Sudan Redux

[geni]

No. The United States is the only union that that fits my description.

Who are the pending members? The US whether you like it or not is one nation. By definetion two nations can't have a civil war.

 

[geni]

You need to look at what WHO has actually accomplished. Let's talk net lives saved. If you don't like that metric, pick another.

Sure lets start with removing small pox from the wild. While we are about it we can add the near ilimination of polio.

 

[Rob Lister]

Who are the pending members? The US whether you like it or not is one nation. By definetion two nations can't have a civil war.

The Civil War was an attempt of some member states to leave the Union. A war ensued. It should not have, constitutionally speaking. Still, while you may see it as 'one' nation, it is, constitutionally speaking at least, a union of nations.

If you'd like a list of the pending nations, do a web search. Puerto Rico is but one but there are several others.

My bet is that before the end of this century, so too will be one or more parts of what is now Canada.

 

[Rob Lister]

Sure lets start with removing small pox from the wild. While we are about it we can add the near ilimination of polio.

Fair enough. They did do that. Then. Ignoring what would have been (better) accomplished in their absence, what are they doing lately?

Nothing condemn's WHO's current agenda more than some of its own pronouncements. In a 1999 press release, WHO declared that six illnesses accounted for 90 percent of all infectious disease deaths among people under 44 years: malaria tuberculosis, measles, diarrheal diseases, acute respiratory infections (including pneumonia), and AIDS. The same press release declared that "the tools to prevent deaths from each of these six diseases now cost under $20 per person at risk, and in most cases under $0.35. Yet these diseases still caused over 11 million deaths in 1998."

. . . we have WHO declaring that 11 million deaths -- 90 percent of all infectious disease deaths for people under 44 years -- could have been easily prevented with an expenditure of, at its lowest, $3.9 million, and at its highest, $220 million. That is, anywhere from 0.4 percent to 20 percent of WHO's budget for one year.

Source:

http://reason.com/0201/fe.bd.who.shtml

In short, they are, or have become, a reflection of the organization that controls them.

Bill Gates will do more for world health than will WHO, and he's just one person (albeit a very wealthy one...whom I love to hate and hate to love)

 

[c0rbin]

European Imperialism is what made Africa what it is.

 

[Rob Lister]

European Imperialism is what made Africa what it is.

More to the point: where would Africa currently be without European Imperialism.

Better, Worse, It all depends on your goals.

 

[geni]

Fair enough. They did do that. Then. Ignoring what would have been (better) accomplished in their absence,

Please provide evidence for this stament.

 

[geni]

The Civil War was an attempt of some member states to leave the Union. A war ensued. It should not have, constitutionally speaking. Still, while you may see it as 'one' nation, it is, constitutionally speaking at least, a union of nations.

My country is still technicaly a monarchy. The US is one nation. Accept it.

 

[Skeptic]

The WHO is part of the UN. You may need to rethink your statement

(Shrug)

I thoght it was obvious we were dealing with the UN's political organizations--the Security Council, the general assembly, etc.--not its various sub-organizations like the WHO.

In any case, since since 99% of the WHO's work is supported by the western democracies anyway, it would suffer very little is Cuba or Libya will stop sending it money.

Democies only? Define the minimum a country has to have to be a democracy.

Like Pornography, it's hard to define, but "you know it when you see it". The US, Britian, or Japan are democracies. Cuba, Iran, or North Korea are not.

 

[geni]

Like Pornography, it's hard to define, but "you know it when you see it". The US, Britian, or Japan are democracies. Cuba, Iran, or North Korea are not. [/B]

Iran has some elections (certianly more than many of it's naibours not that that means much). Britian is still a monarchy. The closest you can get is a club of nations wich can be joined by invite only which tends to limit your size somewhat.


In some cases you have to work with dictators whether you like it or not. Healthcare and trying to limit the spread of nuclear wepons are a couple of examples (there are propbaly two dictatorships at the moment that have nuclear wepons).

 

[Rob Lister]

Iran has some elections (certianly more than many of it's naibours not that that means much). Britian is still a monarchy. The closest you can get is a club of nations wich can be joined by invite only which tends to limit your size somewhat.


In some cases you have to work with dictators whether you like it or not. Healthcare and trying to limit the spread of nuclear wepons are a couple of examples (there are propbaly two dictatorships at the moment that have nuclear wepons).

Why do you 'have to' work with such dictators? Is that your only option? Clearly, it is not. Working directly against them seems much more effective...even cost effective...in the long run.

 

[geni]

Why do you 'have to' work with such dictators? Is that your only option? Clearly, it is not. Working directly against them seems much more effective...even cost effective...in the long run.

Because if you refuse to talk to pakistan in any way shape or form wahts to stop them selling a few nukes to say Saudi arabia. If you need to carry out a vacination program you need to make sure every counry is vacinated which means you have to deal with the people in those countries who have the power.

 

[Rob Lister]

The US is one nation. Accept it.

You seem to be stuck on that so lets see if we can establish why.

