When a cyclone hit Burma (alias Myanmar) recently, the repressive regime that rules that country dawdled for weeks before allowing international relief teams to enter the country. "Aid agencies estimate more than one million storm survivors, mostly in the delta, still need acute help," reports the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. "Cyclone Nargis killed more than 78,000 people. . . . More than 58,000 are still missing and unaccounted for." Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state during President Clinton's second term, blames George W. Bush. Before he came along, she claims in a New York Times op-ed piece, "diplomats and foreign policy experts" were moving toward "an integrated world system" in which "the international community would recognize a responsibility to override sovereignty in emergency situations--to prevent ethnic cleansing or genocide, arrest war criminals, restore democracy or provide disaster relief when national governments were either unable or unwilling to do so": During the 1990s, certain precedents were created. The administration of George H.W. Bush intervened to prevent famine in Somalia and to aid Kurds in northern Iraq; the Clinton administration returned an elected leader to power in Haiti; NATO ended the war in Bosnia and stopped Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of terror in Kosovo; the British halted a civil war in Sierra Leone; and the United Nations authorized life-saving missions in East Timor and elsewhere. Three guesses as to what caused this brilliant plan to collapse: The invasion of Iraq, with the administration's grandiose rhetoric about pre-emption, was another matter, however. It generated a negative reaction that has weakened support for cross-border interventions even for worthy purposes. Governments, especially in the developing world, are now determined to preserve the principle of sovereignty, even when the human costs of doing so are high. Thus, Myanmar's leaders have been shielded from the repercussions of their outrageous actions. What principle, exactly, is Albright putting forward here? The 1990s interventions she cites favorably are all cases in which, in her account, the intervening power was motivated by humanitarian concerns rather than national interest. But she also approves of the liberation of Afghanistan because it was "clearly motivated by self-defense." On what basis, then, does she object to the liberation of Iraq? It was both a humanitarian intervention (toppling one of the world's most brutal dictators) and an act of self-defense ("the administration's grandiose rhetoric about pre-emption" is merely a dysphemistic way of saying this). Is Albright's idea that intervention is acceptable for reasons of humanitarianism or national interest but not both? Maybe. That would explain the Clinton administration's intervention in Iraq, which Albright does not mention in this article. Although the administration did not take action to remove Saddam Hussein from power, it did bomb the country and support strict U.N. sanctions. In 1996, as the hard-left radio show "Democracy Now!" recounted some years later, Albright, then ambassador to the U.N., gave an interview to CBS's "60 Minutes": Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that"s more children than died in Hiroshima. And--and you know, is the price worth it?" Madeline Albright replied "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." That the sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children was almost certainly a pro-Saddam canard. But Albright did not dispute the premise. Instead, she defended as "worth it" the policy that purportedly killed several times as many people as are believed to have perished in this year's Burma cyclone. You can see why her New York Times op-ed does not reprise this case for inhumane intervention. Even if Albright is unable to articulate the principles that guided the Clinton administration's foreign policy, maybe she is right that it was better than its successor's. Let us test her specific claim that the Bush administration's policy to Iraq is to blame for the intransigence of the Burmese junta. Did that regime behave differently when Clinton was in the White House and Albright at Foggy Bottom?
How do you like Mccains health care plan? He will stop the free lunch we have all enjoyed all these years. I pay $4 grand pr yr and my employer pays $12 grand, for $16k in benefits I have never paid taxes on before. With his new plan we will tax this benefit and give it to those who dont have insurance.
So your income will show 16K more. Then you will need to buy your own insurance. When you are accountable for your own health payments nature says you will not abuse the service. Many people go to the emergency room for minor things like a flu instead of a doctor causing more expense. Most likely the employer will pay enough to cover the additional tax
McCain wants to take the responsibility of health care from employers and place it solely on individuals if you think thats going to be pretty call and get a health care insurance quote.when you get over the shock of the quote you receive tell them you have a pre existing condition McCain doesn't care though,he has his government health insurance policy and a wife with 100 million so when his cancer comes back or his Alzheimer's gets worse he will be taken care of
two days later and I'm still trying to figure out what your point is. Are you saying I'm racist? Ok, I'm a racist and you're a douche bag.
Right now corporations commit large resources to health care. Why should a manufacturer or steel plant have to hire thousands of people to manage a healthcare program. Let the business's concentrate on production and marketing. Let the employee take care of his health program just like they do with their car insurance.
When i watch those TV shows with the trailer park KKK racist spitting thier tobacco waiting for the revolution it really makes me laugh. That is not a group you want to be associated with,but i guess you know that since you first tried to hide the fact that you were racist in your first post,and was stupid enough to actually think you were doing so