Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. International future?

International future?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
cssjsonhelpquestionlounge
14 Posts 6 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • J JoeSox

    brianwelsch wrote: So what kind of policies are proper to help all countries advance as best they can? I can think of one, no problem, for starters, If your government is a dictatorship, Don't gas your own people or treat or on people like shit.:-D Later,
    JoeSox
    www.joeswammi.com "You may be against the war, but don't be against the soldiers there who are fighting it. I joined to serve my country but when I was there I was fighting to protect my friends," Sergeant Charles Horgan said in a hospital after Iraqi troops in civilian dress opened fire on them at the city of Nassiriya

    P Offline
    P Offline
    Paul Watson
    wrote on last edited by
    #5

    But where is the line JoeSox? Iraq is an extreme, there are other dictatorships where people are opressed not through gassings, killings etc.

    Paul Watson
    Bluegrass
    Cape Town, South Africa

    Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

    J 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • P Paul Watson

      But where is the line JoeSox? Iraq is an extreme, there are other dictatorships where people are opressed not through gassings, killings etc.

      Paul Watson
      Bluegrass
      Cape Town, South Africa

      Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

      J Offline
      J Offline
      JoeSox
      wrote on last edited by
      #6

      Paul Watson wrote: Iraq is an extreme, there are other dictatorships where people are opressed not through gassings, killings etc. I personally, speaking as an American Vet, am not currently worried about other dictatorships right now, it is a good topic and I would like to talk further but I better get my ass to bed:-D:zzz::zzz: Like the Sgt. in my sig, says "but when I was there I was fighting to protect my friends", I think this has more meaning. Later,
      JoeSox
      www.joeswammi.com "You may be against the war, but don't be against the soldiers there who are fighting it. I joined to serve my country but when I was there I was fighting to protect my friends," Sergeant Charles Horgan said in a hospital after Iraqi troops in civilian dress opened fire on them at the city of Nassiriya

      L 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • B brianwelsch

        It used to be that it was understood that nations were sole-entities. No other country should interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation. This was fine because we were essentially ruled by geography anyway, and economies were much less global. However, in the past 10-20 years the global economy has grown and it has become common for nations to send humantarian aid to other nations. Both of which take away from the whole "every country is an island" mentality that reigned before. Typically countries do not squabble over territory and resources per say. If they do it is based on a religion/belief/ideal rather than a material need for survival. The westerners don't get why different tribes within a nation or nations are still fighting like it was the Middle Ages. It seems ridiculous, especially since our countries haven't had to deal with the issues involved in maintaining a strongly divided multi-ethnic populous. At least not since Protestants broke from the Catholic Church. When we have tried to address these issues (Ireland/Israel) its failed. On top of that, there is Africa, which is still trying to come to grips with standing up on her own. So being economically and politically more powerful, the west assumes the position of leader, and feels it needs to "bring up" the rest of the crowd in order to move ahead. A world divided even more by technology and economy than it is already, can't be pretty. The difference between Canada/US/Italy/Germany/ etc. and any number of nations who can't even feed their population is astonishing. This means then that continued intervention is a necessary fact in order to move ahead, right? But doesn't that go against the 'til now accepted rule that domestic affairs of any given nation are their own? We can try the route of propping up less fortunate countries, until they eventually get moving on their own, but would take forever, and as a citizen of one of the "proppers" I don't want to pay for all that either. So what kind of policies are proper to help all countries advance as best they can? The UN seems like a good start that needs adjustment. Hopefully this doesn't turn into why the US is or isn't justified in going into Iraq. That's not the point here. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

        M Offline
        M Offline
        Michael A Barnhart
        wrote on last edited by
        #7

