Friday, February 13, 2004
Homo Erectus knew how to party
According to this recent article posted on CNN, our ancestors may have had thicker skulls because we were beating each other over the heads with clubs as part of a mating ritual.
I don't find the following to be a convincing enough reason for our skulls to have gotten thinner, though:
So why didn't modern humans inherit this thick skull? Ciochon said evolution eventually favored a lighter skull to accommodate a heavier and larger brain. A thinner skull also would help cool the brain.
That wouldn't stop people from clubbing each other over the head. In fact, the clubbing would be MORE likely to hold back evolution, as the skulls of the smarter proto-humans would smash easier. More likely, we evolved the ability to say: damn, that hurts (or a variation on the theme, damn, this is REALLY stupid).
Evolution can be so amusing sometimes. The Cassowary is a bird about the size of an ostrich from Northeastern Australia which has a bone plate on its head as hard as a motorcycle helmet. Apparently, this is to protect the bird as it runs head-first through dense forest.
Too bad the bird couldn't evolve a machete.
According to this recent article posted on CNN, our ancestors may have had thicker skulls because we were beating each other over the heads with clubs as part of a mating ritual.
I don't find the following to be a convincing enough reason for our skulls to have gotten thinner, though:
So why didn't modern humans inherit this thick skull? Ciochon said evolution eventually favored a lighter skull to accommodate a heavier and larger brain. A thinner skull also would help cool the brain.
That wouldn't stop people from clubbing each other over the head. In fact, the clubbing would be MORE likely to hold back evolution, as the skulls of the smarter proto-humans would smash easier. More likely, we evolved the ability to say: damn, that hurts (or a variation on the theme, damn, this is REALLY stupid).
Evolution can be so amusing sometimes. The Cassowary is a bird about the size of an ostrich from Northeastern Australia which has a bone plate on its head as hard as a motorcycle helmet. Apparently, this is to protect the bird as it runs head-first through dense forest.
Too bad the bird couldn't evolve a machete.
Human Cloning
South Korean scientists have reported that they successfully harvested stem cells from cloned human fetuses. This is important because stem cells are the "cell template" that can be used to build ANY cell in the body. Most cells in the body are already "specialized." You can't turn a heart cell into a brain cell, or a skin cell into a liver cell, or more important to superman (a.k.a. Christopher Reeves), into nerve cells that could reattach a broken spinal chord. These cells have already decided what they will be, and no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise, they won't change their minds.
Stem cells are GUARANTEED to be compatible with the cells of the person from which they were cloned. Extended to everyone, this means anybody could produce their own stem cells for use in repairing damaged livers, spinal chords, brain injuries, etc, without fear of their body rejecting the new tissue.
The question of whether to use such technology, however, is dependent on when human life begins. If you accept that abortion should be legal (even if only with limitations, as I do), then harvesting stem cells from a fetus composed of, at most, 100 individual cells, poses no ethical issues. If you take the position championed by Ameica's pro-life movement, however, which states that human life begins at conception, then those 100 cells are as deserving of legal protection as the millions of cells sitting here typing this blog post. Within this context, harvesting stem cells could rank alongside human medical experimentation in concentration camps, depending on the degree to which you believe those 100 cells are deserving of protection.
It's pretty hard to convince someone to change their mind regarding when human life begins, because it's one of those mysteries that no amount of scientific inquiry is ever going to resolve. Obviously, a 100 cell fetus isn't the same thing as newborn baby, at least from a MATERIAL and FUNCTIONAL standpoint, but whether or not those 100 cells are "human" in the fullest sense of the word comes down to faith. None of us remembers being composed of only 100 cells. Believing it is human life is equally valid, from a logical standpoint, as believing that it isn't.
Consider, however, that different societies will come to different conclusions regarding human cloning, and the harvesting of stem cells from fetuses. America may well succeed in banning cloning within America, as the Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania clearly wants:
"Cloning human beings is wrong. It is unethical to tinker with human life," said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. A ban must be passed, he said, "before this unethical science comes to our shores."
