Do we really give a crap about helping people?

[YH]

Since I don't have any political affiliation here, I'm trying to generalize the intense political atmosphere here and treating it as a single phenomenon. I hope that no liberal is going to make this opportunity to say "Oh yeah, that's just the conservatives", or vice versa. That's really going to tick me off, especially since that nature of such a response is what I'm ranting about.

I usually hang out in one of my friend's rooms, right down the hall. The thing is though, he and his nextdoor neighbour happen to be Republicans, and in this state that's full of Democrats, Republicans have a tendancy to stick together and talk about themselves, their beliefs, etc. Maybe this factor, along with Fox News (which was on mostly in their two rooms), made me silently fume and think about issues.

I support the war in Iraq. Till this day, I still support it, despite all the rough times that have to go along with it. However, it's also a very sober issue - people die almost every day, merely because of the fact that the US is on Iraqi soil. And for what motivation?

I remember how it was before all this happened. I remember people's words, my own words, etc. I supported the war simply because Saddamn was an Evil Guy(tm), and that freeing the Iraqi people was the Right Thing To Do(tm). And yes, people would suffer, but things would be good in the long run. It was reallly comfortable saying it, in our couches in when we watch TV, or in front of our computers when we browse the forums. when half a world away, or a quarter of a world away people really were suffering because of the things we supported.

The question is: Were we too drunk on our pride and morality when we supported the war? Did we really understand what it meant to say "Yes, people will die, but things will be better in the long run"?

And now all this has happened, and now we can all heave our chests and boast that we are proud of what we supported. Can we?

The question is: Do we really care about the Iraqi people? Or are they just another topic that brings about opportunities for political rhetoric?

The TV stations, constantly showing one political event after another. People arguing over war records, Purple Hearts, people pointing at each other and saying "Traitor" or "Wimp". People saying "Look, I made this war happen!", or people saying "Look, I could've done better in this war!" The text that flies across all the forums throughout the internet. How much resources do we use simply by arguing about the election? How much of that could have been used in helping people? I sound like a hypocrite here..... This is not to say that it isn't bad, but we must question our own motives. Did we do this because we honestly believed in the Good Things?

Remember, there's a difference between our actions and our thoughts. We may have done the Right Thing through action, but it means crap if all our thoughts turned out to be selfish and focused on our National Security. Being a firm supporter of science, I still believe that a heaven/hell exists, and I don't think I'm going to getting on the A-list anytime soon by blindly supporting something and not realizing the consequences.

[tankkisankari]

It's really easy for many people to demand strong actions while sitting in their couch, it doesn't affect them that someone else dies or get's injured because of that action. It's just the prise you have to accept for what ever system you support.

It's also easy to demand that interrnational law should be obeyed at all times, and then get offended when countries back up their threats with force.

So, go figure...

As for the question, no. I dont really care about people who live far away and dont affect my life directly. I may feel sad that people die in conflicts, but i could't care less about individual people getting killed in Iraq or Sudan.

[XenoWolf]

What I don't understand is how the government thinks it can stabilize another country/government by using force. Common sense dictates otherwise. The more you stir up the pot, the more chaotic the situation is to become. Wheres the nukes? Oops. Wheres the democracy? Oops. But we found Saddam! Yay. Wheres Bin Laden? Oops. Personally I believe that Bush's priorities were beyond ass-backwards. Why do we 'care' so much about the suffering and plight of people in Iraq (magically, out of nowhere it would seem), when countries that honestly need our help with AIDS, famine and poor living conditions get turned a blind eye? Atleast Clinton got off his ass every once in awhile and tried solving problems through diplomacy, or 'small' attacks against very specific targets (Bin Laden comes to mind). Just my two-cents.

