The war on "Terror"

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Juize

I have nothing against killing Saddam (much less than killing UBL), if the civil casualties are < 100.
And I have hard time believing that they would be under 100.

How exactly did you come up with this number? Is it affected by the level of evil a person commits? Would Hitler have warrented <1000? What is your number of OBL? What about Sharon? Arafat? Do you have one for Bush? If you care too, how about a little ranking of Juize's 'evil-doers' for civilians trade-off list.

 

[Cardinal Ape]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Cardinal Ape, why do you blame the West for all of the world's problems? Are you applying for a columnist position at the Pyongyang Post?

Very funny, but seriously I have not been blaming the west for the worlds problems. You are distorting my statements to a new level. However I do think the west has caused quite a few problems. I have long looked at the world from a west outwards point of view. Try looking at things the other way around. In some cases its not so hard to see why the west (in particular USA) is hated so.

In the Middle East, all governments have warned against an attack to topple Iraq. They fear that the security of the region could deteriorate dramatically and that an Iraq without strong central control could disintegrate into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. Equally, Middle Eastern leaders are aware of popular Arab and Islamic anger at the suffering of ordinary Iraqis under more than 10 years of sanctions. Muslim and Arab leaders fear further Iraqi civilian deaths would be a rallying call for radical Islamists and provoke more anti-American feeling.

Mustapha Alani, a Middle East specialist with the RUSI in London argues that no Arab or Islamic government will want to be seen politically or militarily backing action against Iraq at this time. I quote Mr Alani on this "This is a very sensitive issue for them. Liberating Kuwait is a legitimate objective, but toppling regimes is completely different,"

The objective of toppling the Iraqi regime was officially declared by the US in 1997 but it has not been translated into action.
Now, Washington argues that military action against Iraq is necessary because it could use weapons of mass destruction.
In the wake of 11 September, some US officials have linked Iraq to the suicide attacks and the anthrax attacks soon after, but offered nothing concrete in evidence.

The US argument about weapons of mass destruction is very much undermined in Arab eyes by Washington's silence on Israel's nuclear arsenal.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Cardinal Ape
The US argument about weapons of mass destruction is very much undermined in Arab eyes by Washington's silence on Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Uh oh. Looks like we need to explain America's policy on nuclear weapon poliferation. Simply, it is this:
Use diplomacy & economic incentives to prevent nations from developing weapons of mass destruction.
Once they ARE a nuclear power, the focus of the diplomacy shifts to limit and curtail any motivation they might have to use them.
In that field, Israel is a predictable nuclear state. Israel cannot risk using nuclear weapons because there is no target that proves a greater threat to Israel than the withdrawing of international support.
With nations like Iraq and North Korea, their autocratic leaders have nothing to loose by using nuclear weapons.

Nuclear powers are a controlled environment and has been for at least 40 years. In my opinion, the risks of allowing nuclear prolifiration grow out of control is too great.

 

[G-Man]

Israel never targeted the civilians of another country like Saddam did. Israel's nuclear weapons are perhaps the best guarded in the world - no one knows where they are. Israel doesn't support terrorists. Israel is in no way a threat to the US. This should give the US a few good reasons not to go against Israel. Also, Israel got it's nuclear capability in 1956, 11 years before the US became involved in the situation here.

About amnesty - I don't say they're completely wrong but they do seem to take things out of proportions. They blame Israel of racism for not aproving a few Palestinian houses that were poorly designed and made of low quality materials. I mean when the bowlroom collapsed it was bacuse it was built this way! And they totaly ignore the fact that jewish buildings were also not aproved if they didn't get to the standards.
They also take evidences from suicide bombers who were caught before they exploded. These people swore to kill Israelis and were ready to sacrifice themselves for that, but what they say can be used against Israel as an objective opinion?
Also, why are there mentions of what happened in Lebanon in the 2001 report? We withdrew! What do you want from us?
And they also seem to be very happy in telling what not to do, but have no other solutions. They say Israel should lift closures, but they don't tell us how are we supposed to stop terrorists in other ways. It's obvious that civilians are hurt in war on terrorism but unless they have a solution they don't help much, now do they?

 

[IceBlaZe]

I second G-Mans sayings

[off topic]
BTW, happy b-day G-Man
Just looked at your portfolio 2 days ago...
How old?
[/off topic]

 

[knowltok2]

Since this seems to be the thread for it, I have a serious question for the Israelis on this board.

