Political Questions - Please Help!
I have a project that is due in tomorrow, and I need your opinions on these questions.
AIDS
How big do you think the aids problem is in Africa?
Do you think the amount of money being spent on AIDS research and prevention is adequate?
Do you think money should be spent on prevention or treating people who are all ready sick?
Do you think that anti-viral medication should be made available to poor people?
*******
IRAQ
Do you think that Iraq should split into separate countries, depending on the different cultural groups?
Do you think American invasion of Iraq made people's lives better in the long run, or worse?
Do you think that Iraq is turning into a Vietnam type situation, and the best policy would be to withdraw before more troops die?
Do you think the America was justified in invading Iraq?
Do you think withdrawal from Iraq would embolden terrorists?
For the record, this is IMHO.
AIDS:
1. From what I've heard AIDS is spiralling out of control. I heard something like it was 1 in 3 in South Africa, or maybe that was jsut a portion, I don't know. 1 out of anything is too many.
2. No. AIDS is being completely underfunded. I know we all care, but there's just not enough being done.
3. Well from what I know, there is no cure, so one you have AIDS there's no turning back. If all the money went into prevention and immunization, there would be no need for this level.
4. This depends. Poor people worldwide is a given, mostly because there simply isn't enough money going around in the infected parts of Africa. For poor people in America, not with a Republican Administration.
IRAQ:
1. No. If we are jury-rigging some government, it might as well be a big one.
2. In the long run, yes. This mostly applies to the people of Iraq, look what America did for Germany and Japan after WWII (not to say these countries wouldn't have been alright without us, just statistic-wise...).
3. Personally yes. I wasn't around during Vietnam, and when the war in Iraq started I didn't really have a grip on the situation. Really though, I think even people who strongly back the war have been asking why we're still around.
4. Yes and No. If Mr. Bush was right about the Weapons, totally. But now the reason has switched to expelling Saddam, which brings us back to why we are still around in Iraq. Not to say we aren't helping out a country in the long run, but we are really sticking our noses where it doesn't belong.
5. Not really, of course I'm not one of them, and have nothing to compare this kind of situation to.
Sorry about the Bush-bashing and the War-hating, and the overuse of "us". I'm not into politics and can't say I would've voted in the 04 election if I could've. Just my opinions, hope they help out.
thank you very much. :)
Huge. No. Both. Yes. Has anyone thought to ask the "Iraqis." For those who lived, worse. Define "best" in this situation. Absolutely no. I know that military occupation doesn't seem to dishearten terrorists.
Good luck on that project.
I'm gonna sound like an ass here, basically because I am when it comes to this subject... but as far as funding for AIDS go(and I'll admit I don't know shit about figures), I believe that with the amount of money already spent on AIDS and cancer research if we don't have what we're looking for by now, I say we stop wasteing the money, there are plenty of better things we could be donating to(we do have a huge homeless problem) than to pay salaries to a bunch of research scientists who have no responsibility to bring in results... I mean why are we sending so much money to help african people who aren't willing to help solve the problem when we have people here living on the streets, or not being able to pay for healthcare for non-ultimately lethal illnesses.
Well you are right in the first statement in your post. The rest of it is pretty close to cretin level.
Sorry when it comes to AIDS, I know a whole hell of a lot about it.
Sorry I'm turning this in a little late. Will you take off five points?
AIDS
Really big.
I feel like they have plenty of money, but they're still not coming up with anything, so I feel like they need fresh ingenuity more than cold hard cash.
Both.
Yes.
IRAQ
No, they're gonna have to learn to live with each other. The different states of the U.S., after all, have very different cultures associated with them.
Worse, for both American and Iraqi lives.
Well, we never should've gone there in the first place, but since we've gotten this far, I guess we might as well finish what we started rather than leaving Iraq a broken nation with no system of government.
Absolutely not.
No, I think the terrorists would consider that a step in the right direction.
[EDIT]: By the way, I didn't read 0dysseus's answers until after I posted. Really!
You get ten bonus points whenever we agree.
I know very few people who would get more than your 65 bonus points. So... congratulations! to at least one of us.
I hope that you don't mind if I ask you about two of the questions where we might not be in sync. They actually might be the same question. "Do you think that Iraq should split into separate countries, depending on the different cultural groups? " and "Do you think that Iraq is turning into a Vietnam type situation, and the best policy would be to withdraw before more troops die? "
I'll turn the first question on its head and ask if three different cultures should be joined into one country, depending on boundaries determined by the West? Iraq is an artificial country with lines drawn in the desert (and the sand) by the Western Allies. I like your comparison to the different cultures existing within the United States (although how well they co-exist could be a weighty thesis topic.) But the New World was cleaned out of its old inhabitants when the individual states were set up.
