| Subject: A quick cast to a fractured post |
Author:
Damolcese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/27/04 10:42am
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "Saddam and Hitler and Kerry and Healthcare... A fractured post..." on 09/26/04 7:34am
>
>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?"
That's true. I guess the great white hope is that that by having everyone represented, the interests of one will counterbalance that of the other.
Of course, we know that the UN is just as much of a political beast as any other given system, so we also know that underhanded dealing is always in the mix.
>
>"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."
So it would seem, especially when it threatens our best interests.
>
>But he would've still been "Hitler," and he would've
>still been "evil," right?
I'd say it would have probably depended on whether or not his taking Poland somehow interferred with our best interests. That automatically makes a ruler evil.
Facetiousness aside, in principle, yes, it still makes him a very nasty guy, just like Milosevich.
>
>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.
Exactly. The autrocity has to be terrible enough to get the attention of everyone, and make them angry. Even extreme liberals who love peace at any price when pissed off want to go to war. (I'll leave out the seeming paradox that emerges as a consequence of that observation)
>
>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.
Yes, although one has to wonder at what point someone comitting mass murder becomes evil. 2 people dead? A hundred? A whole slew of Jews?
>
>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.
I whole-heartedly agree.
>
>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.)
Especially given Saddam's grudge toward the west.
>
>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).
The UN was apparently willing to negotiate a little on that point.
Somehow the rest of your post disappeared as far as being quoteable, but yes, it's wholly possible that if Iraq did have biological weapon facilities, they managed to cart them out to Iran or Syria. We may not have found any, but then again it wasn't as if Iraq didn't have advanced notice we were heading that way.
Korea is problematic in so many different directions that I'm not sure it'll be anytime soon that we go over there and give them a little slap on the wrist for being bad boys and girls.
The problem in healthcare as I see it is that it's not a service that you can necessarily do without. Let's suppose you are on heart medicine, and if you don't take it, you could have a massive heart attack and die. Well, it just so happens that that medicine is extremely expensive, and you aren't making that much money. Is it tough shit that you don't have the money? Should you get all your affairs in order because you can't afford to buy your medicine?
And that is where things become very foggy. On the one hand, medicine is a service, and on the other it isn't when it becomes necessary for you to live.
Kerry did seem to have an affinity for using Canadian drugs, which is about the worst idea ever. The Canadian healthcare system relies on one hidden assumption that no one seems to recognize; the assumption that the US will always be making these new drugs that will work better that they can then turn into a generic form. They get a free ride without having to pay for the cost of that free ride. Someone has to get stuck with the bill, and it seems like we are the ones stuck.
Hence, Canadian pharmaceuticals are a market that's reliant directly on the US to do its central job. No R and D costs, cheap drugs for everybody. We, on the other hand, can't quite pull that off because the market in Canada for drugs is made explicitly with Canada in mind. It undermines the whole premise of "the US will pick up the cost of this shit" because we're buying our own drugs back that were expensive to develop in the first place. Might that discourage new research and more effective drugs coming to market? You bet. It's the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. There are no easy healhcare solutions.
Oh, and on the Iraq thing again, I see the oil and next doorness to Iran sort of like those special prizes you find in a serial box. They certainly don't hurt anything concernign the decision ultimately made.
I think I'm done wandering about in this post for the time being. Maybe next time the text to quote will be present.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 