Does Isreal need Palistinian labor for their economy? I am talking about what is coming from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If so, how much? If the labor supply was gone, would it be uncomfortable, painful, crippling, deadly, or unfelt?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Couldn't hurt, when we have peace.
But right now palestinien labor is illegal. Besides, we use other types of cheap foreign labor such as thai or vietnami foreign labor.
I dont really knows what 'need' means. Basically, we can get other labors than palestinien labor. But if its cheap, they (israeli employers) will want it.
But I dont really understand in this topic...
The labor supply is way gone, only left some illegal palestinien labor, and I think we are doing fine without them. They depend on our economy much more than we depend on their labor.

 

[knowltok2]

Okay, given that, why not pull back and unilaterally make a peace? Close the border, turn them loose, and say, "You're on your own, good luck, cause you're gonna need it." Then make a public statement that all hell will rain down upon anyone who attacks through the once occupied territories.

Please don't think that this is an attacking question. I know there are reasons for not doing this, I just want to find out what they are to better understand the situation.

Thanks again.

 

[MrPresident]

Besides, we use other types of cheap foreign labor such as thai or vietnami foreign labor.

Or you could do as the Americans and use cheap Mexican labour, or perhaps us British and use Pakistani/Indian, or Germany using cheap Turkish labour. Using cheap foreign labour is not specific to Israel it is used worldwide. America was built on it. The Israeli economy may now depend on Palestinian (is that the right spelling?) labour but if they turned round and said we have low-paying jobs available to anyone, do you think they wouldn't get any applicants. If anything the Palestinians rely on Israel for jobs, otherwise why would they work for them?

Did you know that Lebanon relies more on aid from Syria than Israel does with aid from America? Also this whole question about civilian deaths during the war of terror is nothing new. Have you ever heard of casulties of war? Sure no-one wants civilians to die but it will happen again and again because bullets and explosions don't affect only the guilty. Maybe people need to look past the current costs of the war (i.e. civilian deaths) and look at the end-game. As for the question of Israel's nuclear arsenal, it is nothing unusual. A lot of developed countries have the bomb. The problem is when a ruler such as Saddam gets one. This may seem slightly hypocracy too some but you have to ask yourself who is more likely to use the bomb, American or Iraq? Saddam has proven he is willing to use chemical weapons of mass destruction, do you think he would hesistate to use nuclear bombs? For those who say Iraq doesn't have such weapons then ask Mossat. They have said that he does and being that they are by far the most advanced intelligent agency in the world I tend to believe them. However many people would say that they have an alternative agency to say that Iraq has the bomb. Well think that weapon inspectors haven't been in Iraq for 4 years, and when they were they we restricted from certain areas, refused information and general harassed. As for human rights, well I think we can agree that despite the West's record that Iraq (and other such countries) don't even come close on a human rights scale. The EU has a humans right court, I don't think Iraq has one do you? For me there are three basic human rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happinees. How many do you have in America (and the West) and how many do you have in Iraq? Don't tell me to look at my own faults when they don't even compare to those of others. Also I think I am capably of doing both at the same time, are you?

 

[joespaniel]

There may be more than meets the eye concerning all the saber rattling.

Something else is going on here, but I dont know what it is.

They are pressuring Iraq hard to get something. What or from who remains to be seen.

If I am wrong, and they purely intend to eliminate a regime, I have no doubt it will be deadly and lightning fast.

Isreal will have to watch out again too. This time Im sure Hussein will throw everything he has at them.

 

[Cardinal Ape]

Originally posted by joespaniel
There may be more than meets the eye concerning all the saber rattling.

Something else is going on here, but I dont know what it is.

They are pressuring Iraq hard to get something. What or from who remains to be seen.

If I am wrong, and they purely intend to eliminate a regime, I have no doubt it will be deadly and lightning fast.

Isreal will have to watch out again too. This time Im sure Hussein will throw everything he has at them.

I certainly agree with you on this. I to believe there is more than meets the eye on this one. With Israel the likely target of any last actions from Iraq who knows how the situation could change in the middle-east.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Or you could do as the Americans and use cheap Mexican labour, or perhaps us British and use Pakistani/Indian, or Germany using cheap Turkish labour. Using cheap foreign labour is not specific to Israel it is used worldwide. America was built on it.

And Great Britain wasn't? You know, your country used to use America as it's Mexico.

