GOSH THIS POLITICSSSS
Gosh all this electioneering is making my political libido get EXCITED (just kidding).
Random thoughts regarding Bush:
The President has direct influence over regulatory policy and foreign policy. Social policies (such as gay marriage rights, stem cell research) are not directly under his control. Those types of things are better influenced through the legislative branch (although the President *can* veto any laws that he wouldn't find conducive to his own beliefs). This is even if someone like me strongly does not agree with Bush's social stances (gay marriage rights / stem cells / abortion), I still think he's the right choice. Those issues are reaching a boiling point and eventually the US populace will force Congress to pass laws that we feel are right. This is why I find it very distressing that people vote for Bush based on his religious background or because his social stances don't match yours (or what you know is "right"). It's like buying a car based on its color rather than its pratical value to you ... you're looking at the wrong things.
Although the economy talk has died down a lot in recent weeks, the President doesn't really have direct influence over the economy; this is why Bush can not really be to blame for the economy nor can he really be attributed for its recovery. The tax cuts were more of an ideological rather than a realistic solution to our sliding economy. Bush did not put the economy in the shitter (we can really blame the overheating during the '90s for our early 2000 slide), nor is Bush to be credited for "turning things around." Presidential policies can definitely amplify any effects, but the economy operates on naturally-occuring business cycles. With that said, the tax cuts were a good idea. A lot of times politicians feel that extra tax money is a carte blanche to create new organizations (debunked myth #1: Republicans of today are not "small-government;" the federal government actually has grown during Republican administrations (Reagan/Bush Sr./Bush Jr.)... Bush's argument was that the surplus should be returned to the American citizens. To those who think that the tax cuts were unfairly distributed to the 'rich,' remember that the majority of taxes are being paid by the rich, so if a refund is issued, obviously the rich will get more back.
The economy is actually on the rebound, as recent reports show consumer spending is going up. Manufacturing output is usually a good indication of economic health, and the recent report (released only a few days ago) show an increase in manufacturing. Recovery is happening right now. But Kerry doesn't want you to know that ... he would love to continue to pound the message away that the economy has suffered under Bush.
Of course, this isn't to say that Bush's economics has been particularly sound. Although one can argue that 9/11 forced the government to grow and spend more money, there really is no excuse for marking up a huge deficit ala Reaganomics. I would have liked to see better initiatives to help cut federal spending or to overhaul existing bureacracies (like the overhaul of the IRS which never happened!).
There is also a legitimate fear that American protectionism (Clinton is just as guilty of this) of traditional sectors like steel and airline is really not beneficial to the American economy. Whoever comes in next must really embrace the free-market mentality. Clinton and Gore really made a good step forward by signing NAFTA, but we've regressed under Bush towards a more protectionist view. Bad bad bad!
But I have to say I love Bush's attitude towards international law and international politics. The International Criminal Court is a bad idea that we should never even consider unless the whole system is revamped to prevent abuse. The UN is a joke and should be put to sleep right next to the League of nations. The UN's only value is a humanitarian one now ... remember that its creation was to prevent the US and the Soviets from creating a nuclear winter by giving a place to communicate with each other. The only threat of nuclear winter comes from rogue nations now, and the UN is not going to solve any of those problems.
Side note: Whether you view the UN as a failure or not depends on how you view the way they've handled their international affairs. I'm just going to sum it up by saying "Rwanda" and leave it at that. Remember that the whole Bosnia/Kosovo situation was solved mainly with NATO intervention, NOT UN intervention. The UN simply does not have the backbone or the authority to execute military action ...
With that said, if we are to usher in a better era for the world, the US is going to have to embrace its hegemony and realize that we're going to have give up some of our power in order to allow for better international organizations (a second coming of a UN, for example). However, that will never happen while no country can contest US's status as a hyperpower. I hope once the EU consolidates its integration as a singular political entity and once the Chinese get their shit together the three worldpowers can get together and figure out how to create a blanket world organization that actually has backbone.
