Was The War in Iraq Necessary

[Reverend Blair]

Indeed we should, Caesar.

Globalisation, in its present form, does equal imperialism. It doesn't have to. Trade can be a powerful force to raise living, human rights, and environmental standards all over the planet. Instead it is being used to amass wealth for a very few individuals, mostly in the US and Western Europe, to the detriment of most of the planet, including working people in the US and Western Europe.

[Hugo]

Cgarrett, Blair, if Blackdog cannot successfully defend his assertions with his evidence, what makes you think you can defend them with absolutely none?

Facts trump feelings, I'm afraid.

[Reverend Blair]

The evidence is everywhere, Hugo. From weapons sales, to privatised water in South America and Africa, to agricultural subsidies in the US and EU, to the war in Iraq, to pretty much every document to come out of PNAC since its founding, to the actions of the Bush government on softwood lumber and the Wheatboard. All you have to do is open your eyes.

The current version of globalisation is making the poor poorer and more dependent on the wealthy. The wealthy are getting obscenely rich and exhibiting less and less willingness to have the poor depend on them, even while creating more dependence.

There is plenty of evidence available, but thos from the far right who feel that unfettered capitalism and social darwinism are some sort of panacea will not listen anyway.

[Hugo]

The evidence is everywhere... There is plenty of evidence available

Then why are you not providing any?

[Reverend Blair]

Will you read it? Will you care to try to understand it?

Follow the links in these stories:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/index.php?topic...ic=blairscolumn

Plenty more where those came from too.

[Hugo]

This evidence does not prove the point.

You will have to provide evidence that standards of living, longevity, literacy, average income etc. have declined in a majority of countries, especially third-world countries, since 1980, and that that decline cannot be attributed to war, civil strife, drought and famine, disease and any other factors besides globalisation and capitalism.

You will find the task impossible. You can only find evidence to support the truth, and what you claim is not true.

Anything else is merely anecdotal. On the first few pages of the section of your site on "globalisation", probably 8 in 10 are about NAFTA. What does that prove about the impact of globalisation on the entirety of humanity, exactly, anymore than crimes in your hometown are indicative of crime trends in the entire country?

What you've essentially done, insofar as you've done anything, is the same as Blackdog. You have pulled together a collection of incidents and tried to paint a global picture.

It does not work that way.

I used to do tier-2 support for cable internet. The company I worked for had millions of satisfied customers, yet from where I sat, all I heard was the complaints, the outages, the downtimes, etc.

I could pull together two dozen examples of democracies that failed to uphold the rights of their citizens, that ignored or encouraged tyranny overseas and at home, and so forth. What does this mean - that democracy is evil, and is trampling the human spirit and destroying the liberty of the common man? I don't think so.

That is why I ask you for some evidence that proves a global and undeniable trend, rather than incidents that may represent a mere one negative event in a thousand positives.

[Reverend Blair]

You read all of those articles and all of the supporting links in 11 minutes? Man, that's incredible. I'll bet you even read the supporting links within the links. You must have one fast computer there, Hugo. Your eyes must be aching too...all that speed reading. I'll bet you have a headache. Want a Tylenol?

Just because you refuse to read something does not mean that it isn't valid, Hugo. In fact, it just points to you not wanting to see any evidence that contradicts your own mindset.

There is a huge and growing body of evidence that what we are doing is not working. That isn't the fault of democracy, and I've never claimed that it is. It is the fault of those who would undermine democracy to feed their own greed while ignoring the very needs of others.

Read the stories, all of them. Read the supporting links. Read similar stories. Read the supporting links to those. Don't glance at one part of an issue and decide that you agree because it might make you uncomfortable.

[Hugo]

Once again, I don't see why I have to do your research for you.

If you have links to the specific statistics and analyses that I asked for, provide them. If any of the many, many links you cursorily suggested I waste hours of my time reading in an effort to find the proofs you are too lazy to give do in fact contain this information, link to them.

If the evidence is as abundant as you claim, this should be no problem for you.

I don't know what you are used to, but opinion columns, absent or completely lazy/inept research and a mocking tone do not fly here.

[Hugo]

For example, this would be the type of information I'm looking for. It's a comparison of life expectancy in a wide sample of countries from 1950, and 1998. Note that there is not one single instance of it having dropped. There is also no single instance of it failing to have increased substantially.

Now, as we know that wealth is the root cause of the extension of quantity and quality of life (wealth pays for healthcare, clean water, good food, safe jobs, comfortable housing etc), how could life expectancy have increased so dramatically if these countries were not getting richer, or if their riches were being exported and not retained at home?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

This one should be a no-brainer.

from 1950, and 1998.

how could life expectancy have increased so dramatically if these countries were not getting richer, or if their riches were being exported and not retained at home?

