the UN

[Pangloss]

We already are doing it, every time a KFC opens anywhere between Algeria and Kuala Lumpur. We just need to follow-up on our commercial "towing" at the cultural and diplomatic levels. The problem isn't that Muslims want to live in the dark ages (the Muslim world we want to embrace already condemns Taliban Statue Destruction Squads). The problem is that they don't know how to handle the stress and turmoil that comes with massive social and economic change (who does?). So they get mad, somebody trots out a Koran, and the next thing you know young men are blowing themselves up, not because they think their religion is being subverted, but (ultimately) because they can't afford a Big Mac.

[SkepticLance]

ParanoiA said :

 

The US is arguably the most helpful nation in the world. No nation on the planet lends and offers more assistance, particularly in times of natural disaster, than America.

 

Actually that is not true. The United Nations asks first world nations to contribute 0.7% of GDP to overseas aid. Last I looked, the USA was giving about 0.25%.

 

Of course, if you consider military adventures to be 'aid', then the USA easily exceeds the target. As we say in NZ. with great sarcasm; 'Yeah, riiiight!'

 

My opposition to military aggression is for a very simple reason. It does not work. More so, it exacerbates problems till they becomes many times as bad. The invasion of the Bay of Pigs. Did that bring Castro to heel?

 

The United States, since WWII has attacked at least one independent sovereign nation every decade. How much has this achieved, other than the deaths of millions (2.5 million in Viet Nam alone)? Answer : nothing!

 

When will the US administration learn? You cannot achieve your goals that way. To make the same mistake as many times as the US administration has takes an incredible amount of utter stupidity.

[Pangloss]

You're both as mired in ideological non-sequiturs as the US is in Iraq.

 

The US gives a lower percentage of GDP, but since its GDP is so high it ends up being a higher total amount. And as I said above, I reject the phrase "military aggression" as applied to the United States. Anybody who leaps to that excuse is either pushing or following an agenda. You're smart enough to know better than that.

 

I don't think either of your arguments are served by using those numbers, though. Why can't it be true that BOTH (a) the United States is a generous nation, AND (b) the United States could be much more generous?

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss said :

 

Why can't it be true that BOTH (a) the United States is a generous nation, AND (b) the United States could be much more generous?

 

Sure. No problem. That is not the point of what I have been discussing anyway.

 

My point has been the continuing stupidity of the American administration in reverting to military adventures in trying to fix perceived problems, and only succeeding in making things worse. Of course, it is now too late to easily solve the problems that have been created in Afghanistan and Iraq. I certainly don't know any easy way to do it.

 

However, we MUST learn the lesson. No more invasions. Leave North Korea and Iran alone, except if we go there as friends to help.

[Pangloss]

And there we will have to agree to disagree, because I think the moment you say "no more invasions", you will always lose. There's a reason Saddam dodged and avoided UN inspections for umpteen years. Non-compliance is a valid reason for enforcement, regardless of the actual existence of WMDs. It can't not be a valid reason, or you will never have compliance under any circumstances.

 

It just wasn't a sufficient reason here.

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss

Iraq would have been far better off had Saddam been simply left in power.

In something like 30 years, he killed a little over 200,000 of his own people.

The invasion killed over three times that in one tenth of the time.

 

You should be able to read the numbers and come to a rational conclusion.

 

Besides, what makes you think that, when the situation settles down, it will be any better? Current signs are that the USA will leave, as it did in Viet Nam, and let the cards fall where they will. I do not think that will do more harm than the USA staying. The chaos will continue, for a time, either way.

[Pangloss]

I don't think I'm lacking in ability to make a rational conclusion.

 

Some things are more important than human life. The question isn't whether one can say whether 600,000 is a bigger number than 200,000. The question is whether the world is willing to stand up for what it SAYS it believes, or if it will instead spout idle threats and then chose to sit on its transfatty, ever-growing duff and do nothing.

 

And remember, this is no idle problem. This is what you want us to do about North Korea and Iran -- bluff and bluster and insist (right out in the open!) that nobody ever be allowed back it up.

 

That's great if your total involvement in world affairs is to simply shift blame from one international entity and never be in the wrong yourself. But for actually solving problems? Not so much.

[Pangloss]

But listen, I don't want to degenerate into a tit-for-tat or last-wording thing here. I respect your opinion on it a lot more now than I did earlier in the conversation, and I appreciate where you're coming from with it.

 

I think we probably have some common ground here in that we both understand the need for unity as well as the need for patience in diplomacy.

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss said :

 

This is what you want us to do about North Korea and Iran -- bluff and bluster and insist (right out in the open!) that nobody ever be allowed back it up.

 

Not quite as you put it. My recipe for action is as follows :

 

1. Take the time to understand the nation that would otherwise become the enemy. Every culture is different. We must not fall into the trap of saying that everyone reacts the same. We do not.

 

2. Set out to become a friend - not an enemy. The best way to do this will follow the results of (1) above. Bluff and bluster is exactly the wrong thing to do. If you bluff, someone may call the bluff and some administrative idiot then directs your nation into war.

 

3. If neither 1 or 2 above work, then withdraw and wait for a better time to achieve your goals, working quietly towards them as needed.

 

War is an absolute last resort. I admit there are times when there is no other recourse. However, that did not apply to Viet Nam or to Iraq.

 

This is not something based on some silly 'warm fuzzy' philosophy. It is based on the very practical basis that the alternative makes things much worse. Think of the USSR. In the early 1950's, when the Soviets were developing nuclear weapons, there was a call to bomb the crap out of them before they became a real danger. Wiser heads prevailed, and the cold war (much better than a hot one!) took over for 40 years. Then came the end of that period, and a move to better relations.

 

For a nation such as North Korea for example, there will likely be a period of alienation. However, nothing lasts forever, and a move to 'normalise' relations to a more friendly approach can follow. North Korea will never be a real threat to the USA, no matter how much nuclear development they go through. Time is a great healer. If the West works towards aid and assistance, then eventually North Korea will change its approach also, even if it takes the 40 years it took the USSR.

[Phi for All]

That's way better than the source I had. I was just talking about a news story. That's a sweet document there.

We've argued this many times before. Calling mustard gas and sarin gas "weapons of mass destruction" is just wrong. They are crowd dispersal weapons. They are used to flush the enemy from their hiding places so you can shoot them, or to deny them access to an area you've captured. They are deadly by themselves only when the victims can't leave the area (crowded subway train, locked building, etc.). Iraq used them quite effectively against the Iranians (and the Kurds they claimed were helping them). It's pretty effective to toss in the gas and shoot whoever pops up choking. And if you don't pop up the gas will get you eventually, but does that really fit in with the WMD classification? You could get almost the same result from ordinary smoke (which kills more people in a fire than the actual fire does).

 

When the media says "nerve agent" most people start thinking about thousands of urban victims walking along and suddenly dropping dead when a molecule of sarin touches them. This is not the case and if you can exit the area where the gas is being used it's not fatal, as long as there is no one waiting to shoot you.

[ParanoiA]

We've argued this many times before. Calling mustard gas and sarin gas "weapons of mass destruction" is just wrong.

 

Sounds fair to me, realistically. But is it "classified" as a WMD? I ask, because legal ease matters here. Also, keep in mind my opinion on this has evolved somewhat since this thread was current.