so much anger...

[Philistine]

{snip}
For instance, to take only the first, the issue of "aggression". The first Gulf War---many would say the first portion of the Gulf War, as that conflict was never concluded with anything more than a cease-fire---ended after an agreement by the Iraqi state to certain condition, one of which was observation of no-fly zones, these to be patrolled by Allied aircraft. Despite agreeing to this, by the end of last year if not sooner Iraqi forces were sedulously attempting to shoot down those Allied aircraft on a weekly and often daily basis.

The "no-fly zones" were not a part of Resolution 687 or any other Security Council Resolution. They were imposed unilaterally by the US, Britain and France (France pulled out shortly thereafter).

If trying to shoot down a plane isn't "aggression", I don't know what is.

How do you think the US (or any other country for that matter) would treat sytematic armed, unauthorized overflights?

Now, many other reasons were adduced for the most recent incursion, but this one alone explodes the "unprovoked aggression" contention.

Unprovoked?

Similarly, each of the other characterizations can be argued against, to the ultimate end that a coherent case can be made that the war was both just and necessary. And it may well be that 60 years hence history will judge it to have been as much so as WWII. We cannot hope to have an objective perspective whilst we are in media res, IMO...

Possibly so--though IMHO many strained interpretations, and deliberate disregard of who events have transpired after the war have to be made to do so. YMMV.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

heh! you wanna rethink that one? Hint: Make sure you know the difference between DEFICIT and DEBT.

You know, just recently you were wanting us to measure foreign aid in terms of percentage of GDP. But apparently you don't care to do the same with the deficit. ( I guess it doesn't help your argument in the latter case. )

In terms of percent of GDP the deficit is nowhere near the largest its ever been. That occurred during Reagan's day...and the economy didn't implode then, either. In fact, wasn't that right before the longest peacetime economic expansion in history? Could it be that deficits, at least of the miniscule real-adjusted sizes we've had, and prosperity are uncorrelated?

The arguments against Bush and/or for Clinton are never weaker than when they try to attribute chanes in the bewilderingly complex behemoth that is a national economy to the efforts of one politician. Clinton did not make the economy of the 90s happen. Bush did not make the present economy happen. For that matter he didn't make the expansion that's now gathering steam happen, either. The business cycle and exogenous events like technological transformations and resource shocks did both, no help required.

1) Clinton's unemployment rate wasn't due to people giving up and ceasing to look for work. there's a reason that Bush's unemployment went down in months that we actually LOST jobs.

Mike, the unemployment rate is not a qualitative measure. And the phenomenon of the "discouraged" worker was not invented by Bush. There is too much going on in the labor market to be fully captured by the limited tool of statistical analysis, but trying to make distinction between two 5.4% rates and say that one is somehow "worse" than the other is patently ridiculous. The unemployment rates are the same. They are cyclical. They are not normatively "different".

Bush got there, and now he's undone that progress.

Get thee to a macroecon 101 course, go! Presidents do not pull the strings on economies. They do not create or destroy jobs, except in terms of federal positions. Their policies are blunt tools wielded underwater, and are about as likely to have their intended effect as flipping a fair coin is likely to land on tails. And Clinton's economists were not cleverer than Bush's...they all get the same training in the same principles.

Clinton did a great job handling what was likely to be an upturn anyway. Bush has made a natural downturn worse.

Show us the causative relationship between the policies and the economic effects, then. In fact, show us JUST ONE Clinton policy which clearly made a positive difference, or just one Bush one that made a negative difference.

[Philistine]

The US GDP however dwarfs those of the top contributors, and thus in terms of actual dollars we contribute far more than most of the top countries combined.
{snip}

While I agree in principle (i.e. Norway's .94% GNP donation of $2 billion does less good than the US's .14% donation of almost $16 billion), it's not really "far more than most of the top countries combined."

In fact, until 2001, Japan routinely contributed more in terms of actual dollars.

The #'s for the top 10 actual dollar contributors for 2003 are:

....................Actual Dollars.($000,000)....................% GNP

...........Country....2000.....2001.... 2002.... 2003....2000.... 2001.... 2002....2003
1. United States....9,581....10,884...12,900...15,791...0.1. ..0.11..... 0.12... 0.14
2. Japan ............13,062.... 9,678... 9,220... 8,911... 0.27... 0.23..... 0.23... 0.2
3. France............ 4,221... 4,293... 5,182... 7,337... 0.33... 0.34..... 0.36... 0.41
4. Germany.......... 5,034... 4,879... 5,359... 6,694... 0.27... 0.27..... 0.27... 0.28
5. United Kingdom..4,458... 4,659... 4,749... 6,166... 0.31... 0.32..... 0.3... 0.34
6. Netherlands.......3,075 ...3,155 ...3,377 ...4,059 ...0.82 ...0.82 .....0.82... 0.81
7. Italy................ 1,368... 1,493... 2,313... 2,393... 0.13... 0.14..... 0.2... 0.16
8. Canada............ 1,722... 1,572... 2,013... 2,209... 0.25... 0.23..... 0.28... 0.26
9. Sweden............ 1,813... 1,576... 1,754... 2,100... 0.81... 0.76..... 0.74... 0.7
10. Norway........... 1,264... 1,346... 1,746... 2,043... 0.8... 0.83..... 0.91... 0.92

