Hibijibi wrote:

> I used to be a UN believer,

I am not a UN believer. They are as corrupt and wasteful, and individual
officials as self serving, as anybody imaginable. But the UN is currently more
respectable than the Bush Administration, and the UN means that it would not be
the US trying to go it alone.

> and I used to believe it was wise for us to get
> out of Somalia and Rwanda when we did.

The US and UN should get tougher instead of be seen as running away, otherwise
there is no end to problems that people would prefer to give up on. When will
the UN or US stop giving up, if they give up on as urgent a situation as Iraq
or North Korea? I do not see why American people are more important than people
in need who CAN'T do anything about it, halfway around the world who have
nothing to do with me, and whom I will never meet or receive anything from.
They should be helped, simply because they need it.

> (Never saw the movie, but) I now
> believe the Somalia scenario was one of our hugest foreign policy blunders,
> and largely responsible for what we now find ourselves in.  I don't believe
> the UN has the wherewithal to create a democratic Iraq.

UN member states pretty much consist of the entire human world. If other
countries cared, and Iraqis cared to do more than fight or complain, there
certainly would be the ablity to handle Iraq.

> But I concur that
> the exit of the UN and Red Cross only create a vacuum of authority that only
> serves to increase the presence and involvement of American troops in this
> and all other conflicts around the world.

The world should stop bitching about the US if they don't have better ideas or
methods they would care to use, spending their own money or at the risk of
their own citizens' lives. I bitch about the US and I'm not going over, but I
know people whom I can trust to do better than the US or I can, at least on the
grassroots level. See my sig if anybody else cares enough to do more than bitch
about the US in Iraq.

> > The US sure acted unilaterally, but Iraq is not merely a US interest.
> Stability in Iraq without the Saddam Hussein regime and after everyone else
> leaves,
> is in the best interest of all the Iraqis who have suffered until now, the
> same
> as stability anywhere else in the world. Too bad nobody is doing anything
> about US stability. Hopefully the half of Americans who disapprove of Bush
> have the
> sense to vote so.
>
> The election will be quite interesting.

I don't like Bush or recent Republicans in general (since Reagan), but I hope a
change does not mean the US likewise giving up on Iraq like the rest of the
world, even if it would mean more safety for Americans. Iraqis are the most
important thing in Iraq, not soldiers or Iraqi oil.

> I admit to being disappointed Gore is not running, and believe the democrats
> are really ferking up their chances.

How about the other Clinton? America can use a female leader.

> > Yeah, it's much easier to ignore the problems of others and not get
> involved,
> > like most of the rest of the world.
> >
> > > The number of casualties is irrelevant.
> >
> > Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by their own government,
> and
> > anywhere from 600,000 to three MILLION North Koreans also killed by the
> neglect
> > of their government and the rest of the world.
>
> In a way I understand Declan's comment,

I don't. It ignores the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and the needs of tens
of millions. I don't even want to compare that to 400 American deaths. I
wouldn't want to compare the death of a loved one in Iraq to what Iraq has been
through.

> but I also need to add the 5,000
> children that were dying monthly in Iraq as a result of the economic
> sanctions.  That's a severe kind of violence as well.

Did your estimate read 5,000? I read 10,000. I did include them. Hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis probably dead. Apparently irrelevant to many people who do
not want them to get help.

The UN ignored them, and the nations of the world sat on their asses and
watched, just like they are doing with North Korea.

BTW, even now, Mercy Corps and the Red Cross, whom I respect in that order, do
work in North Korea as well as Iraq, while the rest of the world lets human
beings suffer by the tens of millions, more concerned about their own problems
or a few dollars.

> > Irrelevant. It's not worth helping them, right?
> >
> > I wonder if you would understand the relevance of need to help others if
> any such
> > tragedy ever befell your own country during your lifetime.
>
> Although there is that altruistic element to the American initiatives, I
> don't believe that altruism is necessary to justify the Iraq war.  It is in
> _our own selfish interest_ for Iraqis to enjoy a democratic, peaceful
> society.

But I am not speaking out of any selfish interest. Iraqis and other people in
need deserve to be as free and peaceful (and prosperous) as any people in the
world. It is not presumptuous to speak or act on behalf of Iraq. Ask them, as
recent survey by an Iraqi university has done and reported in yesterday's
Japanese news, and you will find that is what the great majority of Iraqis want
for themselves. They just haven't tried to do it for themselves.

> Thankfully, none of my family members are in those zones.  In fact, nearly
> all of my family (including myself) are pacifists.

Any pacifists or any other people against acts such as war on Iraq should ask
themselves why Saddam Hussein chose to ignore offers of asylum, even in the
Middle East. Waiting for decades for Saddam Hussein to give his people peace
has produced little, while hundreds of thousands died.

> My grandfather was
> briefly in artillery in the 1920s (later becoming a prominent pacificist)
> and my great-great grandfather fought for the Union in the Civil War.
> That's about it.  On the other hand, how many people did you watch die with
> your own eyes in your own city?  And how many were killed in your home town?
> All these pacifist counter-arguments to the idea that fighting war is like
> fighting someone in your home town, became rather deflated after three from
> my family's small village hundreds of miles away from NY _were_ killed.
>
> > Why is the plight of tens of millions of people not worth getting
> involved?
> > People did it in WWII. And if Japan or the US ever had the troubles places
> like
> > Iraq had, much less North Korea or regions of Africa, I'd be thankful for
> some
> > help.
>
> You're a nice guy, Eric (but I distrust your motives somehow :-).

I have no motives. There is nothing to be gained by me from stability and the
democracy which Iraqis themselves report they want, in Iraq. Even the oil is
irrelevant, as people who care about oil, can shop anywhere else or stop using
as much.

I would simply be one of many in this world who would enjoy a more peaceful
existence, if the world cared about their fellow human beings, and helped those
in need.

--

http://www.mercycorps.org/
http://www.mercycorps.org/items/1398/
http://www.mercycorps.org/mercykits.php

Mercy Corps' goal in Iraq is to work with conflict-affected communities to meet
their urgent needs while also providing a firm foundation for the future
development of economic opportunities and civil society.

Efficiency
Over 92% of our resources go directly to humanitarian programs.

Excellence
Worth Magazine named Mercy Corps one of America's best charities.

High-Value
Every dollar you give helps us secure $12.71 in donated food and other
supplies.