Syria Sanctions

[Tendarian]

In the widely expected, but largely symbolic, move, Bush labeled Syria "an unusual and extraordinary threat" and imposed a series of sanctions including a ban on U.S. exports to Syria other than food and medicine.

Curious why we dont sanction food and medicine too? If they are truly our enemies why are we doing them any favors? Our sanctions only affect us right? Other countries would still be able to sell them or give them whatever they wanted correct? Why do they buy from us in the first place?

[Atlanteax]

It's a punishment tactic, to get Syria to do more against Terrorism.

Meanwhile, as the majority of corporations likely doing business with Syria are multi-national (ie based in US, but subsidaries in Europe, Asia... or based in Europe/etc with subsidaries in US), they're effectively barred from dealing with Syria because those corporations don't want to be fined/punished via their US branch.

So no, it doesn't "only hurt us."

Asides from the above, it also effectively discourages any foreign investment in Syria for similiar reasons... as the corporations/banks/etc likely have US subsidaries, and thus do not want to run afoul of the US government.

Being the world's only superpower, with the strongest and most vibrant economy (EU is in stagnation despite now having a greater GDP after the latest expansion, Japan is stuggling with recession, China is expected to slip into recession) gives any US's sanctions tremendous power.

Especially since the vast majority of world trade involves the US in one way or another...

.

Once Syria does what the Bush adminstration wants it to do, expect to see Sanctions lifted.

[Tendarian]

Nice answers and thank you.

[TheEschaton]

Because we realized that sanctioning food and medicine, like we did in Iraq for the past 12 years, only starves the civilians/gives dictators "excuse" to starve their civilians.


-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Because we realized that sanctioning food and medicine, like we did in Iraq for the past 12 years, only starves the civilians/gives dictators "excuse" to starve their civilians.

-TheE-

Shows what a great humanitarian the US is, doesn't it? :yes:

[Nakiro]

I was under the impression that we gave more in charities to under developed countries than any other nation?

Also, it isn't like Iraq isn't capable of producing food, they'd just rather produce oil.

:popcorn:

[TheEschaton]

And, given the sanctions, Saddam "justified" using what income WAS coming in, towards weapons and military.

Did you know:

that Iraq had the best medical system in the Middle East before the Gulf War?
that Iraq had the highest literacy rate in the Middle East: A) in general, and B) by far, amongst women?

-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
And, given the sanctions, Saddam "justified" using what income WAS coming in, towards weapons and military.

Did you know:

that Iraq had the best medical system in the Middle East before the Gulf War?
that Iraq had the highest literacy rate in the Middle East: A) in general, and B) by far, amongst women?

-TheE-

Perfect example of what a corrupt dictator can do to destroy his own country.

I wonder what the MiddleEast would had been like if the US Coalition didn't blink near the end of the first Gulf War.

[TheEschaton]

Didn't blink? Even Schwartzkopf and Bush said to invade Iraq would result in being "bogged down" for years to come.


The only people pushing to invade Iraq? Wolfowitz, who pushed Rummy to push for that - though Rummy acquiesced.

-TheE-

[Jack]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Because we realized that sanctioning food and medicine, like we did in Iraq for the past 12 years, only starves the civilians/gives dictators "excuse" to starve their civilians.


-TheE-

Oil for Food. There were no sanctions against food, or medicine as far as I know. It was the corruption on the UN side, and the Iraqi side that allowed the citizens of Iraq to starve, or die from lack of medicine, not any sanction imposed by the US. If I'm wrong, I welcome anything that states otherwise.

-Jack

[TheEschaton]

Medicinal supplies, like syringes and gauze, were sanctioned.


-TheE-

Our sanctions only affect us right?

Heh no. We are the most powerful economic entity in the world right now.


Iraq

Did you know that Iraq had the 3rd largest army prior to the gulf war as well?

...or that prior to the ascension of the Ba'athist party that Iraq enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world

[Ravenstorm]

Personally, I think it's moronic to do that now. It's like Bush is trying to see just how many suicide bombers he can convert for them. While sanctions might in fact be fully justified, the timing couldn't possibly be worse unless he were to spit in a Mosque first.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Personally, I think it's moronic to do that now. It's like Bush is trying to see just how many suicide bombers he can convert for them. While sanctions might in fact be fully justified, the timing couldn't possibly be worse unless he were to spit in a Mosque first.

