The Military

[alanschu]

I am critizing that they didn't help untill Pearl Harbor because that is what happened then. Didn't have alot to do with the subject.

 

 

That's just it. It seems like you are criticizing the US for not getting involved in WW2. But now you are criticizing them for getting involved.

 

[alanschu]

I would prefer almost total isolation. The only things we should deal with in other countries is diplomatic relations and trade. No more aid, no more getting involved in someone else's wars, no more immigrants, no more of our companies moving out of our country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The funny thing is this would probably be exceptionally devastating to the US economy.

[Commissar]

The benefits of American commerce has little to do with Iraq, unless you're suggesting that in order to maintain our commerce, we must continue to invade other countries.  Last I checked, the Iraqi invasion did not improve US commerce.  Quite the opposite, really.  I mean, we certainly tried to churn a profit by selling oil contracts, but that didn't work out, did it?

And last I checked, the Iraq war wasn't about economics, but national security. Turned out that was one hell of a crap premise.

 

Last I checked, before Western imperialism the rest of the world got along just fine.  In many cases, the West *did* simply come in, demolish the native society through colonialism, corrupt its economy through the introduction of drugs like opium, exploit its resources, and then force said society into labor.  Doesn't operate like that on the surface nowadays, but tell me this: what came first - the world's dependency on the dollar or imperialism, which caused said dependency?

And they'd be doing just fine, by the same standards, if Western imperialism had never taken place at all. But you know what? People want plasma screen TVs and cellular phones. They want air conditioning and clean water. Bushmen were comparable with everyone else at the end of the stone age, but some societies advanced. Others didn't. The societies that didn't, they want to advance. You really want to argue that the Belgians going into the Congo in the 15th century ended up being responsible for the crappy status of certain parts of the world, go for it. But it brings up an interesting point, since we're in a military thread: a society should be capable of defending itself. You want to rely on universal goodwill, you're more than welcome to. Smart money's on making sure you can compete.

 

It's more complicated than that, but the term "third world" exists only relative to the presence of "first worlds."  First worlds exist because of two things: 1) the scientific revolution and 2) imperialism.  If you want to trace things back to the source, the reason many nations are poor today has less to do with the fact that they were poor to begin with and more to do with the fact that they are measured by a system that predetermines their poverty.  The very system of capitalism favors those who already have control over the wealth of the world - ie the US - and forces everyone else into servitude for scraps.  This is the essence of economic imperialism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Third worlds are poor today because they lacked the capacity to advance. Your argument is basically like suggesting the Soviet Union failed and imploded only when measured against the lack of failure or implosion on the part of the United States. It's like suggesting that Business A, which recently went bankrupt, is only a failure when compared with Business B, which registered record profits last quarter.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the United States didn't start out fabulously wealthy. It is now. Unless we just happen to be the example that proves the rule?

 

Capitalism favors those who can adapt and survive, much like evolution and life in general. I am completely all for assisting nations, groups, and individuals that find themselves in unfortunate circumstances - I tend to vote Democrat, after all - but at the same time, it's important to realize that such assistance is dependent wholly on the good mood of the benefactor. They're in no way obligated to assist simply because the other guy can't keep up.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Commissar

[Commissar]

I'm gonna agree with Commisar in that america has become an imperialist state.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I, uh...I didn't say that. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

[WITHTEETH]

I believe its becoming more like a corporate theistic military oligarchy, but thats just one perspective.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I don't think aid to the third world has helped in the long term. If anything those who keep giving them aid have made them reliant on it.

 

At the end of the day most of it goes into the pockets of corrupt officials, or into the hands of millitia which just keeps the conflicts going.

 

Should we remove dictators who routinely butcher their own people ? Guess thats something that you would have to ask those being butchered since it's doubtful any of us live under that sort of regime.

[alanschu]

Would I like to see an end to dollar-a-day wages in third-world countries? Sure. But tell me something; what were those countries doing before they provided cheap manpower for the US? Don't act like America came in, demolished their flourishing societies and economies, and put them to forced labor. Working for a dollar a day is better than getting nothing at all.

