Guest stargirl Posted February 10, 2003 Report Share Posted February 10, 2003 Something that might come up: If the U.S. decides to go to war with Iraq, should we (Canada) support them? Edited the subject heading to standardize them. -Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MayFlower1 Posted February 10, 2003 Report Share Posted February 10, 2003 What Saddam Hussein has done is beyond justification and he and his supporters should be punished to the full extent of the law. I sincerely pray that the U.S. and the United Nations can find a better solution to these issues than to wage war on Iraq. I strongly believe that war is no answer to solving problems...war will never solve the root of the problem. If the U.S. decides to wage war on Iraq, I believe Canada should choose not to support them. I believe, as Canadians, we should rise up above this id-driven desire to "get our way" through brut force and demonstrate by example that there are more peaceful means to an acceptable end. A better solution might be, as several representatives from the UN have suggested, to pour significantly more inspectors (and ground troops to protect and support their effort) to ensure illegal weapons of mass destruction are eliminated from the repetoire of the leaders of Iraq, who have shown they wouldn't hesitate to use them in the past. This is my perspective... Peter P.S. By the way...I love my martinis shaken, not stirred! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nightrider Posted February 11, 2003 Report Share Posted February 11, 2003 hmmm...this is a difficult question to answer without confusing personal opinions with the "best" course of action. Personally, I believe that the true impact of a war would only be felt by the "innocents"...the civilians, the women and children who are just doing their best to live life under economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. THis is one aspect that the U.S. seems not to want to look at. The impression that I get from CNN is that, in effect, American lives are the only lives that really matter. So, even though Canada is an ally of the U.S., and has traditionally supported many U.S. endeavours, I feel that here it would be better for Canadian to maintain its role as a "peacekeeping nation". Just my thoughts....not sure how I would actually formulate that into an answer. Seems like it would need a little more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lots of thinking Posted February 17, 2003 Report Share Posted February 17, 2003 I agree that war isn't the best course of action and that the citizens of Iraq are really the ones that are going to suffer (and already are suffering as a result of US actions). Just to further the discussion, if the US did go to war against Iraq, and we didn't want to join in- how would that affect our relationship with our closest neighbour and greatest ally?? What is the most important aspect of this war to our government?? just some thoughts M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Oregano112 Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 I think that the citizens of iraq are already suffering and war might not necessarily be a worse situation for them in the long run. War may be the only solution to this problem given that Sadam is not likely to step down on his own and he is causing substantial problems in his country (both directly and indirectly through the US blockade). However, it's important that the US only take action if it's going to benefit the iraquies on a long term basis and not because they are indulging a personal (national) grudge or revenge. As far as Canadian participation, I don't think that politically Canada has any choice. If the US goes to war, it would be a big mistake for Canada to condemn that action. Alienating the US is a bad idea for any nation, especially Canada who is a close neighbor and not very strong without their protection. Just my opinion. ~R~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dannyboy Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 I am inviting some constructive criticism here: I'm I totally off by my reasoning. I should mention that I have been a peace activist since the early 80s--a hippie kid all the way. I have always been very, very politically active BUT once I commited myself to trying to get into med school, I found myself questioning the appropriateness of my politics. After doing international reseach on health care issues I found I have developed a completely different perception of how critical health care is and how it can be such an effective means of social change. To make a long story short, I've stripped myself of my tendancy to participate in political discourse--for me, neutrality is everything now. If I have an opinion, it is health related and borders no longer seem relevant to me. I don't care about who is ruling what country. I worry about the lives that will potentially be lost and I am concerned about the people of Iraq whose situations are already so desperate. You can't have peace without food, as the saying goes. This is my point: I would, I think, refuse to take a political stand. But it gets worse...I think I would have to walk the plank and say that if I did have an opinion it would be that drs should be neutral. It's late and I am not articulating my thoughts well but...I think you can sense that I might be shooting myself in the foot with this one. I also would be surprised if it wasn't an interview question. Side note: it is a pet peeve of mine when people lump Iraq in with Saddam....no, Saddam is a nut