I think a closer analogy would be to think about how much sense state borders would make if they were used to divide up the Indian population (err, Native-Americans... unless you attend Florida State.) I admit that it is difficult to think about it in this way because students are taught about Indian history through the lens of the colonizers. If students are taught at all. For example: at their peak the Iroquois (err, Haudenosaunee) controlled territory from Michigan to Kentucky to New England, Ontario, Quebec, New York, Pennsylvania... and they were a coalition of five (and then six) nations. You get my point.
Which brings me back to my point. Shia, Sunni and Kurd societies don't lie along or even within Iraq's borders. This is why Turkey is so nervous about an independent Kurdish state and why Iranian "influence" on the Shias is a fact of life. Does Iraq need to be kept together in the same way that Tito kept Yugoslavia together, the way that Stalin kept the USSR together and, well... the way that Saddam kept Iraq together? Should we want that? Is it possible? What is "best"? Have I missed the point entirely? Have I missed the point partially? Do I have a point?
Which brings me to my second point, same as the first (a little bit louder and a little bit...) My response to whether or not Iraq was turning into "another Vietnam" and what "the best policy would be" was "define "best" in this situation." Then I'll ask what it is that "we started"? (Can we finish? Should we want to? What's goin' on? Who let the dogs out? When will I see you again? Where the streets have no name? How can you mend a broken heart? and sometimes Why can't we be friends?)
That's the framework through which I am looking. The above is not to dispute but rather to discuss and understand (hopefully) your framework... or lens... or rose-coloured glasses... or whatever else you can look through.
All papers can be handed in at any time OR not handed in at all. You will be grading yourselves. Use of vulgar language will result in being dropped from the course and being labeled a "poopy head."
As for the first question, I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about the topic, but on homework like this my strategy is always to bluff my way through it and hope for some partial credit. But as for the variety of cultures in the States, I do think the dynamic sometimes leads to bitterness and resentment, but it also means that as a whole the country never gets too extreme in favor of any group of people. Granted, the Middle East already started out as pretty extremist, and they sometimes have, erm, interesting ways of expressing their bitterness and resentment there. You're right, we should just ask the Iraqis what they think.
Now as for the second question. What "we started" started as revenge for 9/11 and finding weapons of mass destruction. But since those strategies kinda fell through for Bush, he's now insisting the war on Iraq was always about liberating the Iraqi people. I see through this manipulative ploy, but since we've already gotten Iraq to agree to establish their own system of government, I do think it would be wrong to pull out now. Otherwise we'd just be imprisoning Iraq's leader, telling them to establish a constitutional government, and hitting the road. Maybe this process will never be finished, but we can at least come farther than this. If Bush wants to claim this war was about Iraqi liberation, he hasn't convinced me yet. Maybe if we stick it through until Iraq actually forms a solid, functioning government, the rest of the world will forgive us just a little bit. That's the most I can hope for.
Bluffing is a great tactic... I'm serious. I don't think people know how often I'm bluffing. Whenever I'm called on it I usually concede immediately although sometimes I'll try and discuss. Usually I cut and run, returning later to try and learn the lay of the land. I think of it as advancing beyond enemy lines and, upon meeting resistance, retreating to avoid any losses. You'd be amazed at how much territory you can claim without opposition. Twenty more points for you! (Also, I find that most people won't debate things they don't agree with until it is something with which they disagree. So I never get to the point where I'm learning from others unless I push things.)
Remember: points are like footnotes in President Bush's summer reading... they just don't matter.
I'm not sure that I agree with thinking that the Middle East starts out as pretty extremist. Perhaps I'm reading a prejudice into it that isn't there or perhaps I'm thinking of a different starting point and I'm certainly very sensitive about that. When you have an entire region where you can count the democracies on less than one hand "extremism" might be a moderate reaction. (You can count the countries in the Middle East where your vote means something on one finger.) Strife (religious and otherwise) has been a daily (monthly, yearly, centuries long) precense since before the first Crusaders. They all may be children of Abraham but that's goin' way back.
I'm fairly sure that, if asked, the Iraqis would want clean water to drink, electricity so that air conditioners run for more than two hours in a good day and safety so that men can go to work, children can go to the market and women can go outdoors. Lofty ideals (aka "platitudes"... thank you Jon Stewart) of "freedom on the march," "spreading democracy" and "finishing the mission" mean nothing to people who fear both insurgents and occupiers. I think this should be front and center in the thinking and, dare I hope, planning of the Coalition of the formerly Willing. Remember: the reason that the Taliban (who nobody liked) came to power in Afghanistan is because they made it safe to go out at night. I think that is instructive.