 

Actually, they imposed conditions on loans such as privatization of public facilities and stuff like that. As a result, overnight people are suddenly without power and water. People also have their land taken from them, as countries are actively encouraged to create "cash crops" to repay the loans. Getting nothing at all is actually better, when you can self-sustain and self-regulate amongst yourselves and your neighbours by growing your own food and whatnot (kind of like the early days of frontierism in the United States). These people are displaced by the government as a condition to loans from the IMF, and to a lesser extent the WB. The end result is you get mass-migration to cities, severe overpopulation, and people that used to be self-sufficient (in "traditional" village settings) are now forced to place themselves in as the lowest bidder.

 

I took some option courses about globalization, and while it didn't really change my perspective of things too much (I tend to be right of center, and think the whole "globalization" issue is blown way out of proportion), it was interesting that it didn't seem to be all left-wing propaganda.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: To all those using "First-World" and whatnot, those terms are effectively outdated. First-World referred to the developed, industrialized democratic/capitalist nations. Second-World were the communists. The third-world was literally everyone else.

Edited December 20, 2005 by alanschu

[Blank]

Interference is interference and I rather see none whatsoever if we can get rid of the bad in sacrificing the good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

read this V

The world is not nearly as cut and dry as you portray it to be. It's a huge onion with layers and layers of crap.

your idea just wouldn't work in reality. the US would suffer irrevocably from stopping all interference in that other countries would be reluctant to do buisness with a country that is, in their eyes, totally self-serving and doesn't use its resources for helping out when it can.

 

like i have said before, we won't be able to escape criticism from other countries or our own country no matter what we do, so your solution is neither helpful to the US nor to other countries.

[Commissar]

Actually, they imposed conditions on loans such as privatization of public facilities and stuff like that.  As a result, overnight people are suddenly without power and water.  People also have their land taken from them, as countries are actively encouraged to create "cash crops" to repay the loans.  Getting nothing at all is actually better, when you can self-sustain and self-regulate amongst yourselves and your neighbours by growing your own food and whatnot (kind of like the early days of frontierism in the United States).  These people are displaced by the government as a condition to loans from the IMF, and to a lesser extent the WB.  The end result is you get mass-migration to cities, severe overpopulation, and people that used to be self-sufficient (in "traditional" village settings) are now forced to place themselves in as the lowest bidder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that's fine. I can certainly agree that there are certain conditions that go along with international loans. Try and get an open, no-strings-attached loan from a bank. You give people money, there are certain things they give you in return.

 

Last I checked, we weren't forcing them to accept our cash.

[Azarkon]

And last I checked, the Iraq war wasn't about economics, but national security.  Turned out that was one hell of a crap premise. 

 

Hardly. All wars, when it comes down to it, are about economics. National security was a convenient issue to justify the war, but like you said, it's a crap premise.

 

And they'd be doing just fine, by the same standards, if Western imperialism had never taken place at all. 

 

Not true. Ask any victim of colonialism, and they'll tell you that the first thing they learned from Western imperialism was that it's a conquer-or-be-conquered world. You can't isolate yourself. You can't drive out the invaders. You can't defend your resources. Not unless you were modernized and on par with the foreign powers. Keep doing what you were doing is the equivalent of national suicide, as the fatal victims of Western imperialism - those nations and peoples that disappeared right off the map altogether - will attest to.

 

But it brings up an interesting point, since we're in a military thread: a society should be capable of defending itself.  You want to rely on universal goodwill, you're more than welcome to.  Smart money's on making sure you can compete.

 

Of course. And this is what gets me each time the Bush administration, with typical hypocrisy, accuses so-and-so nation for possessing weapons of mass destruction or spending more money into military goods. Come now. They're doing it because they know that in a world dominated by the US, if one cannot defend oneself, then one had better become a servant of America asap. The sad thing is, the arguments put forth by places like Iran makes perfect sense: the Americans have nukes, why shouldn't we have them? Sure, they're more likely to use nukes for nefarious purposes than the US, but until the US disarms its entire arsenal, what fairness is there in proclaiming the virtues of non-proliferation?

 

No.  Third worlds are poor today because they lacked the capacity to advance. 

 

Bull****. Third worlds are poor today for the same reason people are poor today: because the opportunity passed them by, and now the gates of luxury are welded shut by those who have great stakes in maintaining their present wealth. You can't become rich in a world where wealth is already concentrated in the hands of a few. Take the corporations, for example: who can really compete with Microsoft in the OS department nowadays? Doesn't really matter if your OS is superior - they control the resources and the markets, and you'll be damned if you were ever going to get access to those sources of wealth.