I am not sure if you are aware of certain medical breakthroughs since the 50's, but polio, smallpox and TB deaths are wayyy down. None of these vaccines get distributed by Standard Oil or McDonald's, by the way. Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, and a host of others deserve far more credit than Standard Oil or McDonald's, I'm afraid.

[Reverend Blair]

Life is not a set of numbers, Hugo. Numbers only quantify, they are not capable of explaining why those quanitites exist. Those articles include links to the UN, Human Rights Watch and so on. The UN does not, as a habit, release opinion columns.

You want to negate the impact of wars, famine, etc; but you don't want to look at the root causes of those wars and famines.

Look at Iraq...who put Saddam in power and helped him gain such a strong hold on the power there? It was the US, seeking to protect their assets in the area. Look at the African HIV/AIDS pandemic. Who has fought hardest against the distribution of generic drugs there? The US because their pharmaceutical companies put profits before human life. Look at Sudan. They had relatively few problems before the oil companies showed up. Is there a direct causal link? Probably not, yet control of a potentially huge amount of wealth cannot be discounted as a motivating factor.

Again though, you never read the stories, the links that support them, or the links within those links. It is not me who is not doing the research, Hugo. Even when it is put right in front of you, you ignore it.

[Hugo]

I am not sure if you are aware of certain medical breakthroughs since the 50's, but polio, smallpox and TB deaths are wayyy down.

Well done. Now, I require you to take that train of thought a bit further than you have. Who developed and manufactured these vaccines and drugs? Oh, yes: pharmaceutical companies. Wealth creates health.

As John Locke said, the inventor, the industrialist and the capitalist have contributed far, far more to furthering the welfare of mankind than the philanthropist or the charity worker. It is true. The great inventions that have changed our lives for the better - the railway, the telegraph and telephone, anaesthesia, asepsis, antibiotics, the motor car, canned food, and so forth - were all created and developed for profit.

Your example, Thelonius, proves my point, not yours. Do you not think it a funny coincidence that the sudden explosion in medical technology and advances began at exactly the same time as the adoption of capitalism? Do you not think it strange that for the centuries, nay, millenia past where humanity adhered to mercantilist theory virtually no advances were made at all?

This one should be a no-brainer.

Yes, it certainly was. What a doozy.

Again though, you never read the stories, the links that support them, or the links within those links. It is not me who is not doing the research, Hugo. Even when it is put right in front of you, you ignore it.

Let's just recap your "proof."

You just gave three examples of incidents. Since you are not reading what I write I'll just repeat myself until you do, no sense getting carpal tunnel syndrome just for you:

You have pulled together a collection of incidents and tried to paint a global picture.

It does not work that way...

I could pull together two dozen examples of democracies that failed to uphold the rights of their citizens, that ignored or encouraged tyranny overseas and at home, and so forth. What does this mean - that democracy is evil, and is trampling the human spirit and destroying the liberty of the common man? I don't think so.

That is why I ask you for some evidence that proves a global and undeniable trend, rather than incidents that may represent a mere one negative event in a thousand positives.

And beforehand, you provided a link to an opinon website. I did actually take the time to read a sample article and noted that in well over six thousand words, there were a mere three hard facts cited. That's all, and even those are not evidences of global trends but rather, isolated incidents such as you are citing. The rest is simply the author rambling along on his own prejudices and personal observations.

This is not an inquiry, this is rhetoric. The author is not seeking the truth. Instead, he has picked a prejudice of his own and sought to prove it, picking a select few facts to support it and ignoring the majority of the evidence that does not support his viewpoint. It reveals a highly prejudiced and partisan worldview. In these terms, it is on a similar level as Mein Kampf or Das Kapital. He is not interested in learning the truth, but in proving his prejudices correct.

As I say, the hard facts and trends all support my argument. Life expectancy is up - globally (see previous citation). Real income is up globally too, and the countries with the most economic freedom and international trade are those that increased most (World Bank, Fraser Institute). The rich are not getting richer at the expense of the poor - China and India are both relatively and absolutely richer now compared to the USA than they were 20 years ago (World Bank).

[Hugo]

I know you've been active in the forums since my last post, Blair, so I hope you're working on a real hum-dinger of a reply and not just giving up, hoping nobody noticed your implied concession. At least Blackdog went out with a bang and not a whimper.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Your example, Thelonius, proves my point, not yours. Do you not think it a funny coincidence that the sudden explosion in medical technology and advances began at exactly the same time as the adoption of capitalism?

Nonsense. Capitalism did not start in the 50's. Moneylenders, those involved in trade since antiquity operated on the profit motive. Perhaps the electron microscope and the communications satellite would have been invented around the time of Christ if 'laissez-faire' capitalism had been allowed to dictate people's motivations.

Pull your head out of your backside, man.

[Hugo]

Nonsense. Capitalism did not start in the 50's.

No, and nor did the medical revolution. That began in the late 18th Century, when capitalism first took hold.

Moneylenders, those involved in trade since antiquity operated on the profit motive.