The US has been rather heavy-handed in its international dealings, which I think is more of a Republican kneejerk response of the passivity during the Clinton era more than anything. Remember that Gore would be a continuation of Clinton's policies, and most of the US did not vote to continue Clinton's policies. I remember at the time completely detesting Clinton and his policies (or lack thereof) and hoping for someone of strong character to come into office and set a steer a course with clear goals in foreign policy. If you followed my journal during the 2000 elections, I supported John McCain during the Republican primaries because of this belief. I would have never thought Bush would come to symbolize what I wanted in a leader.
But this does not excuse the absence of American participation in the Kyoto protocols. The US has given the world no reason to love us, and it did bite us in the ass many times.
For those of you who have read my Iraq ramblings plenty of time, I apologize for rehasing this. But I think I finally organized my thoughts into one coherent message which I hope will make people understand why I believe Iraq was so vitally important to American interests.
First let's establish a few underlying facts:
- The Saudis are not our allies. They are in fact probably going to become the biggest problem in the Middle East over the next decade. The Iranians (regardless of what Bush has said) are not our enemies. There is a burgeoning young population in Iran who are taking a step closer to democracy everyday. It's exciting.
- Following the end of the Gulf War, Bush Sr. could not go in and remove Saddam at the behest of our Arab allies during the war. Had we gone in and removed Saddam then, we would not be in the mess we were in today. Ah, one of the downsides of building coalitions... but the important lesson to take out of here was that the US decided on a policy of containment.
- I personally do not believe containment is sound policy. Containment is simply deferring the costs of a conflict to future generations. Cuba has not improved under the Castro containment ... then again one can make a counterpoint that illicit mistakes like Vietnam are a clear example of when people who thought containment was a bad idea got power and ... well screwed things up pretty badly.
- Because of the fact that the US is the world hyperpower, the US was left with the burden of containing Saddam. The US and the Brits were actively monitoring no-fly zones throughout Iraq while maintaining expensive troops throughout the Middle East.
- Given our commitment to staying in the Middle East, we had no "get out of jail free" card. We HAD to stay there. As I personally believe, containment is not a long-term viable solution. Putting 2 +2 together, we have a situation where the US was commited to containing a repressive regime while expending valuable resources not solving a problem.
- During the Clinton era, Iraq was becoming quite troublesome. There were always stories of attacks against planes in the no-fly zone ... and do you remember how the US responded? Yes, tomahawk missiles.
- If you remember, the Tomahawk missile strategy accomplished nothing. In fact, remote bombing is what got us in trouble with the Chinese in the first place. Tomahawk strikes cost us money without doing a damn thing.
- Prior to leaving office, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. This marked the first shift in US policy towards Iraq. The ILA basically said the US would actively support the toppling of Saddam's regime. No longer would we simply contain Iraq and hope they would implode ... Clinton opened the door for any future President to actively pursue the removal of Saddam. Although Bush got a bit gung-ho about it (I guess he decided that sending in tons of troops was what Clinton meant) ... the initial shift in policy could be found in the Clinton adminstration, NOT in the Bush administration.
- Iraq was a problem that had to be solved. Tomahawk missiles were not solving the problem. The UN was certainly not doing a damn thing either ... they had the whole Clinton administration to do something. Only when Bush started beating the war drums did the UN actually start to get really vocal to Saddam.
- Now let me say this to those who said we should of "waited:" The UN was never going to authorize action in Iraq. Never. In case you've missed the news, there's been a recent spate of documents which purport that Saddam was using the Food for Oil programme to enrich himself ... by dealing with French, Chinese, German, and Russian companies. That list looks strangely familiar, doesn't it? Given what these countries had to lose by authorizing the overthrow of Saddam, it's no surprise that all of them were willing to use their veto power within the Security Council. There has also recently been accusations that Saddam directly bribed Jacque Chirac to prevent the war... Saddam apparently didn't believe that the US would act without UN approval (which was a mistake since that would be something Clinton would do).
