When and how.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
But redwolf, the rift between the first and third worlds is growing all the time. Many governments in the third world already spend most of their budget on loan interests, and at times have to get new loans just to pay those off. New technological development staving off famine? The third world can't seem to afford it. And it seems that the West is becoming increasingly isolationist, so things are not going to get easier for the third world.
 
Growing? I don't believe so. Maybe on the odd occasion the rift has gotton larger than the trend should indicate, yet still the third world will soon catch up. Example, China. Years ago China had an economy that was little more than subsistant. It is increasingly becoming advanced and with it advanced methods of production. More and more Chinese are becoming wealthier. Fair enough not all, but quite a lot.

Also, the third world will be easier to feed once the population stops growing. This will have to eventually occur. The Chinese Government has accepted this and introduced the one child policy. Although not totally successful, it has made partial inroads into that nations explosive growth. India soon will have to undertake a policy such as that, not out of ideology, yet out of need. Theres just too many people!

Eventually this will come to bear and the population will shrink to a more sustainable level. Production increases and population decreases will feed the masses.
 
But it is so that they need many children to let 1 or 2 out of ten or more survive the hard life....for example India. In most parts of the country, the people are so poor,that many children die in the first year. So tell a farmer that he shouldn't have so many children...he will answer you that if he just had one or two...none of them would survive.
 
Wow, why are you using China as an example? First, the one child policy is quite often ignored. Secondly, it has a huge amount of land and natural resources, it definately has the capacity to grow economically. This is not true for all countries. Thirdly, more Chinese getting wealthy? China has to be one of the most class based societies out there, sure they don't all have titles but there's no way in hell a peasant or a poor city dweller is going to get too much money.

TC
 
Maybe it is even too difficult to controle the one child policy? How do you want to control every farmer family in every little village in such a big country? How many people would you need for this?! This is quite impossible. The people know it and so they ignore the law.
 
Several words, esterelization of the male subjects.
That is what is being done in china, got more that one kid, we fix it right now, that is the law.
Its reversal, I heard but if you do that the law get us and you get a really big fine.
 
Originally posted by redwolf
Growing? I don't believe so. Maybe on the odd occasion the rift has gotton larger than the trend should indicate, yet still the third world will soon catch up.
Click to expand...
But the growth of the rift is the prevailing trend. Just because there are some (debatable) success stories doesn't mean that economic development is the norm. Alas, there seems to be a mysterious force at large, which makes the entire African continent disappear from the minds of those who believe things are getting better.

Example, China. Years ago China had an economy that was little more than subsistant. It is increasingly becoming advanced and with it advanced methods of production. More and more Chinese are becoming wealthier. Fair enough not all, but quite a lot.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a real success story... it used to be all subsistent economy, now it's 2/3rds subsistent, and 1/3rd subservient. When you see a product labelled "made in China", how much do you think the person who made it was paid? Some Chinese are indeed becoming wealthier, but they're a tiny minority. A few million, perhaps, in a country of 1+ billion people.

Also, the third world will be easier to feed once the population stops growing. This will have to eventually occur.
Click to expand...
What, all by itself? The trouble is, the latter is a precondition to the former, while the former is a precondition to the latter. But hey, I hear that Bush has just sent a "humanitarian" mission to Baghdad, so I guess the West is doing all it can... we all know how much those Iraqis need bombs...

On a sidenote, can somebody please explain to me the logic behind the claim that the Baghdad bombing was a humanitarian mission? Who thinks up these oxymorons?
 
The funny thing about living in an third world country is how it doesn't seem bad until you come to a first world one :)

Well, are you sure the bombing mission and the humanitarian one weren't seperate? Like he sent in the humanitarian one right after the bombing to like come off looking better? Either way, they hit a SAM site, so its not going to effect anyone that badly...
 
Cricket: so now violating the soverign rights of an independent country is ok?
Q: who thinks of these oxymorons, com'n is that really that hard to figure out? It is Mr. Shrub himself, or actually no he couldn't think of that, perhaps his speech writers decided to say that bombing a country is a humanitarian thing, whats next saying that executing people is a humanitarian thing, or perhaps snorting coke is a humanitarian thing, or driving under the influence of alcohol is a humanitarian thing, or MAybe just maybe starting a war is a humanitarian thing.
 
Well, as long as they hit military targets it's okay. What's not so good is the trade bans they have on Iraq, since that hurts the civilians more then the military.

They should've attacked Iraq when they started the war. I mean, if you're going to go after someone you might as well go all the way. What would've been better was if they had like actually killed Hussein, then pay some guy to take over for them. Long as you can control the new guy you get rid of the danger and the people wouldn't be hurt as badly. But if the guy you pay to take over is as bad as the first one, thing probably won't change.

[Edited by Cricket on 02-18-2001 at 23:32]
 
Wrong, Napoleon. The "humanitarian" mission thing was actually something the British said.

I'm still confused to no end about it... when you kill someone for no reason, there's no way to call that "humanitarian".

Cricket: In this case, it wasn't all right to hit military targets, because they weren't threatening them. If you see a soldier standing around, you don't punch him just because he's carrying a gun :). Note also that it wasn't a SAM site... those they hit on a regular basis (so regularly, that you just don't hear about it any more, because it's not 'newsworthy'). This time they were command centres, and they were outside of the no-fly zones.

At any rate, there are certainly better ways to overthrow a dictator than punching the crap out of people who are supposed to overthrow him.
 
How do you want to kill a dictator? It is not very good possible because they know that you could want to do it. So we do not know very often where they are...(for example Milosevic...the bombed his private residence,because they had thought he could be there...it is a pity it wasn't so).
They play cat and mouse with you...but they knows the country better and so they can protect themselves by 'running away' and concealing themselves.
 
Didn't winning a war and then failing to keep the former enemy's military in check afterwards get us in trouble a few decades back?
 
It really isn't that hard to follow a man. He can slip away but eventually you'll get back on him. The real reason more political leaders aren't assasinated by the 'western powers' is that

(a) It makes them look bad in the eyes of the voters. Seriously, do you want to vote for someone that goes out and has someone killed in cold blood?

(b) It doesn't accomplish much. There's almost always another person willing to take the helm. Better the devil you know...

TC
 
It all depends on the enemy, LOAF. In this particular case, you can't accomplish anything by simply keeping the enemy in check. Keeping Iraq isolated and constantly pummeling it simply makes the Iraqis more anti-West, and gives the Iraqi government the excuse to maintain a state of emergency. That means that even if Saddam Hussein was to die right now, the next leader could very well be even worse.
 
And as for assasination, Saddam himself might take a little personal objection to that but the next leader would just love the martyr figurehead.
 
LOAF: The iraqies could always resort to a huge round of terrorism in the us and uk. they have enough bombes/people crazy enough to do it. Also they have large amounts of a little thing called Anthrax, which they could send a single terrorist into the us with and eniminate a whole city, so yes it does matter if iraq or any nation is anti-us. Plus the fact that it is costing the american/british public money to strike those instalations when they are accomplishing nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top