Anniversary

[Walsingham]

Yes, and we each deal with the hand we are given, Meta, and do the best we can.

 

I fear perhaps we are both alloowing personal history to interfere with our views. I, for example, would not be here many times over if complete strangers hadn't intervened to save my sorry butt. Ditto my interventions for other people. As I have said before, no man is an island. Likewise no country is. Except maybe Martinique.

[Azarkon]

That's certainly a good point. We can only argue from what we know, and what we know tends to be colored - significantly so - by the history of our environments. You certainly wouldn't expect a Chinese or Iranian to praise the practice of Western intervention, and it's perfectly reasonable that African intellectuals are very gung-ho about neo-colonialism.

 

Americans, though, have the luxury of being able to see it either way. The US has never really depended on anyone else for its survival, and its interventions have produced both good (ie WW2) and evil (ie Iran). With such a background, whether someone supports one or the other is thus more dependent on other factors, such as upbringing or partisan bias. Hmm, I suppose from this perspective internet debates are really more useful in revealing the backgrounds of the debaters, than they are in convincing anybody that they might be wrong

Edited April 18, 2007 by Azarkon

[metadigital]

I suppose from this perspective internet debates are really more useful in revealing the backgrounds of the debaters, than they are in convincing anybody that they might be wrong

[Sand]

I fear perhaps we are both alloowing personal history to interfere with our views. I, for example, would not be here many times over if complete strangers hadn't intervened to save my sorry butt. Ditto my interventions for other people. As I have said before, no man is an island. Likewise no country is. Except maybe Martinique.

 

Everything that I have done, everything that I do, and everything I get myself into or out of was done by my hand. I ask for no help, I want no help, and I do my best to be as self sufficient as possible. I do my best not to need anyone's assistance in anything for I have learned that the only person I can truly depend on and trust is myself.

[Skynet]

Everything that I have done, everything that I do, and everything I get myself into or out of was done by my hand. I ask for no help, I want no help, and I do my best to be as self sufficient as possible. I do my best not to need anyone's assistance in anything for I have learned that the only person I can truly depend on and trust is myself.

What an arrogant and foolish statement.

 

You depend on other people every day of your life and you don't even realize it. Every time you get a drink of water or a bite to eat, you don't have to worry about if it's contaminated because others in your society provide for you. Every time you go to sleep you can do so peacefully because the government is always fighting crime. You are educated because others have worked to make you so. You are well off financially because others strive to grant every worker minimum wages and other benefits. You can make thousands of ignorant rants on the internet without fear of retaliation because others are always fighting to protect our freedom of speech. Without them, you are nothing.

 

People living in third world countries don't have all the advantages you do. They have to work much harder than you, and often can barely make it day to day. Who are you to deny them the same priveleges you get every day?

 

As the most prosperous nation in the world, we've taken up the role of looking out for others. Yes, sometimes we really do screw up (Iraq could have gone a lot better), but overall we've done a lot more good than harm. You really don't seem to have any real idea how our active role in the world influences others, and what consequences isolationism would bring.

[Sand]

Man, you are making some bold assumptions, Skynet. I am not financially well off for starters. As being the most prosperous nation of the world, if that is the case then we should take care of our own people first so that every child has adequate healthcare. That we don't have mothers who have to choose between which child gets medical care and which child dies. That we don't have people still homeless and living in squalor in our own nation. When we have healthcare for all within our nation, when we have zero homeless and unemployment, then I will consider ourselves prosperous enough to help other nations.

 

The US government first and foremost responsibility is to the care and well being of its own people, not the Iraqis, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Mexicans, and so forth and so on.

[metadigital]

Are you disputing that the US is the richest nation? (I mean besides your usual isolationist diatribe.)

[Skynet]

Man, you are making some bold assumptions, Skynet. I am not financially well off for starters.

I meant relative to the rest of the world, since what we consider poor is actually pretty good in other parts of the world. Sorry for any confusion.

 

Other than that misunderstanding, I don't see any other 'bold assumptions'.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Skynet

[Sand]

No. I am saying that we aren't rich enough that we cannot take care of our own people who the US government responsibility lies. Once we taken care of things at home to a degree that we have zero homless and everyone has affordable healthcare, and the like, then and only then should we try to help other nations.

[Sand]

Man, you are making some bold assumptions, Skynet. I am not financially well off for starters.

I meant relative to the rest of the world, since what we consider poor is actually pretty good in other parts of the world. Sorry for any confusion.

 

I don't particularly care too much about the other parts of the world. I don't live in other parts of the world. I live right here in Iowa, United States, and I worry about things that go on in my own backyard than stick my nose in the business of others.

[metadigital]

Man, you are making some bold assumptions, Skynet. I am not financially well off for starters.

I meant relative to the rest of the world, since what we consider poor is actually pretty good in other parts of the world. Sorry for any confusion.

