Interesting Blog about the rise of fundamentalism in Iraq

[Humus]

Re: Interesting Blog about the rise of fundamentalism in Ira

Well, so wish I. Though for instance in Iraq I think it would be easier if the US didn't want to dictate everything.

The US shouldn't have to. If the US didn't who would have? Nothing would have been done.

Basically, the EU and many others were very willing to provide help and support in many areas after the war, but the US more or less wanted to run it alone, with less than impressive results.

Not that the EU forces are required. We rarely get much out of europe to even consider note worthy.

Though I'm sseriously drunk to nightui I shouldn't realyl try to argyue anyijtniknbv tonight, nut anyway .. . this argyemtn it falsed ... euoprope or anuythign welse isn't requires ... wtf. .. I mean, it's not huil ike the US it doing all the well down there in IraQ ORO WOULD YOU aruge otherwise? ... After the war ... oprept myuch everyone anmted to contribute ... but theu US saeid no ...
same in africa ... bush don't wawnt to contribue to orgnaitions that doesn't support abortains, meanwhile aids is spreading like a wild fire, foricngi eurpope to spend even more into these support programmers.. . in istuations weher ahube amounto f opoeplopel are infectede withj HIv and it's spreading seriously it's no the time to try oto fofce a policatial agenda ... it's time to act .. the EU has actied ... but the US with bush has not ...

 

[Legion]

Humus again its not like having EU aid would change the US situation much in Iraq. What exactly would you all send? 100 troops?

exactly why should the US have to do anything in africa? By the same reasoning the US has caused its own problems in the ME, Europe has caused its own set of problems in africa. The US shouldn't have to contribute every single time to mending other people's problems especially when so much of EU seems lax in desire to help others

THe US has dedicated much in terms of cherity to african nations over the years. Europe's interest in the spread of HIV appears to be mainly recent

 

[zurich]

But that was simply because Hussein virtually outlawed religon. Now the observant in Iraq are now able to see the light of day without fear of retribution, it's unsurprising that things will be taken too far. This has happened everywhere really. The Shah of Iran did similar things. Supporters of Ataturk did the same in Turkey. The Congress party worked to stamp out religon in India because they viewed it as devisive. It's not surprising that people who use religion as a backbone of identity resent having their identity under attack.

Question is, will those who are pushing religon as an instrument of power be brought under control of the broader population? That's the $64,000 question for me right now.

That's the first I've ever heard of Sadam outlawing religion. I knew that he favoured one sect of Islam over another, but it was never banned. Iraq just had a very clear division of church and state under his rule.

 

[zurich]

Humus again its not like having EU aid would change the US situation much in Iraq. What exactly would you all send? 100 troops?

exactly why should the US have to do anything in africa? By the same reasoning the US has caused its own problems in the ME, Europe has caused its own set of problems in africa. The US shouldn't have to contribute every single time to mending other people's problems especially when so much of EU seems lax in desire to help others

Well since the US will never give up control of Iraq to the UN or any multinational peacekeeping forces, I guess we'll never know how many troops Europe would send

Should they commit themselves fully, Russia and Switzerland (where military service is compulsory) could raise a very large force.

 

[Legion]

Well since the US will never give up control of Iraq to the UN or any multinational peacekeeping forces, I guess we'll never know how many troops Europe would send

Should they commit themselves fully, Russia and Switzerland (where military service is compulsory) could raise a very large force.

Why would the US give up control? Who would take it? Who would fund these so called UN peace keeping troops? The US is in the best position to take care of matters?

Zurich i don't think it is reasonable to think switzerland would actually contribute a large military support for peace keeping.

Do to the current state of Russian affairs i wouldn't feel comfortable turning control over to them.

 

[Legion]

Re: Interesting Blog about the rise of fundamentalism in Ira

Oh dear me. Peace between nations was the goal of the UN, you need to remember that.

So as long as nations are fighting each other it is ok for dictators to kill their people. Is this the UN's idea of "peace"? Perhaps that is why the UN is so inaffective?

