• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hey, I think Saddam was better for his people...

Sultan

Banned
Link

Iraq health care 'in deep crisis'

Hospitals are unable to cope with Iraq's relentless violence
Iraq's health system is in a far worse condition than before the war, a British medical charity says.
Doctors from the group Medact conducted surveys with international aid groups and Iraqi health workers in September.

They exposed poor sanitation in many hospitals, shortages of drugs and qualified staff and huge gaps in services for mothers and children.

Medact, which monitors healthcare in post-conflict areas, called for an inquiry into the situation.

It has also challenged the British government to set up a commission to establish the level of civilian casualties in Iraq.

Damaged hospitals

"The war is a continuing public health disaster that was predictable - and should have been preventable," the group says.

"Excess deaths and injuries and high levels of illness are the direct and indirect results of ongoing conflict."

Groups like the medical charity Merlin and the UN aid organisation Unicef were among those whose staff provided information.

They paint a picture of a health service struggling to cope and, because of the continuing violence, a population often afraid to leave their homes to seek medical help.

UK foreign secretary
Jack Straw
Twelve percent of Iraq's hospitals were damaged during the war and the country's two main public health laboratories were also destroyed, the report says.

However, Iraq's deputy prime minister Barham Saleh told reporters in London that the health situation in Iraq was "not good" but it was improving not deteriorating.

He said "the level of devastation that Saddam Hussein has left us with was unimaginable" and added that health budgets were increasing.

UK foreign secretary Jack Straw pointed out that since the conflict 95% of children under five had been immunised, some 150 primary health care centres were planned and a string of hospitals in the south of the country had been renovated.

He said the great mistake the report made was blaming any problems with healthcare on the Iraqi government and health ministry rather than terrorists and insurgents.

"In those many areas of Iraq where there are no terrorists and no insurgents there is no problem whatsoever with the delivery of health care."

Medact accuses the UK and US governments and Iraqi authorities of denying "the true extent of harm" to Iraq's civilians.

It also says health relief and reconstruction efforts have been bungled through mismanagement and corruption.


 
The path to democracy is hardly full of rainbows and sunshine. It's going to be rocky.

While freedom can't be felt as literally as available health care, one can be built upon and the other can't. Unless you imagine Saddam was going to bend to internal pressure and institute elections sometime in the foreseeable future?
 
Originally posted by: yllus
The path to democracy is hardly full of rainbows and sunshine. It's going to be rocky.

Nonsense. It's supposed to be easy..you also forgot about the leprechauns that pass out flowers to the children.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
The path to democracy is hardly full of rainbows and sunshine. It's going to be rocky.

While freedom can't be felt as literally as available health care, one can be built upon and the other can't. Unless you imagine Saddam was going to bend to internal pressure and institute elections sometime in the foreseeable future?

i see, so we must remove all dictators from power and implement our own form of government on then?
 
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: yllus
The path to democracy is hardly full of rainbows and sunshine. It's going to be rocky.

While freedom can't be felt as literally as available health care, one can be built upon and the other can't. Unless you imagine Saddam was going to bend to internal pressure and institute elections sometime in the foreseeable future?

I see, so we must remove all dictators from power and implement our own form of government on them?

No, only ones that control Oil.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: yllus
The path to democracy is hardly full of rainbows and sunshine. It's going to be rocky.

While freedom can't be felt as literally as available health care, one can be built upon and the other can't. Unless you imagine Saddam was going to bend to internal pressure and institute elections sometime in the foreseeable future?

I see, so we must remove all dictators from power and implement our own form of government on them?

No, only ones that control Oil.

and thats a "path to democracy"? 😀
 
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: yllus
The path to democracy is hardly full of rainbows and sunshine. It's going to be rocky.

While freedom can't be felt as literally as available health care, one can be built upon and the other can't. Unless you imagine Saddam was going to bend to internal pressure and institute elections sometime in the foreseeable future?

I see, so we must remove all dictators from power and implement our own form of government on them?

No, only ones that control Oil.

and thats a "path to democracy"? 😀

Oil based Theocracy actually.

