Post Sept 11 : Alternative Policy for Western Nations???

Remove this Banner Ad

Hawkforce

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 9, 2000
7,627
3,996
London
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tottenham
I am a Labor voter. Always have been and almost certainly always will be - this isn't blind devotion; it's just that elements within the party most closely parallel my moral and logical compass.

When George Bush became President of the US I was dismayed - a) his domestic policies are the opposite of my beliefs

and

b) his foreign policy was one of isolation - "Fortress America". It appeared the US was going to disengage from the type of crisis seen in Kosovo - the horrors of Rwanda suddenly became possible again because the US would not get involved.

Then Sept 11 happened. I remember thinking "Phark! What the hell are they going to do?"

COntrary to my fears, and thanks to the strength of Tony Blair's support and lobbying, the foreign (as opposed to domestic) policy response of the US is EXACTLY what I'd wanted to happen since the Gulf War in 91

The overthrow of the Taliban with a commitment to Nation Building by the West.

AND

FInally dealing with the ridiculous situation in Iraq where UN imposed sanctions re used by Iraq's regime as a propoganda tool against it's own people.


BUT

These policies have elicited huge criticism and suspicion from people in the West. The US is accused of Oil-based Imperialism while Tony Blair is accused of being a lap-dog.

To me, the whole idea of fostering Democracy (making up for the mistakes of the past) in this region seemed long overdue - and, since the failure of the Camp David peace talks between Barak and Arafat in 2000, the ONLY way peace will ever be achieved between Israel and its (real or imagined) enemies, and ending the suffering of the Palestinian people.

(It must be understood that, rightly or wrongly, hypocritical or not, the US Congress has little but contempt for non-democratic countries. They will deal with them, support them, arm them, fund them - but never respect them. Simply - if the middle-east was a freely democratic region, and the Palestinian Authority as well, there is NO way the US would support an oppressive Israel)

What gets to me is that people on MY (left) side of politics, seem overwhelmingly "anti" current US/English (read: Western Countries who actually DO something) policy.

It's Blair's policy - but apparently that just makes him a lapdog. With a few notable exceptions, Left Wing writers and thinkers are adamantly against the war in Iraq and, in fact, anything the US administration does.

I've come to the conclusion that much of this is blind rejection of Dubya and everything he stands for. Which is fine...

BUT

There has to be an alternative policy. SOMETHING has to change.

In all my searching and all debates I've been in, NOBODY has offered a solution - with the notable exception that much fundamentalist Islamic anger is focused on Israel - "so why should we be targets because the US supports them?"

I am not Jewish. I am a secular Aussie living in London : yet the subtext of the above statement boils down to sacrificing Israel, a functioning Western Democracy whose opposition (Labour) party recently chose political oblivion by withdrawing from Unity Government over money given to Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Whatever arguments there are to be made about the actions of the Israeli state, there is something fundamental about the fact that their population has the freedom to make such decisions and hold such values. Labour will be wiped out in the election (if you were Israeli, wouldn' t you vote for those promising security at all costs rather than those promoting short term risk for long term peace?) - yet they still stood by their principle and, more importantly, are ALLOWED to.

Just as the growing number of Israeli Defence Force personnel who have a moral objection to actions within the "occupied territories" have been ALLOWED to express their opinion and opposition to the occupation.

That stems from Democracy.

The very idea that the US should be forced to drop it's aid to Israel to appease fundamentalist anger towards the rest of the West is repugnant to me; and smacks of a latent anti-semitism (and I don't use that term a lot) still existing in Europe.

Whether or not others find the idea morally repugnant, it's no SOLUTION - withdrawing economic and military support from Israel will inevitably result in a far more costly, and probably nuclear, war in the region.

Solutions???

What angers me is that it seems increasingly apparent that left wing opposition to "Regime Change" in Iraq is mostly a reaction against the US Administration, rather than an educated and objective opinion about how to deal with the situation.

There are Labour MP's in England who, during the 80's (when Saddam was backed by the West) called for action against Iraq, yet are now backing Iraq against their own party lines. It's glaringly obvious that some people are more interested in opposing the "right" than doing what is "proper".

All this achieves (IMO) is the weakening of the political Left - especially in domestic politics.

Blind disregard and rejection of "Dubya's" foreign policy on the Left has resulted in an unprecedented electoral gain by the Republicans in the US giving them the senate and the house!

