From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 15:40:39 MDT
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 12:58:15PM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> But when it comes to a far off place like Iraq or Kashmir
> I don't see any evidence that they have cared about the
> loss of human life (and therefore coming up with ways to
> solve the problems) in decades.
Not like they've vastly different from us in that respect. People are dying
in North Korea, and we do close to nothing. People are dying throughout the
Third World due to lack of food, water, hygiene, or medicine, and we don't do
much. Actually many European countries give higher percentages of their GDP
as foreign aid than we do, and most of that won't be military aid like ours
is, so possibly over the decades they've done more to save human life than we
have. And arguably any rich country which let Third World products in without
tariffs would do even more for those countries; that wouldn't be either the US
or the EU, though it might be Australia or New Zealand. (Canada? don't know
where it stands on primary production tariffs.)
And some say much of Iraq's suffering in the past decades is due to our
sanctions. I don't know what to think myself. "It's not us, it's Saddam!
The UN hasn't banned these things!" "No, it just puts indefinite holds on
them, which amounts to the same thing."
> in the U.S./U.K. actions in Iraq. I think it is a combination
> of fear of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists and a
So what happens if we invaded another country on the grounds of WMDs and we
don't find any?
> Now, *if* the French or the Germans or the Russians, *really*
> believed in minimizing bloodshed we would have seen them
> pressing for the removal of Saddam through some peaceful
Nasty though his regime is, just what are the numbers associated with it?
Just what is the total amount of bloodshed, and how does it compare against
other things in the world?
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 09 2003 - 15:50:06 MDT