 

Like you said, if third world countries weren't able to offer cheap labor, they would be bankrupt. Why is this? Unless we abide by some twisted notion of Eugenic ethnocentrism that suggests anyone but Caucasians are incapable of modern civilization, it makes little sense that the rest of the world is "incapable of advancing." Unless, of course, they were kept from advancing by those who were already advanced. I need only name a few examples in support (and they are: corporate penetration displacing local economies, exclusive resource contracts on foreign soil, WTO trade policies); this argument's well-supported if you do a bit of research.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the United States didn't start out fabulously wealthy.  It is now.  Unless we just happen to be the example that proves the rule?

 

Yes, everyone who's rich was poor once. That's more chance than anything else - the luck of the draw, so to speak, of whether you were there when the opportunity struck. That doesn't mean, however, that just because you got lucky, the rest of the world must bow to your dominance. The rich should not become richer; the poor should not get poorer. Effort, not heritage, not nation, not legacy, should be the end determinant of wealth.

 

Capitalism favors those who can adapt and survive, much like evolution and life in general.  I am completely all for assisting nations, groups, and individuals that find themselves in unfortunate circumstances - I tend to vote Democrat, after all - but at the same time, it's important to realize that such assistance is dependent wholly on the good mood of the benefactor.  They're in no way obligated to assist simply because the other guy can't keep up.

 

Kinda like how Hitler justified the destruction of other races on the basis of evolution - all to the benefit of the master race.

 

Last I checked, we weren't forcing them to accept our cash.

 

Yeah, they can either choose to starve under US sanctions, or borrow cash from the US and become an indentured servant. What a great choice.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Azarkon

[Blank]

Would I like to see an end to dollar-a-day wages in third-world countries? Sure. But tell me something; what were those countries doing before they provided cheap manpower for the US? Don't act like America came in, demolished their flourishing societies and economies, and put them to forced labor. Working for a dollar a day is better than getting nothing at all.

 

Actually, they imposed conditions on loans such as privatization of public facilities and stuff like that. As a result, overnight people are suddenly without power and water. People also have their land taken from them, as countries are actively encouraged to create "cash crops" to repay the loans. Getting nothing at all is actually better, when you can self-sustain and self-regulate amongst yourselves and your neighbours by growing your own food and whatnot (kind of like the early days of frontierism in the United States). These people are displaced by the government as a condition to loans from the IMF, and to a lesser extent the WB. The end result is you get mass-migration to cities, severe overpopulation, and people that used to be self-sufficient (in "traditional" village settings) are now forced to place themselves in as the lowest bidder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alanschu, buisness, government, and money (including taxes) are now intertwined and here to stay. Whether it was the US's fault for that happening or not, the reality is like you said, that people can't really be in self-sufficient villages anymore without having taxes imposed on them from their own government, so they need money and need to get in on the world's economy. You can whine about the situation all you want, and blame the US for it all you want, but the current world won't change, and it certainly won't revert to what it was before.

 

EDIT:

Effort, not heritage, not nation, not legacy, should be the end determinant of wealth.

yes, it should be. but its not. get over it.

 

Kinda like how Hitler justified the destruction of other races on the basis of evolution - all to the benefit of the master race.

No, not like how Hitler justified the destruction of other races on the basis of evolution. The US is not destroying races and they are not doing it in the name of evolution. they are interfering with other countries in the name of self-preservation and some of what WITHTEETH said about its theistic ideals.

 

Yeah, they can either choose to starve under US sanctions, or borrow cash from the US and become an indentured servant. What a great choice.

i don't see other countries offering any alternatives... you make the US sound like some big fat bully to the world when it is not that way. they take advantage of situations for their own benefit, but they aren't sadistic race-destroyers like Hitler, please don't deal in such extremes.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Blank

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fix your quotes

 

The group who is most to blame for the state of Africa is the people in charge of the African countries.

 

Like commisar said no one has an obligation to help you.

 

Capitalism is nothing like racial supperiority. Capitalism is about taking responsibility for your own success (or lack of) and not expecting anyone to spoonfeed you.