- Remember back to 2000... was there doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam had WMDs? We can now look and say there is a clear lack of evidence, but there was none of that leading up to the war. Tommy Franks wrote in his memoir (American Soldier) that all of the top Arab leaders warned him privatey of the WMD threat and went over with the Americans on what the US was doing to neutralize these threats.
- But that's not to say that there was ever a link between Al-Qaida and the Baathist regime. At a stretch, we have terrorists training in Iraq, but I don't think the primary focus of this war was simply for the WMD threat. That was the icing on the cake, or the good reason given by Bush to carry the momentum of 9/11 to deal with the Iraq problem.
- Given the fact that the UN would never act, the US would be continue to be footing the bill of containing Saddam, and the fact that Saddam had WMD (or so *everybody* believed), it becomes clear that the US had to act. Iraq was not a problem that would solve itself (we saw the Saddam was starting to hand over the reins to his son Uday which would give us another 50+ years of headaches).
- No one ever claimed reconstruction would be easy; anyone who believed that is foolish. It took Germany near 30 years to completely get out of the economic hole they left themselves in after WW2. Similarly, it's taken South Korea almost 30 years to even get to a respective standard of living. Japan likewise. All nations take a long time to reconstruct; it's a matter of staying in there with resolve to solve these problems that is important. Kerry does not have such resolve. His poll-taking views (which I'm afraid most Americans have) is that we need to "pass this off" to NATO or UN. Big mistake.
With that said, it's clear Iraq was the proper decision. War is never good and should be avoided, but with the diplomatic roadblocks set up by the UN, Iraq was never a problem that would be solved. We had to go in there and solve it ... or find ourselves entrenched (similar to the Korean problem right now) ... who knows what types of capabilites that Iraqis must of had under Uday Hussein 50 years from now?
I know to most of you I'm a bleeding-heart conservative, but I'm really not. I agree with George Bush and find him an appealing choice for presidency because the most important issue of today is foreign policy. And his foreign policy so far has been (mostly) on the mark. I also think he has the resolve to finish through on Iraq ... I think Kerry, in his efforts to please American voters will try to accelerate troop withdrawal and leave Iraq in a weakened state. We cannot do that. We must commit troops and funds and stay there until the job is completely done. Only then can we hope to reap the rewards of a truly democratic nation ... can anyone doubt the benefits of a democratic Germany, Japan, and S. Korea today?
Comment with Facebook
Want to comment with Tabulas?. Please login.
apu1nahasa
- Social programs: As you mention, the president does have significant control over social issues, and not just through his veto power. And yes, while I agree with you that these should not be the deciding factor for choosing a president, it is NOT akin to choosing a car based on its color. Social issues can have a huge impact on peoples' lives. I am sure that most women do not want to have the rights granted them by Roe vs. Wade be dissolved away. Uisng your car analogy, I would liken this much more to choosing a car on the basis of its comfort: you don't want a car that will give you a severe back problem, but you also don't want to make your decision solely on whether you have leather seats or not.
- Economy: Yes, the president has little control on the economy of the moment (but a huge control on the economy of the future). But tax cuts were irresponsible...
- Tax cuts: Even granting that the tax cuts went to everyone "fairly" (which they by no means did), I still fail to see how that helped the economy. Again and again I find the failed "a rising tide lifts all boats" argument being used, and even conceding that for the sake of argument, there is no justification for severely overspending the surplus--to the point of amassing a giant deficit. As you said, yes 9/11 happened, but that cannot account for the trillions of dollars that we are now in debt.
- BTW people always talk of a "smaller government," "trimming the excess fat," "overhauling bureaucracies," as if there are billions of dollars just going to waste on useless things that can easily be cut out. If that were true, it would have been done a long time ago. What actually happens is that existing programs get cut back. People think of one thing and one thing only when they hear "welfare programs," and that's single black women with lots of children. That reflects a very poor understanding of welfare programs. These include not just the above scenario of welfare, but also college financial aid, non-profit social help programs such as providing for the homeless, the poor, the disabled, and veterans. These programs are what will be first to be cut when money is tight (which it always is), and first to be cut when the government is made "smaller," because these items are considered non-essential. If you believe that these safety net programs are not the jurisdiction of government, that's fine. But then keep in mind that you are supporting survival of the fittest, and let the poor/weak people die (because they are not "the fittest").