What you are suggesting would be a UN with vast powers inflicting on nations sovereignity.

A dictator in a nation who is murdering his own peace deserves sovereignity? How can the nation have sovereignity if there is a tyrannical dictator in control?

This does in fact not exist. If you want to argue that the UN is worthless then do so but don't do it using false reasons in your arguments.

I think its clear the concept of keeping peace is up to interpretation.

As for Hitler how would I know?

I think you can answer yes to the questions. Its quite evident that if the UN existed at the time it would have attacked Nazi Germany taking its "sovereignity" away and giving it back to Germany's people.

The UN does what its members decides for it to do.

And what do you think they would have chosen? Do you think they had a moral obligation to aid those dying under hitler?

]Quite simple really. The UN did authorize an attack on Saddam though in the Gulf war when he attacked Kuwait so its possible the security council would have come to a similar decision when Hitler invaded Poland.

Or Germany itself. I think that would be a fair comparison.

Dictatorships may not be very nice places to live in but that doesn't mean they will be aggresive against other countries. Hence dictarships is not a threat against the peace per se. (IE killing OTHER nations innocent people)

So, if they are killing innocent people in their own lands should the UN simply do nothing? What, again, is their definition of peace.

We don't have to like it of course but seeing as the UN was made/designed to keep the peace between nations and not get involved in sovereign nations businesses that's something you have to accept.

Again how would allowing a dictator to kill his own people keeping the peace?

Lets face it, a UN that could decide to attack a nation just because the leadership doesn't suit them would in fact be undermining it's own reason for existance, keeping the peace (between nations).

Yes they could. Yes they are keeping a very warped sense of peace.

If you want a UN that has the right to go prodding around like that call your congressman and have him bring up a suggestion of a reform of the UN more to your liking or in this case more to your reason for bashing.

I might just do that.

 

[zurich]

Zurich i don't think it is reasonable to think switzerland would actually contribute a large military support for peace keeping.

Do to the current state of Russian affairs i wouldn't feel comfortable turning control over to them.

Why not? The Swiss have been actively involved in almost all of Eastern Europe's peacekeeping missions (especially Romania IIRC). Ofcourse, many will point out that that was to stabilize the country in order to sell them high grade Swiss weapons afterwards, but still! I don't think the Swiss would touch the middle east with a 10 foot pole, but you said that Europe could muster up "100 troops", and I pointed out two countries that could do close to 1000x that.

I think the issue comes down to many countries feeling burned over the Unilateral approach at the beginning of the war, only to laugh at the US when they come knocking for replacement soldiers (which has nothing in it for them, besides an uber hostile theatre and tons and tons of toxic depleted uranium rounds everywhere).

Although, I guess the purest form of this argument is "yay UN" vs "nay UN", which is futile to argue, so --->

 

[Legion]

Why not?

China could as well. Would they?

The Swiss have been actively involved in almost all of Eastern Europe's peacekeeping missions (especially Romania IIRC).

What is your definition of actively involved?

Ofcourse, many will point out that that was to stabilize the country in order to sell them high grade Swiss weapons afterwards, but still! (now THATS capitalism!)

And russia could do the same with its migs and ak47s......shhhhhhhh.

I don't think the Swiss would touch the middle east with a 10 foot pole, but you said that Europe could muster up "100 troops", and I pointed out two countries that could do over 200x that.

In theory yes (in theory China has an army of several billion ). In real practice?

I think the issue comes down to many countries feeling burned over the Unilateral approach at the beginning of the war,

Many of those were against it from the start. Now that the situation is over they could contribute to rebuilding Iraq.

only to laugh at the US when they come knocking for replacement soldiers (which has nothing in it for them, besides an uber hostile theatre and tons and tons of toxic depleted uranium rounds everywhere).

I don't think we'd come knocking for something we know we'd never have.

Although, I guess the purest form of this argument is "yay UN" vs "nay UN", which is futile to argue, so --->

The base concept of a set of united nations would clearly exist without the UN.