I find the last part to be particularly important. America might ban human cloning, as America is shaped by its christian heritage, and that guides to a certain extent American policy. Most of Asia, however (at least the non-Islamic parts), won't. Many parts of Europe won't, either, which explains why some of the leading research centers for stem cell research are based in places like Sweden.
In other words, America's decision to ban cloning won't have much effect on whether that technology gets developed by the rest of the world. What it WILL do, however, is guarantee that no American company will lead in this important area of new technology. Imagine what America would be like today if, for some reason, we took issue with "artificial logic machines," and banned the use or development of computers.
The "winners" in human history have often been those who haven't been held back by religious principles in the use of a new "technology." If you consider capitalism to be a technology, it's pretty clear that religious barriers to the full expression of capitalism have held back most of the Arab world in its competition with the west. Spain was held back, from a technology standpoint, during the golden age of exploration in its quest for Catholic purity. Knowledge from outside Spain was viewed as suspect, and much scientific inquiry at universities was banned due to conflict with religious dogma.
To some, this argument might seem crass, as it sounds like I'm saying that economic considerations should trump ethical considerations. I'm not, though it's worth understanding the ramifications of a decision before making it.
Ethical decisions, however, at least in areas where there isn't a broad and universal consensus, should be left to individuals. Most people in America wouldn't want abortion to be banned, even if many would prefer more restrictions upon how it is practiced. In that light, it makes sense to leave individuals free to make a PERSONAL decision upon the issue.
Legalization does not force the technology upon those who disagree with it from an ethical standpoint. If people don't agree with stem cell-related technology, then they shouldn't use it. They won't be FORCED to create 100-cell clones of themselves from which to harvest stem cells.
Too often, America decides that something is morally wrong and then tries to force EVERYONE to follow that principle by making it illegal. Drugs are illegal for that reason.
It is my opinion, however, that morality is based on having the OPTION to perform an action and then CHOOSING not to do it, rather than being prevented from performing that action by legal restrictions.
America should allow cloning for the purpose of stem cell research and technology, simply because not everyone agrees that cloning is in and of itself a bad thing. It is a technology that, obviously, could be abused, which is why it's a good idea to think carefully about regulations that cover this area of research. However, let those who want to use this technology use it. Just as today's society wouldn't pass laws banning homosexuality (at least, it shouldn't), today's society shouldn't ban technology built upon the ability to clone humans.
South Korean scientists have reported that they successfully harvested stem cells from cloned human fetuses. This is important because stem cells are the "cell template" that can be used to build ANY cell in the body. Most cells in the body are already "specialized." You can't turn a heart cell into a brain cell, or a skin cell into a liver cell, or more important to superman (a.k.a. Christopher Reeves), into nerve cells that could reattach a broken spinal chord. These cells have already decided what they will be, and no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise, they won't change their minds.
Stem cells are GUARANTEED to be compatible with the cells of the person from which they were cloned. Extended to everyone, this means anybody could produce their own stem cells for use in repairing damaged livers, spinal chords, brain injuries, etc, without fear of their body rejecting the new tissue.
The question of whether to use such technology, however, is dependent on when human life begins. If you accept that abortion should be legal (even if only with limitations, as I do), then harvesting stem cells from a fetus composed of, at most, 100 individual cells, poses no ethical issues. If you take the position championed by Ameica's pro-life movement, however, which states that human life begins at conception, then those 100 cells are as deserving of legal protection as the millions of cells sitting here typing this blog post. Within this context, harvesting stem cells could rank alongside human medical experimentation in concentration camps, depending on the degree to which you believe those 100 cells are deserving of protection.