- Protectionism is bad as you said, but all was not well with NAFTA. Mexico slid into a giant recession, in large part due to NAFTA. But yes, for the US, NAFTA was great.
- International Criminal Court: Why are we so adamant that we will be unfairly discriminated against in the ICC? I think the real fear is that the US wants to have the latitude to use any and all means necessary to do what it wants, and not be punishable for it. If that's the case, that's fine (at least it's perfectly understandable; sovereignty is a huge asset, and should indeed be guarded well), but I don't want to hear other bullshit justifying our non-participation in it. Note that our fellow non-ICC'ers are China, Libya, and Yemen, among others, and not the UK, Australia, or even Poland.
- If the UN is not meant for military affairs, then at least it is a good forum to share world opinions. And opinions DO matter. It does matter that more than half the world hates us, because this hate is fueling terrorism. If America doesn't want to submit to the desires of the UN, it should at least make the effort to listen to it and gauge how its own actions are going to be viewed by the world community as a whole. In the fullest sense of Realpolitik here, I think this an extremely crucial matter for the US's national interest: Having the support of the world community is not just a superficial thing; it translates to very real power in the world.
And btw, even if the UN will never pursue military action, it has definitely condoned it in the past. The US-led invasion of Afghanistan is a clear and recent example of this.
- US Hegemony: What does "embrace its hegemony" mean? If the US is truly a hegemon, and the sole one at that, then why should it curb its own power willingly? If other hegemons should emerge, why will they pursue the well-being of the world?
- Iraq points 1 and 2: Good points
- Iraq point 3: containment: The single greatest argument for containment is the USSR. The US never fought the USSR directly. The policy was always one of containment. And just as the theory of containment would suggest, the "wrong" practices of communism did indeed cause that society to implode. And your point on Vietnam illustrates the maxim "First do no harm," which has been egregiously violated in Iraq.
- Iraq point 4: Good point.
- Iraq point 5: You now have 2 + 0 = 2. Containment is a viable long-term solution, in most cases. And if you do not believe that containment is a sound policy, then the US could have withdrawn its troops after making sure Iraq was disarmed (see below).
- Iraq points 6, 7 and 8: Good points.
- Iraq point 9: What made Iraq a problem "that had to be solved"? Yes, banging the war drums did cause the UN to act and Iraq to cooperate, but sending in troops was not needed. As stated again and again, the inspections were working, and working very well. If the US had any worries that Hans Blix was not being able to see everything, it should have bolstered his cause, not cut him off and send in troops.
- Iraq Point 11: I will address this before 10 because it is crucial. There WAS DEFINITELY DOUBT in a LOT OF PEOPLE'S minds about WMDs. That was the whole point. Although the US government had no doubt (and went to great lengths to quell any that arose, whether from its own intelligence, its own historical statements, the intelligence of other countries, etc.), no other country was certain of this fact. That is what all those protests of millions of people all over the world were about. There was not convincing evidence that Iraq had WMDs and no evidence whatsoever that it had any intention of using them, even if it did have them.
- Iraq point 10: Since when did the burden of proof for justifying a war shift to the side of those not wanting it? If war is truly the last option, as both the US and you proclaim, then it is fully the responsibility of the US to convincingly prove that Iraq had the capability and the intent of using these weapons. And even assuming the corruption charges to be true (which is by no means certain right now...there are only a few accusations), the fact still remains that the US had no justification for going into Iraq. Just because France, Russia and Germany were wrong on one point doesn't mean they're wrong on everything else too. And while we're looking at corruption charges, how can you now claim that calls of Blood for Oil were untrue, as Halliburton has repeatedly been accused of corruption. [One such link <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/17/eveningnews/main636644.shtml">here</a>]. Compared to the chance that there was corruption involved between Iraq and France/Germany/Russia, the widespread calls of corruption between Halliburton and the Bush administration is a virtual certainty. And if you want to justify this in terms of realpolitik (the US needs a source of cheap oil to maintain its world power status), that's fine, and understandable. But again, I don't want to hear bullshit about how this war was not at all concerned with oil.