 

I don't particularly care too much about the other parts of the world. I don't live in other parts of the world. I live right here in Iowa, United States, and I worry about things that go on in my own backyard than stick my nose in the business of others.

By your own reasoning, why should anyone in the US give a flying kick at a donut about your welfare?

 

You seem incapable of equating your own selfish attitude with the inequality in the society you are bemoaning.

 

It is actually quite sad.

[Sand]

So far in my life no one has given a "flying kick at a donut" about my welfare except for me. Everything I have gotten I gotten myself, good or ill. As for Skynet's little rant how I depend on people everyday, I don't. I pay my taxes and my bills which pays for the water and electricity I use, the salary of the police, fire fighters, and military. I paid for my education, my textbooks, and the like. I paid my way through my life.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

That's right, you have derived no benefit from living in Iowa. You should move to a developing country. Like Iraq.

[Sand]

If events lead me elsewhere I will deal with it when the time comes, as I always have, however I refuse to live and work in a country I do not know the dominant language. To move into a country to work and live and not speak the native tongue is just rude.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

I'm still baffled as to how you believe looking after the welfare of your own country, from even the most selfish standpoint, is best served by interacting as little as possible with the outside world. Leaving aside military intervention, how in god's name to you propose convincing other countries to buy American goods and services if not with aid and engagement in some cases? If you cut all US assistance abroad your economy would implode as thousands of economic agreements collapsed!

[Sand]

If we are giving them money other countries to buy American goods are we trully making any money off the deal? No. Why not skip the middle man and use that money to go directly into the companies in which those countries are buying from. Have the government invest their resources here at home. By keeping the resources internally we can make sure we don't owe any other country resources, and what we do sell to other nations would go directly to the profit margin.

[Walsingham]

If we are giving them money other countries to buy American goods are we trully making any money off the deal? No. Why not skip the middle man and use that money to go directly into the companies in which those countries are buying from. Have the government invest their resources here at home. By keeping the resources internally we can make sure we don't owe any other country resources, and what we do sell to other nations would go directly to the profit margin.

 

You're saying that you reckon the State Department is just handing out cash out of pure glee, rather than because they know they will make a profit? I can only assume you feel a very different sort of person holds sway there compared with the evil s.o.b.s who started the Iraq war purely for oil.

[Sand]

I am saying that we need to make sure we are as self sufficient as possible. Relying on others only opens you up to attack and weakens your position in the long run.

[Walsingham]

I am saying that we need to make sure we are as self sufficient as possible. Relying on others only opens you up to attack and weakens your position in the long run.

 

You're quite correct. Quick, lock all the doors! Fire all my staff! They're only accidents waiting to happen and stab me in the back!

[metadigital]

If events lead me elsewhere I will deal with it when the time comes, as I always have, however I refuse to live and work in a country I do not know the dominant language. To move into a country to work and live and not speak the native tongue is just rude.

What I find most amusing with your standpoint is that you think that your fellows will willingly and enthusiastically join in a common defence of you and your livelihood ... and for what? Are you expecting others to defend you even though you don't return the favour?

 

Perhaps you think that others would like to come to a battle with you to watch you be attacked ... hmmm, that might be sufficient ... "

If we are giving them money other countries to buy American goods are we trully making any money off the deal? No. Why not skip the middle man and use that money to go directly into the companies in which those countries are buying from. Have the government invest their resources here at home. By keeping the resources internally we can make sure we don't owe any other country resources, and what we do sell to other nations would go directly to the profit margin.

You really have no concept of international trade and economics, you realise that, don't you?

[Sand]

You really have no concept of international trade and economics, you realise that, don't you?

 

Well, which is more efficient? Give money to someone so they can afford to buy something you sell or keep both the money and what you were going to sell in the first place? Or sell what you have and not give the money to another so they can buy it, so that you have your original money plus the money that you got for selling the item?

[metadigital]

I am not going to attempt to educate you in this matter.

[Sand]

Then I see that I am right.

[metadigital]

Only in your world of illogic.

 

Here's a simple concept for you to start with (ok, I lied, I will try to educate you, it's stronger than me):

do you really think that a government would give money to people, outside their electorate, that didn't give them more money in return?

 

Do you really insist in believing that foreign grants would have the same net effect on the donating countries economy if the money were channelled straight into it? Really? Do you think you've just come up with some amazing observation that has somehow been missed by every man, from every political party or government department? That is some overpowering solipsism you are saddled with.

 

Ok, ready for a second step? Money invested in a nascent economy will nurture it into a larger one, i.e. one that requires more trade.

 

Following so far?

 

(I am assuming, for your sake, that you are taking on a advocatus diaboli persona rather than just being completely and utterly obtuse.)

[Sand]

Well, to be honest I am taking advocatus diaboli because I do like to argue. Win or lose is irrlevant, it is the argument that matters to me. I think we have taken this argument far enough however, and it has taught me a few things I didn't know before which I am grateful.

 

CHEERS!