Link

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Japan, btw, ranks first in foreign aid,

Old news I'm afraid, Mike. Japan fell out of first place three years ago:

http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,23..._1_1_1,00.html


http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,23..._1_1_1,00.html

I'm still lookin' for a complete ranking in dollar amount.

-m

There are some interesting charts and figures here:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

[Tireur]

I haven't.

-m

Uh, yes you have. give me time, a little busy today.

[Inquartata]

the economic effect of 9/11 has been DRAMATICALLY overestimated by this administration.
-m

A) How so?

B) It wasn't the only exogenous shock to the economy. The aforementioned bursting of the dot-com speculative bubble, which capped more than a decade of technological revolution, and the Asian currency crises, to name two more ( probably more significant even than 9-11, in fact ).

[Inquartata]

correlation != causation.

Heh, that was just what I was going to say about your point about the unemployment rate dropping all through President Clinton's term in office...

[Inquartata]

I think you read a little bit more into what I said,

I may well have done. My apologies if that was the case...

I wasn't necessarily saying that "world opinion" should be given equal weight in a national decision-making process. I was saying that it shouldn't be entirely discounted, nor should people and nations that hold opinions different from those of the US Administration be as rudely and categorically dismissed as they all too frequently have been in recent times.

I don't know about that. Given that nations, like individuals, tend to take stands that depend on where they sit, how MUCH consideration do you think should be given to the public opinion of countries with differing, often diametrically opposed, perceived national interests? How much weight do you think the Chinese or French or Italian publics give to American public opinion on their policies? ( To American official opinion, certainly, as these can carry consequences when dealing with a hegemonic state---but public opinion? )

Or is the real question only one of perception? Is the true objection of the world community not that we didn't agree to be constrained by their wishes but rather that we weren't "diplomatic" enough about rejecting their advice? On that score I tend to agree: the Bush Administration's long suit is definitely not tact and glibness, or even patience...but then we knew that long before the rest of the world learned it.

For that matter, I would suggest that those people within the US who hold opinions that do not wholly align with those of the Administration should also be listened to a little bit more than they have been.

This is the downside of a strong ideology. The upside is decisiveness and a relative freedom from the hesitancy of self-doubt. But I don't know how strongly we can criticize someone for doing what they ardently believe to be right, despite disagreement from others who believe differently. We can criticize them for being wrong after the act, or even say "we told you so" with some justice, but to criticize them because they act on their convictions even after we tell them that they're wrong based only on OUR convictions?

The Bush administration appears to me to heavily driven by ideology--by a theory of how the world works.

Agreed...though I daresay we differ on whether that's a good or bad thing. The important thing to me is how closely the ideology resembles reality, and how well it's policy results manage the vicissitudes of that reality...

Regardless of exactly when you believe peak production will occur (there are some indications that it has already occurred),

But you realize that experts have been saying that that peak has occurred for over 40 years now, do you not? It keeps getting pushed back.

At any rate, the great motivator of behavior in the modern industrial world is the interaction of supply and demand, through price. When supply begins to fail to meet demand price will rise, and eventually this will spur the move to alternatives. Of course it would be better were it to happen sooner rather than later, but you cannot command the market to do as you wish it to do DESPITE supply and demand, at least not without ugly consequences, so it seems we have little choice but to await the outcome of the natural process...

the world as whole faces a consumption curve that continues to climb and a supply curve that will inevitably turn downward in the next five to ten years.

I think your pesimism is unwarranted. Population is projected to peak and begin a decline in the middle of the century, thus imposing an upper limit on demand; supplies are thought to be sufficient through this period ( which reckons without unforeseen contingencies but also without the discovery of new reserves ). IMO "inevitably" is too harsh a characterization. Malthus and his followers have thus far proved to be poor predictors of the future...

I don't see politicians anywhere, on any side, adequately addressing this issue--which makes sense, because it is difficult, complex, hard to explain, and probably will cause the public to eventually change long-cherished habits of consumption.

True enough...but as I mentioned above ultimately it's not in the hands of politicians, but rather in the hands of suppliers and consumers. Large economic questions are not very amenable to mere suasion and jawboning by politicians, however wise and well-meaning. Market forces have to work themselves out before significant change can occur.

[Tireur]

I haven't.