This is far more dangerous than any war in the Middle East.

So I ask - What policy should the Western World follow?

How should we respond to Sept 11???

If the people on the Left allow this debate to be controlled by the "Frodo's" of the world - they MUST provide an alternative!

If the "Ah_19's" of the world are allowed to spout their misguided interpretation of "realpolitik" - where is the response from the "Left"???

Is there ANYBODY who can provide a realistic alternative to current US and English policy???


Please!
 
It's a long time since Labour could be called 'left', particularly so of Blair in UK.

And I certainly am humbled by your thought that I control debate. I doubt if anyone would agree, including me.


IMO the biggest problem with democracy is that so many people say
I am a Labor voter. Always have been and almost certainly always will be

How can change ever be engendered with that attitude. The Labour party has changed so much and will no doubt change more yet you vow to give them your vote, wily~nily, whatever they propose or do.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Re: Re: Post Sept 11 : Alternative Policy for Western Nations???

Originally posted by AlfAndrews
I agree ...

Abolish the car.

The answer, LOL. Although, you could have been more succinct, just don't ask me how.
 
Please, explain to me how Israel is a democratic country??? The fact that you've read that it is. Democratic if your Jewish maybe.

Whatever arguments there are to be made about the actions of the Israeli state, there is something fundamental about the fact that their population has the freedom to make such decisions and hold such values.

Who, the Jewish population. Its a jewish state, so how can it be democratic?? Theocratic state don't you mean.

Just as the growing number of Israeli Defence Force personnel who have a moral objection to actions within the "occupied territories" have been ALLOWED to express their
opinion and opposition to the occupation.

yeah, thats right. Thats why they've been thrown in jail. Allowed, yeah right. You talk about Ah_19 'spout their misguided interpretation of "realpolitik' then you print this crap? Another hypocrite.

COntrary to my fears, and thanks to the strength of Tony Blair's support and lobbying, the foreign (as opposed to domestic) policy response of the US is EXACTLY what I'd wanted to happen since the Gulf War in 91

So i guess you wanted to see thousands of innocent Afghani's die did you? Thats real nice of you!

(It must be understood that, rightly or wrongly, hypocritical or not, the US Congress has little but contempt for non-democratic countries. They will deal with them, support them, arm them, fund them - but never respect them.

As opposed to democratic countries which they respect right? exactly which countries do they respect?

To me, the whole idea of fostering Democracy (making up for the mistakes of the past) in this region seemed long overdue - and, since the failure of the Camp David peace talks between Barak and Arafat in 2000, the ONLY way peace will ever be achieved between Israel and its (real or imagined) enemies, and ending the suffering of the Palestinian people

I too would really love to see democracy in the middle east. I've seen first hand what these dictators do to there people, and the pain and suffering they cause.

However, can't you see that democracy in the middle east is the worst thing that could happen for the US. Much easier to control one dictator, then a whole democratic nation. These dictators that you talk about are in power cause of funding from the US.

For example look at Egypt govt, considered friendly to the US. Yet you may not know it, but Mubarik (egyptian pres.) is a dictator. Thousands of citizens in egypt have gone missing cause they spoke up against govt policies. Yet Egyptian govt recieve $4.5billion in aid from the US, money used by the goverment to remain in power. Ibrahim Said, an egyptian democratic activist was thrown in jail just last year for no apparent reason. Ibrahim who u say??

Look at Saudi Arabia. The Saudi family are tyrants, yet kept in power once again by the US. All over the middle east its the same old story, and the one or two exceptions are considered enemies, alas they are also dictators.
Look, i'm not saying its all the US's fault, the arabs are also to blame and really need to take a look at themselves. However, the US are a major part of the problem, and there policies keep the dictatorships in power.

Africa is the same, most of the dictatorship leaders have been funded by the US and colonial powers. Like I said, much easier to control a dictator then it is a democratic nation.
 
What gets to me is that people on MY (left) side of politics, seem overwhelmingly "anti" current US/English (read: Western Countries who actually DO something) policy.

What exactly are they doing about it??

There has to be an alternative policy. SOMETHING has to change.

I agree with you 100%. But what your asking for will have a huge impact on the western countries, which have made there riches on the backs of 3rd world resources. Democracy world wide would mean the cost of our lifestyles would increase dramatically, and the multi-national companies would have a bit to say i suspect.