[Cantousent]

I

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Not bad for a former colony

[Cantousent]

Very good, SP. hahaha

[Blank]

Finally, to address a side argument, we should be very careful about accepting lightly domestic spying.  We do not want to become, for the sake of our freedom, slaves to our safety.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

when i said i didn't care, i was mainly talking about intelligence people tapping in on phone lines. i definitely don't want them peeping in on innocent people. there is an extent to which i don't care about domestic spying. but beyond that i care, a lot.

 

you could be right in saying that becoming slaves to safety starts with giving up things like parts of our privacy to our government. whatever the case, we should still consider carefully before we instill laws that claim to keep us safe, when they might not really help at all.

 

like, how afraid of terrorism are people? some terrorism is just a part of life like natural disasters, and some of them you can't prevent unless you can read everyone's minds and have a judging software to stop them (like minority report). but then some terrorism can be stopped. we are dealing with lives here, so how much are we willing to risk? or how much freedom sacrificing is too much? these are the questions.

[Azarkon]

First of all, America is exceptional.  I know the phrase is used to disparage the United States today, but the fact is, we are exceptional.

 

To begin on such a premise means you've already foregone any alternative view, so I'm not sure how you would like me to respond except to shake my head at such patriotic fervor. In terms of objectivity, you might just wanna remember that dozens of civilizations have been, at some point or another, the most powerful and influential civilizations in the world. Relatively speaking, since historical trend seems to tend towards increasing globalization, there is no surprise that the US is more "powerful" today relative to the rest of the world than any past civilization has been. Even so, this is a recent phenomenon (after all, it was only after the Cold War ended that US hegemony began). And it is passing, as well, as in the next fifty years other superpowers such as China and the EU will surely challenge US unilateralism. I simply hope that the US will not resort to nuclear warfare in attempting to prevent such inevitabilities.

 

Tied to that notion, nonetheless, is the idea that recognizing American power is nothing more than populist rhetoric that heralds the end of

[Azarkon]

yes, it should be. but its not. get over it.

 

By that one statement I can infer an indicator of US decadency. The rhetoric of self-improvement simply does not tell people to "get over it." If the West adhered to such a notion the Scientific Revolution would've never happened, as people would've just been told to "get over it" when they attempted to improve on what's already there.

 

It doesn't matter whether there are limits to human achievement. What matters is whether you believe in change or stagnancy. Now, change is not always good, and stagnancy is not always bad, but the belief in change is what marks a society's vitality (or rebirth), while the loss of faith in progress is what marks a society's decay.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Azarkon

[Blank]

yes, it should be. but its not. get over it.

It doesn't matter whether there are limits to human achievement. What matters is whether you believe in change or stagnancy. Now, change is not always good, and stagnancy is not always bad, but the belief in change is what marks a society's vitality (or rebirth), while the loss of faith in progress is what marks a society's decay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i am saying that it is a part of man's debase nature to lock others out of their own wealth, i.e. greed. so now that we have gotten to this point of no return with the money, government, and economy, i don't think it will easily change for the better, if at all.

 

oh, i have faith that the progress will happen, just not in the direction you think. it will continue to progress in a bad way, just watch. i'll come back here in 60 years and we will pick up the discussion then

 

Power belongs to those who constantly seek to improve themselves.

No, it doesn't. i notice that you have misconceptions about reality stemmed from your avidly held ideals such as "power belongs to those who constantly seek to improve themselves" or "effort, not heritage, not nation, not legacy, should be the end determinant of wealth."

 

open your eyes and see that this world sucks and the people in it suck and they aren't going to suddenly or even eventually choose to start bettering themselves into having an ideal world. they have not chosen to do that throughout recorded history, and they won't choose to do that now.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Blank

[Azarkon]

Like I said, the postmodernist sense of despair has overwhelmed Western progressivism, which has all but shriveled under the shadow of its own hypocrisy. Without belief in progress, it's only a matter of time before things get worse - but not necessarily for the entire world. After all, there are nations out there that even now believe in progress and advancement, and see the next century as their time to shine.