- Iraq point 12: Yes, no real link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. I'm a little confused by what you mean that "I don't think the primary focus of this war was simply for the WMD threat." I thought that was the primary focus. If not, then what was it?
- Iraq Point 13: Yes, the US and UK were footing most of the bill for containing Iraq. But again, why was this a problem that had to be solved? What threat did Iraq pose? Even if Uday took over and ruled for 50 years, what threat did they pose without any WMDs (as established pre-war by Blix et al and post-war by US intel as well)? If they, instead, did have the WMDs, then I would have a different view of an American Iraq invasion. But the US simply did not want to hear if Iraq had em or not; it was itching to go to war, and as soon as it had made a few perfunctory attempts at the UN, it charged in.
- Iraq point 14: Yes reconstruction is very hard and very long, in the best of conditions. And these are far from the best. But that doesn't mean that you don't plan for it. On the contrary, you better plan for it even more than the war itself, because the US military so enormously outperforms any other army, small mistakes in judgement there will not cost much. But every mistake in regards to reconstruction policy will make a huge difference, in lives (both US, and even more so, Iraqi), time, and money. And it is becoming very clear that the US did not have any sort of real plan for dealing with reconstruction, that when people have pointed out the requisites for reconstruction, they have been ignored (e.g. General Shinseki who declared that there was no way reconstruction could work well unless the US put in over 100,000 more troops there; he retired shortly afterwards). And even worse, the US consistently refuses to recognize that it has made any mistakes. If the US truly has made no mistakes, then it does not bode well for the future of nation-building. And how much longer are we going to continue to "not make mistakes" and still lose huge numbers of lives?
- Final points: Yes, Kerry wants to get the hell out of Iraq, but so does Bush (with the exception of the oil assets), and so do the American people as a whole, both Bush and Kerry supporters. And the reason is much more "I don't want Americans getting killed" than "I want Iraq to become independent and stable." Whether people want to express it honestly or not, the majority of the US population is concerned only about their own citizens (as is true with any other country).
I don't think anyone can doubt the benefits of a truly democratic nation, and we need to fully commit to the reconstruction of Iraq, but we need to do it right. And I think we have a much better chance of doing it right if we're not doing it alone.
roy
Let me try to respond to every point (and the ones I ignore I either oversaw or I just don't want to concede you're right.. HAH!)
Re: Social programs:
You missed my point here. I said the President does <em>not</em> have significant direct control over social issues like abortion or welfare. Welfare has traditionally been monitored by the legislative branch ... and social issues are traditionally in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Of course, with Rehnquist and others thinking of retiring, this changes the argument a bit now (Bush *can* wield significant control now) ... but in general I think people who say, "I do/do not support Bush because he is a Christian" is a wrong generalization. The issues that we need to address are foreign policy and regulatory issues.
Re: Tax cuts
The tax cuts economic benefits are really debatable right now. However, it is the <em>ideology</em> behind them that is important. In a (surprisingly) traditional Repubrican way, Bush said, "The extra money that the government obtained should not be ours for the spending; it should be returned for you." This is, IMHO, the right thing to do. Government should not view extra revenue as an excuse for funding more programs.
The tax cuts + conservative fiscal policy were a very sound economic policy for stopping the "recession." However, Bush did NOT remain fiscally conservative, so the value of the tax cuts are lost. I still think the tax cuts were right, but NOT right with the overspending the government embarked upon.
Re: Social welfare
I am NOT a proponent of federally-funded social welfare groups. My argument has been (time and time again) that the federal government should NOT be responsible for any type of welfare programs. I DO believe there is a necessity for these groups, and I'm not going to cold-heartedly leave the disenfranchised out in cold. I believe the burden of supporting the welfare programs falls directly on the shoulders of local government, NOT federal government. The state of Florida should not be responsible for paying for the inner city slums of New York.