[MissCheetah]

Xeno, a blind eye is not turned towards issues of famine, AIDS, etc. The US gives HUGE amounts of aid in the form of money, food, fuel oil, and economic aid to countries around the world. I did not think that was a secret. The US even gives large amounts of aid to North Korea, not that the common people know that. The US also puts a lot of money and resources into peacekeeping forces in places like Bosnia, and around the world. Those are personnel who are only there to keep peace and help distribute aid, rebuild infrastructure like water and electric, etc. They work with the UN and international community on those missions but it is still all money out of our budget to support our troops in that effort. It gets expensive. It really is unfair to assume that it does not happen. Aid to other countries is often a pretty big issue especially when cuts in basics like education and medical care are being made at home. People think it is not fair to help others when people at home are suffering in some way. It is a a difficult line to walk for politicians and governments in any country. The US can not afford to support all the people in trouble across the world. It just can't be done. No one country can do that, nor should they have to.

Here, you can see that the US gives more money by far than any other country in the world, and this is the humanitarian aid for economic reform, health care, food, infrastructure repair, etc. This does not include military aid, peackeeping forces maintained as part of UN or NATO directives, etc.

http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2003.jpg

Some would argue that we don't give enough as a percentage of our total GNP (graph 2), but the fact remains that the US is the single largest donor of aid worldwide (graph 1).


WMDs including chemical weapons? Those are not a secret. Those were used during the first Gulf war by Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. They were also used on his own people to kill hudreds of thousands of them. UN inspectors found, and were working on removing, them but Saddam kept throwing up roadblocks until eventually the UN inspectors left. All evidence pointed to a game in which Saddam defied inernational sanctions on many issues including disposal of weapons. There was no question he was killing and torturing his own people.

The US did not decide to care about the people of Iraq out of nowhere. The US has been part of the international community who imposed sanctions on Saddam for his actions against Kuwait and against his own people. We have also been enforcing the "no-fly" zones established to protect minority regions in Iraq from further attacks by Saddam. This has been going on since I was a senior in HS back in 1990-91.

Sometimes, in a few instances, using force is the only way to resolve a conflict. People could have let WWII continue forever and just "condemned" it, while people died in concentration camps but that would have been morally wrong. The UN tried 12 years of diplomacy, resolutions, and even sanctions agains Iraq in an attempt to stop his behavior. That did not work.

Back to the original topic. YH, I really do think there are people who care in a real way. There are also people who sit back on couches and take credit in a political way for the hard work of others. Politics is tricky, and you are seeing an election year where they grab for any tiny thing that can be used against someone or as an advantage. I dislike the use of such issues as political pawns but I am afraid that is pretty much typical of elections. The other thing that is intersting to see, and very frustrating, is that when a new President is elected, he takes credit for any good that comes of the previous President's actions. Four years is a pretty short term and as a result changes made by a President often take a while to show results. Grar.

[Grumlen]

MC, I pretty much agree with everything you have to say, but just want to add a few things to it that generically throw things into question.

!) the United States of America is the REASON that Saddam rose to power. We put him there, and then condemn him when he does what we knew he would do.

2) As much as we might like to think we can be, we are not and should not be the world's police force. The US acted without the sanction of the UN or NATO in its invasion of Iraq.

3) The people in that region of the world have a very different culture from ours. Who's to say that they even want a democracy? Did we ASK the Iraqi people "Do you want us to invade your country, overthrow your government, and install one that we like?"

I'm not saying that we didn't need to do something about Iraq, but the way that we went about doing it was all wrong. We've really only managed to alienate a fair portion of the world and make asses out of ourselves.

In the end, the best way to overthrow a government is a reballion, not an invasion. The reason is that if a rebellion happens and succeed, it's generally because it has teh backing of the people. Once such a rebellion had taken place, we could have sent aid to them to help it succeed and then aid it in establishing itself. This method would have helped the US lose some of the stereotype that surrounds it in the Middle East and also have a more lasting effect.

[Azurain]

YH, I recently had a bit of an epiphany (not a good one) where I realized that I really don't care much about anyone other than myself or those who are close to me. Oh, certainly, in an abstract sense the suffering of others is significant, but when it comes down to it all that really matters to me is what affects myself or those I am in contact with (if I see a little girl crying on the street, that will really affect me, but if I read about a little girl being murdered, there's no contact so there's no significance attached to it).