Raven

Maybe they just need a friendly hug from us. Maybe if we all just held hands and sang songs, the world would learn to live in harmony and peace.

It's a happy place I would love to be in.. but unfortunately, that's not reality.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Nakiro
I was under the impression that we gave more in charities to under developed countries than any other nation?



Then take it back many times over in debt repayments

[Jack]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Medicinal supplies, like syringes and gauze, were sanctioned.


-TheE-

I can't find anything about that in any of the lists of sanctioned goods. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, which resolution prohibits gauze and syringes? The only medical related sanction I can find information on is the radiation source used in cancer treatment machines. Since it is a banned element, it could not be shipped in, and some of Iraq's ability to treat cancer was deminished. This element is on the list of dual use nuclear elements. Had it been shipped, I personally doubt it would ever have been used for it's intended purpose, and would instead have been used to make a dirty bomb to use against The Great Satan, or the Little Satan rather than to treat cancer.

-Jack

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Nakiro
I was under the impression that we gave more in charities to under developed countries than any other nation?



Then take it back many times over in debt repayments

Care to back that up with statistics?

[TheEschaton]

Sure. It's called Breton Woods.


We require that every penny we give them, is used as we want it used. Which most often takes the form of FTAs, Free Trade Areas....where American (Western, under the auspices of the IMF) corporations can set up shop, not be charged any tax, and pay their workers next to nothing, and have it be considered a "good investment" for the country receiving aid money, as it boosts their employment....while ignoring the fact that it creates slums of poor workers, in dismal conditions.

To start, you can watch the movie "Life or Debt", about the FTAs in Jamaica.

-TheE-

ahh but to have a job or not to have a job, That is the question.

Why would we give somebody a blank check TheE? That sounds kinda stupid to let them do whatever they want with the money we give them. Did you know than many third world countries are corrupt? I didnt think anyone needed to state the obvious, but it seems to be the case this time.

[TheEschaton]

Because we don't let money and influence govern our gov't, nosiree...


other gov'ts are corrupt. At least they do not claim moral superiority to every other gov't in the world.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And I can understand not giving people a blank check. However, dictating how they spend it, and making them spend it in a way which is not beneficial for the country's economy, but rather, for American (or Western) corporations....is not right.


United Fruit, Panama. Coca-Cola, Colombia. It's all over the world, look it up.

-TheE-

We don't partake in genocide.
Our Government as a whole is not corrupt.
Would you rather they not get the money at all?
How does having jobs hurt their economy?
You are saying that our giving them aid money in no way helps them?
Two countries Two companies. How many others have we given money to TheE, how many BILLIONS did we dish out this year? Lets stop giving aid to places like Africa to fight AIDS, (That's only to help the pharmaceutical companies right?) lets even stop the billions of aid flowing into Iraq right now to help them rebuild things that we did not destroy.

All that money is just going to help American corporate interests overseas. We dont care about anyone else.

You are right, everyone in the united states Government is corrupt. We never help anyone but ourselves. You sir are a genius, I bow down to your superior anti-American knowledge on this subject

[TheEschaton]

A) I am not anti-American, B) I challenge you to find aid that we give which is quid pro quo. For all those dollars we give to Africa, to fight AIDS, we do nothing about the pharmaceutical companies. They could manufacture ALL the latest HIV meds, for 2,000 dollars a person per year, which is, if you can't divide real well, is less than 7 dollars a day, in once a day doses. Do you know how much they charge? HIV meds cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 a year, upwards to about 100,000 a year. Do you know how many millions of dollars in legal fees they spend to make sure no one makes generic brands of these medicines?
C) Our government is run by special interest. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. It does not operate on the interests of the people, it operates on the interests of business. That may not fit your definition of corrupt, but I find it to be less-than-ideal.
D) Jobs don't help their economy. The question we have before us is: is it better to have no job, in the presence of your family, relative stability, and able to scrape by on the fat of the land, health and nutrition-wise.....or is it better to have a job, leave your family to get it, disrupt your family, and not even afford to pay for the bus ride to the job, or the shitty housing they provide you with?