When you apply the label strategy to "revenge for 9/11 and finding weapons of mass destruction" I hope that you are referring to President Bush's rationalizations for starting the War on Iraq. (Revenge is a dish best served cold and not a strategy... neither is gazpacho.) I totally agree with you about seeing through "this manipulative ploy" and I am discouraged that more people don't see it as that. (Even if you can't remember what went on a couple of years ago there are records that exist. Speches were made. Votes were cast. News was reported... sort of.) But I don't see that the Iraqis agreed to anything except that Saddam was evil (and even then the Sunnis might quibble.)
I'm interested in why "it would be wrong to pull out now." I think I will probably agree with your reasoning (based on what I know about your worldview from reading some of your exchanges with lukeprog.) I think that having the West pull out would be a bad thing. But the alternative is staying and I can't see how that would be better. As friends of mine who were hosting parties used to say (back when I went to parties and had friends who hosted them) "You don't have to go home but you can't stay here." I find it interesting (and perceptive) that things have gone from remaking the Middle East and being greeted with sweets and flowers to hoping that "the rest of the world will forgive us just a little bit." That hope now seems awfully high to me.
Re-reading the above I am beginning to convince myself that it is all hopeless... I still hold out hope that I'm bluffing.
Sorry, I didn't mean that the Middle East originally started out as extremist way back when. I meant they're extremist now, so any new system of government they have would have to try to either embrace or quash the extremism. Whether or not extremism is an appropriate reaction to the conditions is an issue I'm not gonna touch.
Yes, I meant Bush's rationalizations, and I feel okay with calling his methods to try and get us to accept this war a "strategy." I agree that it's disappointing that people are so willing to accept how his supposed intentions have changed so much when new information was revealed. God, Bush could at least admit to making a mistake. He's like the dry cleaner on Seinfeld who ruined Jerry's shirt.
I wholeheartedly agree with your fourth paragraph.
I'm pretty sure the Iraqis did agree (though perhaps under duress) to draw up a constitution for their new government, and they've been working on it lately. Maybe not all Iraqi civilians were involved in this decision, but the head honchos were, at least.
It is kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I happen to think that, at this point, staying there would be slightly better than pulling out, simply because it would be seen as a lame cop-out if we just abandoned Iraq. Actually, what I'd really like is for Bush to ask the U.N. what they'd like him to do, but then again I'd also like to fly from here to Philadelphia on the back of a pig.
***Warning - Rare L. Bangs Political Statement***
While I opposed the war, now that we are there, I agree with AJ; we need to stay and to stabilize the country. One of the (if not THE) worst things you can do to a nation and its citizens is to pop in, remove the power structure, and then wave goodbye and leave. America has done this many times, and it pretty much always bites us in the ass. Besides, the morality of it is quite appalling.
One of the few things often worse than an iron-fisted stability is a complete chaos with warlords and clans battling to gain dominance.
Naturally, I would like to see us do this job much better (and with cleaner hands) than we have so far, but still...
I'll fade back into my art-related realms again now.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I appreciate your statement. Both the appearance and the sentiment. I apologize if I was being political as I certainly didn't intend to turn this into a political discussion.
What I'm wondering (or still confused about) is the possibility that the very presence of American troops in Iraq is making the Iraqi civil war worse. I totally agree and (with the notable exception of genocide) I can't think of a country doing anything worse than destroying the foundations of a society. I (think that I) can think of more than a couple of instances when America "remove[d] the power structure, and then wave[d] goodbye." I'm hoping that I (and everyone else) won't smack myself on the head after I post this but... I cannot think of a single example where staying in would have helped. Am I forgetting my United States history? (Or being an idiot? Or both?)
I also agree with you when you say that chaos is "often worse than an iron-fisted stability." I'm curious as to whether (or not) Iraq is going to require an iron fist. If it is then that brings up a host of issues. Everything from the constitutional "process" to troop levels to the American and/or Iraqi mindsets. (And if an iron fist isn't needed then: Why?.. and what is needed?)
I think that most everything (if not entirely everything) in Iraq (if not the entire Middle East) is "kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation." If so, what should be done to cause the least damnation? I'm not saying that civil war is good but I do wonder if any European power could have forcibly created the United States in the mid-1800s (The estimable historian Shelby Foote said of the American Civil War "Before the war, it was said 'the United States are.' Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always 'the United States is,' as we say to day without being self-conscious at all. And that's sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is.'") Could all of that bloodshed have been avoided?
Putting aside how legitimate the Iraqi "head honchos" are I don't see how a new constitution, an old constitution, articles of confederation or KFC's secret recipe for hummus makes a bit of difference to Iraqis. In fact, insisting upon writing a constitution might make things worse. Which begs the question, what does America (and Great Britain) think it can accomplish? I'm not arguing when you say you "agree with AJ; we need to stay and stabilize the country." I guess I'm still confused as to what can be done by staying in and why that would be better than pulling out.
When I pick you up at baggage claim in the Philadelphia International Airport I expect you to tell me that you would have taken the goat except you needed the miles (...make sure that you claim the truffles when going through customs.)