But we revolted, and look who's laughing now

 

[SuperR]

Agreed. The United Kingdom were the champions of cheap labor in the 19th century and early in the 20th. Cheap labor at home, cheap labor abroad... and there is a huge number of cases of labor mistreatment (read: near-torture-like work to extract resources only meaningful in the European world) during that time. However, it must be said that the USA have now dethroned the UK since the beginning of Reagan's regime, thanks to the IMF and World Bank's Structural Adjustment Programs.

 

[andycapp]

I noticed an article in todays newspaper about the US becoming frustrated at the lack of Indonesian co-operation on the war on terror. Apparently US and Allied intelligence believes that possibly hundreds of al Qaeda fighters and operatives are in, or on their way to Indonesia after fleeing Afghanistan.

The government of Megawati Sukarno-Putri is reluctant to help for fear of inciting the wrath of Islamic political parties (some of which she relies on for support) by allowing US and Allied soldiers into the country. This will be a major test for US diplomacy - the conseqences of botching this are enormous.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by SuperR
Agreed. The United Kingdom were the champions of cheap labor in the 19th century and early in the 20th. Cheap labor at home, cheap labor abroad... and there is a huge number of cases of labor mistreatment (read: near-torture-like work to extract resources only meaningful in the European world) during that time. However, it must be said that the USA have now dethroned the UK since the beginning of Reagan's regime, thanks to the IMF and World Bank's Structural Adjustment Programs.

Its a process... the work conditions were twice as horrendous in the early industrial West as they are in the developing world today. They are called developing because it is recognized that you can't go from a tribal agricultural society to a modern service/information economy without growing pains, and without many displaced workers. The World Bank and the IMF don't need to advertise, there are countries looking for funding knocking their door down, yet people feel the need to blame these orginizations and ignore the fact that they're being asked to invest... its like blaming the woman for prostitition.

If there is a plausable alternative I'd like to hear it.

 

[SuperR]

Originally posted by Greadius
Its a process... the work conditions were twice as horrendous in the early industrial West as they are in the developing world today. They are called developing because it is recognized that you can't go from a tribal agricultural society to a modern service/information economy without growing pains, and without many displaced workers. The World Bank and the IMF don't need to advertise, there are countries looking for funding knocking their door down, yet people feel the need to blame these orginizations and ignore the fact that they're being asked to invest... its like blaming the woman for prostitition.

If there is a plausable alternative I'd like to hear it.

To put all the blame on the IMF/World Bank for the developing countries' situation would be hypocrisy.
However, one must recognize the fact that these huge institutions, while claiming they are out there helping the poor nations, are not acheiving the goal of helping the developing nations to DEVELOP. Go out there and observe, and you will understand that the Third World is slowly but gradually crumbling since the 80's.
Rather, most developing countries are going towards "deindustrialization", because the emphasis is being too much on the extraction of raw material and cash crops so that they could sell these goods on the int'l market (a policy which has been a condition of the World Bank, by the way, to guarantee further loans to developing countries). This is not modernization at all.

It is also wrong to say that these nations, ultimately, are the prime responsible of their cause. The colonial era made them so economically ineffective (diverisified economy before European arrival ---> raw material extraction while European presence) that indeed foreign AID should be availabe. At the moment, there is little help, and some of it like the World Bank's effort is wrongdoing since they entered the path of "strtuctural adjustment programs" policies.
I also find it weird that the "World Bank" is based in Washington DC, always had American presidents and closely followed American foreign policy???

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by SuperR
However, one must recognize the fact that these huge institutions, while claiming they are out there helping the poor nations, are not acheiving the goal of helping the developing nations to DEVELOP. Go out there and observe, and you will understand that the Third World is slowly but gradually crumbling since the 80's.

I respectfully disagree, and I suppose it is the responsibility of both of us to find out the 'truth', if we can.
I think that the negative effects aren't more prominent, they are just louder and given more attention. Happy people don't make the news. Growing middle classes don't get special reports. Its a matter of perception what constitutes growth or development; if GDP was an indicator almost every country that recieves international aid is benefiting. The problem is that growth causes displacement, and that displaced workers or people are going to raise heck about it. The rapid advancement causes a disproportionate number of equally displaced workers. Their displacement is not the fault of the IMF, World Bank, or rich nations, but rather a temporary state that develops and disapears with modernization.
A good example, since it was in the news recently, is the strength of lobbying from U.S. Steel Workers. The industry is no longer competitive, and as a result there were a growing number of displaced workers. These workers cried for protection, and Bush gave in to them. Everytime a third-world nation closes its markets it does the identical thing: protects and obsolete industry or business model for the sake of workers, instead of allowing the economy to develop and those workers to 'learn a new trick'.