-m

Just a few times, nothing major.



I'm starting to see why you like O'Reilly

Never said I liked O'Reilly.


you think there's a contrary study?? find it,

Never said there was one, I speculated that one might happen in the future like with so many other studies.


I was unaware of Clinton's famous 94 campaign...

I can see how you might have thought I said this. I said Clinton had these figures in 94 and 96 when running for re-election. I assumed you knew about how frequently presidential elections occur and would know what I meant. Obviously I was wrong about you.

Doesn't lie? Yellow Cake from Niger?? does that ring a bell??

Show me one time I said Bush never lies.

[Tireur]

[/b]

The "no-fly zones" were not a part of Resolution 687 or any other Security Council Resolution. They were imposed unilaterally by the US, Britain and France (France pulled out shortly thereafter).

--Philistine

Correct, this resolution makes no specific reference to the implementation of "no-fly zones". However, there is wording in 688 which allows for observation and enforcement.

There was also one line in 687 which you can probably use to trace the Iraq-terror connection:
Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of
terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,

Might provide some evidence of terror funding by Iraq, at least of their intent to do so.

Or at least you might perceive it that way.......

[epeemike81]

Mike, the term "lie" is getting thrown around way too loosely. If you've seen ANY evidence that there was a knowing decision to tell an untruth made in the White House I'd like to see a citation. To emphasize: that's mens rea I'm looking for. A mere disjunct between a statement and later information does not meet the standard of deliberate deception. Voicing opinions and advocating policies based on information subsequently shown to be inaccurate is not necessarily "lying". Until proof that the former cannot have been the case alleging the latter is mere ad hominem attack...

search for Joseph Wilson's statements just after the State of the Union. He said that when the administration sent him to confirm those reports, he came back and said they were forged. The administration actually acknowledged that they shouldn't have said that in the State of the Union, but then had a change of heart, I guess. they outed his wife as a CIA operative.

-m

[Tireur]

[/b]

They were imposed unilaterally by the US, Britain and France (France pulled out shortly thereafter).

[/b --Philistine

And now the whole world knows why France pulled out, don't we?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Tireur]

they outed his wife as a CIA operative.

-m

By the way, they weren't the first to "out" Mrs. Wilson, that was done by Alrich Ames, apparently, and she was already being moved to administrative duties.

Also, according to Wilson himself, she told him she was a CIA agent on their second or third date, while in the sack. This is not the way to protect your cover, especially if she was in the habit of this.

[Inquartata]

[/b]

The "no-fly zones" were not a part of Resolution 687 or any other Security Council Resolution. They were imposed unilaterally by the US, Britain and France (France pulled out shortly thereafter).

And agreed to as a condition of being left in power by Saddam and his government. The element of duress in said agreement is irrelevant, being a consequence of Saddam's own illicit aggression against Kuwait. The alternative would have been what IMO ought to have happened in any event: the removal of Saddam from power. The zones were a condition of the cease-fire and the breach of that cease-fire effectively negated it---and our obligation to observe it. This is a principle of long standing in intrnational affairs.

How do you think the US (or any other country for that matter) would treat sytematic armed, unauthorized overflights?

Unauthorized? Again, they were agreed to as a condition of the cease fire with the Allied forces. Whether the dithering UN included same in a resolution is immaterial; the condition was agreed to by Iraq and its breach effectively vitiated the protection said cease fire provided it.

And there's a bit of the tu quoque fallacy in the question, too. The US has not brought about its own chastening. Should the exact same set of circumstances ever come to pertain, the same rules of treaty law would constrain the US. And should it violate them, it's pnishment for so doing would be as condign as is that of Iraq.

Unprovoked?

Yes, unprovoked. The enforcement of conditions of a cease-fire agreed to by both sides does not constitute "provocation". Is this really so difficult to understand?

Possibly so--though IMHO many strained interpretations, and deliberate disregard of who events have transpired after the war have to be made to do so.

Sorry, could you restate that? I'm not sure what you're saying here. ( I've already misinterpreted sabreur once, wouldn't want to compound the error with you! )

[Tireur]

show us JUST ONE Clinton policy which clearly made a positive difference, or just one Bush one that made a negative difference.

I'm glad I read this, this was going to be my next question.

I hope to rejoin you later today, but now, I have work to do.

[Inquartata]

search for Joseph Wilson's statements just after the State of the Union. He said that when the administration sent him to confirm those reports, he came back and said they were forged. The administration actually acknowledged that they shouldn't have said that in the State of the Union, but then had a change of heart, I guess. they outed his wife as a CIA operative.

-m

Sigh...


There's a reason why hearsay is not accepted in a court of law...

Someone SAYING that X is a liar is not proof, Mike...if affirming something to be so made it so, we should all believe that you wear a thong...