 
?the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of
Sharia law. We can live with that."
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: yllus
The path to democracy is hardly full of rainbows and sunshine. It's going to be rocky.

While freedom can't be felt as literally as available health care, one can be built upon and the other can't. Unless you imagine Saddam was going to bend to internal pressure and institute elections sometime in the foreseeable future?

I see, so we must remove all dictators from power and implement our own form of government on them?

No, only ones that control Oil.

and thats a "path to democracy"? 😀

Oil based Theocracy actually.

we're going to force "oil based theocracy" in Iraq??? :shocked:
 
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: yllus
The path to democracy is hardly full of rainbows and sunshine. It's going to be rocky.

While freedom can't be felt as literally as available health care, one can be built upon and the other can't. Unless you imagine Saddam was going to bend to internal pressure and institute elections sometime in the foreseeable future?

i see, so we must remove all dictators from power and implement our own form of government on then?
That's both a moral and situational problem. Okay, for the sake of discussion let's try this.

Core assumptions:
1) All nation-states look out for their own interests first and foremost. That includes self-preservation.
2) Democracy is an ideology. Ideologies are very bad at coexisting with others.
3) The nation-state with an opposing (non-democratic) ideology bears us no ill will.
4) The nation-state in #3 consists of individuals who have the ability to change their governing ideology if they so see fit.

Thus, the questions:
1) Do we acknowledge that the people of nation-states with opposing ideologies have chosen to live that way?
2) Do we, of a self-proclaimed free state, have the duty to propagate what we call freedom? Note, the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that we shall strive to do so:
Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
3) If assumption #3 changes - naming no names - and the opposing nation-state now has proclaimed it one of their goals to damage us, are we free to take action?
4) If assumption #4 changes - naming no names - and by whatever means the people cannot effectively institute change in their own nation, as sharers in their ideology is it moral to intercede?
 
Yllus, we aren't trying to spread democracy, but rather captalism. For the most part, we don't give a double sh!t about any country so long as they don't interfere with our interests. Due to the Carter Doctrine, nearly any Arab state that looks out for itself will run afoul of American interest.
 
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Yllus, we aren't trying to spread democracy, but rather captalism. For the most part, we don't give a double sh!t about any country so long as they don't interfere with our interests. Due to the Carter Doctrine, nearly any Arab state that looks out for itself will run afoul of American interest.

Yes.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Yllus, we aren't trying to spread democracy, but rather captalism. For the most part, we don't give a double sh!t about any country so long as they don't interfere with our interests. Due to the Carter Doctrine, nearly any Arab state that looks out for itself will run afoul of American interest.

Yes.

 
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Yllus, we aren't trying to spread democracy, but rather captalism. For the most part, we don't give a double sh!t about any country so long as they don't interfere with our interests. Due to the Carter Doctrine, nearly any Arab state that looks out for itself will run afoul of American interest.
Part and parcel of the same thing. I agree completely that any US administration in the last 50 years would be happy enough to deal with a dicator-led free market state and laugh at the notion of liberating them for the sake of democracy. That's the reality of the past and likely the reality of the future.

However, we in P&N do not have to deal with reality. 😀 😉 That's why I've asked those four questions in the post a little higher up in this thread. Do you guys feel we have the right to do those four things?
Originally posted by: BBond
Ignore yllus. He still thinks Hans Blix is the reason Bush invaded Iraq unprovoked.

:roll:
Ignore me? I'm perfectly happy to listen to arguments on that subject, but in another thread where it's relevant. What gives you the right to tell others who to listen to and who to not?
 
I think that many people get confused on this matter in that democracy is a political system and captalism is an economic system. We say democracy to the people but actually implement captalism. Bait and switch on the american populace. Thus, both systems seem to merge/fuse so that one cannot talk about democracy without talking about captalism as a connotation.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: yllus
The path to democracy is hardly full of rainbows and sunshine. It's going to be rocky.

While freedom can't be felt as literally as available health care, one can be built upon and the other can't. Unless you imagine Saddam was going to bend to internal pressure and institute elections sometime in the foreseeable future?

i see, so we must remove all dictators from power and implement our own form of government on then?
That's both a moral and situational problem. Okay, for the sake of discussion let's try this.

