I have variations of this discussion all the time with people. Since most people I can stomach are liberals, I usually make a conservative argument in favor of the war (although there are many fine conservative arguments against the war).
These are the points ignoring the WMD stuff. I thought the WMDs and Al Qaeda stuff were red herrings from the beginning. It was fairly clear that they were not focusing on the median assessments, only the most extreme possibilities.
1. Saddam Hussein knew how to manipulate the US and UN. Since the Gulf War he would constantly push us until we would get pissed off. When it looked like the US would actually act against him he would back down. He kept pushing our limits in the hope of extending them.
2. Iraq and Iran are Not Very Nice States (NVNS), as is North Korea. Iran is undergoing some major upheaval. They almost definitely have nukes, but they are also in a time of flux. It is not clear what is going to happen with them over the next 20 years. North Korea has nukes, but even if they didn't the could eradicate Seoul with mortars. Any attack on North Korea ends with Seoul destroyed. Question: I wonder if China invading N. Korea would prevent them from shelling Seoul. I mean, we all know that China doesn't give a crap about who dies to accomplish their goals. Just look at their tactics in war.. grind up their soldiers without a second thought. Iraq (and possibly Syria) was the one NVNS that we could securely invade.
3. The Middle East is totally screwed up. We facilitated the instability for a long time. This was to our strategic advantage, but on 9/11 it is starting to look like that modern technology has made this instability a threat to America itself. Since oil is so damn important, we cannot let the place fall into anarchy. We need to "change the facts on the ground." *puke*
4. We need to show that we won't take crap from petty dictators any longer. There are lots of potential NVNS in waiting, and they need to be put on alert that they can't rely on Europe and the United States's complacence (or wimpiness), China's lack of concern about countries not directly their neighbor, and the UN's total wussiness when thinking about future military endeavors. We need to send a message to the world that someone will hold you accountable.
5. We need to create an arab democracy to show that it can be done. It may inspire other countries to move forward with reforms.
6. Oil. It is easy for many people to say, "No Blood For Oil", but the truth is the US (and many developing countries) are totally irresponsible in their oil consumption. With China starting to suck up a lot of the oil supply, a serious drop in supplies could result in a global recession as the price skyrockets. Plus, most Americans don't like Arabs, so apparently their blood doesn't count.
7. Whether or not they have WMD's, Saddam wanted them, and he hates the US an awful lot.
There are other reasons beyond these seven (and they are in no particular order), but these are the main ones in my estimation. Even if you ignore the flaws in each idea, I still find the case for war unconvincing.
A. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are the problem. They are a result of economic depression, fundamentalist religion, and the fact that we've worked with, created, and then turned a blind eye to some really horrible regimes there. Also, since no country can mount a credible military threat to us, they must work as non-state actors against us. These are the sorts of foes we'll be facing forever. We need to find a way to combat these non-state actors. Securing our borders, promoting economic prosperity in Jordan, Dubai and other well-behaved countries, not being seen as anti-arab or islam, building a strong intelligence network and special forces military establishment to hunt down and kill the bastards, are all examples of better ways to use our finite resources (in people and money) to combat the long term
There is an excellent article entitled The Oil We Eat on Harper's website about how it currently takes 1.1 calories of oil energy to produce 1 calorie of food energy. It is very interesting.
I find the idea that we've so badly damaged the topsoil in the that the midwest is effectively 6 feet lower than it was 200+ years ago to be particularly interesting.
I generally agree with the parent's sentiments, but it is hard to get a program that deals properly with:
1. Helping people who are having trouble getting work for any number of reasons.
2. Doesn't provide so much support that those not inclined to work are comfortable not working.
3. Doesn't punish kids for having layabouts for parents.
The question is: Is the benefit of social assistance for issues 1 & 3 greater than the societal cost of issue 2.
Then there is always the issue of making sure we have a society that gives enough support to disadvantaged people that they feel part of society instead of outside of it. People who feel that they can't get ahead tend to become societal drains, either as public service leeches or as criminals.
This bill came up as a Suspension Bill in the House. Suspension bills are usually only lightly debated (if at all), are unable to be amended, and must pass by a 2/3'rds majority.
The most common use of a Suspension bill? To rename a Post Office.
I honestly don't know much about this bill, and while the average/.'er may know more than the average American, I doubt any of us know a ton about what it specifically does.
It is shameful that this bill was put up and passed without any serious debate or review (outside of committee, if even there) by the actual Members of Congress.