E) I have never been against giving money, but you should know from other threads, I believe charity must be tempered by, above all things, no expectation of returns. Otherwise, it's not charity, it's merely an investment. In this case, it's like an investment which is going to bankrupt the company but make you rich....say, like Enron.

F) As for not partaking in genocide....we have a lot of blood on our hands, in a lot of places. No one ever accused the British Empire of genocide - but no one would say they weren't guilty of tyranny.

-TheE-
Edited to add: Once again, your inability to grasp even basic concepts tells me that you really are a person who does very little thinking for himself. Try it. Jobs != good economy, for one.

[Edited on 5-13-2004 by TheEschaton]

Breton woods. Riiight. I asked for statistics not ancient agreements.

[FinisWolf]

Originally posted by Tendarian

In the widely expected, but largely symbolic, move, Bush labeled Syria "an unusual and extraordinary threat" and imposed a series of sanctions including a ban on U.S. exports to Syria other than food and medicine.
Curious why we dont sanction food and medicine too? If they are truly our enemies why are we doing them any favors? Our sanctions only affect us right? Other countries would still be able to sell them or give them whatever they wanted correct? Why do they buy from us in the first place?

Your answer gets seriously complicated.

1) We have to remain humane in our allies eyes, and in the worlds, if we expect their support, and if we do not want them to turn on us.

2) Yes, other countries can sell to them; however, if that country is allied to us, by right, they should not afford any forward aide to Syria, of course on the flip, there will always be back alley deals between countries.

Finiswolf

[longshot]

As far as the aid issue goes, it's impossible to get a truly accurate measure because private donations differ from government donations.

The world leader in development aid was Japan until 2001. The United States retook the lead.

However, the United States is the lowest contributor in terms of percentage of GDP of all industrialized nations. Again this number does not count private contributions, so think of it what you will.

You can see a breakdown of all the countries, and how their aid is distributed here http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,2578,en_2649_34447_1783495_1_1_1_1,00.html

And, you can see a page that rips aid in general as not doing what it's intended to do.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

As far as Syria goes,... there is nothing good in Syria. Nothing.
Zero.

odly by the charts Longshot posted there, it appears that most of the money is used for
Education
Healthcare
Social infrastructure
which make up more than 50% of how the aid is used. Intresting by the way You make it seem TheE every dollar goes to free trade zones.

Originally posted by TheEschaton
A) I am not anti-American,
Perhaps in one post you would be willing to put something good about America. I would guess to say 95% of your posts are negative in relation to our Government, and country.

B) I challenge you to find aid that we give which is quid pro quo.
That made me snicker; Did you mean NOT quid pro quo? That comment would go against your previous statements.
If you did mean NOT quid pro quo I can easily point to all the debt that has been forgiven.


For all those dollars we give to Africa, to fight AIDS, we do nothing about the pharmaceutical companies. They could manufacture ALL the latest HIV meds, for 2,000 dollars a person per year, which is, if you can't divide real well, is less than 7 dollars a day, in once a day doses. Do you know how much they charge? HIV meds cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 a year, upwards to about 100,000 a year. Do you know how many millions of dollars in legal fees they spend to make sure no one makes generic brands of these medicines?
Welcome to the world of business. Is anyone in America denied those meds if the need them? No.

C) Our government is run by special interest. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. It does not operate on the interests of the people, it operates on the interests of business. That may not fit your definition of corrupt, but I find it to be less-than-ideal.
Every government has been that way for thousands of years.
I beg to differ though; the government does govern for the people. Yes, special interest groups have a foothold in government as does anyone with money, but that is not to say that most actions are done because of the special interest groups is foolish at best. You should pay closer attention to about 90% of the legislation that goes through.

D) Jobs don't help their economy. Read that over and over again about 50 times and tell me if you still believe that. If you do then you will have to apply the same here that jobs to not help the US economy and your previous complaints about the unemployment rate in the US are well by your own definition false.

