd be willing to say he was. But, on a scale of nations (not on a personal scale), we perceived him as a kind of "harmless, bumbling, neutered evil." In his case, our only impediment to equating him with Hitler (and, hence, justifying the war in Iraq as a war against Saddam, himself) was his inability to wage war effectively.
>Saddam didn't have any weapons it seems, but I'm not
>sure how we could have known that since inspections
>were always interferred with. It created paranoia
>among the victor country, and I think justifiably so.
Which is another good point - if the only thing that was preventing us (as in "the rest of the civilized world") from saying, "enough, already - Saddam is clearly evil, and it's time to go to war to depose him." was his inability to project military power due to a sucky military and lack of powerful weapons, then the mere possibility that he had, or was in the process of obtaining, those weapons should have been enough to go to war (and it was.)
I mean, the only acceptable scenario to the US and the UN for Saddam to stay in power would have been that he remain a powerless, armyless dictator (as evidenced by the furor over the weapons inspections).
I wanted to briefly make a comment about WMD, and the fact that we didn't find any. I find it funny that people somehow manage to make the following argument:
1) We thought Iraq had WMD
2) We didn't find any
therefore,
3) Iraq never had any WMD ("and Bush is a liar" is what usually follows...)
This argument always makes me shake my head in wonder. Now, clearly, the facilities for producing mass quantities of chemical weapons would be nearly impossible to hide from a persistent inspector. But the facilities for making biological weapons could be (and often are) housed in moblie trailers. A reactor vessel the size of a basketball can generate enough viral material to kill the population of a large city.
And what about the weapons themselves? I mean, even if you can't make them, you can certainly buy them. A nuclear weapon might be, what - a meter long? (and that's being very generous)
Iraq is roughly 435,052 square km in size. (that's 435 BILLION square meters - I know you can do the conversion, I just wanted to give you a big number to chew on) That's a lot of space in which to hide a vehicle the size of a double-wide trailer, and even more space to hide a nuclear weapon. These things are mobile, and they are small.
I think some of us are refusing to acknowledge the possibility that we didn't find WMD because they were hidden from us.
>If you throw in the fact that Saddam was a ruthless
>dictator, and that there is oil over there, and that
>Iraq is right next to Iran who is doing naughty things
>with nuclear weapons, AND that Saddam tried to kill
>Bush's dad, there seemed to be little reason not to go
>to war.
I think we don't even need to consider the "next to Iran" part, or the "tried to kill Bush Sr." part of that. His track record of bad behavior, coupled with his ambitions to obtain powerful weapons were plenty.
I mean, think about it this way: What if, instead of trying to obtain WMD, he instead focused on building up his military? What if he started buying thousands of tanks and Russian fighter planes (which, apparently come with Russian pilots these days...) and training up a HUGE military? Would we stand for that?
If we said, "Saddam, if you don't disband your army, and destroy or sell back those planes and tanks, we're going to invade, and forcibly depose you." Would there have been the public (read: appeasement-loving-liberal) outcry that we saw for our current war?
I don't think so - and the key here is that WE WOULDN'T STAND FOR A SADDAM WITH THE CAPACITY TO MAKE WAR. And WMD would certainly give him that.
(If anyone's response to this is, "But we didn't *find* any WMD, blah blah blah..." go back and consider what I wrote above before you write.)
Yeah, and oil. Every time something bad happens in the Middle East, those nepotist, self-proclaimed sultan bastards in OPEC use it as an excuse to punch up oil prices. So it's in the world's interest to have a quiet, peaceful middle east. And I can't wait until the world has converted to natural gas as a competing fuel source. "Oil prices from OPEC just went up AGAIN? Well, guess we'll buy Natural Gas instead! Ha, ha, ha, you greedy fuckers!" (there's a great article about this in the latest Scientific American - well, it's more about the technology, of course.) Plus, Russia has about 20% of the world's natural gas buried somewhere in its hinterland. Good for them. Now if only they can move out of "Gangster Capitalism" to the real thing...
>Korea is trickier.
Yeah, *much* tricker, since Clinton handed them the capacity to make nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Il probably sent a thank you card to him: "Thanks for the birthday present, Bill! It was a real 'blast'! (he he he)"
>I think we should kick their asses,
>but we should do so very, very carefully. Korea has a
>huge land based army, and if we hit them in some way
>that isn't extremely over-powering,
Which we couldn't, given the horribly difficult terrain. Korea is interesting in that, regardless of which way you're moving, the terrain always favors the defender.