Not to bring down what is a lighthearted conversation, but the discussion of killing contractors is actually relevant right now. The guerillas are actively targeting the reconstruction crews in Iraq. They view them in the same light that they view the armed forces. Now that we sit on the Empire's side of the whole contractor debate, do we view the death of the contractor's as any more or less tragic then the death of the soldiers?
Dan Savage (of Savage Love fame) has a great theory on the appeal of gambling. It basically boils down to the idea that, given how controlled our lives are in general, we have relatively few times where things can go seriously wrong or right. Gambling provides us with the thrill of possible extreme success and extreme failure that is lacking in our daily lives.
is a network of bots that know how to communicate with each other. Then they when they randomly end up in the same room, they can team-play and totally destroy even really good players.
If the gambling industry went belly up tomorrow, I for one would not be sorry in the least.
Libertarians want to replace all regulatory agencies with the judicial system. We already have an overly litigious society, imagine what happens when every problem is resolved in the courtroom. Maybe trial lawyers should stop supporting Democrats and start pushing the Libertarian party...
Every regulatory agency has major problems, many of them coming because of nasty directives passed from the legislative and executive branches, but by and large they benefit both companies and consumers (yes, it is possible to benefit both). By forcing companies to behave within certain guidelines it no longer means that you compete by cutting any and all costs. Remember, before the FDA, snake oil salesman was a lucrative form of business (I guess one could argue it still is...). It also benefits consumers because who wants to win 5 million dollars at the cost of their youngest daughter's life!
What insight do Libertarian's provide as to how they will balance the poor and middle classes' ability to protect themselves from a corporation's action? If you don't already have money in a libertarian society, you are even more of a second class citizen then you are in our current society.
You can't expect corporations to behave as anything less than profit-maximizing firms. If they know that it will cost them 2 billion dollars in lawyer's fees and settlements to make 10 billion dollars over the cost of production, then they will do so.. the consequences to the rest of us be damned. Given the vagaries of our law system, you can't rely on the fact that the cost of a lawsuit will be equal to the economic damages associated with a corporation's particular action.
I'm not in any way trying to demonize corporations. They behave exactly as they should, as profit maximizing entities. It is our job as consumers and voters to make sure that the profit maximization is only a result of meeting our needs.
That while Liberal Democrats fetishize the 60's with their free speech, protests, and somewhat successful battles for feminism and civil rights issues...
and while Republicans fetishize the 50's with their tight nuclear families, single income households, burgeoning economy, and repressed wives...
that Libertarians fetishize the Wild West where everyone is armed, the main currency is gold, and we shoot unwelcome Mexicans on sight?
That while Liberal Democrats fetishize the 60's with their free speech, protests, and somewhat successful battles for feminism and civil rights issues...
and while Republicans fetishize the 50's with their tight nuclear families, single income households, burgeoning economy, and repressed wives...
that Libertarians fetishize the Wild West where everyone is armed, the main currency is gold, and we shoot unwelcome Mexicans on sight?
Well, the few families who owned the river property could, but what about the other town families? There is no public property so the residents of the town could not sue. Maybe the privately owned water company could sue as well, but this still doesn't solve the problems of the majority of families.
After reading your comment I decided to check out a Liberterian FAQ on environmental policy.
It is an interesting read, and does a nice job showing that public property needs to be maintained more like private property. Unfortunately it contains statements designed to comfort by dodging truly complex questions:
>> You could think of many other sticky examples that are a lot less clear than this, but it is always possible to sort things out.
A paper mill opens upstream from a small town. The mill begins dumping chemicals into the river. As the town's health problems slowly begin to increase, property values begin to drop. Eventually the townspeople are dying young of cancer, birthing children with horrific birth defects, and are too poor to be able to move.
This happens today when we have some sort of regulation. It has been empirically demonstrated that most Americans don't care enough about these issues to substantially alter their buying habits to prevent this from happening. If the government abdicates its regulation role, if we unfetter corporations from laws demanding that they behave within certain norms, if the government doesn't have resources to help these people, should we just turn a blind eye and think of these problems as the cost of doing business. Higher GDP built on the lives of someone else's children?
While it is very clear that the government regulates any number of things, it is not consequently the case that no regulation is a better solution.
Slashdot Mirror
I have variations of this discussion all the time with people. Since most people I can stomach are liberals, I usually make a conservative argument in favor of the war (although there are many fine conservative arguments against the war).