The question we have before us is: is it better to have no job, in the presence of your family, relative stability, and able to scrape by on the fat of the land, health and nutrition-wise.....or is it better to have a job, leave your family to get it, disrupt your family, and not even afford to pay for the bus ride to the job, or the shitty housing they provide you with?

That is going under the assumption that the people are able to scrape by that living on the land. If that is the case then I doubt they would uproot and move to the "free trade zone" and get a job there, if it is going to make them worse off.


E) I have never been against giving money, but you should know from other threads, I believe charity must be tempered by, above all things, no expectation of returns. Otherwise, it's not charity, it's merely an investment. In this case, it's like an investment which is going to bankrupt the company but make you rich....say, like Enron.
I am against giving out money, unless it is in our best interest. My money is mine, not some shit backwards third world country.


F) As for not partaking in genocide....we have a lot of blood on our hands, in a lot of places. No one ever accused the British Empire of genocide - but no one would say they weren't guilty of tyranny.
Really? Where do we have blood on our hands? It that was our cause we would have carpet bombed Iraq, one 500lbs bomb that costs us 2million does far less damage than 200 bombs that do the same thing.



-TheE-
Edited to add: Once again, your inability to grasp even basic concepts tells me that you really are a person who does very little thinking for himself. Try it. Jobs != good economy, for one.
jobs equal money, money will be spent, that money will become circular in the economy creating wealth, which will lead to more jobs, and more money, international trade... I am sorry it seems so obvious to me, perhaps it is because I am a capitalist, and oddly enough it seems to be very successful, in fact the most successful.

[Edited on 5-13-2004 by The Edine]

[Atlanteax]

Bottom line remains...

US money should be predominantly spent on Americans...

If people in Africa (and elsewhere) are starving or undergoing an AIDS epidemic...

We should look the other way, and focus on ourselves.... primarily because it's Mother Nature's way of population control for areas that are unable to sustain themselves.

India needs to adapt China's 1 child policy... and Africans should consider sterilization after 2-3 kids.

.

The primary danger in curing such disease as AIDS/etc, especially if medical treatment programs are done half-assed (as is the case in Africa), mutated forms of the diseases will appear that are resistant to current medical technology.

I'm not completely certain, but I believe that there's already forms of HIV that can now resist modern drugs.

.

The US should stop wasting taxpayers $ on foreign aid programs where the money does not ultimately return to the US (ie, foreign aid where we require them to buy US-made equipment).

.

Harsh (perhaps even cruel), but it seems to be becoming an increasingly necessity.

The US is not a charity organization. It's irrational for a nation-state to ceases bettering itself in regard to geopolitical strength.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
A) I am not anti-American, B) I challenge you to find aid that we give which is quid pro quo. For all those dollars we give to Africa, to fight AIDS, we do nothing about the pharmaceutical companies. They could manufacture ALL the latest HIV meds, for 2,000 dollars a person per year, which is, if you can't divide real well, is less than 7 dollars a day, in once a day doses. Do you know how much they charge? HIV meds cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 a year, upwards to about 100,000 a year. Do you know how many millions of dollars in legal fees they spend to make sure no one makes generic brands of these medicines?
C) Our government is run by special interest. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. It does not operate on the interests of the people, it operates on the interests of business. That may not fit your definition of corrupt, but I find it to be less-than-ideal.
D) Jobs don't help their economy. The question we have before us is: is it better to have no job, in the presence of your family, relative stability, and able to scrape by on the fat of the land, health and nutrition-wise.....or is it better to have a job, leave your family to get it, disrupt your family, and not even afford to pay for the bus ride to the job, or the shitty housing they provide you with?

E) I have never been against giving money, but you should know from other threads, I believe charity must be tempered by, above all things, no expectation of returns. Otherwise, it's not charity, it's merely an investment. In this case, it's like an investment which is going to bankrupt the company but make you rich....say, like Enron.

F) As for not partaking in genocide....we have a lot of blood on our hands, in a lot of places. No one ever accused the British Empire of genocide - but no one would say they weren't guilty of tyranny.

