Usa good or bad? The World?

[Jeansi]

and what will they do with the money?
get adsl to the middle of sahara so that everyone could enjoy the wonders of the internet?

I mean giving food doesn't solve problems. They would need to be able to feed themselves. As it is now, most parts of africa are overpopulated. This causes a chain-reaction:
Starvation-->Kids die.
Kids die-->big families, because out of 10ish kids only a few grow up
I'm not gonna bother explaining the 4 steps of population growth/technological advancement and well-being with my english skills but those who have read geography or such might know it. it's called a demographical chart.


africa, jungles etc are mostly in phase 1, india is a good example of area 2, most countries are in place 3 and Finland, Sweden and a few others are the only I know that I know for sure hace clearly entered phase 4.
figure it out for yourself.

[Displaced]

i agree with Jeansi, theres not much point in just giving them food, instead people should support the Kuwait Fund, which "helps people help themselves", it is funded to educate people on matters of irrigation, growing crops, farming techniques etc, its much better for people to learn how to survive for themselves than for them to recieve "free" handouts.

[lunch3]

International investment in poor countries industries, whatever they may be, would go a long way to solving problems in the long-term.

Teaching better farming, mining, and apparel making techniques would help Africa the most. Also lowering tariffs on imports from poor countries and African nations raising tariffs on goods Africans already produce for themselves that enter their countries would also help. Outsourcing (gasp people in US and guessing in other developed nations cry foul because they see their jobs being stolen) would help the world in the long term too.

When underdeveloped nations get developed more money can be provided for the common good like security, government programs, education facilities, and less political strife since people would probably be better off and internal-government factions cannot use population resentment to recruit into their militias. Democracy would also help in making the people's voices heard, setting up a new democracy mostly just needs, imo, a good starting foundation and ideological leaders to set the example and set up well organized checks and balances. Last sentence was a major attribute that made our American democracy so successful.

[Tyson]

Again you guys aren't looking at it from a basic point of view, your jumping ahead and saying "oh we need to teach them how to farm, run their own businesses, pull a rabit out of their ass etc...
Get these people Food and clean water and then worry about the rest.

-Tys

[Troll King]

The Liberal government will dedicate $100 million to the World Health Organizations' '3 x 5' AIDS funding plan
The budget calls for an increase of $248 million in international aid in 2005-06

Thats what our current government is doing.

-Tys

I'm aware of what they are doing. I asked what you thought about it, as you seemed to have strong opinions about Third World aid.

[lunch3]

Again you guys aren't looking at it from a basic point of view, your jumping ahead and saying "oh we need to teach them how to farm, run their own businesses, pull a rabit out of their ass etc...
Get these people Food and clean water and then worry about the rest.

-Tys

The Red Cross does this already, and the UN, and the US with our excess grain.

Food and water is not the major problem, sometimes food and water is short, but it is because it happens here and there and it is somewhat slow for us to send food and water in time when a shortage does happen, call it our bueracracy. Disease is biggest problem in Africa. Industrialization would fix all these problems, and international investment will do that, thought that was a very general solution.

[Volcs]

I did not read. I do not care.
You are asking a bunch of kids who play a spaceship game their views on world issues... dumbass.

[Tyson]

I'm aware of what they are doing. I asked what you thought about it, as you seemed to have strong opinions about Third World aid.

I can not have strong opinions, I can have basic thaughts and suggestions when talking about a world wide issue as big as this. To answer your question anyway, I think that Canada is capable of giving more but thats not to say they should. My main concern (backtracking here abit) is that the money and donations get taxed and that most thirld world countries are ruled by dictators who control everything that goes into their country. I've found this fact sheet on world poverty if you guys want to read it http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp

-Tys

[genocidal]

I did not read. I do not care.
You are asking a bunch of kids who play a spaceship game their views on world issues... dumbass.

With an attitude like that I'm glad you're not from the USA. Who do you think is supposed to care about world issues? Just the politicians? Fuck that, you shouldn't trust them very much if at all. Aren't you a voter? You and your kind are the reason the USA and other countries are permitted to do so many fucked up things. Learn to care. By the way, you're the dumbass you stupid cunt.