 

Power does indeed belong to those who seek to improve themselves. This has always been the case. No single civilization has ever held the reins of power for long because all of them, inevitably, become narcissistic and thus weak. You may think that this is ideal, but in truth it more closely resembles reality than the brand of intrinsic exceptionalism forwarded by Eldar. No people is inherently exceptional - they become this way through self-improvement.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Azarkon

[Blank]

Like I said, the postmodernist sense of despair has overwhelmed Western progressivism, which has all but shriveled under the shadow of its own wars.  Without belief in progress, it's only a matter of time before things get worse - but not necessarily for the entire world.  After all, there are nations out there that even now believe in progress and advancement, and see the next century as their time to shine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, i guess our argument is over then, since we both hold different beliefs about how a nation comes to power and retains it and when a nation loses its power. i think the world sucks and will only get better technology, but continue to degrade morally, while you think that nations lose their power when they stop believing in progress (i am assuming you mean good progress, because like i said before, i certainly believe we will progress, but in a morally inept direction).

 

Power does indeed belong to those who seek to improve themselves. This has always been the case. No single civilization has ever held the reins of power for long because all of them, inevitably, become narcissistic and thus weak. You may think that this is ideal, but in truth it more closely resembles reality than the brand of intrinsic exceptionalism forwarded by Eldar. No people is inherently exceptional - they become this way through self-improvement.

like you said, no nation has ever held the reins of power for long, ever, so what makes you think that will change? it won't. nothing is new under the sun. but now i'll stop arguing to save both of our energy.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Blank

[Azarkon]

like you said, no nation has ever held the reins of power for long, ever, so what makes you think that will change? it won't. nothing is new under the sun. i'll stop arguing to save both of our energy.

 

Progressivism is an attitude, not a matter of how much really changes. US narcissism lies in its gratuitous self-aggrandizing nature devoid of humility and desire for change. When a society becomes so certain of its superiority, it's basically setting itself up for failure. It's like the race between the rabbit and the turtle: the US is the rabbit so ahead in the game that he decides he no longer needs to run anymore. In this fashion, the turtle will exceed him, and win.

[BattleCookiee]

... omg

 

you are criticizing that the US didn't help when they weren't involved back in WW2 and then you are criticizing modern day US for helping when they weren't involved... so what the heck are you saying?

 

Yes. I critize that they didn't helped when asked for, and now "help" when everybody objects. A "rescue" without support or help call sound awfully like an invasion to me...

 

but the fact that there was a freakin war in europe which consequently ushered in economical malaise doesn't mean it is the US's fault that the war happened to start with. and therefore it doesn't mean it is the US's fault that there was economical malaise subsequently.

 

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the REASON why the US has the current amount of power is the powerloss of Europe during WO II and the US-Economical gain during that same war...

 

but countries do give stuff away. just look at all the money for food flowing into Iraq from the US. and look at all the money flowing in to louisiana from other countires. and look at all the money that flowed into tsunami ridden southeast asia from other countries. you must be talking about something else...

That money isn't from the governmet for the largest part. A lot of it is from citizens who wish to help. The money that is given by governments is usually only in times of emergency.

 

"with great power comes great responsibility". i believe that quote. although the US has been irresponsible by making mistakes in using their power in wrong places, i also think it has fulfilled some of its responsibilities when it comes to stopping the evil in the world. of course, the US doesn't hold this principle nor do they act upon it, but i do hold that principle. so even though people crticize the US's reasons for going into war with Iraq, i think Saddam himself was evil enough to start a war.

 

So why get Saddam off when there are ALOT worse dictators all over Afrika, killing MILLIONS ON A DAY! Because they are no risk to the USA, or because there is no economical gain?

Don't start telling how the USA is all "peacekeeping" the world when they don't even pick the targets where peace-keeping is really needed most...

 

but they are already standing on their own. what the heck?

 

the country was not developing in a good way, it was developing in a bad way, epitomized by the bad bad Saddam ruler. so we are responsible to interfere with a country's development, in that, we were protecting ourselves from Iraq becoming a dangerous place, and we were protecting Iraq's own people from being further oppressed by Saddam.

 

we can stick our nose in, and we can pull our nose out. which we are doing, slowly but surely, i don't see a problem in that.

 

Citizens can usually do things when they do not agree. There have been several attempts on Hitler's live before the Allied came, and some of the only failed due to bad luck...

 

Next on the hit list:

 

Cuba

Bhutan

Iran

North Korea

Sudan

Somalia

Syria

Republic of China

 

Prepare flaming! When I only mentioned Iran and NK Commisar and Volourn flew all over me, and you even present a larger list!

 

That...that doesn't even make any sense.

 

Compare the current method of US foreign policy to the imperial system and I think you'll come up with very few similarities.