-TheE-
Edited to add: Once again, your inability to grasp even basic concepts tells me that you really are a person who does very little thinking for himself. Try it. Jobs != good economy, for one.

[Edited on 5-13-2004 by TheEschaton]

A) It seems like you are.

B) Perhaps the pharmaceutical are trying to recoup their investment in Research & Development? Or do you naively think that they can create miracle drugs out of thin air. Yes they fight to prevent generic brands to preserve profit margins... one, to ensure that they recoup their R&D costs, second to maximize funds available for future R&D, and third, they're not charity organization, they exist to make a profit developing drugs where as to capture profits in a competitive market, they usually have to create better and more effective drugs, effectively providing a mechanism for them to continue improving medical technology. Profit-driven methodoly is tremendous more effective than non-profit grant-based operations... (sarcasm) I wonder why? (/sarcasm).

C) Ever since the dawn of time, Goverments has always been run by special interests... this goes as far back as the ancient Egyptians and Chinese. People are going to try to maximize their quality of life, and if they can pressure the government to do so, either by force or bribes or moral appeal. Special interests is also an inherent form of Democracy, where people collectively lobby to push their own agenda forward. Basically some groups are better at it than others.
If you don't like what the current special interests are doing... form your own political lobby with others who feel the same way as you.

D) Well, apparently people desire jobs if they feel it would provide more options for their lives. Jobs also provide a boost to the local economy in the regard that the money is spent, providing income to local businessmen... the job wages and profits of businessmen are taxed, providing revenue for the government, primarily to provide social programs (which you want to happen, right?).

E) That may be your definition of charity. Perhaps other people don't want to see their money wasted needlessly, and rather have their donated money go towards something that they have expectations of.

F) Genocide... until you see the US methodically attack other populations via (biological) weaponry, the US does not participate in it. Iraq is no genocide situation. African tribes trying to systemically kill rival tribes IS genocide.
The West (US) declining to provide "free" HIV/etc programs to Africa is not genocide.

[TheEschaton]

I am sorry it seems so obvious to me, perhaps it is because I am a capitalist, and oddly enough it seems to be very successful, in fact the most successful.

Sure, if you consider the accumulation of wealth to be a success. I find capitalism to be a resounding failure. It has infected our whole view of humanity, it has infected our way of life into actually believing that if something does not benefit us - there is no reason to do it. That is a serious moral crisis - and you happily condone it as you prance around saying that drug companies SHOULD be allowed to charge whatever the hell they want for their medicines.

And Edine, people with HIV are not denied medicine. But they don't get it at reduced rates. There is a program called ADAP, in NYS, which pays for HIV meds, if the patient can't afford them. It is funded by the taxpayer's money. So, the drug companies merely charge that 40,000 a year, to the taxpayers....instead of the 2,000 it costs to make them.

And you two make me sick. ;) You've no sense of morality, at all. Well, let me correct that. You have a very medieval morality. Too bad it's the 21st century, and we know better now.


-TheE-

TheE without captilism there would not be:
Drugs to treat HIV
A computer
Cars
Phone lines
Electricity

Just to name a few things.

[Edited on 5-13-2004 by The Edine]

[TheEschaton]

Without you, Edine, the world's IQ average would raise by about 5 points.

You make the most asinine statements ever: there would be no HIV drugs without capitalism? That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. The Hippocratic oath itself requires doctors to be altruistic, and some of them actually are, and would do the research regardless of profit.

-TheE-

Really?
Tell me then where does the money come from that allows for the development of said drugs?


Edit:Why is it that almost all technological and medical advances come from industrialized capitalist countries then?
Take into consideration your view that the capitalist economy has nothing to do with the advances in medical technology.

[Edited on 5-13-2004 by The Edine]

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Without you, Edine, the world's IQ average would raise by about 5 points.

You make the most asinine statements ever: there would be no HIV drugs without capitalism? That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. The Hippocratic oath itself requires doctors to be altruistic, and some of them actually are, and would do the research regardless of profit.

-TheE-


Originally posted by The EdineReally?
Tell me then where does the money come from that allows for the development of said drugs?


Edit:Why is it that almost all technological and medical advances come from industrialized capitalist countries then?
Take into consideration your view that the capitalist economy has nothing to do with the advances in medical technology.