I think this is normal and sensible, though. I certainly think ill of anyone who would condemn others for not having enough of a degree of concern for those they're not in contact with. That attitude implies that we have some sort of obligation, which we do not. I am obligated to my great family and extended family, close supportive friends, and amazingly tolerant girlfriend. The people close to me. That's all. To be honest, I feel very little empathy for anyone outside of that group. But that makes sense; my life is about me and yours is about you. The point of it all is to live your own life to the fullest, not to help others live theirs. So you give support and empathy to those around you, accept the same from them, and live your life for yourself. After all, if everybody tried to live their lives exclusively for the benefit of others, then nobody would truly appreciate life as they'd be too busy trying to help others (who would also be too busy helping others to appreciate the help, etc...).

As for the war on Iraq? The whole "we're helping the people there" thing is obviously just a salve for the conscience of the American (and other) public. The vast majority of Americans really don't care that much about the Iraqi people. What do you read in the headlines these past couple days? Is it about how many tens of thousands of Iraqi people have died because of the occupation? No. It's about 1000 US soldiers having died. And even then, how much does the average American really care about those 1000 soldiers, unless he happens to have some sort of direct connection with them (or with someone who's fighting there and risking his or her life)? There was a war because Iraq was seen as a threat to the developed world (and, if you're honest, to our necessary --alas!-- supply of oil). If we truly cared so much about the people of the nation, there are a good half dozen nations in which the people are significantly more oppressed and tyrannized than those in Iraq.

/me shrugs

-- Chris

(to make it clear, I have no firm stance on the war and am not in any way trying to object to the war itself, just to point out an inconsistency with the blatantly hypocritical attitude that we're doing it for the Iraqi people)

[Mr.Shroom]

[quote="MissCheetah";p="394471"]
WMDs including chemical weapons? Those are not a secret. Those were used during the first Gulf war by Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. They were also used on his own people to kill hudreds of thousands of them. UN inspectors found, and were working on removing, them but Saddam kept throwing up roadblocks until eventually the UN inspectors left. All evidence pointed to a game in which Saddam defied inernational sanctions on many issues including disposal of weapons. There was no question he was killing and torturing his own people.[/quote]

THANK YOU. I was begining to wonder if I was the only American still self-aware of whats been going on in that part of the world since the early eighties.

YH, I think the American people are alot more caring and sympathetic than the popular media tends to show. We're often reduced to being shown as skewed statistics and cold numbers, or by being reprented by the few moronic abberants who actually walk TOWARD the strange fellow with the clipboard accosting you on the street during your lesuire time, or in the worst case, by those who are either illogical or in the extreme, or whom simply use illogic and extremes to gain power\fame\attention.

Also keep in mind, we're ruled by a representative government which is often prone to heavy influences by overtly organized groups of a forgien or inter-homeland origion. Its not a great reflection of the people more often than not...but the underlying message for the ideal never changes. Unlike, thank god, the times and our political leaders.

[Martin Blank]

[quote="Grumlen";p="394533"]!) the United States of America is the REASON that Saddam rose to power. We put him there, and then condemn him when he does what we knew he would do.[/quote]
Saddam rose to power of his own accord. He was aggressive and bloodthirsty, and would to anything to get his way. For example, when he finally decided to consolidate his power, he had a number of senior elected representatives arrested one night as traitors to Iraq. Of several hundred people in the room, only he was smiling, because no one else knew whose name would be called next, though they all knew what it meant for those names that were mentioned. Most of those arrested that night were never seen alive again, if at all.

At the time, the US ally in the region was Iran. It was not until after the Shah was overthrown and Ayatollah Khomeini came to power that Iraq was seen more favorably.

2) As much as we might like to think we can be, we are not and should not be the world's police force. The US acted without the sanction of the UN or NATO in its invasion of Iraq.

When the UN has a problem with a nation, who is asked to park a carrier off the coast? It's been a long time since I've heard of a French or British aircraft carrier being the first responder to a crisis area. Who is asked to provide transport, and often primary control of operations?