[epeemike81]

Not your conclusion, Mike, but that is the way I read sabreur's posting of this:

"Or do the the German press, leadership and people take a position because it happens to be congruent with their perceptions and beliefs about how the world works? As in, war is almost always a bad idea... As opposed to the apparent belief on the part of some portion of the American leadership and public that 9/11 justifies any action anywhere to remove any perceived threat to the US, no matter how miniscule the threat or dubious (not to say spurious) the evidence suggesting the threat might be..."

The conclusion I drew from that, perhaps wrongly ( sabreur, please correct me if I have misconstrued your meaning ), was that if the press, leaders and people of, in this case Germany but beyond that the "world community", felt to the contrary of the American thinking as characterized above, it ought to be given at least equal weight in the decision-making process, or at least given due deference in it. But consensus is no guarantee of truth, I'm sure you would agree, and no country ought to have to submit the safety of its citizenry to the fickle court of world opinion when that world opinion might as well be wrong as not...

no, what I got from it was that "maybe nobody's duping anybody and we all feel that way because it's right." he wasn't saying that they were right BECAUSE there were so many of them, just that they all agreed because they arrived at the same conclusion independantly, and none of them were led by the others (though, I kinda disagree about some of the politicians).

Yes. I agree and went so far as to say that perhaps the same conditions might apply elsewhere than in the US, using Germany as an example---saying that public opinion in Germany might too have been led by quality and bias in news sources.

This goes back to your original post about polls of world opinion taken before the current Iraq action showing widespread opposition to it. What was the purpose of bringing up those polls, if not to demonstrate that perhaps OUR public opinion was skewed by media bias? If so then those polls you mentioned and the public opinion they measured is surely subject to the same dubiety, no?

the difference between american opinion and the world wasn't held up as proof of media bias. the difference between world opinion and American perception of world opinion was. World opinion wasn't brought up for any purpose having to do with the actual figures, just that Americans a) got it wrong far too often and b) were MORE likely to get it wrong if they watched MORE Fox News.

I don't know where you get this. Even Fox seemed to drone on constantly about opposition in the rest of the world, and there was always someone citing the sort of polls you mention. The information was there to be seen if you were reading the news and watching it.

Certainly SOME Americans were UNinformed about world popular opinion, but more as a consequence of disinterest or want of listening to news that from any withholding of the truth by the media. ( We may tend to forget that there are large numbers of people everywhere who, unlike you and I, simply don't care about foreign affairs or politics and take no trouble to learn of such matters. These may indeed be ignorant of the nuances of European public hostility to our actions, but it's not an ignorance deliberately induced by outside agencies. )

look, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, saying that they were actually saying the world was against us. I'm simply saying there was clearly SOMETHING wrong with their coverage, as Americans gleaned misperceptions from it, and were more likely to the more they watched it. were I to venture a guess, they prolly talked incessantly about France, Germany, and Russia being against us (which leads to people like Tireur's mistaken opinion that those three nations form a "triumverate", when they frequently disagree about issues), but also talked about the "coalition of the willing" and spouted the party line that it was "the largest coalition we've ever formed." Since you KNOW how ridiculous that is, you probably just chuckled and listened to the stories about opinion. whereas I could see how those who were less aware could believe these repeated statements.

Where I get it from is the U. of Maryland study. where they get it is a poll. to decide if you agree with their methods, read the study.

-m

[epeemike81]

Yes, but hindsight as they say is perfect, foresight is another thing altogether...and as I said above, while those who fail to learn from history may be doomed to repeat it those who DO learn from history always seem to find new ways to go astray. And the circumstances always seem to change just enough to obscure any parallels to past situations until after the moment of decision has passed---and often for years thereafter.

I wasn't suggesting that it could easily have been different, just clarifying the point for any who didn't know.

-m

[epeemike81]

Yes, but Mike---WHICH policies? All we seem to get is glittering generalities.( "My priorities are jobs and health care"...swell, that's really helpful. )

I agree completely about this one, though his policy positions ARE available in more detail on his website. the problem is, people turn off (or at least we seem to think they do) when you start talking policy. consequently, the news doesn't cover specific proposals (for the most part), but rather just the soundbites. since they only cover soundbites, candidates do their best to give them those. btw, in the 2000 election, Bush spoke in vague generalities. the real issue is that non-incumbents don't have nearly as detailed policy statements, and that's a societal problem, IMO.

-m

[epeemike81]

There was also one line in 687 which you can probably use to trace the Iraq-terror connection:
Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of
terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,

Might provide some evidence of terror funding by Iraq, at least of their intent to do so.

yeah, they're referencing Israel there. had the president said "we need to get Israel's back on this one," I might not have agreed, but I wouldn't think he was lying about the threat. there's no question that Hussein supported terrorism against Israel.

-m