Originally posted by SuperR
Rather, most developing countries are going towards "deindustrialization", because the emphasis is being too much on the extraction of raw material and cash crops so that they could sell these goods on the int'l market (a policy which has been a condition of the World Bank, by the way, to guarantee further loans to developing countries).

Ironically, the extraction of raw material and cash crops were the basis of the U.S. economy until the 1870's, and a major part of it through WW2. The U.S. economy still has decent sized sectors in this department today (Which have shrunk as a proportion to the whole economy, but not as an industry). It is part of development; and no developed nations have escaped that. Norway is the world's second largest oil exporter; are they the victims of deindustrilization because of their dependence on oil exports?

Originally posted by SuperR
It is also wrong to say that these nations, ultimately, are the prime responsible of their cause. The colonial era made them so economically ineffective (diverisified economy before European arrival ---> raw material extraction while European presence) that indeed foreign AID should be availabe.

Holy historical revisionism! Name one world economy that was diversified past agricultural production before Colonialism that exited Colonialism an economic wreck!
I respectfully disagree on your take of how history developed dependancy. The U.S. was a Colony too, do we qualify for aid now? So was Australia, and Canada for that matter; who is going to pay for their development? Using historical grievences to basically, ask for money is fine as long as one points the finger at the perpretator. Colonialisms evils were clearly the act of specific nations that partook in it in specific places. The idea now is that developed nations should foot the bill for Colonial victims, and everyone looks to the U.S. to pay more. I don't believe the Philipines and Pacific or Caribean islands are in such a terrible state, but I think the British and French have a lot more cleaning up to do for their economic messes.
And for other Colonial victims, like Canada (who incidentally have had no Colonial possessions I know of), are now expected to pay? Is it historical grievences or victimization for the sake of money?

Originally posted by SuperR
I also find it weird that the "World Bank" is based in Washington DC, always had American presidents and closely followed American foreign policy???

You'd have to provide me with specific citations of how they follow American foreign policy... I think you're getting the order mixed up. American foreign policy requires the protection of American interests; the World Bank helps create those interests. The tail is wagging the preverbial dog.
Oh, yeah, and it is a U.S. designed and started program and has recieved most its funding from the U.S. private sector, so it makes sense it is Washington based and ran, no?

 

[SuperR]

While most of your statements make sense, but your point on colonization does not. Must I remind you that the Third World countries are countries that were under the yoke of European colonization? While their economy was being destroyed, the European ones rapidly grown at their expense.

Your comparison with US-Canada-Australia is irrelevant, because

1) USA was able to freed themselves
2) Canada and Australia became the "cherished dominions" of Britain because it was inhabited by whites. I suggest you don't try to prove otherwise, because it would be foolish. Racism was all over the place in the colonization era, to serve as a justification tool for the European masses to bring about world colonization.

While it is true that most of the colonial greivance should be towards France and the UK (especially the UK), the world's superpower is the US as of now, and it is natural that increasing demands are made towards them because they OWN (as you pointed out) the international lending facilities, such as the World Bank.

The World Bank follows the American policy in that way: during the Reagan era --- renewal of the Cold war, The IMF/Bank were not supposed to lend money to countries following a socialist or semi-socialist path because the US said so. Their justification was being that since the government spend too much on health care, education and such, it would be normal that they should stop because they won't be able to repay us annually.
This statement doesn't make sense even from an economic point of view: by liberalizing the developing nation's economy, state-held enterprise were bought by Western Multinationals (such as Enron for energy companies), leaving not much in the hands of the Third World countries. That's global capitalism, I guess. However, since domains such as health care and education have been left out by the government to the private sector in these countries, schools are empty and a great bunch suffer of malnutrition because there are NO THIRD WORLD PRIVATE INTERESTS LEFT!!! If you fail to see a problem here, then you are just like Rmsharpe: "American interest must prevail here and abroad"- style.

Note that I don't want to get into personal fights and such. It is just that this issue matters to me as we always see on tv poor people dying of hunger while we rich nations are faring well partly at their expense. How ironic.