Like it or not, as a result of the status of the US military, we are usually called upon first to carry out operations around the world, with the exception of a handful of former colonial areas where the British, French, or Dutch will handle things in a primary role. It comes with the territory.

3) The people in that region of the world have a very different culture from ours. Who's to say that they even want a democracy? Did we ASK the Iraqi people "Do you want us to invade your country, overthrow your government, and install one that we like?"

The majority of Iraqis are happy that Hussein is gone. They also recognize that they weren't going to be the ones to do it, or they'd have done it long ago. They may not be happy with the continuing presence of American troops, but they see why we're still there, and grudgingly accept it.

Getting back to YH's words:

Yes, I can say that I care about the Iraqi people. I've thought for a long time that it was a bad idea to let Hussein go for more than a couple of years without knocking some sense into him, or removing him altogether. There was a time when Baghdad was in enough shambles that it would have been possible to station a sniper or two, but within a couple of years, that became an impossible feat as Hussein took advantage of the air cover in the north and south of the country to withdraw more forces to ensure his grip on power stayed solid.

Everyone here, I think, has seen the Canadian article about how helpful the Americans are. We're sometimes slow to getting around to it -- I knew the Taleban were a bad thing shortly after they first popped in to take over Kabul, but it took the rest of the US a few years to notice -- but we usually catch on. We're starting to pay attention to a lot of the problems in Africa now, such as the civil war in the Sudan, which is more than I can say for our reaction to Rwanda (not to mention the rest of the world's -- tens of thousands dying by the hour and the UN wants to send a fact-finding mission and ask them to stop killing). There are other conflicts brewing there that could become significant problem points if left to fester. I hope that we can do something to get the concept of the African Union up and running and get them on the path to helping themselves maintain order.

[Grumlen]

I admit that I'm not fully up on my political facts, but the US did support Saddam in the past unless I am seriously mistaken.

Also, I'm well aware that the US is the enforcer of the UN. The reason for this is due mostly to the fact that we're more willing to sink ungodly amounts of money into our military. I hold no delusions about the actual power of the UN or NATO, but that doesn't mean that we should completely ignore them. Also, the reason why I say that we are not the world's police force is because, lets face, not all of the world WANTS us to be. In the past the US has been know to install leaders in countries that the people didn't like simply because the leader liked us. Some alturism there.

And finally, I never said that the Iraqi people didn't want Saddam gone. I was mostly alluding to the fact that we're essentially forcing a part of out culture on them without really asking first. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing was not the point.

As for the bit about our troops dying over there, and I know this sounds cold, but I feel no remorse over it. They knew what their job was when they signed up for it. If they didn't want to run the risk of dying, they shouldn't have joined the military. Simple.

I agree with you completely on the "slow to catch on" thing though. The US as a whole is apathetic when it comes to politics. The reason for this is mostly due to the bipartisan structure and general disillusionment with the government. We have no real system in place for supporting more than 2 political parties, and in fact have laws that basically prevent a 3rd party from ever really forming. I will freely admit to falling into this category, but I'm also aware that if I just gave up like most people that nothing will ever change. Americans, more than anyone, seem to turn into idiots as you add more people. The more of us there are, the dumber we get. Gotta love it.

[BadMonkey]

Saddam was supported by the west during the cold war (after he was in power) , through trading and providing intelligence for the Iranian war.
He also was indirectly supported by western intelligence agencies, when he attempted to have the Iraqi King assasinated in 1958 (he failed).

I think the vast majority of Iraqis who are pissed at the occupation aren't pro saddam hardliners, or extremists who want to replace them with another horrible regime, but ordinary Iraqis who know that its been a hell of a long time since they were treated fairly by a ruling regime, and aren't prepared to trust the US.

[Jamie Bond]

It may have started as a R&R... Sorta...