        I agree with Paul, Good topic but tough and the problem is there is no clear answer. A beginning source IMO is that each democratic nation is far more unstable than any of use would like to admit. The leadership jumps on what they think the people want and new leaders take different paths than the previous one. This applies to the US, France .... Look at the differences in US position between Clinton and Bush or Chirac was all for nuclear testing in the late 1990's and is now anything for non-war. This is all due to the populace changing what is most important to them. Stop spending so much time blaming our leaders and look at what we ask of them. Also to many lines to define. How much aid to whom and when how much percentage is redirected by a bad government how do you react. How bad does a government have to be to it's people before stepping in. Does your population accept the risk to it's people in doing so if you really have no interest in the nation you are helping? What if that nations moral code simply is not the same as yours? Are you correct in forcing your code on them to be good to them? and on and on.... ""

        B 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M Michael A Barnhart

          I agree with Paul, Good topic but tough and the problem is there is no clear answer. A beginning source IMO is that each democratic nation is far more unstable than any of use would like to admit. The leadership jumps on what they think the people want and new leaders take different paths than the previous one. This applies to the US, France .... Look at the differences in US position between Clinton and Bush or Chirac was all for nuclear testing in the late 1990's and is now anything for non-war. This is all due to the populace changing what is most important to them. Stop spending so much time blaming our leaders and look at what we ask of them. Also to many lines to define. How much aid to whom and when how much percentage is redirected by a bad government how do you react. How bad does a government have to be to it's people before stepping in. Does your population accept the risk to it's people in doing so if you really have no interest in the nation you are helping? What if that nations moral code simply is not the same as yours? Are you correct in forcing your code on them to be good to them? and on and on.... ""

          B Offline
          B Offline
          brianwelsch
          wrote on last edited by
          #8

          Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Look at the differences in US position between Clinton and Bush or Chirac was all for nuclear testing in the late 1990's and is now anything for non-war this is a big problem. The world is getting smaller, but our leaders are most interested in domestic affairs because thats what the population is generally more concerned with. They flow with the mob in a sense, just so they can keep on top of opinion polls and better position themselves for reelection. Without the citizens becoming more concerned about foreign policy it is difficult for us to expect them to change. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P Paul Watson

            Definitley something like the UN, though as you said with adjustments. No country in the UN should be able to use money as a bargaining chip for one (e.g. We won't pay this year unless the UN agrees to XYZ.) One thing is for sure though; A world with only one super power is bound to be problematic. Bush/Kim Jong/Chirac/[Insert Name] may have the best of intentions, but intentions can be wrong. I also do not think that the "leader" should automatically be chosen based on economics. Money does not equal wisdom and IMO it is wisdom that is required in these times. Even suggesting a leader though is wrong. Communist China, the ideal, is not wrong and Capitalist America, the ideal, is also not wrong. But if we make either of those the leader then you get a heavily biased stage. Greater minds should think about this but a stable world will not be reached with haves and have nots. The West and Far East cannot progress with a huge Middle Earth in trouble. ME will cause trouble for as long as it not a world equal. I fully agree that it is our fault, not blaming it on the west, but unfortuantley it is a problem for everyone else. Can't ignore it or sweep it under the carpet. And as you are seeing you cannot get away from paying for it. Your tax dollars can either be spent in the ME on war, or be spent on aid*. Isolation won't save you either. Good topic, but a hard one! * As I have said before we don't need money, we need people. Aid should be in the form of engineers, scientists, managers, doctors etc. Skilled people, which is what we are lacking and which is much harder to corrupt. Giving us money just makes us forever dependant.