.. grind up their soldiers without a second thought. Iraq (and possibly Syria) was the one NVNS that we could securely invade.
These are the points ignoring the WMD stuff. I thought the WMDs and Al Qaeda stuff were red herrings from the beginning. It was fairly clear that they were not focusing on the median assessments, only the most extreme possibilities.
1. Saddam Hussein knew how to manipulate the US and UN. Since the Gulf War he would constantly push us until we would get pissed off. When it looked like the US would actually act against him he would back down. He kept pushing our limits in the hope of extending them.
2. Iraq and Iran are Not Very Nice States (NVNS), as is North Korea. Iran is undergoing some major upheaval. They almost definitely have nukes, but they are also in a time of flux. It is not clear what is going to happen with them over the next 20 years. North Korea has nukes, but even if they didn't the could eradicate Seoul with mortars. Any attack on North Korea ends with Seoul destroyed. Question: I wonder if China invading N. Korea would prevent them from shelling Seoul. I mean, we all know that China doesn't give a crap about who dies to accomplish their goals. Just look at their tactics in war
3. The Middle East is totally screwed up. We facilitated the instability for a long time. This was to our strategic advantage, but on 9/11 it is starting to look like that modern technology has made this instability a threat to America itself. Since oil is so damn important, we cannot let the place fall into anarchy. We need to "change the facts on the ground." *puke*
4. We need to show that we won't take crap from petty dictators any longer. There are lots of potential NVNS in waiting, and they need to be put on alert that they can't rely on Europe and the United States's complacence (or wimpiness), China's lack of concern about countries not directly their neighbor, and the UN's total wussiness when thinking about future military endeavors. We need to send a message to the world that someone will hold you accountable.
5. We need to create an arab democracy to show that it can be done. It may inspire other countries to move forward with reforms.
6. Oil. It is easy for many people to say, "No Blood For Oil", but the truth is the US (and many developing countries) are totally irresponsible in their oil consumption. With China starting to suck up a lot of the oil supply, a serious drop in supplies could result in a global recession as the price skyrockets. Plus, most Americans don't like Arabs, so apparently their blood doesn't count.
7. Whether or not they have WMD's, Saddam wanted them, and he hates the US an awful lot.
There are other reasons beyond these seven (and they are in no particular order), but these are the main ones in my estimation. Even if you ignore the flaws in each idea, I still find the case for war unconvincing.
A. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are the problem. They are a result of economic depression, fundamentalist religion, and the fact that we've worked with, created, and then turned a blind eye to some really horrible regimes there. Also, since no country can mount a credible military threat to us, they must work as non-state actors against us. These are the sorts of foes we'll be facing forever. We need to find a way to combat these non-state actors. Securing our borders, promoting economic prosperity in Jordan, Dubai and other well-behaved countries, not being seen as anti-arab or islam, building a strong intelligence network and special forces military establishment to hunt down and kill the bastards, are all examples of better ways to use our finite resources (in people and money) to combat the long term
There is an excellent article entitled The Oil We Eat on Harper's website about how it currently takes 1.1 calories of oil energy to produce 1 calorie of food energy. It is very interesting.
There is also an interesting Atlantic Monthly article about how GM foods may be good for the environment.
I find the idea that we've so badly damaged the topsoil in the that the midwest is effectively 6 feet lower than it was 200+ years ago to be particularly interesting.
I generally agree with the parent's sentiments, but it is hard to get a program that deals properly with:
1. Helping people who are having trouble getting work for any number of reasons.
2. Doesn't provide so much support that those not inclined to work are comfortable not working.
3. Doesn't punish kids for having layabouts for parents.
The question is: Is the benefit of social assistance for issues 1 & 3 greater than the societal cost of issue 2.
Then there is always the issue of making sure we have a society that gives enough support to disadvantaged people that they feel part of society instead of outside of it. People who feel that they can't get ahead tend to become societal drains, either as public service leeches or as criminals.
This bill came up as a Suspension Bill in the House. Suspension bills are usually only lightly debated (if at all), are unable to be amended, and must pass by a 2/3'rds majority.
/.'er may know more than the average American, I doubt any of us know a ton about what it specifically does.
The most common use of a Suspension bill? To rename a Post Office.
I honestly don't know much about this bill, and while the average
It is shameful that this bill was put up and passed without any serious debate or review (outside of committee, if even there) by the actual Members of Congress.
Oh well, it happens all the time.
