|
Post by jtmx1 on May 9, 2006 9:12:35 GMT -5
PS for one year of the war in Iraq (200 billion) we could provide all these services to everyone on earth for about 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 9, 2006 10:19:09 GMT -5
I would concur that the actual cost of food is relatively insignificant, but I'm also talking about the institutional infrastructure that would be required to deliver it to people who needed it. We're talking soup kitchens in every county, several more in every city... A new cabinet level post: the Secretary of Food?
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on May 9, 2006 16:01:18 GMT -5
That would be the most effective way I can imagine to fight The War Against Terror (TWAT)
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on May 9, 2006 18:01:02 GMT -5
That was exactly my thought. But is it true? Someone blows up the WTC and then we eradicate world hunger. Wouldn't that just send a message that we are motivated by people killing lots of Americans?
I have often wondered, "What would have been the absolute best response to 9/11?" What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on May 9, 2006 18:47:14 GMT -5
First we should have immediately thrown bush and the whole administration in jail for having orchestrated and carried out the entire attack.
But if you're one of those who can't face the obvious and choose to delude yourselves into thinking that it was al-Qaeda who attacked us, then our response should have been to first formally acknowledge that we are responsible for Osama's military ability and power. This would have not only been the right thing to do, but would have shown the world how we are humble and can take responsibility for our own faults. Though, of course we aren't humble and can't take responsibility for our own faults, which is why this wasn't done.
Second we should have had a full withdraw of all support for israel and stop intervening in other countries problems through military action. Our continued meddling (usually done for the wrong reasons) makes us a target for these kinds of terrorist attacks. Would this play into their hands? Might this lead terrorists to think that those kinds of tactics work the best? Possibly, but by staying in israel we only perpetuate an already horrid cycle of murder. When we aren't wrong we shouldn't back down and should defend ourselves (I don't really believe this, but I can see where others might), but when we are wrong we need to know when enough is enough.
Now I can see using the military through the actions of the UN, but when america does things on its own, history proves how disastrous and fucking stupid our actions were/are... Korea, Viet-Nam, Iraq... I'm sure they're more but I can't think of them.
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 9, 2006 20:17:11 GMT -5
Yes, feeding the world would be nice... but that wasn't my question.
I think we're on two different tracks; I Providing food to all residents of the U.S. wouldn't do anything for our image overseas or change the way we're viewed by fundamentalists abroad. Or perhaps you think having a well-fed populace is the first line of defense against terror. 8^) But even looking at TWAT (and how I love to...), I would say that domestic hunger and its effects are more a direct danger to us than terror, even if it's not as spectacular or newsworthy. So fuck that noise.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on May 12, 2006 10:49:42 GMT -5
Why don't we just give other countries our money and hope that makes the terrorists like us more. What a joke! I'm not sure we should be in Israel either David but I can't believe leaving would make everybody love us over night. Believe it or not but there are probably people out there that just hate America/Americans...how dare we let women have a voice...how dare we not worship Allah...
|
|
|
Post by kyle on May 12, 2006 11:06:51 GMT -5
Oh and one other thing. Kyle you don't address most of the points in my original post.. but then again that's probably because you can't since they're true. Most of your original post was spent insinuating that I am racist. I thought I talked about that but maybe me saying please David I really want you to believe that I am not a racist, please believe me, please, please would have been a better way to go. Yes that was the day a decent amount of immigrants didn't go to work or school. It was their attempt to show America how it needs them and how they want a fair law supporting immigration reform. I also feel like I NEED people to break the law like I NEED a kick in the nuts! Don't kill, don't steal, don't drive drunk...these are all laws that people just thought up but I don't hear anyone saying that they unjust or not worth enforcing. Apparently there are a few immigrants that may or may not like the laws on the books but choose to follow the laws. I heard reports that these were the people that were the most upset about the boycotting. Funny how that is, even more people who choose to follow the laws that are pissed about this boycott...does that mean that they are also racist?
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 12, 2006 11:19:31 GMT -5
Why don't we just give other countries our money and hope that makes the terrorists like us more. What a joke! I think that's a gross oversimplification of what they were suggesting, right in line with saying that percentage tax cuts are "giveaways to the rich," which may be somewhat true, but hardly an accurate picture of what its totality is.
|
|
|
Post by jtmx1 on May 12, 2006 11:32:35 GMT -5
Kyle,
1. Americans do worship Allah. And Yahweh. And Jesus. And Ahura Mazda. And Abraxas... America is becoming less and less of a melting pot, which is a positive development, considering the wholesale sacrifice of culture (and lives!) it implies.