 

[zurich]

China could as well. Would they?

You said Europe.

What is your definition of actively involved?

Peacekeeping. A friend that lived with me for a while was an officer in the Swiss army and spent a few years on duty in Romania. I found it amusing that the Swiss' main motivation for this was, as I said, to later sell the country (Romania in this context) high grade weapons.

In theory yes (in theory China has an army of several billion ). In real practice?

You specifically mentioned Europe.

Many of those were against it from the start. Now that the situation is over they could contribute to rebuilding Iraq.

See "countries feeling burned". Why would they help? Especially without any direct authority of their own?

I don't think we'd come knocking for something we know we'd never have.

*insert WMD joke here*

The base concept of a set of united nations would clearly exist without the UN.

Except it would be exclusive rather than inclusive (the whole point behind the UNITED NATIONS).

 

[Moffell]

Re: Interesting Blog about the rise of fundamentalism in Ira

Peace between nations. Prevent wars. That is what UN is for. This really isn't all that difficult.

What kind of UN would you want? A UN that attacks a nation once its leader has killed a hundred people? A thousand? A million?

Or a nation that attacks dictatorships? Imagine how many wars that would start and how many people would die from that. As long as you save lives it doesn't matter how many you loses? I can buy that, democracy always comes at a cost.

And how would you define dictatorships? USA is led by a man who got the votes of roughly 25% of the people and I wouldn't dream of questioning democracy in the USA. Democracy looks different in different places, how would you know what was a real democracy? Who would decide it? Turkey's constitution for instance allows the military to cease power if it feels the constitution is threatened by the elected government. Not a whole lot of free press either. A democracy? USA seems to think so since they wanted EU to accept Turkey as a candidate for membership recently.

I'm not saying that I don't want a UN that can get more involved to prevent disasters within countries however you should be aware of that today that is not the case. UN doesn't cover all areas, wasn't meant too. You think that sucks? Take it up with the guys that designed it. You know... The guys that lived during WWII. Tell them they prioritized like shit.

 

[Humus]

Humus again its not like having EU aid would change the US situation much in Iraq. What exactly would you all send? 100 troops?

exactly why should the US have to do anything in africa? By the same reasoning the US has caused its own problems in the ME, Europe has caused its own set of problems in africa. The US shouldn't have to contribute every single time to mending other people's problems especially when so much of EU seems lax in desire to help others

THe US has dedicated much in terms of cherity to african nations over the years. Europe's interest in the spread of HIV appears to be mainly recent

I'm not sure what you want really. First you said that you want Europe to contribute more around the world. Now you say that it's not like EU aid would do much to help.

What the US, EU, Canada, Japan etc. all need to do is contribute to get the third world going. We may not technically have the responsibility for what's going on in Africa for instance, but I wouldn't want the developed world to just forget them and leave them to solve their problems alone. And yes, both the US, EU and others have contributed in Africa through various kinds of organisations for a long time. The problem lately though is that Bush has decided to cut the funding for organisations that they view as supporting abortion. This has forced the EU to fill the gap by increasing their contribution quite a lot. In some african countries we have HIV spreading like wild fire, some countries have around 15% of the people carrying the virus. In such a situation it's not the time to start preaching the wrongs of abortion, it's time to act. They need help, and they need it now. They need sexual education, access to condoms, information about the risks involved and how to protect themselves. They don't need to know that abortion is wrong and they don't need to be taught that abstinence is how you're supposed to protect yourself.

 

[Fred]

You can't be serious. The US, just gave something like 15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa, to say the Bush administration has done nothing is absurd.

Yes, the money isn't necessarily going to international organizations, and yes some of it is tied into silly abstinence based programs (wasted money IMO), but thats still far more than any US contribution (or any individual EU donation I might add). Most of it is going to go into drug cocktails, to help reduce the misery.

As far as I see it, we are under NO obligation to give money. Yet anytime we do, its always met with derision. Thats so hypocritical IMO.