Yes, it was called mercantilism.

[Reverend Blair]

I know you've been active in the forums since my last post, Blair, so I hope you're working on a real hum-dinger of a reply and not just giving up, hoping nobody noticed your implied concession.

No concession given. Your last post contained references to posts that were not mine, so I thought I'd leave it to the person you were quoting to answer.

You, on the other hand, have not responded to the last post I addressed to you in any real way. I'm waiting....

[caesar]

Hugo; you are looking for a site to find world information on assorted countries; The World Fact Book can be found at:

Hope I copied that right.

[Hugo]

You, on the other hand, have not responded to the last post I addressed to you in any real way.

I am well aware that the only thing that would satisfy you at this stage would be for me to respond, in detail, to the particular and isolated incidents you cite even though I have repeatedly given my valid reason for not doing so.

Basically, you are trying to hide the forest with the trees. You're aware that you cannot defend your argument, so you are hoping to side-track the debate into a number of smaller issues and, in so doing, lose the main one.

Unfortunately, I wasn't born yesterday and I'm not particularly interested in seeing you deliberately stall this discussion. Hence you have ignored my perfectly valid rebuttal, hoping that others reading this thread are gullible enough to believe that I had none. They aren't.

I think we will see if you can actually defend yourself. If I'm ignored again, we'll know the answer to that, won't we?

Hugo; you are looking for a site to find world information on assorted countries; The World Fact Book acn be found at

I'm aware of it already, thanks. Some of the information I've based my assertions on comes from it.

[Reverend Blair]

No Hugo, I am citing examples that show that what we are currently doing is not working.

You are saying that capitalism has caused us to advance, but you are wrong. Capitalism has been around since villagers began trading sheep for beer so they could enjoy the weekend, yet there were few real societal advances until we began introducing human rights and democracy.

Capitalism, in its present form, often tramples on human rights and undermines the basic tenets of democracy. If you look at some of the things that have gone in the pharmaceutical industry, you find that it can also undermine the scientific method.

Now before anybody calls me a communist or some other equally inaccurate epithet, notice that I said, "In its present form."

[Hugo]

Blair, you have been repeatedly asked to prove your points and you have not. You have just finished making wildly sweeping statements like "You are saying that capitalism has caused us to advance, but you are wrong." without any cited evidence. I have already explained to you why your existing citations are inadequate, and you have not addressed that at all, in fact, your evidence has dropped from "inadequate" to "nonexistent."

Capitalism has been around since villagers began trading sheep for beer so they could enjoy the weekend

Capitalism has existed since the late 18th Century when the first capitalist thinkers such as Adam Smith began putting their ideas on paper and the first capitalist statesmen such as Benjamin Franklin began acting upon them.

Anything prior to that, and you are discussing other economies. Your whole argument smacks of gross ignorance and this is one further example.

[Reverend Blair]

Sorry dude, won't work. I've put a bunch of links up and you have read read one of them. You decided you didn't like it, but you don't want to argue substance, only statistics.

You've headed us down the road of blind rhetoric, but iof you refuse to look at my arguments then I have no reason to look at yours.

Let's cut to the chase then....You are advocating people as a means to profit. I'm advocating people as a means to having somebody to hang out with. I figure we should have beer. You figure we should provide a corporate-owned brewery with the means to encourage breast implants. I advocate being simple, you want want to improve yourself over that by a ton.

[Hugo]

I've put a bunch of links up

You put one link up. It was to a whole website, not a document or study, and the site was a series of opinion columns seemingly starring you. This was the sum total of your sorry excuses for evidence and fact.

You decided you didn't like it, but you don't want to argue substance, only statistics.

That's right, I want to talk about facts and figures, not about feelings and opinions. You seem to have this idea that rhetoric is fact, and that prejudice is as valid as evidence, but you are mistaken. Even though you wouldn't admit it you should have learnt that in our exchange, although I notice you are flailing wildly in a similar fashion in your exchanges with KrustyKidd so we can probably surmise that you are one of those people who just won't learn.

I figure we should have beer.

I hope your career as a drunkard works out better than your career as a political pundit.

[Reverend Blair]

I said clearly that you should,

Follow the links in these stories:

You didn't read the stories, you didn't follow the links, you didn't check the links within the links. If you won't do the reading, you won't understand the issues involved. That those links read to the facts and figures you are so fond of demanding seems to have escaped you.

[Hugo]

those links read to the facts and figures you are so fond of demanding

If those links lead to the facts and figures I want, it should not be asking a big favour of you to find a few examples, should it? Especially seeing as how you are not only a regular visitor but a substantial contributor to that site?

[Reverend Blair]

I think you are perfectly capable of following the links. I could find the specific examples, but I want you to look at the big picture. You don't have to read what I wrote, just the supporting documentation and the documentation that supports that. Your reluctance to do that reading disturbs me.