Asheville: There is already civil war in Iraq. It is disingenuous to call these events “unexpected.” Anyone who studies the history of the Middle East with any seriousness could see that the Baathist Hussein government was the only thing preventing all-out warfare. War between Sunni and Shia was the inevitable result of a decades-long, brutally enforced, cease fire ending abruptly. Continue reading
World Affairs
2014 Symposium: Do we need to re-think our overall foreign policy?
Asheville: The biggest foreign policy change of the last 30 years has been a shift toward drone-based force projection and away from troop deployment. On one hand, this has been a very beneficial step. Drone forces cost much less and put fewer lives at risk. On the other, though, this policy has been an unmitigated disaster. According to the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2,500 civilians have been killed by drone strikes. While some of these deaths could rightly be called “collateral damage,” the worst cases are actions called “signature strikes.” The CIA identifies a target of Middle Eastern decent, male, between the ages of 22-35, walking alone in the mountains of Northern Afghanistan. This fits the profile of a suspected terrorist, so a drone strike is authorized based on the “signature” of the target. Continue reading
2013 Symposium: Is There A Country That Had A National Health Programme That Actually Works Efficiently?
Cartwright: No. Any national run health programme suffers from vast inefficiencies and healthcare rationing. The National Health Service in Great Britain has long been plagued by problems like lack of doctors and long wait times to see a doctor. What happened? People got tired and started finding private insurors and private doctors. Did it cost more? Yes. Did they get better treatment? Yes. Was it more efficient for the patients? Yes. Take a look at Canada as another example. If you’re old and you get sick, you’re not going to get the same level of treatment and care as someone half your age. They figure you’ve lived long enough, so why bother spending money to keep you alive a few more years. So, the death panels decide who lives and dies. This isn’t speculation; this is fact. I can point to examples of personal friends from Canada who relied on the system and they’re dead. Is this what we deserve here in America? No, but it’s what we’ve got now with Obamacare. Continue reading
Are Economic & Environmental Disasters an Unfortunate Aspect of Capitalism?
From Thinking Outside the Boxe’s Sydney Correspondent
In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis a lot of blame and anger was focused on people who work in finance. Others took a broader approach and believe that capitalism itself is to blame. Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is often cited by those critical of capitalism and neoliberalism in particular. Klein sees neoliberalism as an ‘evil’ economic approach that has no regard at all for the environment. Climate change is the area that critics mostly focus on. However if we in the western world, and those in developing countries, want to enjoy modern luxuries and future technological and medical advances provided by capitalism should we accept economic and environmental disasters as an unfortunate aspect of capitalism that we just have to live with? Continue reading
Obama’s Asian Pivot
From Thinking Outside the Boxe’s Sydney Correspondent
Since 2001 American military operations have unsurprisingly focused on the Middle East – in particular the two wars in Iraq and the current operations in Afghanistan that are drawing to an end. It is not within the scope of this article to question whether these wars were justified or even if they have gone on too long. It is more important at this point to focus on the future. President Obama’s new military strategy is referred to as an ‘Asian pivot’. This change in focus is a response to the emergence of China as a superpower and the fact that the US is growing less reliant on Middle Eastern oil. It also reflects a war weariness on the part of the public and a financial reality where the military budget is being scrutinised in a way that it never has previously.
Symposium 2012: Should the U.S. be involved in removing Assad from power in Syria?
RMC3: No. It’s not our problem. Is he a ruthless dictator? Yes. Has he misappropriated billions of dollars of the Syrian peoples’ money? Yes. Is he killing his own people? Yes. Do we know that the ‘freedom fighters’ are the good guys? No. Do we know that the ‘freedom fighters’ aren’t actually terrorists? No. This is the whole Libya situation all over again. At this point, he poses no clear and present danger to the United States or our allies. If the ‘freedom fighters’ aren’t able to get the job done, that’s their problem. No need for us to get involved in any additional Middle Eastern adventures. Continue reading
Symposium 2012: Will Egypt revert to a dictatorship
Cartwright: Hasn’t it already? Look, here’s the reality. Many people in many countries throughout the world have been ruled by kings or pharos or dictators for much of known history. These people don’t know democracy, and while it’s an admirable goal to spread democracy, it just isn’t feasible. These people can’t handle it. They need the strong arm of a ruler. We’re seeing that in many places. Continue reading
Symposium 2012: Has America lost its role as a superpower?
RMC3: If we’re not a superpower then who is? Russia? China? France? Germany? We’re the only game in town. We’re it. We are the world’s superpower. We have been for a long time and I hope we will be for a long time to come but I’m not too sure about that. We have the world’s most sophisticated military. We found Saddam Hussein in a spider hole in the middle of Iraq. It took us a while, but we finally got the man believed to be Osama bin Laden. We have the best military might in the world, no doubt about that in my mind. Continue reading
Symposium 2012: What criteria should the U.S. use in assessing military intervention in other countries?
RMC3: Is there an identifiable and imminent threat to the United States or our overseas interests or our allies? We could also extend this to include if there is an imminent threat to the world. If there’s no threat to us directly or our interests, why should we be involved? Continue reading
Symposium 2012: Is a trade war with China looming on the horizon?
Cartwright: A trade war with China would be the worst thing we could do. I’m tired of hearing everyone bitch and moan about how China is taking jobs from America. The simple fact is that we can’t compete with their low wage labor. They’re producing goods with every bit as much quality or even better than what we can produce here in America, and they’re doing this at a fraction of the cost. American workers aren’t willing to work for $2 an hour. Besides, we’ve got a minimum wage law that sets wages at levels that make us less competitive than manufacturers in other countries. Continue reading
Thinking Outside The Boxe 