Globalization

[BlameTheEx]

Uncle.

 

I am English. We too sent troops, but I doubt we ever expected to control the oil there.

 

Our Prime Minister is under attack for giving out information the turned out to be untrue. That is, the weapons of mass destruction didn't exist. Here we take such things seriously. For the sake of the integrity of our political system I hope he resigns.

 

However Tony Blair points out that removing Sadam was a good thing, and worth the war. I think he has a point. Sadam killed his own people by the hundreds of thousands.

 

We in England are only too aware just how small the world has become. Trouble in Iraq, and all too many other places, becomes our problem when Europe becomes flooded with refugees.

 

What were we to do? Send them back to die in Iraq? See our own country slowly sink into poverty under the weight of too many people who don't even know the language, and do not respect our culture? To put it bluntly Europe is as full as its people want. Every refugee increases resentment. As the descendant of refugees myself this saddens me, but it is the truth. Racism is not out of hand in England yet, but it is growing stronger. Elsewhere in Europe things are far worse.

 

Any regime that so mistreats its people that large numbers must leave or die deserves to be removed. It is our moral duty, as a last resort, to do the removing. But moral or not, It is a necessity for us in Europe to teach these regimes that we will not, can not, tolerate the creation of refugees.

 

There is a point to this. Globalization is a FACT. What happens in another county effects us all. Things like Pollution, Terrorists, Refugees, Disease. Wherever they are created, we all suffer. The proper management of other peoples countries is OUR problem. All of us.

 

I can't help feel that it is time for an effective world government.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Sorry, I know this is getting off topic, should maybe pick it up in the Bush thread.

Actually it would seem very directly related to a discussion of Globalism. After all, the Exec branch is trying to control the world, and that IS Globalism.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Uncle.

 

I am English. We too sent troops, but I doubt we ever expected to control the oil there.

Can't speak for Blair's intent. I can assure you that the facts show that the US had specific intent of oil as a major target reason. Amoung others, the first troops were stationed at the wells. The only building protected, while luting was taking palce everywhere else, was the Oil Ministry. The promise was originally made that the oil would be "turned over to the people of Iraq so they could fund their own reconstruction". That was a big lie obviously.

Our Prime Minister is under attack for giving out information the turned out to be untrue. That is, the weapons of mass destruction didn't exist. Here we take such things seriously. For the sake of the integrity of our political system I hope he resigns.

He was a Bush pawn. He did what was wanted by Bush to invent support for a war they wanted since 1999. Check out the PNAC. It was published in a White Paper in 1999.

 

http://www.pnac.info/

However Tony Blair points out that removing Sadam was a good thing, and worth the war. I think he has a point. Sadam killed his own people by the hundreds of thousands.

There is a long list of bad people that the world would be better off without. At what point did it become the job of the US and UK to decide who and when?

 

Mre so, Saddam killed, not "his people", but people in his country that the US had pushed into attacking him. Still wrong yes. But the framing of the statement is intended to obfuscate the reality of it. To allow the misguided emotional knee jerk reaction you are showing. Not accusing you, just pointing out the process the Politico's used.

 

Further, to claim that the hundreds of billions wasted, the thousands, HUNDREDS of thousands of lifes lost far exceed anything Saddam did or could do. An estimated 1,500,000 Iraqis died because of the direct results of the UN Sanctions before 9/11 ever happened. Saddam could not have done that himself in his wildest dreams.

 

To claim that no matter how many lies were used to justify the war in Iraq, the end justifies the means is to allow whatever actions any political power wishes to use at any time. The winners always get to write the final justifications. Accepting such two wrongs makes a right is morally reprehensible.

Any regime that so mistreats its people that large numbers must leave or die deserves to be removed.

300,000 people will die in the US directly because the White House stopped the release of FACTS on air quality around the WTC after 9/11.

 

1,300,000 more US citizens dropped into poverty.

 

3,900,000 MORE US citizens have dropped into "Food insecurity" (the lack of access to enough food to fully meet basic needs at all times due to lack of financial resources.) since Bush took office.

 

5,000,000 million US citizens have lost their health insurance since Bush. Today, one in seven (45,000,000) Americans have no health coverage.

 

How many millions will die because of Bush in the US compared to how many of "his people" Saddam killed?

I can't help feel that it is time for an effective world government.

Agreed!

[lindagarrette]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Sorry, I know this is getting off topic, should maybe pick it up in the Bush thread.

Actually it would seem very directly related to a discussion of Globalism. After all, the Exec branch is trying to control the world, and that IS Globalism.

 

You must mean Global tyrany, not globalism (globalization?).

[Freethinker]

I guess I catagorize anything thAt heads towards a single world government/ structure as Globalization.