[Tyson]

With an attitude like that I'm glad you're not from the USA. Who do you think is supposed to care about world issues? Just the politicians? Fuck that, you shouldn't trust them very much if at all. Aren't you a voter? You and your kind are the reason the USA and other countries are permitted to do so many fucked up things. Learn to care. By the way, you're the dumbass you stupid cunt.

Told, Avril Lavigne wannabe...

-Tys

[Randedl]

Hobbes may have been insane, but there is a reason he is still widely studied and referred to, and that is not because he was insane.

Tys, I believe that you have missed the grasp of what capitalism is. Charity, in its most pure form, rarely exists in the world today. When you are walking in the streets of Toronto, do you give money, or food, or water to any of the bums you see in the street? Or do you make a crack that that money will be used to buy more booze or drugs? The only way for to ensure that that money you give is used properly is to follow whomever you give it to, and make sure that they do what you want them to do with the money.

Further, I see your argument to say that we should just drop freights of food and water all over Iraq and that the problem will be solved.

I see this train of thought as applying a band-aid to a wound that is already too large. It has been discussed above, but with the birth rates in third world countries, simply giving material aid is only going to keep a few people fed for a short amount of time.

My belief in developing nations is that domestic investment is the ideal way to go. My models come from Nazi Germany (they did an amazing job in developing post WWI Germany into a thriving nation) and post-WWII Japan. By using domestic investment (granted, it was received from international development and reparation grants), the two were able to set up programs and industry that would, in turn, bring in more money from abroad and make the people of each country wealthier.

The problem with Iraq is that they have a relatively uneducated population, volatile living conditions, and few, if not none, replenishable natural resources. With fossil fuel reserves scheduled to be depleted in the next twenty years, how much of an investment would it be to develop a purely domestic industry based on that resource.

But back to the original topic again - Tys, let me ask you one thing. What if the people of Iraq had banded up against the government of Saddam Husein, if they had been enraged by the living conditions and living standards and deposed him? How long do you think this would take to accomplish? And further, how much of Iraq would be destroyed and how many Iraqi citizens do you think would be murdered? I guarantee the numbers would be fewer than this war is responsible for.

[death row]

Yeah I was never in favor of US invading Iraq, especially with the BS Bush was giving. "They have all these weapons, blahblah." He was more interested in their oil, and fighting a personal problem with Hussein, considering Hussien tried to kill his dad when he was president. I just think the US had hidden agendas when fighting Iraq. Why aren't the US worried about N.Korea? Don't they have "n.weapons?" Yet they won't touch them, because N.Korea has actually warned the US if they get into their business they will in fact use them. I believe I heard from a source somewhere that they had missiles pointing at some major cities in the US. Not sure, but thats what I heard at one point.

But yeah, I was never in favor of US invading Iraq, it was pretty sad. In fact, most of the world really weren't too thrilled about it.

[genocidal]

My belief in developing nations is that domestic investment is the ideal way to go. My models come from Nazi Germany (they did an amazing job in developing post WWI Germany into a thriving nation) and post-WWII Japan. By using domestic investment (granted, it was received from international development and reparation grants), the two were able to set up programs and industry that would, in turn, bring in more money from abroad and make the people of each country wealthier.

The problem with Iraq is that they have a relatively uneducated population, volatile living conditions, and few, if not none, replenishable natural resources. With fossil fuel reserves scheduled to be depleted in the next twenty years, how much of an investment would it be to develop a purely domestic industry based on that resource.

I agree with what you say except for the part about foreign investment. I believe that foreign investment is what fucks up countries. The last thing that would help Iraq right now is more foreign investment. An example would be Mexico up until the 1920s when they nationalized their oil (and pissed of the fuck out of the US $$$$). The US practically owned Mexico and thus made the living conditions horrible. Another example would be Cuba up until Fidel Castro seized power. Batista was a really bad guy but he was still just a puppet for US tourism. Foreign investment can do nothing but fuck shit up in Iraq. Countries like the Soviet Union became world powers after they industrialized themselves completely (see the 5 year plans of Stalin). Granted the living conditions during industrialization were pretty bad in the USSR but in what country weren't they? Even the US saw pretty bad urban conditions during its industrialization. I'm very skeptical of this "handing over the government to Iraq" because there will continue to be a military presence in Iraq from the US and as everybody knows any time the US military is there then there is US money there. It's pretty handy to us after all that Iraq is 4th leading country in the world in oil production.