I really try to avoid politics on this site, and even now I feel the slope beneath my feet getting slippery, so I will (as a true coward?) avoid directly answering most of your comments above, but I will point out one little item. I think the US occupation of Japan after World War II is the gold standard of American nation building, and if it is more the exception than the rule, it at least proves that once America devastated (even set off nuclear weapons inside) a nation at war with it (a vicious war where Japan even was able to recruit an equivalent of suicide bombers [Kamikaze Pilots]) and through occupation and 'nation building' transformed the country into a friendly nation healthy enough to now be a vibrant competitor with us on most economical levels.
I also believe America was able to rebound from the Civil War better than it might have because the central power structure was battered but never destroyed. In Iraq, the situation is arguably quite different.
I suspect the American policy in Iraq has quite a bit to do with the belief that economic properity is contagious, and that if America can establish a democratic capitalist safeguard in the heart of the Middle East, an infectious movement toward such a government set-up will slowly move over the region, raising the standard of living and erasing much of the religious-fueled antagonism toward the US. I think the true hope is that this will prevent several more wars and terrorist activity in the future. Even though I opposed the start of the war, disagreeing that it was morally merited, I think there is some truth and wisdom in the above view. I am unfortunately enough of a cynic to think that unpersecuted economic prosperity does wonders to break down religious fundamentalism. (Oh boy, now I'm in trouble.)
And now I see I have slid even more. I think I'll sign off here. :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
PS - I may chicken out and not show up at the airport. I fear you might be out to get my goat. ;)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Please return your trays to the upright and locked positions.
I wonder how Nico's project turned out...
good, I got an "A". I never knew this thread would spark so much discusion.
rats!rats!rats!
What I meant to say was:
I'm sorry if I seemed a little gruff. If you don't mind waiting a mid-sized gruff will see you soon... followed by a big-bad gruff.
When I tell myself that I, like you, "really try to avoid politics on this site" I find that by "politics" I probably mean "partisanship." Or I make an exception for political philosophy. Pick a rationalization, any rationalization. What I was trying to get at was the disconnect between two (or more) cultures. (I regret bringing up President Bush and footnotes... I was just trying to be funny. Trying does not mean success... and vice versa.)
I'm not all that interested in discussing culture wars, culture clashes, clash of civilaizations... at least not here. But the norms and mores of two different cultures (two different countries, art forms, kinds of music, perspectives) that fascinates me. Throw in the lessons of history and it's rassle-mania time. No steel cages, no grudges and no matches. Besides, I was curious as to AJ's perspective since we pretty much seem to be in agreement. It's the little things that make life interesting.
Not to push everyone down the swirly slide but (to my recollection) Japan was allowed to keep its Emperor and (with the horrible exception of two cities) had most of its infrastructure intact. My point about the (American) Civil War was that there were numerous North-South differences (free-slave, industrial-agrarian, immigrant-native, working class-patrician, what-ever.) I don't think a European imposed resolution of any of those issues would have solved anything. To the contrary, I think that a settlement imposed by an outside force would've not only put off the inevitable explosion but made it much worse when it did finally come. Some would say that it took another century to put those issues to rest. Some others would say that those issues still remain relevant.
You've made me remember an example of where (America) staying in would have helped: the post-Civil War South. Pulling Northern troops out of a partially reconstructed South after the election of 1876 led to almost a century of Jim Crow. Election of 1876... talk about your blue state-grey state politics. Or don't.
The policies of the American government and the motivations behind them hold little mystery for me. What to do with a culture where the majority of the population is under thirty-five... that's mesmerizing. As for "unpersecuted economic prosperity" I don't think you're cynical enough by half.
To make ammends (and to end on the kind of cultural note that I intended to hit) let me point you to a fine review of Kingdom of Heaven by one of my favourite journalists, the legendary Robert Fisk.
You'd have to do a lot less than this to convince me of any cowardice on your part.
When the American colonies, with the help of the French and various Indian tribes, defeated the British, they didn't need the help of an occupying force to help them set up the new government. The people didn't agree on how it should be done but they somehow worked it out.
The situation is a little different in Iraq... the U.S. got rid of the Iraqi 'King George', but the Iraqi are intelligent people and it's their country so let them do it their way in their own time.
It's easy to rationalize the continuation of the U.S. involvement... "what we started, we got to finish"... but the real test of a person's convictions comes when it's his life on the line. What would you say if you were on the next plane to the front lines?
At the same time, residents of the American colonies (aside from Native Americans, that is) were just immigrants from Europe, so they always functioned under a system of constitutional government. I feel like Iraq never knew anything but Saddam. I do certainly hope the Iraqi government is a product of Iraqi intelligence and not just an America clone.
Your last statement is a good point, but I think you could say that about justified wars as well.