Well, we know how to deal with Communism. All you have to do is prevent it from expanding - and I don't mean in a "domino-effect" sort of way. I mean, to deal with a single Communist country, you leave it alone, don't invade it, and make sure it can't invade other countries. It'll either eat itself from the inside out (as Socialist economies always do), or convert to Capitalism (like China is doing).
>Having said all of that, what do I think of Bush?
>Well, economically I think he walked into a shit
>storm.
And it deserves to be said (again and again and again) that the president has very, very little to do with the economy. Plus, like you said, the economy has trends, that last for much longer than two presidential terms, and that have causes so complex that it'd be impossible to really alleviate them.
The true effects of a party's influence on the economy can't be seen until much later. For example, Social Security. (Which FDR referred to as, "That one unconstitutional law I want to pass." No, really.) Or tax cuts, etc., etc.
>On the topic of the war, I think Bush did what should
>have been done in Iraq years ago when it was fresher
>in everyone's minds what Iraq and Saddam were capable
>of.
I agree.
>As for abortion, the environment, and a number of
>religious based things, I think Bush has done a
>terrible job.
Well, about the only thing I'd comment on here is that Bush has crippled our biotech industry by banning stem cell research. Europe will rule biotech for the next decade. Oh well.
>Kerry, while doing better on the topics in the
>aforementioned paragraph seems to lack any definite
>plan to make what is better.
Yeah, you get that a lot with Democrats. I've noticed that rarely does a Democrat EVER have an actual plan for ANYTHING. It's always, "Well, look at what the Republicans are doing wrong! I WON'T do that!"
That, and when they DO have plans, they suck. Like this one...
>He keeps saying nifty
>things like healthcare better, but he doesn't really
>say how he'd do that.
Yeah, his ad says, "lower healthcare premiums by up to $1000 a year!"
This is an instructive example of Democratic B.S. There's no way he can do this without someone getting the shaft. He just hasn't said who gets it yet, but it all comes back to us anyways, so it doesn't matter - it's WE who eventually reap the shaft.
Think about it this way: Health care is a service, just like any other - there's nothing magical about it. You get sick, you go to a doctor, she performs a service by fixing you, and you pay her. That's it.
The reason health care seems different from other services is because its so expensive. That's partially because of Medicare and Medicaid - the government ('cause its, well, the government) can, and does, say to physicians and hospitals, "OK... Your bill for John T. Crackhead is $2000. Uh... We'll pay you $1500. Sound fair? No? Well, tough titty." The cost gets passed on to lthe paying customers (yet another indirect form of socialist wealth redistribution, i.e., stealing)
The other part is because, well, the technology costs a ton. And that's fine - it's why we have medical insurance. Insurance is a great concept. It allows a group of people to collectively afford something that they each might need, but they each can't afford. It's because of the fact that they ALL won't need it at the same time (which can be shown to be statistically so probable that it can be considered effectively true).
And here's where the Kerry shafting becomes apparent...
If he's going to "reduce premuims," how's he going to do it? Here are his options:
1) Declare that all healthcare insurance companies MUST lower their premiums.
Well, insurance companies do business based on this simple policy: "We paid $1,000,000 in claims this year (and next year, etc.). We have 1000 clients. Therefore, our premiums must be $1000 per client (plus whatever we need to pay our salaries)" How can you "tell" them to lower rates without putting them all out of business? Plus, this is just pure, unadulterated Communist "Economy by fiat." No way.
2) "Tell" the healthcare industry that is must lower what it charges us.
He might as well "tell" McDonald's that, from now on all Big Macs must cost fifty cents. Pure Communism.
And, finally, the most likely (and equally bad) way of doing this:
3) "Subsidize" someone in the food chain, so that the costs to us seem lower (he could subsidize hospitals and doctors so they wouldn't have to charge as much, or he could subsidize insurance companies, so they could lower their premiums without going out of business)
Well, where does the subsidy comes from? You guessed it. Your back pocket. So this doesn't make anything cheaper - you're still paying the same amount (probably more, now) for health care, just part of it in taxes, and part of it to the insurance companies. Does he really think we're that dumb?!?!
>Unfortunately for Kerry, I think the burden rests on
>him as a newcomer to show that he can make the U.S. a
>better place if he becomes president. I don't think
>he's done that, and I don't think he's going to win
>the election by omission of the details of his plan.
Yeah, I agree.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 