Ali, you plainly blew your DW case the moment everybody first learned that you first tried to make that case with Lady Huffington.
The Croatians have a saying that "the dog doesn't bark for the benefit of the village". Applied here, it means that Huffington runs somebody's political screeds only is they serve her leftist and not-infrequently anti-US causes.
Dean Esmay has his shortcomings. But you can't say doesn't allow folks access to Dean's World for purposes of denouncing what he holds precious. My lengthy and bitter arguments with him over his own religion, in which we still remain friends after we've talked ourselves out, is a good example of the treatment I would get nowhere else. And I'm sure you would not give me posting privileges on your blogsite for purposes of fervently hoping that Israel holds all the local islamic states to thermonucler blackmail. So Dean's World remains something very special on the blogworld.
My judgement is that he plainly has cut you a lot of slack here, all things considered.
Unlike Dean, I don't really believe in this democracy stuff to begin with. And certainly not as they are attempting to apply it to islamic societies.
So I certainly would have approved of the USA send all that armed force into Iraq to grab control of their intact oil fields. And I would not have bothered attempting to change the way of life of the folks who live there.
Frankly, I was just as surprised as most other Americans of the depth of hatred between the Sun'a and Shi'a, and the cleavage-based opportunity this presented both to al-Qaida for the one side and the iranians for the other. So I don't tend to blame the Bush administration too much for not understanding all that in advance.
support, generally, but would have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. debt forgiveness could be used as a lever to try to achieve even more broadly humanitarian ends, such as liberalization of in-debt and illiberal countries.
Why don't we just teach them how to create economic systems that create and spread wealth?
Wait a minute...I'm getting a message...
Ah. I see. It's been cleared up for me.
It appears that the economic system that has proven most successful at reducing the poverty that used to be the status quo for the vast majority of humanity for millenia is widely despised by those intellectuals who speak on behalf of the Third World, and who run or strongly influence policy towards said unfortunate region.
Why don't we start by forgiving the debts of college students who went buck-wild with their first credit card? They can keep whatever they bought, should they still have it. This would allow them to pursue the jobs they really want and to not have to spend the next twenty years paying for the things they bought.
I think the proper analogy is more like forgiving the debt of 100 college students who had their credit cards ganked by some tinpot nutjob and ran up a huge bill of shit that helped them not a whit. Or at least that's the type of thing I'd be looking for in the case-by-case scenario I mentioned above.
Yeah, let's forgive the debt of tinpot dictators so that they can use the savings on making the payments so that they can improve the means by which they oppress their populations.
Anyone who doesn't support loan forgiveness but does support military interventions, really needs to get your priority straights. Again, the point remains: if you want to help improve other people's lives, the first step is economic engagement, not military. How many of you opposed the Clinton economic sanctions regime? Not a single one. You just sat passively by as 500,000 people (Albright's own words, died). Spare me your post 9/11 humanitarianism.
For economic engagement to work, the gov't must actually want the lives of their populations to get better. Helping the gov'ts whose goal is the oppression of their population only helps to further the oppression.
* The UN Security Council proposes Resolution 706, a "food for oil" resolution, allowing Iraq to export up to $1.6bn of oil, the revenue from which would be paid into a UN-administered account. This money would then only be used to buy food, medicines and other essential material for Iraqis over a six month period. Some of this money would also be used to meet compensation payments to Kuwait and the cost of UN operations.
Needless to say all other efforts were blocked by Saddam to keep foreigners out. The Oil for Food was primarily used by Iraq to line it's leader's pockets and bribe UN members and member nations.
From a practical point of view Saddam wanted those people to starve and die of illness. That was the main lever he had against the sanctions keeping him tied down. For whatever reason he preferred to let people die to hold hope of keeping some of what ever he held secret.
In the lenses of hindsight we can't see why he might have done so. However the burden of proof was always his (he did start he wars after all) and he always tried to hold something significant back and we'll never fully know why.
The blood of those people are on his hands not for the lack of effort on our (the west's) part.
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
The Croatians have a saying that "the dog doesn't bark for the benefit of the village". Applied here, it means that Huffington runs somebody's political screeds only is they serve her leftist and not-infrequently anti-US causes.
Dean Esmay has his shortcomings. But you can't say doesn't allow folks access to Dean's World for purposes of denouncing what he holds precious. My lengthy and bitter arguments with him over his own religion, in which we still remain friends after we've talked ourselves out, is a good example of the treatment I would get nowhere else. And I'm sure you would not give me posting privileges on your blogsite for purposes of fervently hoping that Israel holds all the local islamic states to thermonucler blackmail. So Dean's World remains something very special on the blogworld.
My judgement is that he plainly has cut you a lot of slack here, all things considered.
Unlike Dean, I don't really believe in this democracy stuff to begin with. And certainly not as they are attempting to apply it to islamic societies.
So I certainly would have approved of the USA send all that armed force into Iraq to grab control of their intact oil fields. And I would not have bothered attempting to change the way of life of the folks who live there.
Frankly, I was just as surprised as most other Americans of the depth of hatred between the Sun'a and Shi'a, and the cleavage-based opportunity this presented both to al-Qaida for the one side and the iranians for the other. So I don't tend to blame the Bush administration too much for not understanding all that in advance.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Wait a minute...I'm getting a message...
Ah. I see. It's been cleared up for me.
It appears that the economic system that has proven most successful at reducing the poverty that used to be the status quo for the vast majority of humanity for millenia is widely despised by those intellectuals who speak on behalf of the Third World, and who run or strongly influence policy towards said unfortunate region.
Well, that clears it up.
Loan forgiveness it is, then.
Forever and ever.
I don't want to be a humanitarian. Too much ideological baggage.
I'll take things on a case-by-case basis.
Take things on a case-by-base basis?
What are you? Some sort of raving ideologue?
You're one of them case-by-casist extremists, and you people are responsible for all the suffering in the world!
!
!!!!
I think the proper analogy is more like forgiving the debt of 100 college students who had their credit cards ganked by some tinpot nutjob and ran up a huge bill of shit that helped them not a whit. Or at least that's the type of thing I'd be looking for in the case-by-case scenario I mentioned above.
To which I can only reply
That'll solve Africa's problems.
Ariana doesn't tell me what to think much the same way Dean doesn't tell me what to think.
Nothing? You're clearly either ignorant of history or deliberately misrepresenting (i.e. lying about it.
Needless to say all other efforts were blocked by Saddam to keep foreigners out. The Oil for Food was primarily used by Iraq to line it's leader's pockets and bribe UN members and member nations.
From a practical point of view Saddam wanted those people to starve and die of illness. That was the main lever he had against the sanctions keeping him tied down. For whatever reason he preferred to let people die to hold hope of keeping some of what ever he held secret.
In the lenses of hindsight we can't see why he might have done so. However the burden of proof was always his (he did start he wars after all) and he always tried to hold something significant back and we'll never fully know why.
The blood of those people are on his hands not for the lack of effort on our (the west's) part.
However, I don't believe it will do a lick of good unless the countries we forgive the debt to shed their brutal dictatorships.
After all, I think Aziz has it exactly backwards: democracy is usually the first requirement of liberalization, not the result of liberalization.
It doesn't always succeed of course. But nothing does.
I say, sure, debt forgiveness--and no more loans to non-democratic nations.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.