It's pretty hard to convince someone to change their mind regarding when human life begins, because it's one of those mysteries that no amount of scientific inquiry is ever going to resolve. Obviously, a 100 cell fetus isn't the same thing as newborn baby, at least from a MATERIAL and FUNCTIONAL standpoint, but whether or not those 100 cells are "human" in the fullest sense of the word comes down to faith. None of us remembers being composed of only 100 cells. Believing it is human life is equally valid, from a logical standpoint, as believing that it isn't.
Consider, however, that different societies will come to different conclusions regarding human cloning, and the harvesting of stem cells from fetuses. America may well succeed in banning cloning within America, as the Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania clearly wants:
"Cloning human beings is wrong. It is unethical to tinker with human life," said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. A ban must be passed, he said, "before this unethical science comes to our shores."
I find the last part to be particularly important. America might ban human cloning, as America is shaped by its christian heritage, and that guides to a certain extent American policy. Most of Asia, however (at least the non-Islamic parts), won't. Many parts of Europe won't, either, which explains why some of the leading research centers for stem cell research are based in places like Sweden.
In other words, America's decision to ban cloning won't have much effect on whether that technology gets developed by the rest of the world. What it WILL do, however, is guarantee that no American company will lead in this important area of new technology. Imagine what America would be like today if, for some reason, we took issue with "artificial logic machines," and banned the use or development of computers.
The "winners" in human history have often been those who haven't been held back by religious principles in the use of a new "technology." If you consider capitalism to be a technology, it's pretty clear that religious barriers to the full expression of capitalism have held back most of the Arab world in its competition with the west. Spain was held back, from a technology standpoint, during the golden age of exploration in its quest for Catholic purity. Knowledge from outside Spain was viewed as suspect, and much scientific inquiry at universities was banned due to conflict with religious dogma.
To some, this argument might seem crass, as it sounds like I'm saying that economic considerations should trump ethical considerations. I'm not, though it's worth understanding the ramifications of a decision before making it.
Ethical decisions, however, at least in areas where there isn't a broad and universal consensus, should be left to individuals. Most people in America wouldn't want abortion to be banned, even if many would prefer more restrictions upon how it is practiced. In that light, it makes sense to leave individuals free to make a PERSONAL decision upon the issue.
Legalization does not force the technology upon those who disagree with it from an ethical standpoint. If people don't agree with stem cell-related technology, then they shouldn't use it. They won't be FORCED to create 100-cell clones of themselves from which to harvest stem cells.
Too often, America decides that something is morally wrong and then tries to force EVERYONE to follow that principle by making it illegal. Drugs are illegal for that reason.
It is my opinion, however, that morality is based on having the OPTION to perform an action and then CHOOSING not to do it, rather than being prevented from performing that action by legal restrictions.
America should allow cloning for the purpose of stem cell research and technology, simply because not everyone agrees that cloning is in and of itself a bad thing. It is a technology that, obviously, could be abused, which is why it's a good idea to think carefully about regulations that cover this area of research. However, let those who want to use this technology use it. Just as today's society wouldn't pass laws banning homosexuality (at least, it shouldn't), today's society shouldn't ban technology built upon the ability to clone humans.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Gay Marriage
From a social standpoint, I'm fairly liberal (and from an economic standpoint, I am, too, if you use the traditional defintion of the term "liberal" and not the bipolar definition derived from America's partisan politics). My knee-jerk response to the issue of gay marriage was: fine. Let two adults figure out the best way to make themselves a happy life, even if it's a choice not taken by the vast majority of people on earth. Frankly, that doesn't matter, as it is THEIR life. Their homosexuality doesn't affect me in the least.
I also think it is valid for two people to make a commitment to one another that says they will always be there financially for the other, or that the other will be responsible for making critical decisions when one of them is incapacitated. A gay man or woman is likely to be closest to a member of the same gender, so it makes sense for them to have the right to specify that that person has the right to make those decisions.
One might then think that I support gay marriage (I certainly support civil unions). My true opinion on the matter, however, is: I'm not sure. There is a valid case to be made that marriage is something special in that it is designed to encourage families that have members of BOTH genders because that is better, in the long run, for children. Gay men and women aren't any less capable of raising children, but that doesn't mean that it isn't BETTER to have parents of different genders raising children.
