Replies to post #9414 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[ergo sum]

and the pursuit of happiness

When God died, GDP took over and economists became the new high priests. That has been the story of the last century, with prophets from Hayek to Keynes. The "dismal science" - economics - rules our lives and politics. So when one of the wizards of economics breaks ranks spectacularly and rips away the curtain of his own profession's mystique, it is time to take notice.
Lord (Richard) Layard, the LSE's director of the centre for economic performance, has this week delivered three startling lectures which question the supremacy of economics. It doesn't work. Economies grow, GDP swells, but once above abject poverty, it makes no difference to citizens' well-being. What is all this extra money for if it is now proved beyond doubt not to deliver greater happiness, nationally or individually? Happiness has not risen in western nations in the last 50 years, despite massive increases in wealth.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,909025,00.html

[Tom K]

Okay, I give this guy a lot of credit for laying out an alternative solution. That's more than most anti-war folks have done on this board. Unfortunately, their are serious problems with his proposals.

1. "..extend the northern and southern no-flight zones to include the whole country." Problem: It would require an escallated, sustained, long term active military presence. If Al Qaida and the fundamentalist wackos are upset with our previous military presence in the middle east, this isn't going to make them any happier than a U.S. military presence in a post-Saddam Iraq. It also doesn't address the question of disarming Iraq from WMD. Remember, the reason for the No-Fly Zones were to protect the Iraqi opposition in the north and south, not to harrass Saddam into disarming.

2. "...impose the "smart sanctions" that the Bush administration talked about before 9/11 and insist that Iraq's trading partners commit themselves to enforcing them. Washington should announce sanctions of its own against countries that don't cooperate, and it should also punish any companies that try to sell military equipment to Iraq."
Easier said than done. The UN Security Council won't even inforce 1441, which it passed unanimously. I can't imagine France, Germany, etc. agreeing to more sanctions - and if they did, it would only be a matter of time before they lobbied for their termination. Again, this doesn't address Saddam's WMD.

3. "...the United States should expand the United Nations' monitoring system in all the ways that have recently been proposed: adding inspectors, bringing in United Nations soldiers (to guard military installations after they have been inspected), sending surveillance planes without providing 48 hours' notice, and so on."
Good Luck! The only reason Saddam as allowed inspectors in this time is because GW is wielding a big stick. Take away the stick (demobilize our troops) and poof, inspections go away. The UN Security Counsel hasn't conceeded the fact that the only way Iraq would allow continued is if the U.S. kept our forces in theatre. Who's going to pay for that? Who bears the brunt of terrorist's retribution? Can inspectors really be expected to disarm Saddam without Iraqi cooperation? Finally, what would the blue helmets do if confronted by the Republican Guard? Fight? Give me a break!