Tim Samoff // Weblog (old)

Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’


—Edmund Burke, English philosopher


I guess its better to have Saddam increasing in power and terrorizing his people and potentially others but your post has made me think and I will meet you half way and say it is a dillema in an idealistic world.

dh - October 20, 2004 at 09:28 am

A sad dilemma. And I am very idealistic.

timsamoff () (URL) - October 20, 2004 at 10:28 am

Doesn’t seem like too much of a dilemma to me…The evidence of Saddam “increasing” in power is slim (and that’s generous). The fact is that he’d been quite well contained and our intelligence was flawed.


The money we’ve used for a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation could feed 200 million starving people according to your post, Tim. I’d do that any day rather than what we’ve done in Iraq…Throughout our history as a nation, we’ve tried war (to the point of dropping an atom bomb), and it hasn’t created peace. Perhaps we should spend our money on positive initatives.


Yes, I’m a card-carrying idealist.

ashley () - October 20, 2004 at 2:07 pm

For me, the dilemma exists because we are there and must now do something about it (for sake of leaving the place — at least — in the way we found it). That is the dilemma I speak of.


And I would even gladly pay higher taxes if I knew the money was going to save lives rather than take them.

timsamoff () (URL) - October 20, 2004 at 2:26 pm

Here is a little info I thought you might be interested in:

http://husseinandterror.com/

dh - October 20, 2004 at 2:33 pm

DH ~ Here’s something you might find interesting:


http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/index-eng


I.e., Iraq’s not the only place and Hussein is (by far) not the only tyrant that we’ve ever come across.


There are other ways.

timsamoff () (URL) - October 20, 2004 at 3:39 pm

Countries have to defend themselves: Israel, Russia, etc. against terrorists in those nations. That is why the US supports democratic nations for defense.

DH - October 20, 2004 at 4:17 pm

War is NOT the answer. but its a resolution.

Dennisthemenace () - October 20, 2004 at 5:03 pm

DH, thank goodness you’re not smoking the peace pipe in dreamland too.

Dennisthemenace () - October 20, 2004 at 5:05 pm

Thanks for the correction Dennis. I overstated my position. I hope no harm is done. You are correct diplomacy and care should be used as much as possible.

dh - October 20, 2004 at 5:34 pm

i LIKE this guy.. (points up)

Dennisthemenace () - October 21, 2004 at 1:35 pm

No matter what president is in office, those 200 million starving people would have never been fed by the U.S. We are a greedy country, out for our own interests, dem or repub pres in office, period. I don’t agree with much about the war in Iraq, but to suggest that that we would have spent, out of the goodness of our American hearts, $138 billion on other people around the world is ludicrous. Americans, nor any other capitalist country, would never do that.

p.e.horner () (URL) - October 21, 2004 at 2:30 pm

P.E. I agree with you on your first sentence. I do think many individuals are greedy. I think you are a little harsh when it comes to your “capitalist country” comment. The US and other capitalist countries, as a government, send millions even billions in humanitarian aid to third world countries. They probably send more humanitarian aid than other “types of countries”. Do “capitalist countries” need to do more? Absolutely. How much more and at what percentage increase? That is another topic.

dh - October 21, 2004 at 2:58 pm

Good point dh, but I would argue that, beneath most or all of our foreign aid (especially Israel!!), is a political motive to ensure that the U.S. has allies in important parts of the world (especially the middle east). I sincerely doubt that any significant portion of our foreign aid is given out of solely benevolent and selfless motives.

p.e.horner () (URL) - October 21, 2004 at 6:18 pm

Sounds like you and I are on the same page. :) In my opinion I don’t think that this is neccesarily a bad thing especially if the country is oppressed by another country or within a country that has a ruthless dictator or terrorists. In those cases the assistance can have a muti-faceted benefit. What do you think? Am I off base?

dh - October 21, 2004 at 10:12 pm

No, I competely agree.

p.e.horner () (URL) - October 22, 2004 at 11:45 am

I just re-read something that seems appropriate to share here…in Russell Chandler’s book Racing Toward 2001: The Forces Shaping America’s Religious Future, he states “If church members were to boost their giving to an average of 10 percent of their income (the tithe), the additional funds could eliminate the worst of world poverty…plus another $17 billion for domestic need – all while maintaining church activities at current levels.” Maybe, we’re asking the government to fulfill a role God did not intend them to fulfill.

Jill () - October 25, 2004 at 11:31 pm

But what you may be forgetting, Jill, is that the money being spent on the war is our money — and not 10 percent but sometimes more than 25 percent of it! (Not to mention borrowing from social security.)


In any case, you could be right that the reponsibility might be ours and not the government’s, but look at it this way: is it the government’s responsibility to look after its own nation? If so, just think of the good that the money spent on the war (our money) would do if it was spent in our own nation — to take care of the people here. If that were to happen, do you think the money that left our hands (an extra 10 percent maybe) might then be more easy — i.e., if we were looked after better first, would we be more willing then to spend money helping other nations?

timsamoff () (URL) - October 26, 2004 at 09:01 am

Good point Jill!!! I think that as individuals we need to do more for the poor. I think we nned to help poor nations around the world. It is all a matter of priority or focus. Should we help the poor in the third world making them at a level where they can somewhat live and survive or do we help the poor here (what would be considered rich in the third world) to our middle class? Another thing is 2 trillion dollars was spent on the “war on poverty” since its inception and all entities on all sides agree that it has been lost. This is so sad.

dh - October 26, 2004 at 12:13 pm