Just for the record, Graedius, the Philippines ARE in a terrible state.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by SuperR
While it is true that most of the colonial greivance should be towards France and the UK (especially the UK), the world's superpower is the US as of now, and it is natural that increasing demands are made towards them because they OWN (as you pointed out) the international lending facilities, such as the World Bank.

But the World Bank isn't responsible for Colonialism... the concept didn't even exist during when most of the grievences developed. I don't follow the train of logic... to me it looks like the U.S. is transformed in some sort of great culprit in a scheme to keep the rest of the world poor, therefore we should dole out money now... yet the fact that they are obviously poor for a multitude of reasons both internal and external. The greatest external one is Colonization, which in the vast majority of the Aid needing cases wasn't carried out by the two richest nations on Earth. The amount of responsibility that can be placed directly on America's doorstep for a history of poverty is negligable, but the bill we're being asked to pay is not...

Originally posted by SuperR
The World Bank follows the American policy in that way: during the Reagan era --- renewal of the Cold war, The IMF/Bank were not supposed to lend money to countries following a socialist or semi-socialist path because the US said so.

That, and the fact that it is just plain good economics. Why invest in infrastructure or industry that has a good chance of being nationalized?

Originally posted by SuperR
This statement doesn't make sense even from an economic point of view: by liberalizing the developing nation's economy, state-held enterprise were bought by Western Multinationals (such as Enron for energy companies), leaving not much in the hands of the Third World countries. That's global capitalism, I guess.

And I though Reagan did voodoo economics
That is NOT how it works! State run industries have very little actual value on the world market because they are notoriously innefficient; most corperations prefer to start them from scratch and enjoy the cheap labor. How it is suppose to benefit the indiginous country:
1. Provide non-agricultural based jobs. Granted, these jobs suck and pay badly, but would you rather work for minimum wage or be unemployed?
2. Create infrastructure. That is the big one... there is no way that the average rich, fat and lazy Westerner benefits more from roads, railroads, ports, power plants, sewer, water treatment, infrastructure, and the multitude of other investments the corperations have to make to create an industry.

Corperations vested inderest, over time, translates to better positions for the indiginous workers and management. The hope is that the governments who get paid to use the land, and gain money through taxing the corperations and employees will translate that money into education and health care. The population get wealthier OVER TIME!!! Its not a linear system, and it doesn't always work out nicely, but its a better system of developing the third world than handouts or Colonialism.

Originally posted by SuperR
Just for the record, Graedius, the Philippines ARE in a terrible state.

Compared to? And I tried to find out exactly what natural resources the U.S. had raped from the Philipines and couldn't find any. Amatterfact, the only benefit I could seem to find in that possession was that we wanted the military bases.

 

[MrPresident]

While it is true that most of the colonial greivance should be towards France and the UK (especially the UK)

I accept that colonialism was bad and bought a lot of problems to former colonies but it is not that bad. America, New Zealand, Cananda, Australia, etc are all former colonies and they aren't doing that bad. Ethopia wasn't a colony until 1936 and even then it was the Italians (not to offend Italians but your country during the late 20s and 30s was hardly an efficient state) and they have experience many of the problems that former colonies have suffered. Some places have been greatly improved by colonialism for example Hong Kong, the people there dreaded a return to Chinese rule. Also the colonial powers did bring education, infrastructure, government structures etc to their colonies. So I think it is apt to say that while it is true that colonial greivances exist so do colonial benefits of which most of the credit should go towards France and especially the UK.

by liberalizing the developing nation's economy, state-held enterprise were bought by Western Multinationals

Firstly, Western Multinationals (are there any other kind - I include Japan etc in the west by the way) are greatly benefical to developing nations, why else would they want them to invest in their countries. Multinationals on average pay above the domestic wage level, they bring in technology, management skills etc. There are problems such as taking a way entrepeurs from the domestic economy, inapproiate technology (i.e. captial-intensive in a country with high unemployment) and capital flight. However overall I think multinationals are a good thing for developing nations. Also liberalising a developing economy is more to do with introducing competition, both international and domestic, to make companies more efficient and to provide higher quality goods to the consumers at lower prices.

Didn't the Americans wipe out yellow fever from the Philipines, or am I completely wrong?

Oh, yeah, and it is a U.S. designed and started program and has recieved most its funding from the U.S. private sector, so it makes sense it is Washington based and ran, no?

The World Bank being in Washington doesn't make much sense to me. I mean surely it should be in New York with the United Nations?