Lets take Saudi Arabia for example. If democracy was allowed in Saudi Arabia, there is a very big chance that an Islamic party would be voted in? How would you feel about that, a fair democratic process. You might find the price of oil might raise quite steeply.

Look at Algeria, the Islamic party were heading to a landslide victory, so the French stepped in, declared the elections void and placed a pupped governemt.

This is the true western policy.....democracy, but only when it suits us!

The overthrow of the Taliban with a commitment to Nation Building by the West.

I agree with the first point, and that was a good thing. But nation building....exactly when has this occurred. All the millions that were promised by all these countries to Afghanistan hasn't been delivered! Just on BBC the other day they showed how much was promised, and hardly any had been delivered. Alas the world has forgotten once again. Nation building only occurs when the nation in question can afford to pay western and multi national companies the fees to rebuild (eg Kuwait), but if the nation is poor, then all these countries make public promises of aid so that people like you believe that these countries are so nice, and are doing good (very good PR stunt), then when the time to pay up comes, they mysteriously go very quiet (very much like the good friday appeal).

I am not Jewish. I am a secular Aussie living in London : yet the subtext of the above statement boils down to sacrificing Israel, a functioning Western Democracy whose opposition (Labour) party recently chose political oblivion by withdrawing from Unity Government over money given to Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Thats good. Now you try going to live in Israel. See for yourself how democratic it is. The fact that you are not jewish will go against you, trust me. You'll be treated as a second class citizen.
Did you know that arabs (both christians and muslims) in Israel drive with different colored number plates.

The very idea that the US should be forced to drop it's aid to Israel to appease fundamentalist anger towards the rest of the West is repugnant to me; and smacks of a latent anti-semitism (and I don't use that term a lot) still existing in Europe.

Its a shame that Israel killing innocent palestinian children isn't repugnant to you as well.

How is this anti-semetic??? How bout the Palestinians in all this? You haven't mentioned them, not once??? Did you know that the majority of the aid that Israel recieves from the US is in military aid. Tanks used against youths throwing rocks.

4.5 billion....plus moneys recieved from AIPAC, and, wait for this.....the Christian right. Yep!

You know what, from the tone of your message, i think it might be you that is anti-semetic (yes, arabs are semites too).
 
To blame the USA for Africa's dictators is nonsense. One would only hope that the USA became more assertive in that continent. My experience in Ghana with the ADB, left me with a "why bother" ideology with respect to that region. FWIW the USA also feeds a signficant part of that continent also, because their governments can't. Muslim countries too. Though OBL and his parrots forget that one in their Sony cam live from the cave telecasts.

Tonga? Blame the USA for this one also. Jumping Johnnys pre-emptive spiel had the neurosis levels of the left at fever pitch....how dare you upset SE Asia!!....phark, use a brain. Tonga sells its government shield to anyone who makes a significant contribution to govt / poli coffers. Cargo ship in Trieste Italy was stormed by ITL security guards. Private vessel en route from Saudi Arabia to somewhere. 6 guys jumped ship and took off. Pakistani origin. Ship had also stopped in UK on previous occassions. Guess where the ship was registered, after being knocked back everywhere else, including Panama......Tonga. Where did the money come from.....one guess.
He wasn't only talking about Indonesia.
 
USA also feeds a signficant part of that continent also, because their governments can't. Muslim countries too. Though OBL and his parrots forget that one in their Sony cam live from the cave telecasts.

Feeds them??? Where, when??? Are you talking bout those Christian 'we'll feed you if you turn to christ' missionaries??

Or do you mean 'foreign aid'? How exactly does the US feed these countries??? And which countries are you talking about??

Don't know enough about Tonga. But what exactly were you trying to say. Sorry, but I didn't really understand the second paragraph of your post.
 
Originally posted by Lestat
Feeds them??? Where, when??? Are you talking bout those Christian 'we'll feed you if you turn to christ' missionaries??


What drivel. Read any report, try the EIU, UN reports, Amnesty, ADB (both) sites anything. Talk about the media conditioning people. Independent websites can extract brains.

Anyhoo, wrap your conspiracy theories around the below. Need to take Holy Communion before you can eat:

Southern Africa
Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe will be in need of humanitarian food aid between now and next year's harvest. Among the principal factors are drought, floods, poor policy and economic mismanagement. A contributing factor is the debilitating rate of HIV/AIDS infection in southern Africa. The United States has delivered or pledged more than 500,000 metric tons of food aid since the beginning of 2002. At a total value of more than $266 million, the U.S. government is the largest donor to the World Food Program's operations in southern Africa.

