The New Role of the United States of America
- Thread starter pax
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Under Current,
First and most importantly, there were dozens of countries that recieved biological cultures that Iraq recieved, on a routine basis. The USA did not have sanctions against Iraq in the 1980s or against the dozens of other countries that such biological material went to. Many life saving biological or radiological material or equipment often goes to other countries and, yes there are duel uses for this material. Hardware store does not stop selling supplies simply because what it sells can be used to build a conventional bomb.
I think you fail to fundamentally understand the difficulty in using chemical and bio weapons on the battlefield do to its dependence on variable conditions for it to have successful effects. In addition, Biological weapons take days and perhaps weeks to take a full effect. Their best use is as a terror weapon against a defensely and stationary, unsuspecting, civilian population in a city. Killing Iranian civilians in cities is not the objective of Saddam or his Army. The Objective was to be able to stop and defeat the Iranian military. The best and virtually only way to do that is with a strong conventionally well equiped military. Chemical and Bio weapons, as I said before are effective terror weapons against a stationary, defenseless civilian population, not a mobile protected military. Nuclear weapons of course are a different case. So, keeping this in mind, even if the USA desired to materially help the Iraqi military, it would do so by supplying conventional military weapons, not Biological cultures that have duel uses and have not been weaponized and been matched with equipment for effective means of distrubution against the intended target, and even if successfully distributed over a given area, will take days to take effect and may not hit the intended target. There were far better ways for the USA to effect the battlefield situation between Iran and Iraq. In addition, Iraq new these facts and while they may have experimented with the Biological material, they have never launched a biological attack against anyone or anything. Iraq already had Chemical weapons prior to the Iran/Iraq war.
Again, Biological material that Iraq recieved from the USA have never been used against any country. The USA of course knows the duel use of such equipment, but did not ban it at the time because of its important scientific and medical uses. Dozens of countries recieved the exact same material in the way that Iraq recieved it. Unless there was a specific sanction against the country, they could recieve this material. Remember this is Iraq in the mid 1980s, its easy to look back now and see how ruthless Saddam and his regime is, but in the mid 1980s, Saddam had commited only one international infraction by invading Iran.
Iraq also recieved all kinds of similar material from several other western countries, in addition to recieving supplies along these lines from the Soviet Union, the largest manufacturer of Chemical and Bio weapons in the history of the planet. In addition the Soviet Union built, equiped and trained the Iraqi army through out the 1980s. Nearly 75% of Iraq's military equipment and vehicles and aircraft came from the Soviet Union. In addition, the Soviet Union kept 2,000 Soviet troops on the ground in Iraq throughout the 1980s and up to two months before the 1991 Gulf War.
Bottom line is that Iraq recieved Biological material from the USA for scientific medical purposes just like dozens of other countries did at the time. Only specific sanctions against Iraq at the time could have prevented these duel use techonologies from going to Iraq. Even if such sanctions were in place, Iraq could have and did recieve similar material from as many as a dozen countries in addition to the Soviet Union which was supplying Iraq with nearly everything they wanted. Finally, Iraq never used Biological weapons against Iran for the obvious reasons, which completely refutes this notion that the material intentionally went to Iraq to somehow aid it militarily or in some other way in its war with Iran.
Rumsfeld does not work for the commerce department and does not know how many countries are recieving which kind of possible duel use material, at that time back in the 1980s. Rumsfeld trip to Iraq was simply verbal and diplomatic support for the regime in its war with Iran. The Soviet Union was already supplying and did supply Iraq, with everything it needed to finally defeat Iran on the battlefield in 1988.
First and most importantly, there were dozens of countries that recieved biological cultures that Iraq recieved, on a routine basis. The USA did not have sanctions against Iraq in the 1980s or against the dozens of other countries that such biological material went to. Many life saving biological or radiological material or equipment often goes to other countries and, yes there are duel uses for this material. Hardware store does not stop selling supplies simply because what it sells can be used to build a conventional bomb.