Not to bring down what is a lighthearted conversation, but the discussion of killing contractors is actually relevant right now. The guerillas are actively targeting the reconstruction crews in Iraq. They view them in the same light that they view the armed forces. Now that we sit on the Empire's side of the whole contractor debate, do we view the death of the contractor's as any more or less tragic then the death of the soldiers?
As much as I think that Bush the Junior has no use for atheists, this interview was conducted between Sherman and Bush the Elder.
Here is the link to the article.
Dan Savage (of Savage Love fame) has a great theory on the appeal of gambling. It basically boils down to the idea that, given how controlled our lives are in general, we have relatively few times where things can go seriously wrong or right. Gambling provides us with the thrill of possible extreme success and extreme failure that is lacking in our daily lives.
is a network of bots that know how to communicate with each other. Then they when they randomly end up in the same room, they can team-play and totally destroy even really good players.
If the gambling industry went belly up tomorrow, I for one would not be sorry in the least.
Libertarians want to replace all regulatory agencies with the judicial system. We already have an overly litigious society, imagine what happens when every problem is resolved in the courtroom. Maybe trial lawyers should stop supporting Democrats and start pushing the Libertarian party ...
.. the consequences to the rest of us be damned. Given the vagaries of our law system, you can't rely on the fact that the cost of a lawsuit will be equal to the economic damages associated with a corporation's particular action.
Every regulatory agency has major problems, many of them coming because of nasty directives passed from the legislative and executive branches, but by and large they benefit both companies and consumers (yes, it is possible to benefit both). By forcing companies to behave within certain guidelines it no longer means that you compete by cutting any and all costs. Remember, before the FDA, snake oil salesman was a lucrative form of business (I guess one could argue it still is...). It also benefits consumers because who wants to win 5 million dollars at the cost of their youngest daughter's life!
What insight do Libertarian's provide as to how they will balance the poor and middle classes' ability to protect themselves from a corporation's action? If you don't already have money in a libertarian society, you are even more of a second class citizen then you are in our current society.
You can't expect corporations to behave as anything less than profit-maximizing firms. If they know that it will cost them 2 billion dollars in lawyer's fees and settlements to make 10 billion dollars over the cost of production, then they will do so
I'm not in any way trying to demonize corporations. They behave exactly as they should, as profit maximizing entities. It is our job as consumers and voters to make sure that the profit maximization is only a result of meeting our needs.
That while Liberal Democrats fetishize the 60's with their free speech, protests, and somewhat successful battles for feminism and civil rights issues ...
...
and while Republicans fetishize the 50's with their tight nuclear families, single income households, burgeoning economy, and repressed wives
that Libertarians fetishize the Wild West where everyone is armed, the main currency is gold, and we shoot unwelcome Mexicans on sight?
That while Liberal Democrats fetishize the 60's with their free speech, protests, and somewhat successful battles for feminism and civil rights issues ...
and while Republicans fetishize the 50's with their tight nuclear families, single income households, burgeoning economy, and repressed wives ...
that Libertarians fetishize the Wild West where everyone is armed, the main currency is gold, and we shoot unwelcome Mexicans on sight?
Well, the few families who owned the river property could, but what about the other town families? There is no public property so the residents of the town could not sue. Maybe the privately owned water company could sue as well, but this still doesn't solve the problems of the majority of families.
8 /0 024.html
After reading your comment I decided to check out a Liberterian FAQ on environmental policy.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~callib/archives/S9
It is an interesting read, and does a nice job showing that public property needs to be maintained more like private property. Unfortunately it contains statements designed to comfort by dodging truly complex questions:
>> You could think of many other sticky examples that are a lot less
clear than this, but it is always possible to sort things out.
How do you respond to this situation?
A paper mill opens upstream from a small town. The mill begins dumping chemicals into the river. As the town's health problems slowly begin to increase, property values begin to drop. Eventually the townspeople are dying young of cancer, birthing children with horrific birth defects, and are too poor to be able to move.
This happens today when we have some sort of regulation. It has been empirically demonstrated that most Americans don't care enough about these issues to substantially alter their buying habits to prevent this from happening. If the government abdicates its regulation role, if we unfetter corporations from laws demanding that they behave within certain norms, if the government doesn't have resources to help these people, should we just turn a blind eye and think of these problems as the cost of doing business. Higher GDP built on the lives of someone else's children?
While it is very clear that the government regulates any number of things, it is not consequently the case that no regulation is a better solution.