Core assumptions:
1) All nation-states look out for their own interests first and foremost. That includes self-preservation.
2) Democracy is an ideology. Ideologies are very bad at coexisting with others.
3) The nation-state with an opposing (non-democratic) ideology bears us no ill will.
4) The nation-state in #3 consists of individuals who have the ability to change their governing ideology if they so see fit.

Thus, the questions:
1) Do we acknowledge that the people of nation-states with opposing ideologies have chosen to live that way?
2) Do we, of a self-proclaimed free state, have the duty to propagate what we call freedom? Note, the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that we shall strive to do so:
Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
3) If assumption #3 changes - naming no names - and the opposing nation-state now has proclaimed it one of their goals to damage us, are we free to take action?
4) If assumption #4 changes - naming no names - and by whatever means the people cannot effectively institute change in their own nation, as sharers in their ideology is it moral to intercede?

This is a load of crap. Osama bin Laden can use the same explanation to justify bombing WTC.

Spreading ideology using force is called TERRORISM. US Forces in Iraq are spreading democracy, which you yourself said is an ideology by FORCE.

If you dont agree, here is dictionary.com's definition of terrorism:

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
 
Like most Americans I could give a sh!t what's best for Iraqis. I'm more concerned in what's best for Americans and I don't think the Dub's ill advised and ill planned excellent adventure into Iraq is what's best for us.

Frankly I think if the Dub had the wisdom of Reagan he would have found a way persuade Iran and Iraq to fight each other again. Now that would be a Win Win situation for us.
 
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I think that many people get confused on this matter in that democracy is a political system and captalism is an economic system. We say democracy to the people but actually implement captalism. Bait and switch on the american populace. Thus, both systems seem to merge/fuse so that one cannot talk about democracy without talking about captalism as a connotation.
Well, I agree to an extent. For capitalism to work you need private enterprise (a huge equalizer), private ownership of property, paid labour (so they can in turn consume products). That's a lot of democracy contained right there.
 
From the article:
"In those many areas of Iraq where there are no terrorists and no insurgents there is no problem whatsoever with the delivery of health care."
Once again the "freedom fighters" are screwing over their own people, at least those that aren't Saudis, Yemenis, Jordanians, Syrians, Iranians, etc., for personal gain. I guess they feel that so long as they can force everyone into their vision of Islam and they can make a power grab, who cares if people don't get proper health care?
 
Originally posted by: Sultan
This is a load of crap. Osama bin Laden can use the same explanation to justify bombing WTC.

Spreading ideology using force is called TERRORISM. US Forces in Iraq are spreading democracy, which you yourself said is an ideology by FORCE.

If you dont agree, here is dictionary.com's definition of terrorism:

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Then spreading democracy onto nations with opposing ideologies is terrorism. I have no qualms with agreeing with that - it's not exactly something that can be accomplished by saying "pretty please".

I can fill in some of your answers, but could you answer the ones I'm missing?

1) Do we acknowledge that the people of nation-states with opposing ideologies have chosen to live that way? ?

2) Do we, of a self-proclaimed free state, have the duty to propagate what we call freedom? No.

3) If assumption #3 changes - naming no names - and the opposing nation-state now has proclaimed it one of their goals to damage us, are we free to take action? ?

4) If assumption #4 changes - naming no names - and by whatever means the people cannot effectively institute change in their own nation, as sharers in their ideology is it moral to intercede? No.
 
Originally posted by: Sultan
This is a load of crap. Osama bin Laden can use the same explanation to justify bombing WTC.

Spreading ideology using force is called TERRORISM. US Forces in Iraq are spreading democracy, which you yourself said is an ideology by FORCE.

If you dont agree, here is dictionary.com's definition of terrorism:

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
So by invading Kuwait, according to your definition, Saddam was a terrorist. I guess we no longer have to question whether or not he supported terror now, do we? In fact, he was one himself.

Thanks for the justification for invasion.
 
Back
Top