 

Conquering without anybody wants to get the power and get the supplies (in this case oil)... everything that defines "imparalisation" is found in the US-Actions there...

 

The counterargument, of course, is that the US working towards its own interests is likewise in the interest of the rest of the world. As has been stated many times throughout this thread, American commerce makes up a huge chunk of world trade. The US makes more money, so does everyone else.

 

Would I like to see an end to dollar-a-day wages in third-world countries? Sure. But tell me something; what were those countries doing before they provided cheap manpower for the US? Don't act like America came in, demolished their flourishing societies and economies, and put them to forced labor. Working for a dollar a day is better than getting nothing at all.

 

And let's not forget that the American involvement in international commerce is what allows numerous countries to ride out the socialist wave. It's really easy to not care much about turning a profit when the big kid on the block is picking up the real check with regards to things like a national defense.

 

Von Clausewitz was right in suggesting that war is simply a continuation of political policy; diplomacy in and of itself is often not successful without that potential threat of military action if things get bad. The Europeans are striking out spectacularly with the Iranians at the moment precisely because they can only politely request, not demand. To put it another way: You think Swedish negotiators could keep the North Koreans from taking a road trip to the south? I don't.

 

No, indeed. America didn't destroy their countries. The European did. And now they cannot get back to an same level because the European already exploited most of the most valuable supplies these countries had to offer.

And as said before; The US-Economy flourished because they exploited the already wealthy Europeans, giving the Europeans even less good to further give to the 3rd World Countries...

 

And stop bringing back Iran as a great risk for them. Except for you I still never heard that Iran is threatning us...

 

That's just it. It seems like you are criticizing the US for not getting involved in WW2. But now you are criticizing them for getting involved.

 

No,

Critizing for not helping

Explaining why the US has the power it has now.

And yes, now (in Irak) they get involved without anybody asking for that help and with almost every single country in the world giving the Americans a "NO" for operation Iraqi Liberation...

 

And last I checked, the Iraq war wasn't about economics, but national security. Turned out that was one hell of a crap premise.

 

Sure. HOW does Iraq threatnen the US? Could they even attack the US at any way before the war. No...

 

And they'd be doing just fine, by the same standards, if Western imperialism had never taken place at all. But you know what? People want plasma screen TVs and cellular phones. They want air conditioning and clean water. Bushmen were comparable with everyone else at the end of the stone age, but some societies advanced. Others didn't. The societies that didn't, they want to advance. You really want to argue that the Belgians going into the Congo in the 15th century ended up being responsible for the crappy status of certain parts of the world, go for it. But it brings up an interesting point, since we're in a military thread: a society should be capable of defending itself. You want to rely on universal goodwill, you're more than welcome to. Smart money's on making sure you can compete.

 

And then they DARE to say that you have a "right" vision on politics. OMFG

Yes. We (the Europeans) did cause GREAT harm upon the countries we invaded. They cannot get to our wealth level not because they don't want to but because they were exploited many many years. Our wealth has been caused by them BEING FORCED to give us their natural supplies, for near to nothing. While we prospered greatly (due to them) they never saw their share and stayed poor, or became poorer because we started demanding more of their production to go to Europe. Sometimes they didn't even have enough land to produce Food for THEMSELVES. And now you, American, go blame their current wealth on their own actions... No wonder almost everybody in the world hates America.

 

No. Third worlds are poor today because they lacked the capacity to advance. Your argument is basically like suggesting the Soviet Union failed and imploded only when measured against the lack of failure or implosion on the part of the United States. It's like suggesting that Business A, which recently went bankrupt, is only a failure when compared with Business B, which registered record profits last quarter.

 

Spoken like a person I would really love to despise. Dare to say "that it is their own fault"

Read my above statement to see why. Blaming the 3rd world countries that they didn't wan't to become wealthy for their current wealth level just goes WAY beyond that what any reasonable person would say...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the United States didn't start out fabulously wealthy. It is now. Unless we just happen to be the example that proves the rule?

 

Paying attention. You are wealthy because you EXPLOITED other countries. Like the Europeans became wealthy because we EXPLOITED countries. And those countries are the 3rd world, who cannot exploit other countries to get their own wealth started...