Edine hit the nail on the head.

It requires significant capital for the R&E to create such advanced medical technology.
Those who would do the research regardless of profit, likely do not have the capital required to perform the R&D necessary.

It takes $millions nowadays to develop new medical technology, new computers, etc, all to faciliate the $millions spent specifically to create new drugs.

I seriously doubt any non-profit organization could accomplish that, as they're entirely dependent on people donating their money, grants from institutions, and from the government.

.

Btw TheE, basic economics teaches that people engage in activity that grants them the highest utility for the lowest opportunity cost.

Obviously for the vast majority of human beings, certain utility that we tend to take for granted (relaxing in house, TV, sports recreation, movies, dining out, etc) all require money where the individual has to work for (which usually creates negative utility depending on the person's affinity for the job, but they do it to allow for the other utilies to be possible).

For most people, the opportunity cost of giving away money to a non-profit thing, significantly outweighs any utility they recieve for "it being the good thing to do."

For you, theE, such utility may be very high. However, for others like myself, the utility is very low, and I'd much rather spend the money on myself doing something that I enjoy.

THAT is Basic Human Behavior

Ironically, Capitalism is the most efficient manner of facilating this process among a populace by enabling people to adjust their behavior by the utility value that they recieve/generate when they do something.

This is where the inherent profit motive comes in (profit = utility). People do what is best for themselves.

Government, via the Rule of Law, can regulate behavior by imposing negative utility or increasing opportunity costs for doing illegal things (ie jail time).

Other Institutions, such as Religious Churches, also regulate behavior by imposing such negative utility, by making you "feel bad" if you engage in "immoral activities."

.

So in conclusion, you are really naive if you think Capitalism is destroying the world. Instead, it allows people to more freely do what they desire to do (in regard to the utility gained vs opportunity cost).

Thus all the latest medical technology wouldn't be possible if there wasn't an incentive (profit) to do so.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
Perhaps in one post you would be willing to put something good about America. I would guess to say 95% of your posts are negative in relation to our Government, and country. There is nothing more American than challenging authority (except baseball, but c'mon, he lives in Buffalo).
Where do we have blood on our hands?Ever met a Native American?
Why is it that almost all technological and medical advances come from industrialized capitalist countries then?Because we don't need to have everyone farm, probably. Civilization leads to specialization, which leads to fun stuff like technology and medicine. It's hard to invent the internal combustion engine if you're farming for 18 hours a day.

[TheEschaton]

THAT is Basic Human Behavior



That is basic ANIMAL behavior. While human beings ARE animals, I would hope that our humanity would push us to rise about that.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-13-2004 by TheEschaton]

[TheEschaton]

There is nothing more American than challenging authority (except baseball, but c'mon, he lives in Buffalo).

Hey, we have a Triple A team....the Bisons....farm team for the Indians.


(Hey, I know that sounds bad....but we USED to be the farm team for the PIRATES. Ugh.)

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

THAT is Basic Human Behavior



That is basic ANIMAL behavior. While human beings ARE animals, I would hope that our humanity would push us to rise about that.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-13-2004 by TheEschaton]

Which is one of your fundamental flaws TheE... you always hope for a better world.. and most of your views come from that hope. You need to have a realistic approach sometimes.

Communism or Socialism sound great on paper.. but they just have zero chance of succeeding due to the way humans are.

[TheEschaton]

I'd rather have the flaw of being idealistic, than the flaw of being mired in reality, and unable to contemplate idealism.

And capitalism capitlizes (excuse the pun) on the very fact that it is based on man's basest nature, on his animal flaws, as opposed to his human ideals. That makes it wildly successful, yes....but it also makes it, in my mind, less than what we're capable of.

-TheE-

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

There is nothing more American than challenging authority (except baseball, but c'mon, he lives in Buffalo).
Oh that is fine, but to question everything and not have one positive thing to say is what he has a habbit of doing

Where do we have blood on our hands?Ever met a Native American?


Is our government diffrent now that it was 150 years ago? Yes.