Please define 'nation' as you see it.

Please explain the difference between your idea of a nation and what you'd like to see from a member state of the U.N.

How does a member nation of the United States differ from a member state of the United Nation?

 

[Rob Lister]

Because if you refuse to talk to pakistan in any way shape or form wahts to stop them selling a few nukes to say Saudi arabia. If you need to carry out a vacination program you need to make sure every counry is vacinated which means you have to deal with the people in those countries who have the power.

Pakistan may not have been your the best example, but I know what you mean. Still, why not work directly against dictators. When I say 'directly against', that's exactly what I mean. Need I spell it out? Why do you think it would be less effective than working with them -- i.e. subsidizing their dictatorships?

Has 'working with' North Korea helped? Has working against them (him) worked better?

Did 'working with' Saddam help? In that case one could argue that working 'directly against' hasn't helped either, but I would argue that it has helped greatly. Then again, I'm using human life as a metric, not necessarily first-world life.

 

[geni]

Pakistan may not have been your the best example, but I know what you mean. Still, why not work directly against dictators. When I say 'directly against', that's exactly what I mean. Need I spell it out? Why do you think it would be less effective than working with them -- i.e. subsidizing their dictatorships?

Pakistan is the country that I'm certain has nuclear wepons.

Has 'working with' North Korea helped? Has working against them (him) worked better?

More North koreans would have died if we had worked against him to a greater extent

 

[c0rbin]

More to the point: where would Africa currently be without European Imperialism.

Better, Worse, It all depends on your goals.

From what I hear, imperialism is bad, interferance is bad, torture is bad, and nation building is bad. Why does Europe get a pass?

If American capitalists are the root of all evil, why is Bill Gates (and his wife) giving away so much money?

 

[Nikk]

European Imperialism is what made Africa what it is.

Incorrect. Africa's, ahem, limitations are largely home grown. It might have been better off if European Imperialism had survived another 40 years or so.

To understand this look at India and Pakistan.

Both countries were formed from British India ( originally a patchwork of semi independent states and principalities ). They were at much the same level of social development and were run by the same British adminiatrators in the same way and treated as one political entity. A major objective of this administration was the creation of an educated, anglicised political and intellectual elite. In the case of India which was largely Hindu this elite went on to create the world's largest functioning ( albeit erratically functioning) democracy. In the case of Muslim Pakistan there was instability and one military coup after the other. It is now one of the world's poorest countries.

Clearly it makes no sense to argue that European Imperialism made India a success and Pakistan a failure. The different patterns of development are due to cultural and historical differences between the peoples forming the two states.

The lesson of Africa is that, no matter who is in charge, a pre civilised iron age culture cannot be transformed and expected to assimilate new cultural standards in a few decades.

It's noteworthy that the most prosperous country in Africa is South Africa which was completely dominated by European Imperialists until quite recently.

Just a thought, but do you think that US Imperialism has made Cuba what it is today?

 

[Nikk]

Pakistan may not have been your the best example, but I know what you mean. Still, why not work directly against dictators. When I say 'directly against', that's exactly what I mean. Need I spell it out? Why do you think it would be less effective than working with them -- i.e. subsidizing their dictatorships?

Has 'working with' North Korea helped? Has working against them (him) worked better?

Did 'working with' Saddam help? In that case one could argue that working 'directly against' hasn't helped either, but I would argue that it has helped greatly. Then again, I'm using human life as a metric, not necessarily first-world life.

Why does working "against" dictators necessarily bring desirable results. Both South Korea and Taiwan in the early days could have been described is dictatorships. Both had US support and both developed into prosperous democracies in their own time.

On the other hand Iran was a "dictatorship" ( monarchy actually ) which had strong western support, but this couldn't stop a popular revolution and the resulting power struggle led to an Islamic regime much worse than the rule of the Shah.

Working with Saddam kept the Islamic revolution in Iran in check long enough for decay and disillusion to set in there. Not a bad result really.

The unfortunate truth is that trying to manipulate other people's societies even with the best of intentions can easily have unpredictable and unfortunate results. There is no "one size fits all" policy as you seem to suggest.

 

[Nikk]

double post.

 

[c0rbin]

Incorrect. Africa's, ahem, limitations are largely home grown. It might have been better off if European Imperialism had survived another 40 years or so.

Just a thought, but do you think that US Imperialism has made Cuba what it is today?

Perhaps I painted too broad a stroke by saying: "European Imperialism is what made Africa what it is." Africa is a continent, after all comprised of diverse peoples and situations.

The statement was prompted by folks here who claim that the US is responsible for the bad turns by the regimes we help set up in the middle east and we are getting spanked in the world-view realm for it.

I was curious as to why people would be more forgiving of European empire building and less so of American empire building.

Regarding Cuba, I think the tiny population suffers from a US anti-communist hard-line. Castro will not live for ever and I am curious to see if Cuba becomes another Haiti, or if the huge anti-Castro folks in the US (in Miami, if you get the jokes) will mount and effort to relieve the place.