[Uncle Martin]

Blame,

Thank you for the insight from a European perspective. Very enlightening to a yank such as myself. We are rather insulated afterall. I see your point and cannot refute anything of what you say.

 

Good post!

[Tormod]

Well, here is another European opinion:

 

No state has the right to declare war on another. It does have the right to defend itself against attacks and hostility. Norway also sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq - against the popular opinion.

 

We DO have a form of centralized government, although it has no "real" jurisdiction", it does have power (troops, money, connections, regulations). It is called the United Nations. It suffers badly (apart from other things) because some countries simply refuse to cooperate. The US owes a lot of money to the UN and is not willing to to it's share of the hard work it is to try to police the world together.

 

Instead, the US wants to police the world on their own. And Tony Blair's decision to follow him into this mindless war is simply appalling, seen from a Norwegian perspective. It was completely unnessecary.

 

*Everyone* was telling the US administration to make this a United Nations campaign. But when the weapons inspectors failed to find nuclear weapon production plants, which still is the case, the administration decided to do it all on their own.

 

When Bush said "Either you're with us or you're against us" I felt a real slap in my face. I consider myself a friend of the US. I have many friends there, I have gone to college there, I have family there, I know that regular American folks are good people. They do, however, suffer from warlords who are just too happy to claim world superiority and start wars. Korea, Vietnam, 2xIraq are only a few examples after all.

 

No, Unc, the US is not insulated (no offense!). Americans, like everyone else, have every opportunity to learn more about the world and try to listen to some of the sources who show that there are other ways to do things (like diplomacy).

 

When Blame implies that going to war against dictators like Saddam Hussein - and (the way I read your post, Blame) implying that we should do this to *stop the flow of immigrants to Europe* I am saddened. Have we completely forgotten that Europe was once a continent of massive emigration to - the US? It happened in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s - and in fact it still happens. IT is estimated that there are more people of Norwegian descent in the US than in Norway.

 

If stopping immigration from the middle east is a purpose of this war then it is even more important to let the UN handle things, not the US. Going to war is NEVER a solution.

 

When I went to college back in 1990-92 the US was in Iraq, too. I remember reading a commentary. Imagine a stadium filled with children, some 50,000 of them. That is how many children were killed - directly or indirectly - because of Bush Sr's army going to war against their country. No argument in the world is going to tell me that it is justified to spend billions of US tax dollars (which should have been spent on making a better health care system or building better schools) on making smart bombs to bomb the living daylights out of them.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

Any regime that so mistreats its people that large numbers must leave or die deserves to be removed.

300,000 people will die in the US directly because the White House stopped the release of FACTS on air quality around the WTC after 9/11.

 

1,300,000 more US citizens dropped into poverty.

 

3,900,000 MORE US citizens have dropped into "Food insecurity" (the lack of access to enough food to fully meet basic needs at all times due to lack of financial resources.) since Bush took office.

 

5,000,000 million US citizens have lost their health insurance since Bush. Today, one in seven (45,000,000) Americans have no health coverage.

 

How many millions will die because of Bush in the US compared to how many of "his people" Saddam killed?

 

 

 

That's why it would be time that there is some real democracy in the US and that govrnment which is there now would be removed (actually they should look at themselves and decide to resign). How can you think you can bring democracy in a country who has NEVER had a democracy whilst you aren't even able to have one yourself.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

 

Racism is not out of hand in England yet, but it is growing stronger. Elsewhere in Europe things are far worse.

 

 

Yes I agree, there is racism groving also in Switzerland. But it is only groving where no refugees are, this can be shown looking at the last votatations (we've got a direct democracy so we vote once every3-4 months). Just lately we voted on th naturalization of second and third generations of refugees, it didn't pass!! that shows that racism (or better xenophobia, because you often hear that all the people from the balkans steal..) is groving. But if one looks at where the naturalization actually had been accepted, one sees that every big city accepted it. The reason is very simple, there people knows strangers, they went to school together and so on--> they have no prejudices.

So racism is groving because there aren't enough refugees the more we get mixed up in between cultures the more there is global acceptance.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

I just wish it would have led us in a different social direction. But given our nature and relative youth in existance on the planet, that's not likely. Perhaps the more mature we become, the more we will think of each other as part of our family rather than competitors. Linda

 

It's sad to see that you don't believe anymore in humanity, maybe this is because I'm young, but I think that one way of getting a better world is starting to believe that humans can make a better world.