[quote]Why is it that almost all technological and medical advances come from industrialized capitalist countries then?Because we don't need to have everyone farm, probably. Civilization leads to specialization, which leads to fun stuff like technology and medicine. It's hard to invent the internal combustion engine if you're farming for 18 hours a day.

Exactly, but TheE does not understand that.

[Edited on 5-13-2004 by The Edine]

[TheEschaton]

Is our government diffrent now that it was 150 years ago? Yes.

Ever met a Rwandan?

Okay, that was indirect.

Ever met a Nicauraguan?

Ever met an El Salvadoran?

Ever met a Venezuelan?

A Dominican Republican?

A Phillipino?

The atrocities we've helped fund and commit in Latin America in and of itself is enough to rank us as "having blood on our hands".

-TheE-

We killed all them?
Well thats news to me.
The blood is on the hands of the people that partake in the crime.


Im wondering why it is you have avoided addressing my post about how the Drugs for HIV have in fact come from a capitalist economy.

After you call me stupid <again> the least you could do is show me how I am wrong, instead of letting me just ponder over it.:tumble:

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Is our government diffrent now that it was 150 years ago? Yes.

Ever met a Rwandan?

Okay, that was indirect.

Ever met a Nicauraguan?

Ever met an El Salvadoran?

Ever met a Venezuelan?

A Dominican Republican?

A Phillipino?

The atrocities we've helped fund and commit in Latin America in and of itself is enough to rank us as "having blood on our hands".

-TheE-


You forgot to add
Have you ever met a Iraqi?

I now from that post note that you are for military action in places like rowanda, why then Is Iraq any diffrent?

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I'd rather have the flaw of being idealistic, than the flaw of being mired in reality, and unable to contemplate idealism.

And capitalism capitlizes (excuse the pun) on the very fact that it is based on man's basest nature, on his animal flaws, as opposed to his human ideals. That makes it wildly successful, yes....but it also makes it, in my mind, less than what we're capable of.

-TheE-

Capitalism made you and others, with that sort of ideology possible ;)

Capitalism also made it possible for you to gain utility by joining the PeaceCorps.

YOU "gain" from doing so, as you percieve the opportunity cost of not being able to do the aggregate form of XXXX during those 2 (?) years in Africa, as lesser than the utility you gain by doing what is valuable to you (charity in Africa).

Others may not. The opportunity cost to me, to do the same, would be huge, effectively deterring me from ever considering joining the PeaceCorps for that.
However, if there was a bigger incentive (profit/utility) that reduced the opportunity cost for me just enough, I could end up doing the liberal thing to do. ;)

.

Meanwhile, the fact of the matter remains that everyone operates according to their own utility vs opportunity cost Matrix.

[TheEschaton]

Alright, here it is. I confined myself to Latin America (except for the Phillipino part, but maybe I'll continue)

Have you ever met an Iraqi?
Have you ever met an Iranian?
Have you ever met a Saudi Arabian?


The blood is on the hands of the people that partake in the crime.

You are a legal idiot. Our legal system says that the person who funds, pays for, supports, does nothing to prevent a murder, is AS GUILTY AS the person who does the murder.

Secondly, I don't support military action - but our complete cold shoulder to Rwanda was wrong. Thirdly, it is different than Iraq in that it was: a completely unpreventable humanitarian disaster, which could be solved if we intervened...which had no benefits for us if we intervened. Iraq was: A) completely preventable (because we put the Baathist party and Saddam in power), B) not completely solvable by simply intervenings, and C) had benefits for us if we intervened, thus making our humanitarian effort duplicitous at best.

Lastly, your assertion that absurd drug costs fund R&D being the only way for these drugs to be made, is flawed, in that if we had a comprehensive health policy in this country (known as universal health care), that would pay for things like research. Health, if subsidized by the gov't, could be done a great deal cheaper, and be put in the budget. Capitalism is not the only way of funding necessary things. In fact, if I had the time to look it up, I'd LOVE to see how much of the profits of the drug companies go to future R&D. I'd be willing to bet it's not more than 25%.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And Atlanteax....


utility should NEVER get in the way of what is right. NEVER. That is called "wrong".


-TheE-