Also, I read somewhere that threats of declining oil reserves and how we're going to run out in 20 years is completely a farce. I don't have any evidence to back this up as I can't remember where I read that but it's just something to think about or research more.

EDIT: Fuck it's late and I didn't really read your post thoroughly . Yeah you're right domestic investment is what gets shit going but I don't see that happening in Iraq. The US will keep a fairly tight hold at least for a while and any money they do give I'm sure will be in the form of grants where we tell them what to do with it. I see that as ending up much like countries that receive foreign investment. I mean, maybe I'm too much of a skeptic but I find it hard to believe that the US will just remove it's hold on a very oil-rich nation especially when our economy needs that oil for cheap. Bleh, whatever I agree with you Rand.

[lunch3]

Why would foreign investment, as opposed to domestic investment, be bad for Iraq and other nations. Foreign investment can just mean a particular company decides to move or build (more likely) a manufactoring plant into Iraq, where Iraqis can get jobs and sometimes actually buy the fruits of that labor from a source that will be cheaper to the Iraqis because it is right there. Say a clothing factory is built in Iraq, then you give Iraqis jobs there, then those workers would be more likely to get a home nearby the factory, then construction companies get $, then other companies like McDonald's or K-Mart move in to sell their goods to those original workers, then more people move in because stores are more accessible, construction companies grow and recruit more Iraqis, blah blah blah it is a domino process happening and soon you have a thriving city. How is this bad? The only thing I can see why foreign investment, as opposed to domestic, would be worse is if that said foreign investor takes their profits somewhere else, but more then likely they will just invest more into Iraq with those profits, and even if you didn't you still get that domino process helping Iraq where the initialment of moving profits out of Iraq is miniscule compared to the capital and investment that follows. Foreign investment is not a handout, it is an INVESTMENT whereby money and industry can grow from its foundation.

PS Randedl, I think you implied that less lives would be lost if Iraqis overthrew their own government instead of having the US invaded. Granted think Bush had alterior motives, but in the short term you avoid an all out war, instead having a fast one-sided war conducted by the US. Granted there is more terrorism, but a prolonged civil conflict would be more costly people-wise by far. Instead of 1,000s of casualties you would have 100,000s of casualties.

PS Sure North Korea is a better war to fight ideologically speaking, but them you would have something like 20,000 US casualties and 100,000s Korean casualties because it would be a much tougher war. Plus people are so well propagandisized in North Korea, guerilla wars there would be on a totally different and higher level then it ever was or will be in Iraq.

[Randedl]

Lunch, the thing about internal revolutions is that they tend to establish governments that last and are supported by the population. Any revolution that is instigated by a foreign influence will always have foreign interests at its base.

As geno pointed out with Cuba, as occured in Afganistan, Chile and many more places, revolutions that were catalyzed by non-domestic forces will never be what is domestically needed, in my opinion.

I believe that revolution is a long, drawn out process that needs decades, maybe even centuries to occur, not the pushing of a red button.

Further, foreign investment, on the coattails of multinational corporations (ie. nike) just helps in widening the gap between the rich and the poor. I'm just following your example here, but this is how I see such things working.

Nike, hampered by labour laws, pollution laws, high taxes and expensive labour finds it relatively expensive to manufacture their goods in North America.

Because of this, they seek out a country, like Iraq, that has a comparative advantage in labour (in that it is cheap). Indeed, they are drawn to this source, afterall, including training, shipping and manufacturing, the prices they will spend in Iraq are far cheaper than in America.

Nike now has no need to care for the environment around them, thus polluting and destroying everything around them. Further, they can pay their workers minimal wages and be seen as saviors, and thus save even more money. They can take advantage of children and disabled people and force them to work 12, 15, 18 hour days with no drawbacks. There are also little to no taxes charged by the host country as the government is easily bribed, or too powerless to object.

Now, Nike does two things. They ship back the majority of their goods to markets that will pay millions of dollars for them, and they also sell the goods domestically to the people of the host country for extremely cheap prices.

This enables a company like Nike to destroy any competition that might exist, and ensure that they can rely on the cheap labour that they have for many years to come.

Systems like the above are capitalistic at nature. This means that the only interest that such a system has is for the people controlling it; the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

A developing country would be better off to close off their boarders to imports, focus on one industry and export those for competatively cheap prices internationally. This would, in turn, bring in the money required to jump start an economy.