I think you fail to fundamentally understand the difficulty in using chemical and bio weapons on the battlefield do to its dependence on variable conditions for it to have successful effects. In addition, Biological weapons take days and perhaps weeks to take a full effect. Their best use is as a terror weapon against a defensely and stationary, unsuspecting, civilian population in a city. Killing Iranian civilians in cities is not the objective of Saddam or his Army. The Objective was to be able to stop and defeat the Iranian military. The best and virtually only way to do that is with a strong conventionally well equiped military. Chemical and Bio weapons, as I said before are effective terror weapons against a stationary, defenseless civilian population, not a mobile protected military. Nuclear weapons of course are a different case. So, keeping this in mind, even if the USA desired to materially help the Iraqi military, it would do so by supplying conventional military weapons, not Biological cultures that have duel uses and have not been weaponized and been matched with equipment for effective means of distrubution against the intended target, and even if successfully distributed over a given area, will take days to take effect and may not hit the intended target. There were far better ways for the USA to effect the battlefield situation between Iran and Iraq. In addition, Iraq new these facts and while they may have experimented with the Biological material, they have never launched a biological attack against anyone or anything. Iraq already had Chemical weapons prior to the Iran/Iraq war.
Again, Biological material that Iraq recieved from the USA have never been used against any country. The USA of course knows the duel use of such equipment, but did not ban it at the time because of its important scientific and medical uses. Dozens of countries recieved the exact same material in the way that Iraq recieved it. Unless there was a specific sanction against the country, they could recieve this material. Remember this is Iraq in the mid 1980s, its easy to look back now and see how ruthless Saddam and his regime is, but in the mid 1980s, Saddam had commited only one international infraction by invading Iran.
Iraq also recieved all kinds of similar material from several other western countries, in addition to recieving supplies along these lines from the Soviet Union, the largest manufacturer of Chemical and Bio weapons in the history of the planet. In addition the Soviet Union built, equiped and trained the Iraqi army through out the 1980s. Nearly 75% of Iraq's military equipment and vehicles and aircraft came from the Soviet Union. In addition, the Soviet Union kept 2,000 Soviet troops on the ground in Iraq throughout the 1980s and up to two months before the 1991 Gulf War.
Bottom line is that Iraq recieved Biological material from the USA for scientific medical purposes just like dozens of other countries did at the time. Only specific sanctions against Iraq at the time could have prevented these duel use techonologies from going to Iraq. Even if such sanctions were in place, Iraq could have and did recieve similar material from as many as a dozen countries in addition to the Soviet Union which was supplying Iraq with nearly everything they wanted. Finally, Iraq never used Biological weapons against Iran for the obvious reasons, which completely refutes this notion that the material intentionally went to Iraq to somehow aid it militarily or in some other way in its war with Iran.
Rumsfeld does not work for the commerce department and does not know how many countries are recieving which kind of possible duel use material, at that time back in the 1980s. Rumsfeld trip to Iraq was simply verbal and diplomatic support for the regime in its war with Iran. The Soviet Union was already supplying and did supply Iraq, with everything it needed to finally defeat Iran on the battlefield in 1988.
OP
OP
pax
ONE love, blood, life
I don't think my actual question is going to get answered at this point.
paxetaurora said:
Effectually, it is my belief that Western civilization has hit another crossroads, and we are slowly witnessing the final death knells of the twentieth century, which was dominated by leftist philosophy and ideology, along with some idealistic notion that people recognize what is wrong with the world and wish to better themselves. All the questions you ask rest upon the assumption that we prescribe to Keynesian capitalism, which, in essence, is, to some degree, "socialist capitalism."
But I've come to the conclusion that it is a losing battle. Human nature is greedy, self-absorbed, and unconcerned about helping one another. The U.S. is not going to help the rest of the world, because it is unwilling to even help its own--1/3 of America has no health insurance, for instance. In some reactionary sense, I think some people do think that the "war on terrorism" is going to be the "war to end all wars," but every generation has demanded its own "crusade." For this generation, it is the "war on terrorism." For the last, it was the Gulf War. For the one prior, it was Vietnam...and one so terrible that it frightened everyone. But, in each instance, each generation has been forced to learn the same lesson the hard way; and, likewise, I doubt that our generation will be any more intelligent.
Don't know if you are (or were) Catholic, but here's a good article:
http://www.chausa.org/PUBS/PUBSART.ASP?ISSUE=HP9204&ARTICLE=B
Written back in the days when Catholicism actually gave a damn. I do get nostalgic here and there...
Melon
Melon,
The number of Americans that do not have health insurance is 40 million. That is currently only 14% of the population, not 1/3 or 33%. The current population of the USA is about 290 million. It was 281 million on the 2000 census.
The number of Americans that do not have health insurance is 40 million. That is currently only 14% of the population, not 1/3 or 33%. The current population of the USA is about 290 million. It was 281 million on the 2000 census.
STING2 said:
I guess that makes it all better?