This goes a lot about what your basic philosophy regarding government is. I think our Founding Fathers were pretty clear in their intent that the federal government's purpose be to protect commerce (and the military rising from the need to protect the commerce).
Re: NAFTA
Mexico slid into a giant recession because of NAFTA? I didn't think Mexico was suffering any more than the worldwide recession ... and I severely doubt claims that it's due to NAFTA. If you have a link, I'd be happy to read it.
Re: ICC
God, I said ICJ. Shows how much I remember acronyms. Setting aside idealism, what does the US have to gain from the ICC? You're spot on regarding the US wanting complete latitude to "do what it wants." I once talked to an intl law grad student and her general message was that nobody abides by intl law, and when they don't, there really is no way to enforce the laws. The ICC has no backing; it is simply a judicial force. Without any backbone, it's worthless. If a legitimate claim is brought regarding a US citizen and the US citizen is found guilty, what impetus is there that the US actually comply? Is the ICC going to send its bounty hungers? I am not against international organizations which "bring the world together," but I think they need to have backbone and an actual force of threat if they want to succeed.
Re: UN
Yes, and Korea too. But condoning and enforcing are two completely different things.
Re: Hegemony
As I hinted above, I think the US needs to use its temporary hyperpower status to ensure that whoever follows up as the world superpower cannot abuse their power (let's create a <em>real</em> UN). Hyperpower status scares me, and I have faith that the current US system does its best to curb any abuses we may cause ... but I am not too optimistic about the future with all these other nations coming to power. Of course, this doesn't mean we go around doing everything people tell us: if we feel the need to act somewhere, we need to have the will to follow through unilaterally if need be (and I'm not talking about Iraq). BUT, because the US is not threatened by any other powers, we WON'T willingly curb our powers. Once another hyperpower (two more preferably) come to contest the US power, hopefully we can figure out that "shit we gotta play nice" and hopefully do something about that. But that's not going to happen now.
Re: Iraq
It all comes down to whether you believe containment works and whether the inspections were working. I'm just going to stand by my point that I don't think containment of Iraq was a viable long-term solution (it would lead to a North Korea-esque regime with Uday clearly coming to power) nor were the inspections working (we had 12+ years since the Gulf War to completely document the removal of WMDs) since Saddam kept kicking inspectors out.
Re: Burden
The burden is on the country that initiates action, yes. But I thought my previous 9 points made it clear why I thought we had the right to go in. I'm trying to use that bulleted list to build the 'pyramid of reasoning.' If you don't agree with any of the previous bullets obviously you're not going to agree with any of the lower points. Bullet 10 was simply indicating that the vetoes that the UN Security council had were not entirely based on the fact that Saddam might not have WMDs but because of the illicit vested business interests of national corporations.
Re: 13
North Korea did not have nukes twenty years ago. Now they have an active program. They are also actively involved with arms-dealing and drug smuggling. They are a worldwide headache to the largest degree. They also have one of the largest standing armies not more than a shellings distance from one of the most populous cities in the world. I do not trust time to solve the Iraq problem; we had to take them down when we had the ability to.
Re: Reconstruction
We HAVE made mistakes. Everyone knows this. And this is the one issue Kerry should of addressed clearly on why he could be better equipped to deal with Iraq. But he lost out.
HK1997
ghost_tree (guest)
I don't agree with Bush leading the war in Iraq. I think it created more problems than it solved. Iraq wasn't as big a problem as the Saudis are or could potentially be. Iraq had little connection with 9/11, funding terrorism, or posing a worldwide threats... other countries are more viable suspects. And as for Iran... I think the US is focusing too much on the middle-East since Iran is far from being the only country with nuclear aspirations or potential to be volatile.
Saddam had to be removed? Yes. I'm just not sure if the US went about it the right way (or if there was another way). WMD was a bit dodgy. On the same token, shouldn't the US be starting a war with North Korea already?