Horn of Africa
In Ethiopia and Eritrea, millions of people are vulnerable to food shortages brought on by a severe drought. USAID had been monitoring the situation through its Famine Early Warning System, and started sending emergency food assistance in July. Since then, the United States has given $106 million in food assistance to Ethiopia and Eritrea, or over 278,000 metric tons, of food.


Sudan
With the recent cessation of hostilities, and both parties agreeing to unhindered humanitarian access, the World Food Program expects that its caseload will increase significantly. Most recently, USAID contributed 46,030 metric tons of food assistance, an estimated value of $40.1 million.

Angola
Angola requires emergency food assistance during the critical pre-harvest months of December and January. The U.S. government contributed 130,150 metric tons of emergency food commodities, valued at $98 million, to Angola in 2002. USAID has been monitoring the situation in Angola since early 2002 when areas previously inaccessible to humanitarian aid revealed pockets of severe food insecurity
 
Hawkforce, your assertation that democracy will solve all of the middle east woes seems somewhat naive. Of course it would be nice for the middle east to be entirely democratic, but nobody is really working towards it. As Lestat has previously pointed out, democracy hasn't proved such a hit in places such as Algeria.

The US haven't really shown much interest in spreading democracy, which is just as well, because the federal democratic model in the USA seems to me to be particularly warped (but that is another topic). This lack of interest is typified by the US approach to Arafat, who like him or loathe him, was voted in by a majority of the electorate (unlike Bush) in an entirely democratic process.

IMO the real solution to such forms of extremism is improved education. Not surprisingly, much more money has been put into gas pipelines than into schools in the west's rebuilding of Afghanistan.

Now to the US. I don't have much time for people who rant about the US being inherently evil or who are too simplistic in their criticism or just simply resort to petty abuse or name calling to bolster a feeble argument. As others have pointed out, the US have done and continue to do good deeds on a world stage. USAid being one example.

However I am a big critic of Bush. For starters you mentioned isolationism, well that has never been the policy of Bush. No the buzzword is unilateralism, as Bush's mass abandonment of International treaties demonstrates. The real problem with Bush stems from the way he was elected. The lobbyists and interest groups that bolstered his election campaign have all been appointed to their areas of interest as reward for their buying of the election for him.

This policy means that when the US acts, it usually acts in the interest of some particular interest group to whom Bush owes a favour. One particular interest group is the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Which brings me back to Iraq. To me the question isn't whether Saddam should be removed, I think everyone agrees that he should. The question is why the sudden interest from the US. But the reality is that it isn't a sudden interest or anything to do with the war on terror, the Global Pax Americana document pretty much outlines Bush policy. It was written in September 2000 by a right wing think tank called PNAC which includes Dîck Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (yes the same Donald Rumsfled who gave Saddam the OK to use chemical weapons against the Iranians when it suited americas interests) and Paul Wolfowitz. To many, including myself, it's a paranoid document that goes on about how the US must rule the world through military might to maintain its interests.

Of course in all of this, the war on terror heats up. If only because the word terror represents a golden opportunity to suspend basic rights. The action of the US against Iraq may be worthy, but at what price?
 
Thanks for the link to the Global Pax Americana document, Jim Boy. It looks an increasing read but it's getting too late in the night for me to read over it, I'll have a further look tomorrow.

I looked at the front page of that website and was particularly impressed with this statement:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership. ;)

I have no real gripe with the American people, as a whole they're decent people, I do however have a problem with the Bush Administration and like minded administrations in the past.

The American Government hasn't always been in favour of Democracy over Dictatorship, Chile being a prominent example.
 
I have a problem with people who use the argument 'you criticize americ - how would you like it if saddam was in charge ?'

Of course saddam and others are all loonies - the point is we expect much better from the US - after all when it comes to 'weapons of mass destruction" they have it in spades - and use them regularly instead of doing things the hard way.

Let me say it again - we expect much better from the US.
 
Of course saddam and others are all loonies - the point is we expect much better from the US - after all when it comes to 'weapons of mass destruction" they have it in spades - and use them regularly instead of doing things the hard way.

Let me say it again - we expect much better from the US.