In other words, if marriage is viewed as a way to encourage the best possible environment in which kids can be raised, then it seems valid to restrict it to heterosexual couples. Civil unions SHOULD be legal, and I would even go so far as to say that they SHOULD be allowed to adopt (though I might argue that preference be given to heterosexual couples, and NOT because I think gay couples are "dangerous" to kids). But if I'm right, then marriage should be kept heterosexual.
Like I said, I've not reached a conclusion on the subject. I have concluded, however, that it's a bad idea for us to have another "right" created by judicial fiat.
I don't think abortion should be illegal. Granted, lots of people who are very close to me think I'm wrong in this, but I have trouble granting the same rights to a 2-month old fetus that is granted to an adult woman (though I DO have more trouble with abortion after the first trimester, as I explain later).
Abortion, however, is a HUGELY controversial issue to such an extent that it is, for all intents and purposes, not available in most of America simply because few doctors are willing to put up with the hassle. That is because America legalized abortion by judicial fiat, and that judicial fiat leaves no room for compromise on the legalization of abortion during the full nine months of pregnancy.
Europe has legalized abortion, too, but in most cases it is far more restricted than is the case in America. They have waiting periods, or only allow it within the first trimester. These compromises were the result of debates that took place in European legislatures, resulting in a compromise that is acceptable to MOST people. Pro-life movements exist, but they aren't the angry and contentious things that exist in America.
This puts the American debate into a different setting. Pro-choice advocates can't compromise on the full nine months, since to do so could result in abortion being made completely illegal. There is no general consensus upon which abortion is based given that the right to it was "discovered" through a new interpretation of the constitution. To undermine that interpretation could cause the whole shaky edifice to crash to the ground.
Similarly, pro-lifers are fighting against an extremely expansive definition of the right to abortion. This puts a lot more people into the pro-life camp who might not be there if the right was more circumscribed and limited.
The manner in which abortion was legalized puts the abortion debate into an either-or situation, not a debate over a rational middle ground that might satisfy the majority.
That's why I don't think it's a good idea to make yet ANOTHER judicial fiat that legalizes marriage. As Massachussetts recent rejection of a compromise bill that would legalize civil unions while banning gay marriage shows, the issue is already hugely politicized because people don't like having something imposed upon them that they didn't agree to. For most of the history of Massachussetts, the constitution has been interpreted as disallowing gay marriage. Suddenly, an activist court has created a new interpretation, and the people of Massachusetts aren't allowed to do much of anything about it.
It would be FAR better to continue with the compromise that American states had already started to work upon. Vermont legalized civil unions, and did so WITHOUT state supreme court justices "discovering" some new right to gay marriage. Such a compromise is vastly preferable to an outcome that will just create a new situation as politicized and angry as the question of the right to abortion.
If the state supreme court didn't have the full legalization of gay marriage hanging over the legislature's head, they MIGHT have passed a law that legalized civil unions. Instead, the issue is turning into a fight to the death, and what we may end up with is an extreme outcome that leads to conflict for decades to come.
From a social standpoint, I'm fairly liberal (and from an economic standpoint, I am, too, if you use the traditional defintion of the term "liberal" and not the bipolar definition derived from America's partisan politics). My knee-jerk response to the issue of gay marriage was: fine. Let two adults figure out the best way to make themselves a happy life, even if it's a choice not taken by the vast majority of people on earth. Frankly, that doesn't matter, as it is THEIR life. Their homosexuality doesn't affect me in the least.
I also think it is valid for two people to make a commitment to one another that says they will always be there financially for the other, or that the other will be responsible for making critical decisions when one of them is incapacitated. A gay man or woman is likely to be closest to a member of the same gender, so it makes sense for them to have the right to specify that that person has the right to make those decisions.