But I think it's time to send it home to the political forum

[Nekra]

while discussing this topic at work, this point of view was brought up. and it actually makes a lot of sense.

the region around Iraq was becoming a little angsty, potentially becoming dangerously unstable, Suddam, was CIA trained and was installed with support of the western world to bring some stability to the area, he wasn't a great choice, but he probably was the best at the time, he was a known quantity, and in this respect he was judgeable and predictable, however he was not a perfect solution and a better one would need to be implemented eventually. Various anti American terrorist groups were getting a bit full of themselves the 9/11 attack bringing this to everyone attention.
one of these terrorists arguments was amerces presence in Saudi, by attacking Iraq for what ever reasons they took out in just 3 weeks the most powerful regime in the area, in just 3 weeks, can you imagine what sort of message this sends to the neighbouring countries? Play ball with us or you will be next. Since we now don’t have to cross the Atlantic, were now in your back yard.
Now all those terrorist groups have turned their attention from attacking American soil to “Freeing Iraq” now think of it this way, what would you rather have, terrorist attacking a potentially random target against untrained civilians, or attacking armed reasonably well trained soldiers and mercenaries, who are paid to deal with this sort of action.
Strategically that’s a very good reason to be there, even if it would be politically suicide to admit it.

Posted Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:13 am:

even if you dont agree with british/american troops being out there, you should still support them for doing their job in the defence of our nations.

[Bigity]

[quote="XenoWolf";p="394447"]What I don't understand is how the government thinks it can stabilize another country/government by using force. Common sense dictates otherwise. The more you stir up the pot, the more chaotic the situation is to become. Wheres the nukes? Oops. Wheres the democracy? Oops. But we found Saddam! Yay. Wheres Bin Laden? Oops. Personally I believe that Bush's priorities were beyond ass-backwards. Why do we 'care' so much about the suffering and plight of people in Iraq (magically, out of nowhere it would seem), when countries that honestly need our help with AIDS, famine and poor living conditions get turned a blind eye? Atleast Clinton got off his ass every once in awhile and tried solving problems through diplomacy, or 'small' attacks against very specific targets (Bin Laden comes to mind). Just my two-cents.[/quote]

That is really the kind of attitude that allowed Hitler to conquer half of Europe before we woke up and decided to actively participate in world affairs.

Also, American is the numebr one contributer to charities worldwide. I'd call that some amount of caring, at least.

[Nodbugger]

Saddam rose to power of his own accord. He was aggressive and bloodthirsty, and would to anything to get his way. For example, when he finally decided to consolidate his power, he had a number of senior elected representatives arrested one night as traitors to Iraq. Of several hundred people in the room, only he was smiling, because no one else knew whose name would be called next, though they all knew what it meant for those names that were mentioned. Most of those arrested that night were never seen alive again, if at all.

At the time, the US ally in the region was Iran. It was not until after the Shah was overthrown and Ayatollah Khomeini came to power that Iraq was seen more favorably.

I would like to reinforce this statement by providing a nice documentary on the History Channel called uncle Saddam.

It is the life of Saddam and his rise to power.

Saddam killed someone when he was young and he was exiled from Iraq. He went to law school in Egypt then came back and led a revolt that made him 2nd in charge of the new Iraqi government. The leader that was put in was slowly dieing so Saddam named himself dictator and it has been that way every since. Saddam was even shot by one of his own people during the revolt.

So just to reiterate that Saddam got into power by himself and a little luck.

[Salvation122]

[quote="Nekra";p="395306"]while discussing this topic at work, this point of view was brought up. and it actually makes a lot of sense.

the region around Iraq was becoming a little angsty, potentially becoming dangerously unstable, Suddam, was CIA trained and was installed with support of the western world to bring some stability to the area,[/quote]
No, he was not.

he wasn't a great choice, but he probably was the best at the time, he was a known quantity, and in this respect he was judgeable and predictable, however he was not a perfect solution and a better one would need to be implemented eventually.

can you imagine what sort of message this sends to the neighbouring countries? Play ball with us or you will be next. Since we now don’t have to cross the Atlantic, were now in your back yard.

That's a very, very good thing.