 

[Humus]

Well, my argumentation will look less "absurd" and "hypocritical" if you actually read my post and don't put words into my mouth. I did NOT claim that bush or the US "has done nothing", rather the opposite. I argued against putting a political agenda into the matter and undermining the work of many international help organisations.

 

[Fred]

How are they underminning International help organizations?

 

[Humus]

By cutting the funding for organisations that the bush administration perceives to be supporting abortion. As a direct reaction to this the EU increased their aid to fill the gap. I'm not saying country A has to give $B and country C give $D, but when the HIV situation is as it is in africa it's not a time to promote political agendas; it's the time to make sure the money goes into projects that cures the situation.

 

[Willmeister]

By cutting the funding for organisations that the bush administration perceives to be supporting abortion.

I don't know about Bush, but Congress had been doing this for fifteen years, refusing to pay their UN dues ever since Reagan took office. Congress would not allow any US funds to be used to support 'abortion' and since the UN refused to condemn abortion, Congress withheld funds. That is, until the USA needed the UN after 9-11 and they quickly paid off their accounts.

Again, I don't know if Bush has restarted this game. If he has, he's certainly been very low-key about it...

 

[DemoCoder]

Reagan was justified IMHO in dealing harshly with the UN. Before the Reagan years, the UN was a political whack job where delegates on a regular basis got up and denounced the US in terms only slightly less harsh than the Iranians. Reagan correctly withheld funding to an organization that was was really a bully pulpit for communists and third world dictators to voice anti-Americanism. He affected political change within the organization and now they don't bite the hand that feeds them as much.

 

[Willmeister]

You don't think the USA used the UN as a bully pulpit? It did repeatedly up until 1970, when it's squeaky clean image was shattered when it vetoed a resoultion calling on the white racist government in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). Never happened, because this racist regime was an ally of America, like South Africa was. Soon after, anytime there was any resolution that even remotely infringed on US interests, it used it's veto to quash it. Even if the majority of the planet backed it, like the convention on terrorism, agreed upon by all but two nations and one abstention if I recall, back in 1975, it was guaranteed to be vetoed by the USA. The Durban convention wasn't just geared towards Israel, it was also more heavily geared against Rhodesia and South Africa. Those were the racist regimes of note, but since both were some of America's partners, this had no chance of seeing the light of day...

After 1972, it wasn't the Communist block anymore that was vetoing everything in sight. It was the USA...

 

[Fred]

Who cares if the US cuts funding to certain *international* organizations, they still are doing a whole lot more than anyone else in Africa. I don't care if they cut it 100% and made a whole new one. Its not their entitlement to receive US dollars, its a gift of charity.

Something about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

 

[Humus]

You should care, since the direct effect of this action is that thousands of lives that could be saved are being lost. Lots of people have to suffer unneccesarily. There is technically no responsibility for the rich countries to provide aid to the poor, but there should be a moral such. And it shouldn't come with political agendas attached. 71% of the US aid has conditions attached that says it must be spent on buying products or services from the US. Such conditions are nothing but counterproductive, and I wouldn't consider it much of a gift. The only condition that needs to be attached is that the money is spent on the problem they were targetted for, like the HIV situation in Africa. Ok, so they could buy condoms from the US for handouts to the people, that's fine (though I doubt Bush would support handing out condoms), they could buy medicines from the US too, also fine, though it may mean that they can't buy a better medicine that's being produces somewhere else. But for a real solution to the HIV situation, educating the people is what's needed, something that could be done with local labour force, but with conditions like that attached you'd expect them to buy this service from the US for way higher costs and much fewer results.

As for the US "doing a whole lot more than anyone else in Africa", I don't know what you're talking about really. Not only is the US global aid amount low (yes, the US is largest in terms of raw dollars, but the aid percentage of the GDP is much lower than most other rich countries), but 2/3 of that goes to Isreal and Egypt (hardly in need of aid) and only a small fraction goes to the parts of Africa that needs it.