One might then think that I support gay marriage (I certainly support civil unions). My true opinion on the matter, however, is: I'm not sure. There is a valid case to be made that marriage is something special in that it is designed to encourage families that have members of BOTH genders because that is better, in the long run, for children. Gay men and women aren't any less capable of raising children, but that doesn't mean that it isn't BETTER to have parents of different genders raising children.
In other words, if marriage is viewed as a way to encourage the best possible environment in which kids can be raised, then it seems valid to restrict it to heterosexual couples. Civil unions SHOULD be legal, and I would even go so far as to say that they SHOULD be allowed to adopt (though I might argue that preference be given to heterosexual couples, and NOT because I think gay couples are "dangerous" to kids). But if I'm right, then marriage should be kept heterosexual.
Like I said, I've not reached a conclusion on the subject. I have concluded, however, that it's a bad idea for us to have another "right" created by judicial fiat.
I don't think abortion should be illegal. Granted, lots of people who are very close to me think I'm wrong in this, but I have trouble granting the same rights to a 2-month old fetus that is granted to an adult woman (though I DO have more trouble with abortion after the first trimester, as I explain later).
Abortion, however, is a HUGELY controversial issue to such an extent that it is, for all intents and purposes, not available in most of America simply because few doctors are willing to put up with the hassle. That is because America legalized abortion by judicial fiat, and that judicial fiat leaves no room for compromise on the legalization of abortion during the full nine months of pregnancy.
Europe has legalized abortion, too, but in most cases it is far more restricted than is the case in America. They have waiting periods, or only allow it within the first trimester. These compromises were the result of debates that took place in European legislatures, resulting in a compromise that is acceptable to MOST people. Pro-life movements exist, but they aren't the angry and contentious things that exist in America.
This puts the American debate into a different setting. Pro-choice advocates can't compromise on the full nine months, since to do so could result in abortion being made completely illegal. There is no general consensus upon which abortion is based given that the right to it was "discovered" through a new interpretation of the constitution. To undermine that interpretation could cause the whole shaky edifice to crash to the ground.
Similarly, pro-lifers are fighting against an extremely expansive definition of the right to abortion. This puts a lot more people into the pro-life camp who might not be there if the right was more circumscribed and limited.
The manner in which abortion was legalized puts the abortion debate into an either-or situation, not a debate over a rational middle ground that might satisfy the majority.
That's why I don't think it's a good idea to make yet ANOTHER judicial fiat that legalizes marriage. As Massachussetts recent rejection of a compromise bill that would legalize civil unions while banning gay marriage shows, the issue is already hugely politicized because people don't like having something imposed upon them that they didn't agree to. For most of the history of Massachussetts, the constitution has been interpreted as disallowing gay marriage. Suddenly, an activist court has created a new interpretation, and the people of Massachusetts aren't allowed to do much of anything about it.
It would be FAR better to continue with the compromise that American states had already started to work upon. Vermont legalized civil unions, and did so WITHOUT state supreme court justices "discovering" some new right to gay marriage. Such a compromise is vastly preferable to an outcome that will just create a new situation as politicized and angry as the question of the right to abortion.
If the state supreme court didn't have the full legalization of gay marriage hanging over the legislature's head, they MIGHT have passed a law that legalized civil unions. Instead, the issue is turning into a fight to the death, and what we may end up with is an extreme outcome that leads to conflict for decades to come.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
We are SMALL
I'm a sucker for detailed photos of galaxies. This one is of the "Sleeping Beauty Galaxy", or M64.
I often have pictures of galaxies as the wallpaper on my desktop. Helps to keep things in perspective, as it makes you realize that the things we think are so important really aren't. We are fleas on the fleas on the fleas on the fleas of a very large dog, to make a really stupid analogy. To call the planet Earth dust in the cosmos underestimates the size of dust particles.