[lindagarrette]

Sanctus, Believing something doesn't make it so. Religion is a good example. If all the energy being wasted on animosity toward one another could have been spent on conservation, research, and development, where would we be? What's the plan, now? At least half the population of this country, including your generation, is going to vote for status quo next month. The US is the most influential presence in the world, and our duly elected leadership has a very antagonistic message for the rest of the world. Linda

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

*Everyone* was telling the US administration to make this a United Nations campaign. But when the weapons inspectors failed to find nuclear weapon production plants, which still is the case, the administration decided to do it all on their own.

This is to assume that the WMD was the actual reason, regardless of their existence or not.

 

This was merely an excuse given by the Exec branch to launch the war. The actual reasons had little or nothing to do with potential threat to the US from WMD's. It was an effort to establish a military presence and financial advantage.

No, Unc, the US is not insulated (no offense!). Americans, like everyone else, have every opportunity to learn more about the world and try to listen to some of the sources who show that there are other ways to do things (like diplomacy).

American's not only have the opportunity, they should have the obligation. And they/ we are not living up to it. The average American is embarassingly uninformed. The "Ugly American" is a reality.

[lindagarrette]

Fear is a great motivator. That's how the administration manipulates this gullible society. A very real threat to our society is endangerment of the oil fields in the middle east. But that issue is way complicated and doesn't have enough impact with the general population. From the world perspective, WMD's even if there were any in Iraq, would not be sufficient reason for the preemptive strike.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

Sanctus, Believing something doesn't make it so. Religion is a good example.

 

Yes, I agree it doesn't make it so, but you can't change something if you don't believe that mankind is able to make that change. For me, the starting point of a more social globalization would be believing that mankind isn't capitalistic by nature.

 

I know it sounds like religion "starting to believe", but there is no proof that mankind is like this or like that. Mankind is an evolving thing, that means maybe now by nature the stronger humans enslave the weaker, this doesn't mean it has to be like this, it can evolve into something different. So believing in another attitude of mankind is not just a belief, it can be proven ..... by time.

[BlameTheEx]

Tormod.

 

You are right. I am implying that, in my opinion, immigration was a key reason for our entering the war.

 

I believe that Tony Blair was alarmed by a growing trend. Not of immigration, but of refugees. There is a difference. Immigrants go to a new country because they believe it is better. They arrive hoping to become citizens of that county, with all that citizenship implies.

 

Refugees consider themselves displaced citizens of their old country. All too often their loyalty is to the culture and land they left behind. In England we do little to avoid this. We are all too ready to send them back. Ether immediately, or years later once we think the situation has improved. We even put them in what can only be called prisons while we make up our minds. America is no different. I would be interested in hearing Norway's solution.

 

But ether way, is America prepared to take the worlds refugees now? Is Norway or is any other country? What is your solution?

 

I believe myself that people should be free to live in any country they choose, providing they obey the local laws. But if that is to be possible most must be persuaded to remain where they are. It's only possible if we have a levelling out of wealth over the world, and governments that work for all their citizens, rather than choice ethnic groups. That requires effective government in all, or at least most countries. It will never happen unless there is an effective way of removing the governments who fail, and occasionally the only way to do that is via war.

 

The threat of war can work, and I assume that that is what you mean by diplomacy, but its a hollow threat if never carried out. If it is not, can you tell me what a diplomat can offer a dictator that is more enticing than removing all opposing tribes/cultural groups/suporters of other political parties from his country, and keeping their wealth and land?

 

I only wish the UN was an effective world government, but in my mind its policies are to treat the symptoms while leaving the disease to spread.

[lindagarrette]

When you mention refugees, I think millions of starving people in Sub-Saharan Africa. The so called free world has empathy but very little in the way of assistance for them. If there were oil reserves or other western assets at risk perhaps we would pay more attention. It's all about money.

[BlameTheEx]

Linda

 

One day we may come to regret our treatment of Africa.

 

Indeed, possibly ignoring the plight of Africa has already killed us by the millions. I am talking about AIDS. It almost certainly originated in Africa, and after crossing over from monkeys it was probably, at first, only mildly infectious. Had Africa had a modern, free, health service it might have been detected, and the victims isolated before it spread.

 

Right now AIDS is a disaster, but things could easily get even worse. We have watched AIDS mutate from a mildly infectious disease to a disease easily contagious through homosexual sex to a disease contagious through ANY unprotected sex. It might not end there. Viruses have a nasty tendency to swap Genes. The big nightmare would be something like an influenza/AIDS hybrid, capable of spreading through the air. Every single human being who has AIDS increases that risk, and there are far too many of then in Africa.

 

Disease is just another case of globalization. What happens in other countries is all too likely to become our problem, whatever our political beliefs.

 

Sigh. I know that you would prefer developed nations to care about the people in other nations for moral reasons. I agree, but they won't. Sad, because there are good reasons to act out of pure self interest.