job (that is not politics creeping in...that is an obvious DSM IV classification--don't even get me started on Bush's mental disorder diagnosis) but he should not be regarded as being representative of what Iraq's people are like or for what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest strider2004 Posted March 2, 2003 Report Share Posted March 2, 2003 There is a difference between neutrality and apathy. Physicians often have strong political agendas and I don't think that's wrong. The OMA is the largest lobby group in Ontario. What do they lobby on? Smoking, bicycle safety, health promotion. But these things can't be done if you decide to stay away from politics. Politicians in democratic countries worry about one thing: what can I do to get elected/re-elected? If you don't help them, then why should they help you? The best way to get your health message across is to support the governing political party or the soon-to-be governing political party. I don't think physicians often have the luxury of neutrality. In fact, I think physicians have a great deal of political strength and that should be used. Remember that it was only a few years ago that medecins sans frontieres won the Nobel Peace Prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dannyboy Posted March 2, 2003 Report Share Posted March 2, 2003 Strider2004. I think we might have different perspectives on how politics is defined--I understand what you are writing about as "advocacy" not politics. Such a fine, subjective line; one that I had not considered before so *thank you* for sparking something in my brain. As far as being an advocate, I feel that advocacy in matters pertaining to health (and my definition of what is involved in health is pretty inclusive) is a crucial obligation of drs. From my understanding of MSF, neutrality in matters regarding politics is critical. I had a friend who wanted to volunteer for MSF but was turned down because he was not considered to be sufficiently neutral (he was pretty extreme though). So much to think about. Once again, thank you for your insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest macdaddyeh Posted March 5, 2003 Report Share Posted March 5, 2003 Hi everyone: I REALLY hope not to get this question. I think it is entirely inappropriate for an interview setting (as are religious questions) unless you bring it up first... As to fellow posters claiming to be neutral, that is a farce! I think a major problem with this world is people NOT taking a stand. Depoliticizing issues is unacceptable! For example, the world debt which heavily indebted poor countries are forced to pay is keeping them in poverty and they are unable to invest in social programs (ie. health and education) because they are forced (literally) to make debt payments first. I can not look at such an issue neutrally, much like I couldn't look at the British rule of India neutrally. Do I believe in peace? Yes. Do I believe in activism? Yes. Now that said, with specific reference to MSF (and the Red Cross for that matter), I can understand their objective of neutrality SIMPLY for the reason of wondering if one's political views will conflict with one's ability to provide care. As an aspiring doctor if I am confronted with some issue that is ethically troubling I will act in the patient's best interest (the goal of any doctor) and lay aside my personal feelings despite how difficult it is. For example, you may have noted my anti-war feelings in other posts, but if I was in X country during a given war and I was required to treat someone involved in war, I would do so without hesitation. To return to the original subject matter of this post, the Iraqi crisis to me is unacceptable discussion material in an interview and I would probably say that during the interview:b Food for thought...Why is the reaction to terrorist activity often called a "war on terrorism?" Don't you think that is paradoxical, ironic and ultimately vile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dannyboy Posted March 5, 2003 Report Share Posted March 5, 2003 we have different understandings of what "neutral" means. My legal background is shining through. to be neutral is to take the stand of *not* aligning or supporting a specific position or decision in a given controversy. A stand most definitely is taken--but one right smack in the middle so you can objectively as possible observe all that surrounds you. To be neutral is to be driven to NOT be myopic. It is considered to be the most challenging stand one can take. You are almost guaranteed to offend people. Judge's are neutral--have you ever known a judge not to be politically motivated or exceptionally socially aware? You can be passionate about a host of issues but being neutral involves being *non-judegmental* and being impartial. It involves considering all factors involved and all parties involved; in the end, as previously noted, you either remain on the fence that seperates issues or you decide to forgo your neutrality and pledge your allegiance to one side. To be neutral is exhausting since you must step into the shoes of all those involved--believing strongly about debt to impoverished nations would require you attempt to understand the positions of ALL parties/factors involved. It would require a comprehensive evaluation of the situation vs. an emotional or cursory level of assessment. That is a draining endeavor and it is one that requires considerable social skill, knowledge and a HUGELY open minded individual. Very, very few people are neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.