Totally. Great Post. I agree with this 100%.

This is why I'm so criticial of the US. We are living in a time where for probably the first time in history, here is a nation that is so powerful that it can make a difference, I mean really make a difference, so that the world can truly become a better place.

Yet do they even try...no, quite the opposite actually.

And I know the argument that any country in that position of power would do the same thing, but that doesn't sit well with me. We're supposed to have advanced, yet as a whole we're still doing what we were doing thousands of years ago (squabbling over resources,religon, whatever excuse), and innocents are being killed, starving as a result. In all humanities existence nothing has changed, and I think thats quite sad.

The US is the sole superpower of the planet today, hence I think they have the most to answer for.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Anyhoo, wrap your conspiracy theories around the below. Need to take Holy Communion before you can eat:

Exactly what conspiracies are you talking about??

With all those examples you listed.

Firstly could you provide a reference? Not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to have a read out of interest.

Secondly, are these contributions made by the US govt.... or US based Aid groups?

And thirdly, if its made by US govt, then what are they getting in return. Dig deaper, and i assure you that there is something. The US government will give with out getting in return.

Even better, give me the references, and I'll do the digging for ya. How does that sound?
 
And thirdly, if its made by US govt, then what are they getting in return. Dig deaper, and i assure you that there is something. The US government will give with out getting in return.

sorry that paragraph should of read

And thirdly, if its made by US govt, then what are they getting in return. Dig deaper, and i assure you that there is something. The US government will not give with out getting in return.
 
Originally posted by knuckles
Southern Africa
. A contributing factor is the debilitating rate of HIV/AIDS infection in southern Africa. The United States has delivered or pledged more than 500,000 metric tons of food aid since the beginning of 2002. At a total value of more than $266 million, the U.S. government is the largest donor to the World Food Program's operations in southern Africa.




At the same time the US is stopping cheap drugs to help the AIDS?HIV victims to keep the US drug companies in profit.

A mere 266 million in exchange for Billions profit.

The 266 million is a great way to subsidise US farmers whilst looking good.
 
Originally posted by Mossie
Originally posted by knuckles
Southern Africa
. A contributing factor is the debilitating rate of HIV/AIDS infection in southern Africa. The United States has delivered or pledged more than 500,000 metric tons of food aid since the beginning of 2002. At a total value of more than $266 million, the U.S. government is the largest donor to the World Food Program's operations in southern Africa.




At the same time the US is stopping cheap drugs to help the AIDS?HIV victims to keep the US drug companies in profit.

A mere 266 million in exchange for Billions profit.

The 266 million is a great way to subsidise US farmers whilst looking good.

Er no. Keep it anymore simplistic and you could do finger painting.
If I had nothing to lose I would vote Yay. If I had much to lose, and a half-baked flawed document to protect my countries interests, I would vote nay accompanied with a fully extended middle finger also. Not as sentationalist as saying the US is denying help for AIDS patients, but more factual. BTW, any danger somebody could guarantee that the intended target of this free medicine would actually receive it? Doubt it. Unless they have a bigger gun than their loving caring goverments.

How many Microsoft buyers do you think there are in West African villages or Bangladeshi ghettos? Hasn't stopped Gates donating billions to those areas. Suppose you think Windows has been patched into condoms, Polio vaccines etc. Evil these Americans I tell you.
 
Originally posted by Lestat
Exactly what conspiracies are you talking about??

With all those examples you listed.

Firstly could you provide a reference? Not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to have a read out of interest.

Secondly, are these contributions made by the US govt.... or US based Aid groups?

And thirdly, if its made by US govt, then what are they getting in return. Dig deaper, and i assure you that there is something. The US government will give with out getting in return.

Even better, give me the references, and I'll do the digging for ya. How does that sound?

Just google usaid.
US could get what it wanted without giving anything. Deeper.
The ole' oil rhetoric. US still buys 60% of Iraqs oil output. Iraq wants it to buy 100%. No export market for sandals, carpets and sand. Saddam wants to go to war. Rational these Arab leaders are.
US can push the price down to $1.00 per barrel - easily. Economics text - look. It already owns the oil, doesn't need a war.

See you in a week. Off to UAE.
 
Originally posted by Jim Boy
Hawkforce, your assertation that democracy will solve all of the middle east woes seems somewhat naive.