2. There will always be people that hate us. My mom used to tell me, "If everyone likes you, then you're doing something wrong." I believe that.
On the other hand, the real question is how to minimize terrorist sentiment directed toward us. I think invading Iraq was (at least in the short term) almost the worst way to accomplish that goal. At least we haven’t used any nukes: That’s about the only thing stupider than what we’ve done.
But what would have been a better way to minimize terrorist sentiment? I agree that giving terrorist countries aid might not have been effective either.
Here’s what I think I would have done: Request the U.N. to initiate a study of the factors that might have led to the attack. I would have withheld any kind of retaliation until I had a clear idea of who or what was the real enemy. Obviously, it was not the work of a nation state.
Of course, these kinds of studies have now been done to death. And everyone in the world agrees, except US policy makers, that the root cause was US foreign policy. Now, this doesn't mean we should necessarily change those policies. (Though many of them are dim and/or evil and should be chucked.) But there are all kinds of responses we could have made to the world’s negativity. Just a few: 1) We could have initiated a world-wide marketing campaign to move world opinion about us. 2) We could given selective aid to certain regions of the world where we have been most evil. 3) We could have convened a series of world-wide forums to discuss relevant topics, e.g., what is the role of the US in the world, what are proper military responses to terrorism, what is the relationship between Islam and Christianity. 4) Any of thousand other ideas that I am too dumb to think of.
The point of all this is that the choice was never between do nothing or bomb the hell out of a country that had nothing to do with 911. It remains one of the most incredible marketing feats of all time that Republicans were able to sell the unnecessary (and perhaps unwinnable) war in Iraq. They started with a bad argument and rather than help Americans be critical thinkers, they encouraged them in their worst prejudices, all while flattering them with the idea that the international situation was simple and tractable. An American farmer could figure it out over coffee, as long as he had a little neocon help.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on May 12, 2006 11:53:48 GMT -5
Some questions for Kyle: What forms of civil disobedience do you respect? How did the immigrant protests go beyond these? And what would have been an acceptable way for them to sound their political voice?
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on May 12, 2006 14:56:05 GMT -5
And here's a bigger question... What greater right does a white-anglo-saxon immigrant have over the rights of a hispanic one? Just because a person immigrated illegally 200 years ago, does it make it more right than someone who immigrated 2 days ago?
|
|
|
Post by jtmx1 on May 13, 2006 0:58:50 GMT -5
There was a very frustrating debate on immigration on PBS's Now tonight. You can watch the whole thing on their website: www.pbs.org/now/There was no agreement. There was no real hint of a viable compromise. There were accusations of racism. Oh, and there was only one idiot on the panel. Try to spot him. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by kyle on May 15, 2006 20:26:17 GMT -5
Some questions for Kyle: What forms of civil disobedience do you respect? How did the immigrant protests go beyond these? And what would have been an acceptable way for them to sound their political voice? Thanks for the question Jeff. I think that protesting is an incredibly effective tool to voice your opinion. I just think that many of the actions that people took were going too far. If I am going to protest American laws that I disagree with, what good does it do to carry another nations flag? I also know that English is not our official language, but the National Anthem has been sung in English for more than 200 years right? So what makes them think that changing it into Spanish will win me over and start to support their cause? Also, as I was saying in my original post to start this thread was that it upset me that people could simply not show up to work with no repercussions. I'm not really sure what statement that sends to any hardworking American. Jeff, can you just not show up to teach your classes and have nothing happen? Could any of us that have jobs just not show up? I think that if someone is willing to miss work to protest and not go through the proper channels of their job, they deserve reprimands. They should say thanks boss for treating me like an average citizen. Long story short, I support most types of civil disobedience. I just think that some are more effective than others. I'll even support someones right to burn the flag; I just think that a group that would do that has a hard time keeping people's focus on their message instead of their actions.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on May 15, 2006 21:19:22 GMT -5
What would happen if 10% of the people at your workplace didn't show up? What about if it was 90%? There's a big difference. They were trying to show that our economy depends greatly on their effort. I'm still unsure why English-decendant immigrants have the right to tell spanish-decendant immigrants that they can't enter a land that was stolen in the first place. Wheres the logical reasoning behind it?
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 16, 2006 10:44:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jtmx1 on May 16, 2006 20:44:00 GMT -5
The debate goes on: Mexico threatens lawsuits over Guard www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/16/mexico.immigration.ap/index.htmlSending the National Guard "will not stop the flow of migrants. To the contrary, it will probably go up," as people try to get into the U.S. with hopes of applying for a possible amnesty program. "My family is hungry and there is no work in my land. I have to risk it."
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 19, 2006 14:52:24 GMT -5
|
|