14% looks like such a "smaller" number than 40 million.I heard another statistic earlier, though, that 67% of America had health insurance. That's where I got the 1/3 figure from. Oh well...
Melon
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
STING2 said:
So that makes it okay?!?! FORTY MILLION people can't see a doctor when they're sick, but it's okay because that's "only 14% of the population"? How can a country claim to be civilised when forty million of its people don't have access to healthcare?
The NHS isn't perfect but I'd choose that any day over a system where some people have no access to healthcare at all.
(sorry Sting, this post wasn't directed at you as much as at the statistic you posted.)
I am still waiting for someone to tell me how to pay for it all.......
I am not against providing health care.......
I am against the fact that I pay so much in taxes......
When I have my own bills, children, ect to think of.....
As I said earlier......Many people have busted their rear-ends to get out of the lower class and into positions where they can afford to provide for their families. It would seem unfair to raise their taxes.
Its funny because yesterday, I called a parent to set up a conference for their child's report card........I wrote earlier about free lunches. Here is a situation with a family on free lunches. The parent is away on vacation in the Carribean. Hmmmm....number of times I have been to the Carribean (0). Chances of me affording it anytime soon (0). The child is a beautiful kid with a lot of potential. The child is not on the vacation with the parent. They are going to Florida in February though, that is for the kids.
No, I am not envious. I am content with my life. I knew that by deciding to go into education I would not be paid as much, but the job would be rewarding. I love what I do. I would not trade for another job in the world.
As a taxpayer.....I am tired of seeing things like this. When my money is taken from me....money that I have earned and worked hard for. Money that others have worked hard for.
So how do you pay for Health Care for all??????
I am not against providing health care.......
I am against the fact that I pay so much in taxes......
When I have my own bills, children, ect to think of.....
As I said earlier......Many people have busted their rear-ends to get out of the lower class and into positions where they can afford to provide for their families. It would seem unfair to raise their taxes.
Its funny because yesterday, I called a parent to set up a conference for their child's report card........I wrote earlier about free lunches. Here is a situation with a family on free lunches. The parent is away on vacation in the Carribean. Hmmmm....number of times I have been to the Carribean (0). Chances of me affording it anytime soon (0). The child is a beautiful kid with a lot of potential. The child is not on the vacation with the parent. They are going to Florida in February though, that is for the kids.
No, I am not envious. I am content with my life. I knew that by deciding to go into education I would not be paid as much, but the job would be rewarding. I love what I do. I would not trade for another job in the world.
As a taxpayer.....I am tired of seeing things like this. When my money is taken from me....money that I have earned and worked hard for. Money that others have worked hard for.
So how do you pay for Health Care for all??????
Dreadsox,
Hundreds of millions of people around the world (even your very close Canadian neighbours) have a portion of their taxes going to universal health care and they are hardly homeless or broke. In fact, a number of countries with higher taxes and considerably better social systems placed above the USA on the UN's standard of living index; surely something is working, don't you agree?
If so many other countries can do it, then why is there such a paranoia about taxes going to social programs in the USA. People in Europe have a lot of their hard earned money going towards a universal health care system, and they're not any more impoverished than you are in the great ol' US of A.
Hundreds of millions of people around the world (even your very close Canadian neighbours) have a portion of their taxes going to universal health care and they are hardly homeless or broke. In fact, a number of countries with higher taxes and considerably better social systems placed above the USA on the UN's standard of living index; surely something is working, don't you agree?
If so many other countries can do it, then why is there such a paranoia about taxes going to social programs in the USA. People in Europe have a lot of their hard earned money going towards a universal health care system, and they're not any more impoverished than you are in the great ol' US of A.
Antrium,
Actually that is not true. Most Europeans do not have a standard of living equal to that of Americans according to the Human Development Index by the UN. The USA is #6 in the world. Only Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and Belgium have a higher standard of living. Norway, Sweden, and Belguim represent a tiny fraction of Europes population. The USA's system is not perfect, but in general it produces a higher standard of living than almost any other country in the world.
A problem with the 40 million people that are uninsured is that many of them, if not most of them are childern. The problem is that there are some people who start families without having the money to support one. A person making minimum wage can in most area's of the country provide for his/her basic needs and is above the poverty line. But if they get married and have two three or more kids and the family is only supported by their minimum wage income, suddenly you have gone from one person supporting themselves and out of poverty, to 5 or more people living in poverty. When individuals live beyond their means or take on responsibility they can't afford, it makes solving this problem much more difficult.