And yet, some nimrod thinks that what he wants is SO important that he is advocating the cultivation of civil war in Iraq in order to "keep the resistance going." It astounds me how little regard Al-Qaeda operatives have for the lives of even FELLOW MUSLIMS. Not that that should surprise anyone, as you didn't hear much of an apology after they blew up a bunch of people from other Arab nations in Riyadh several months back. Still, the sheer selfishness of declaring that you want to create a CIVIL WAR in Iraq staggers the imagination.
It seems so obvious to me that the RIGHT thing for Iraq is for Iraqis to reacquire sovereignity as fast as possible. Obviously, though, that would count as a success in America's little experiment at democracy-building in the Middle East, and that's the last thing certain people want...even if it means more suffering and hardship for Iraqis. I noted that bin Laden used the death of children in Iraq as one of the justifications for Sept. 11th. Well, if al-Zawahiri's little opinion piece is any indication of thought at the highest level of al-Qaeda, then they couldn't give a damn about what happens to Iraqis. They're pawns in the game playing out in their own minds.
Like I said, not really surprising as these ARE terrorists...but disconcerting nonetheless.
I'm a sucker for detailed photos of galaxies. This one is of the "Sleeping Beauty Galaxy", or M64.
I often have pictures of galaxies as the wallpaper on my desktop. Helps to keep things in perspective, as it makes you realize that the things we think are so important really aren't. We are fleas on the fleas on the fleas on the fleas of a very large dog, to make a really stupid analogy. To call the planet Earth dust in the cosmos underestimates the size of dust particles.
And yet, some nimrod thinks that what he wants is SO important that he is advocating the cultivation of civil war in Iraq in order to "keep the resistance going." It astounds me how little regard Al-Qaeda operatives have for the lives of even FELLOW MUSLIMS. Not that that should surprise anyone, as you didn't hear much of an apology after they blew up a bunch of people from other Arab nations in Riyadh several months back. Still, the sheer selfishness of declaring that you want to create a CIVIL WAR in Iraq staggers the imagination.
It seems so obvious to me that the RIGHT thing for Iraq is for Iraqis to reacquire sovereignity as fast as possible. Obviously, though, that would count as a success in America's little experiment at democracy-building in the Middle East, and that's the last thing certain people want...even if it means more suffering and hardship for Iraqis. I noted that bin Laden used the death of children in Iraq as one of the justifications for Sept. 11th. Well, if al-Zawahiri's little opinion piece is any indication of thought at the highest level of al-Qaeda, then they couldn't give a damn about what happens to Iraqis. They're pawns in the game playing out in their own minds.
Like I said, not really surprising as these ARE terrorists...but disconcerting nonetheless.
Monday, February 09, 2004
Why I supported the Iraq War
Iraq had been under UN sanctions for over a decade. During that time, the life of the average Iraqi was HORRIBLY affected, with children dying of malnutrition or preventable illness (though the exact number is a subject of debate, even if the fact that deaths have occurred is not) since the start of the sanctions.
Why did we isolate the country? Because we were scared of its leader, a guy who had invaded TWO of his neighbors (which SHOULD be the source of some nasty deja-vu for Europeans), and had been MONTHS away from the creation of a nuclear weapon. This guy was DANGEROUS (side note: yes, we did, back him in his war with Iran, which was a STUPID thing to do; it doesn't make Saddam Hussein any less dangerous). He'd shown what he would do when left free to do what he wanted, and the LAST thing we would EVER do is let him out of his UN-created cage.
So, sanctions would be indefinite. I wouldn't want a Saddam Hussein free to do what he wants, and neither would any European if they sat down and really thought about it.
Osama bin Laden cited a number things as justification for Sept. 11th, among them the death of Iraqi children from the UN sanctions (already discussed), and the presence of Americans in the holy land (Saudi Arabia). Why were we in Saudi Arabia? To defend Saudi Arabia, the second biggest provider of oil to the United States, from a militaristic Saddam Hussein.