US is getting lonely being the only superpower. The world needs a counter-balance. The "illegal war" proves it. "We started a war... so what? What're you gonna do about it?!" China is far too deep in its own mess and may take a few more years to get its act together. As for EU.... it needs to be the new USSR, and by that, I mean it needs to get unified into a single political force (balls required).
bert
those iraqi problems were bound to happen.. These people are being forcefully removed from power. They don't want to give it up. Pretty much accurately predicted by Karl Marx. Need a strong military presence to remove any current administration.
Iraq with Saddam is dangerous. You are greatly dellusioned if you believe otherwise. Is saudi arabia dangerous? yes.. very much so. Could you imagine what would have happened had we invaded them instead? or Iran? No. we had enough reason for the rest of the middle east to be at least somewhat neutral with the removal of saddam. It made sense.
EVERYONE, beleived Saddam had WMD. can we put this "lying about weapons" thing to rest. Kerry believed there were WMD too.
No need to start war with North Korea because they are isolated by 1.) China (who obviously they won't fuck with.) and 2.) Pacific ocean and the miracle of US Defense spending on ICBM and GMD missles sitting all through the pacific rim.
Roy. One more word. Somalia. or how 'bout Abu Nidal?
Sometimes i feel it would be better if the US were the Hegemony many like to claim that it is. The problem is how national consciousness of each culture/region. How their beliefs in how government should be involved in their life. Yada yada. But... this is a cultural war. Don't doubt that for a second. Euros are pacifists, American's are Cowboys Elitists, and Asians are isolationalists. We are far far away from having any State power that can come close to compromising with the US.
ghost_tree (guest)
As for Iraq, war was bound to happen, either with outside forces or due to an implosion. I'm not arguing that Saddam wasn't dangerous and had to be removed... its just that the US did a real sloppy job about it. I think its also quite arrogant for the US to impose its own versions of democracy on other countries (and cultures), and am not sure if it truly was their responsibility to do so with Iraq. Again, the whole cowboy thing.
If anything, I think part of the problem as well is the US's dependency on its military for maintaining its economy.... there always has to be a war or a villain to pursue in order to justify maintaining its military (Saddam, Milosevic, Kim Jung Il..... Che Guevarra, the Russains). Could you imagine what world peace would do to the US economy?
roy
ghost_tree (guest)
"The costs of such a war are way greater than the benefits of removing a tyrant " sounds like Iraq to me. And this isn't just about re-building Iraq. God knows how many terrorists were recruited due to the invasion. The US created more enemies to spend on once they removed Saddam.
So why am I comparing Iraq and North Korea? The US invading either country and unseating their leaders would be extremely dodgy, especially if done all by themselves. The difference is Iraq happened, and look at the mess US is in now.
bert
why supply a military for something that China can manage? We can deal with the bigger issue of radical muslim/islamics in the middle east.
"If anything, I think part of the problem as well is the US's dependency on its military for maintaining its economy.... there always has to be a war or a villain to pursue in order to justify maintaining its military (Saddam, Milosevic, Kim Jung Il..... Che Guevarra, the Russains). Could you imagine what world peace would do to the US economy?"
the US would spend military money on technological and medical advances. Imagine another 1 billion a year spent towards research of something that doesn't currently offer private corporations. Like backing nanotechnology spending. Space race spending. Sub-atomic particle research. Fusion power. environmental enrichment. Reversal of polar ice-cap melting.
ghost_tree (guest)
And as for devoting money on technological and medical advances, most technological advances has been in one way or another been made due to military applications. The US government doesnt see any of the examples you mentioned as feasible, that's why sci-fi dreamers like Bob Guccione got bankrupt (cold fusion, etc). Besides, what else is a more feasible way to employ unskilled middle to lower class?
The problem as well, would be the employment of all the military (as well as companies supporting the military) if there wasn't a huge conflict. What would they do? That's why North Korea cant reunify with South Korea. If they did, North Korea would have a 10 million strong army with no purpose and no skills outside the military.
roy
ghost_tree (guest)
yuhoo7