 

Capitalism favors those who can adapt and survive, much like evolution and life in general. I am completely all for assisting nations, groups, and individuals that find themselves in unfortunate circumstances - I tend to vote Democrat, after all - but at the same time, it's important to realize that such assistance is dependent wholly on the good mood of the benefactor. They're in no way obligated to assist simply because the other guy can't keep up.

 

Capitalism favors Exploiters.

They could really want to get advanched too, but they lack the cash, many natural supplies that they now ship cheaply to the Europeans to get any meager profit and generally all kind of basic things we already had 100 years ago, because we used them to get wealthy ourselves...

 

The group who is most to blame for the state of Africa is the people in charge of the African countries.

 

Like commisar said no one has an obligation to help you.

 

Capitalism is nothing like racial supperiority. Capitalism is about taking responsibility for your own success (or lack of) and not expecting anyone to spoonfeed you.

 

No. The Europeans and Americans are to blame for the state in the Third World. Don't go bragging about like a real American how "Capatilism" can save them, when your capitalism is build on them delivering you the base of your existance...

And the leaders of the current African countries came there after the Europeans left it and leaving it in despair after exploiting it for long enough...

It would still all be save and peacefull there if we didn't came crushing in, like the US does in Iraq at the present. Like Afrika, it will leave a mess when leaving, even if you leave when everything is at its best...

 

And capitalism is based on "being spoonfed", as we were that by the African and Asian for as long as it take for your precious capitalism to build...

 

When i said i didn't care, i was mainly talking about intelligence people tapping in on phone lines. i definitely don't want them peeping in on innocent people. there is an extent to which i don't care about domestic spying. but beyond that i care, a lot

 

Currently, the US government can spy on everybody with everything. No need for them to "suspecious"... They just spy on everybody...

Edited December 20, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Progressivism is an attitude, not a matter of how much really changes.  US narcissism lies in its gratuitous self-aggrandizing nature devoid of humility and desire for change.  When a society becomes so certain of its superiority, it's basically setting itself up for failure.  It's like the race between the rabbit and the turtle: the US is the rabbit so ahead in the game that he decides he no longer needs to run anymore.  In this fashion, the turtle will exceed him, and win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Way to state the obvious. If you take enough of a macroscopic view of history then change is inevitable. The US used to be a colony so it was in the same boat as any other colony except it had the will to succeed where others did not. Yes , a deal of that success was courting other European powers who were more than happy to give britain " a black eye". But much has been self deterministic and self realised.

 

If you wonder why such a country would need a big army. Ask yourself why rich people have expensive security systems , while poor people dont. If your rich everyone wants a piece of you. Whether it's another country or some armchair jockey looking for someone to blame.

 

Someone has to make the rules and unless you want every tin pot dictator running around with nukes, I cant think of anyone I'd rather have at the helm. Rule by commitee, IE the UN is a joke. France and Russia were taking kickbacks to stall for Iraq so not like they had any less self interest than you claim America has. Saddam broke the rules, no point shedding any tears for him.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

No. The Europeans and Americans are to blame for the state in the Third World. Don't go bragging about like a real American how "Capatilism" can save them, when your capitalism is build on them delivering you the base of your existance...

And the leaders of the current African countries came there after the Europeans left it and leaving it in despair after exploiting it for long enough...

It would still all be save and peacefull there if we didn't came crushing in, like the US does in Iraq at the present. Like Afrika, it will leave a mess when leaving, even if you leave when everything is at its best...

 

And capitalism is based on "being spoonfed", as we were that by the African and Asian for as long as it take for your precious capitalism to build...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No they are not. The people who live there, and particularly the people in charge are.

No the Africans were happily killing each other before a white bloke even set foot on the place. Your "paradise" vision is just plain wrong. The people most responsible for the killing of Africans has always been other Africans same today.

If captialism dosnt work why are there african millionaires that have come from absolutely nothing?

 

If it leaves behind a democratic system then that wont be the case at all. It's unrealistic to not expect growing pains though. Those Iraqi folks who were voting didnt look unhappy about it. If anything they looked the opposite.

 

No one spoonfeeds a capitalist. Despite your attempt at being clever.Your example even if it were true would not be spoonfeeding, rather it would be the exact opposite.

 

Don't forget all these world powers were at one time conquered nations/colonies themselves.

 

And I'm not American. Nor have I ever been.

Edited December 20, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0