Oil matters. If Europe or America lost its second biggest source of oil (in Europe's case, Saudi Arabia is the LARGEST source of oil), you likely wouldn't be reading this article because you'd have a lot less time to spend on the internet (energy would be MUCh more expensive). Oil drives airplanes that link the globe, and allow you to do things like take vacations in Cancun. Oil is IMPORTANT to the health of the economy, and THAT MATTERS.
(Side note for the benefit of America's Republicans: That doesn't mean I support Anwar drilling, because I think oil is TOO important and we would benefit greatly from higher taxes on gasoline to REDUCE THE DEPENDENCE, but that's a different issue entirely. In other words, there are better ways to reduce dependence than to dig up a bunch of undeveloped land in Alaska)
We wanted to a) end sanctions, and b) get the heck out of Saudi Arabia, where we obviously weren't wanted.
Maintaining the sanctions cost countries such as France and Germany very little, as America (and to a certain extent, Britain) footed most of the bill for maintaining things like no-fly zones and support bases in Saudi Arabia. In addition, we wanted reduce the frictions (our presence) that contributed to the desire in some quarters to send planes into tall American buildings.
Another reason I supported an invasion was in order to break the cycle of dictatorship and poverty that seems endless in the middle east. Oil isn't going to be a source of revenue with which to develop economies in the region forever. A hydrogen economy was recently estimated as 20-30 years out. That doesn't surprise me, as moving to hydrogen would involve a massive investment in new infrastructure. Still, 20-30 years isn't much time for these countries to use oil revenues to raise their citizens out of poverty and build an economy that ISN'T dependent on oil.
Save for Turkey, there are no democratic and free nations in the middle east. This is a problem, as unfree, despotic states AREN'T going to raise their people out of poverty, much less spend oil revenue properly. So, why not build a democracy at the historic heart of the the middle east (Baghdad WAS the seat of the sultans during Islam's golden age, back when they had things like algebra, law courts, freedom of religion and advanced astronomy while the the Vikings were terrorizing Europe, scientific inquiery was all but non-existent and serfdom was the standard model of social organization), and try to start it on the path of doing things that make its people wealthy. We did that in South Korea. Few South Koreans look north and wished they'd ended up on the other side of the demilitarized zone, or ended up like South Vietnam after America pulled out. We managed to get Germany and Japan on a democratic, and wealthy, path. It's not a completely crazy idea, and our track record of success is pretty good.
To put it simply, I think that if we believe a government is SO dangerous that we would consider isolating an entire country from the global economy (thus impoverishing the citizens of that country), the FAR more humane thing to do is change the government and allow the citizens of that nation to contribute to the world as opposed to forcing them to face the consequences for a powerful minority who do NOT feel the pain of the sanctions. One of Saddam Hussein's sons visited the Iraqi national bank, which is the economic equivalent of America's federal reserve, shortly before the war and withdrew a billion dollars. Imagine Jenna Bush heading down to meet with Alan Greenspan and withdrawing 370 billion dollars in cash (which is equivalent of 1/27th of the American economy, which was the percentage of the Iraqi economy Saddam's 1 billion represented). Iraq wasn't even remotely a healthy regime, and Uday's bank withdrawal is merely one particularly illustrative instance in a history that showed Saddam Hussein viewed Iraq as his own personal playground.
That's why I supported the invasion of Iraq.
Iraq had been under UN sanctions for over a decade. During that time, the life of the average Iraqi was HORRIBLY affected, with children dying of malnutrition or preventable illness (though the exact number is a subject of debate, even if the fact that deaths have occurred is not) since the start of the sanctions.
Why did we isolate the country? Because we were scared of its leader, a guy who had invaded TWO of his neighbors (which SHOULD be the source of some nasty deja-vu for Europeans), and had been MONTHS away from the creation of a nuclear weapon. This guy was DANGEROUS (side note: yes, we did, back him in his war with Iran, which was a STUPID thing to do; it doesn't make Saddam Hussein any less dangerous). He'd shown what he would do when left free to do what he wanted, and the LAST thing we would EVER do is let him out of his UN-created cage.