40 million people is a lot of people to insure and its very expensive. I actually do think the government should do this if it can, but not at the expense of undue taxation that would cause economic recession and make the problem even worse or at the expense of spending on other vitally important things. Most European countries do not even have 40 million people. I hope a solution can be worked out somehow to fix it, but currently I do not know what the silver bullet is.
Actually that is not true. Most Europeans do not have a standard of living equal to that of Americans according to the Human Development Index by the UN. The USA is #6 in the world. Only Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and Belgium have a higher standard of living. Norway, Sweden, and Belguim represent a tiny fraction of Europes population. The USA's system is not perfect, but in general it produces a higher standard of living than almost any other country in the world.
A problem with the 40 million people that are uninsured is that many of them, if not most of them are childern. The problem is that there are some people who start families without having the money to support one. A person making minimum wage can in most area's of the country provide for his/her basic needs and is above the poverty line. But if they get married and have two three or more kids and the family is only supported by their minimum wage income, suddenly you have gone from one person supporting themselves and out of poverty, to 5 or more people living in poverty. When individuals live beyond their means or take on responsibility they can't afford, it makes solving this problem much more difficult.
40 million people is a lot of people to insure and its very expensive. I actually do think the government should do this if it can, but not at the expense of undue taxation that would cause economic recession and make the problem even worse or at the expense of spending on other vitally important things. Most European countries do not even have 40 million people. I hope a solution can be worked out somehow to fix it, but currently I do not know what the silver bullet is.
anitram said:
Good for them......Maybe some of the people coming to my country illegally can go to those countries to receive their health services. I guess some "social program" must make it desireable to come here.
I am sorry, but when over 1/3 of the money I make is taken from me......I do not feel any more should go out of my pocket.
I have a home...a comfortable one. It is not a mansion....nor do I need one. It is a home. With two salaries......my wife and I would not get approved for a loan to buy this house today because of the vaulue of the market.
I am sorry, but I do not feel I should have to give any more of my money away. Cut other programs to make universal health care a reality. I am giving enough already as are many other Americans trying to make ends meet. I feel badly for the children that do not have health care. Because people are irresponsible and have children when they are not making enough money to afford children it is creating a problem. More social programs encourages this behavior to continue.
Peace
OP
OP
pax
ONE love, blood, life
::ahem::
What are we, as a nation, doing--or what should we be doing--to cultivate an ethic of nationhood of which we can truly be proud?
No one is answering my question. I've read debates about weaponry and universal health care and overtaxation, but no one wants to attack the real issue.
<sidebar rant>
It is a peculiarity in American culture (though, to be fair, it probably exists in *human* culture) that we can shake our heads at 40 million uninsured persons, MANY IF NOT MOST OF WHOM ARE CHILDREN, but when the collection basket comes our way, it's "Well, it's not my problem that people keep having children they can't afford."
Well. It's hardly the kids' problem, now, is it?
</sidebar rant>
What are we, as a nation, doing--or what should we be doing--to cultivate an ethic of nationhood of which we can truly be proud?
No one is answering my question. I've read debates about weaponry and universal health care and overtaxation, but no one wants to attack the real issue.
<sidebar rant>
It is a peculiarity in American culture (though, to be fair, it probably exists in *human* culture) that we can shake our heads at 40 million uninsured persons, MANY IF NOT MOST OF WHOM ARE CHILDREN, but when the collection basket comes our way, it's "Well, it's not my problem that people keep having children they can't afford."
Well. It's hardly the kids' problem, now, is it?
</sidebar rant>
paxetaurora said:
Should we maybe define what exactly a better ethic of nationhood would be?
I hope people do not misunderstand what I am getting at. I am not against helping kids, obvioulsy being a teacher. I do however hate to see such abuse of programs. If ethics=more social programs and higher $$$$ I am against it. I do not wish to get off topic......however.....maybe we can work to define it first.
paxetaurora said:
As for your sidebar............ TAXATION = Collection basket?
Sorry, but the church I belong to is not the Federal, State, or Local government. I would love to put more in the collection basket. Care to lower my taxes?
Seriously, you think it is fair, that many people, like myself and my wife worked hard, put ourselves through school (Bachelors and Masters)....saved to buy a home, waited five years to have kids when we could better afford it......We should also have money taken from us to pay for someone elses child? This is not about a collection plate being passed around. Believe me, I have more fiath that my Church is going to take care of people than the government. I would rather see the tax money go there.
Pax.....that was my sidebar....I will try and join in the definition of the above mentioned question.....
Peace
Similar threads
