From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 00:43:31 MDT
>
> Not like they've vastly different from us in that respect.
> People are dying
> in North Korea, and we do close to nothing.
Besides billions in aide, I guess thats close to nothing. In any case, the
US tried to do something about 1 murderous dictator and was criticized by
the appeasing liberal world for doing something about said government which
it could be argued posed a credible threat to US civilians. North Korea
doesnt really pose a threat to the US in the same manner Hussein did, but I
wish we rolled right in thier and disposed *that* murderous dictator as
well, given the horrific conditions in North Korea which I have repeatedly
posted. Of course, the US would just be called colonialist, imperialist,
arrogant, etc.
People are dying
> throughout the
> Third World due to lack of food, water, hygiene, or medicine, and
> we don't do
> much.
Again, when we try to oust the murderous oppresive governments that *cause*
the vast majority of these issues, we get nothing but criticism.
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.
I guess you cant count the millions of lives that were saved by preventing
the spread of murderous communism. Preventing the change of South Korea to
communism alone surely saved millions of laves from starvation and execution
as enemies of the state, and surely saved the entire south korean populace
from enslavement.
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.
On that I agree, depending of course if said third world country actually
allowed its own people to acquire wealth and own property, which many do
not, instead of lining the pockets of despotic rulers.
> 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."
>
Those are UN sanctions, and were imposed after the incident and Halabja was
brought to light by the Iranian govermnent. I should note that the kurdish
controlled north saw none of the problems that Saddam's controlled southern
parts saw, including the attrocious infant mortality rates, and the North
was under the same sanctions as the south. Additionally, no one has the
*right* to be a dictator, not even Saddam, and as such he is morally
culpable to anything that happens to his people in response to his shitty
dictatorial actions.
> > 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?
Conservative estimates, as mentioned before, suggest 200,000 deaths at the
hands of Saddam's Regime, not counting military deaths. North Korea, by
comparison, sees some 1 to 2 million deaths from starvation every year,
while its field and factories remain empty, it recieves billions in
international aide, and maintains a standard army of 1 million, with
artillery cannons perpetually aimed at Seoul.
> Just what is the total amount of bloodshed, and how does it
> compare against
> other things in the world?
>
Considering you seem to be criticizing this attempt to do something about
'things in the world' I dont see how pointing out how little we have done to
stop other 'things in the world' can be used as an implied reason not to do
something about this particular attrocity. Thats sort of like 'Why bother
arresting this mugger, you arent aresting all of them'
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 00:37:24 MDT