So, sanctions would be indefinite. I wouldn't want a Saddam Hussein free to do what he wants, and neither would any European if they sat down and really thought about it.
Osama bin Laden cited a number things as justification for Sept. 11th, among them the death of Iraqi children from the UN sanctions (already discussed), and the presence of Americans in the holy land (Saudi Arabia). Why were we in Saudi Arabia? To defend Saudi Arabia, the second biggest provider of oil to the United States, from a militaristic Saddam Hussein.
Oil matters. If Europe or America lost its second biggest source of oil (in Europe's case, Saudi Arabia is the LARGEST source of oil), you likely wouldn't be reading this article because you'd have a lot less time to spend on the internet (energy would be MUCh more expensive). Oil drives airplanes that link the globe, and allow you to do things like take vacations in Cancun. Oil is IMPORTANT to the health of the economy, and THAT MATTERS.
(Side note for the benefit of America's Republicans: That doesn't mean I support Anwar drilling, because I think oil is TOO important and we would benefit greatly from higher taxes on gasoline to REDUCE THE DEPENDENCE, but that's a different issue entirely. In other words, there are better ways to reduce dependence than to dig up a bunch of undeveloped land in Alaska)
We wanted to a) end sanctions, and b) get the heck out of Saudi Arabia, where we obviously weren't wanted.
Maintaining the sanctions cost countries such as France and Germany very little, as America (and to a certain extent, Britain) footed most of the bill for maintaining things like no-fly zones and support bases in Saudi Arabia. In addition, we wanted reduce the frictions (our presence) that contributed to the desire in some quarters to send planes into tall American buildings.
Another reason I supported an invasion was in order to break the cycle of dictatorship and poverty that seems endless in the middle east. Oil isn't going to be a source of revenue with which to develop economies in the region forever. A hydrogen economy was recently estimated as 20-30 years out. That doesn't surprise me, as moving to hydrogen would involve a massive investment in new infrastructure. Still, 20-30 years isn't much time for these countries to use oil revenues to raise their citizens out of poverty and build an economy that ISN'T dependent on oil.
Save for Turkey, there are no democratic and free nations in the middle east. This is a problem, as unfree, despotic states AREN'T going to raise their people out of poverty, much less spend oil revenue properly. So, why not build a democracy at the historic heart of the the middle east (Baghdad WAS the seat of the sultans during Islam's golden age, back when they had things like algebra, law courts, freedom of religion and advanced astronomy while the the Vikings were terrorizing Europe, scientific inquiery was all but non-existent and serfdom was the standard model of social organization), and try to start it on the path of doing things that make its people wealthy. We did that in South Korea. Few South Koreans look north and wished they'd ended up on the other side of the demilitarized zone, or ended up like South Vietnam after America pulled out. We managed to get Germany and Japan on a democratic, and wealthy, path. It's not a completely crazy idea, and our track record of success is pretty good.
To put it simply, I think that if we believe a government is SO dangerous that we would consider isolating an entire country from the global economy (thus impoverishing the citizens of that country), the FAR more humane thing to do is change the government and allow the citizens of that nation to contribute to the world as opposed to forcing them to face the consequences for a powerful minority who do NOT feel the pain of the sanctions. One of Saddam Hussein's sons visited the Iraqi national bank, which is the economic equivalent of America's federal reserve, shortly before the war and withdrew a billion dollars. Imagine Jenna Bush heading down to meet with Alan Greenspan and withdrawing 370 billion dollars in cash (which is equivalent of 1/27th of the American economy, which was the percentage of the Iraqi economy Saddam's 1 billion represented). Iraq wasn't even remotely a healthy regime, and Uday's bank withdrawal is merely one particularly illustrative instance in a history that showed Saddam Hussein viewed Iraq as his own personal playground.
That's why I supported the invasion of Iraq.