I don't mean to sound naive. I don't know for sure that it will solve ANY problems.

But something has to happen to sort out the **** the world's in.

I'm very open to alternatives.


Originally posted by Jim Boy
Of course it would be nice for the middle east to be entirely democratic,

but nobody is really working towards it.

Hence my opinion.

Originally posted by Jim Boy
The US haven't really shown much interest in spreading democracy

This is rubbish and you know it. America is synonymous with Democracy.

Various administrations have fostered dictatorships in the (misguided IMO) belief that it was in the interests of stability - these are generally regarded as scandals.

Originally posted by Jim Boy
Arafat, who like him or loathe him, was voted in by a majority of the electorate (unlike Bush) in an entirely democratic process.

You are kidding right? Is this the same "entirely democratic process" Mugabe enjoys?

However corrupted the Western Democricies may have become they are still not comparable with the above farces.


Originally posted by Jim Boy
IMO the real solution to such forms of extremism is improved education. Not surprisingly, much more money has been put into gas pipelines than into schools in the west's rebuilding of Afghanistan.

I absolutely agree. I only advocate use of force if we are prepared to back it up by nation-building - whatever the cost. THis is the debate we should be having.

Originally posted by Jim Boy
To me the question isn't whether Saddam should be removed, I think everyone agrees that he should. The question is why the sudden interest from the US.

THe solution is right but the motive is questionable?

Exactly why I think the focus of debate (hence my despair of the left) is misplaced. THe argument should be about our responsibilities AFTER doing what so obviously should have been done in 91!

Absolutely the motives of the Bush regime should be questioned and closely examined. I view them with huge distrust and often distaste.

I just think their doing the right thing at the moment.

Originally posted by Jim Boy
Of course in all of this, the war on terror heats up. If only because the word terror represents a golden opportunity to suspend basic rights. The action of the US against Iraq may be worthy, but at what price?

The preservation of civil rights is ultimately decided by popular opinion and the law courts. Unless you believe that Western Governments plot to keep their citizens in a constant state of terror for eternity? Some do, I suppose.


I agree with much of what you say - I'm open to alternatives.
 
This is rubbish and you know it. America is synonymous with Democracy.

They've obviously got you fooled. Name one example of when the US has fostered Democracy. Not when they said they would, but when they've actually done it. Just one will do.

There's plenty of examples when they've fostered Dictatorships.

You are kidding right? Is this the same "entirely democratic process" Mugabe enjoys?

The same 'entirely democratic process' that George Bush enjoys.

Oh, thats right, if you agree with the result then its a fair democratic election, but if you disagree then it must be rigged.

What were your thoughts on Algeria Hawk???

I just think their doing the right thing at the moment.

Obviously you are naive. Sorry.

Why don't you try a little game ok. Lets say hypothetically that Saudi Arabia was the superpower, and were doing exactly what the US are doing today. And lets for example say that Australia and the US played the role of middle eastern, south American countries, Africa, or South East Asia countries today.

Would you still think that Saudi Arabia are doing the right thing. Don't tell me, just think about it.
 
Originally posted by knuckles
Er . BTW, any danger somebody could guarantee that the intended target of this free medicine would actually receive it? I

If putting a cruise missle through a bathroom missle 100's of klm's away can be done by the US I don't see medicine getting to the right people is a problem.

BTW I have never said Americans are evil. The US government now, is different.
 
Originally posted by knuckles
BTW, any danger somebody could guarantee that the intended target of this free medicine would actually receive it?

This is truly uneducated crap that you are spouting here knuckles;

1/. The issue isn't about free medicine, it's about generic medicine free from royalty payments.

2/. Time and time again medicines have been distributed in third world countries, polio and smallpox vaccines being just two examples

3/, Generic medicines are avialable in some countries, but what you are espousing hasn't happened

4/. If some African leader really decided to get it into his head to make these drugs and sell them at a high price back to the West, then they can do it right now. Making drugs is relatively easy, allowing the manufacture of generic drugs really won't make it any easier for this sort of corruption.
 
Originally posted by Lestat
Name one example of when the US has fostered Democracy. Not when they said they would, but when they've actually done it. Just one will do.

Err... Germany? Japan? Ring any bells?

If the level of your debate cannot drag itself beyond hopeless myopic Western self-loathing then there's really no point responding to you.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Post Sept 11 : Alternative Policy for Western Nations???

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top