            Paul Watson
            Bluegrass
            Cape Town, South Africa

            Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

            B Offline
            B Offline
            brianwelsch
            wrote on last edited by
            #9

            Paul Watson wrote: Greater minds should think about this I hope they already are. but a stable world will not be reached with haves and have nots I think there will always be haves and have nots, but hopefully the have nots will at least not have to worry about their next meal, or access to medicine and education. The problem right now is the only means we have(or at least are willing to apply) to help out is throwing money at the issues. Clearly this not a long-term solution, as you mentioned. Paul Watson wrote: Your tax dollars can either be spent in the ME on war, or be spent on aid*. Under a dictatorship, the whole nation crawls to a halt, because no single person can possibly govern an entire country well, while holding the reins so tightly. I guess with war, we can at least hope to teach people to build their nation on their own. To develop educational systems, teach them to feed themselves, etc.. Like wiping the slate clean. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

            P 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • B brianwelsch

              Paul Watson wrote: Greater minds should think about this I hope they already are. but a stable world will not be reached with haves and have nots I think there will always be haves and have nots, but hopefully the have nots will at least not have to worry about their next meal, or access to medicine and education. The problem right now is the only means we have(or at least are willing to apply) to help out is throwing money at the issues. Clearly this not a long-term solution, as you mentioned. Paul Watson wrote: Your tax dollars can either be spent in the ME on war, or be spent on aid*. Under a dictatorship, the whole nation crawls to a halt, because no single person can possibly govern an entire country well, while holding the reins so tightly. I guess with war, we can at least hope to teach people to build their nation on their own. To develop educational systems, teach them to feed themselves, etc.. Like wiping the slate clean. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

              P Offline
              P Offline
              Paul Watson
              wrote on last edited by
              #10

              brianwelsch wrote: Like wiping the slate clean. I just haven't seen how war, regime change, subversion etc. can permanently change a country or people. War seems to replace one dictator with another. The "another" may start out fine, but somehow ends up as bad if not worse than his predecessor. Especially in Africa and other poorly educated areas. The succesor is chosen, goes strong for awhile and then looses a couple sandwhiches out of his picknick basket. Then another war is needed to kick him out. (Chris told me this and I had to agree) I seriously think that education is the difference between the "well run" countries and the repeat offenders. Education for both the people and the leader, right from birth. As we have seen in Africa it is very dificult thrusting western culture and economics onto them and then expecting them to run with it without falling. This is why we need engineers, doctors and teachers, not money.

              Paul Watson
              Bluegrass
              Cape Town, South Africa

              Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

              B 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • A Andrew McCarter

                Hedley Bull's "The Anarchical Society". One of the finest reads in all of International Relations - the theories still hold true. The global economy is a choice example - when Thatcher et al were whittering on about loss of sovereignty if the UK joined the UE monetary system, it was a running joke. When the Bundesbank raised interests rates, the Bank of England had no choice but to follow suit several days later - every time. Sovereignty - in terms of the old definition - doesn't apply anymore, and hasn't for a while.

                B Offline
                B Offline
                brianwelsch
                wrote on last edited by
                #11

                Andrew McCarter wrote: Hedley Bull's "The Anarchical Society". Never heard of him. Thanks. Looks like he has something more recent as well. "Hedley Bull on International Society" was written in 2000. Have you read Kissinger's "Diplomacy" by chance? BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • P Paul Watson

                  brianwelsch wrote: Like wiping the slate clean. I just haven't seen how war, regime change, subversion etc. can permanently change a country or people. War seems to replace one dictator with another. The "another" may start out fine, but somehow ends up as bad if not worse than his predecessor. Especially in Africa and other poorly educated areas. The succesor is chosen, goes strong for awhile and then looses a couple sandwhiches out of his picknick basket. Then another war is needed to kick him out. (Chris told me this and I had to agree) I seriously think that education is the difference between the "well run" countries and the repeat offenders. Education for both the people and the leader, right from birth. As we have seen in Africa it is very dificult thrusting western culture and economics onto them and then expecting them to run with it without falling. This is why we need engineers, doctors and teachers, not money.

                  Paul Watson
                  Bluegrass
                  Cape Town, South Africa

                  Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

                  B Offline
                  B Offline
                  brianwelsch
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #12

                  Paul Watson wrote: looses a couple sandwhiches out of his picknick basket :laugh: I agree that education is the key. So if you switch regime's and educate the citizens there may be a good chance for success down the road. I also believe it is a 10-15 chore to help get a nation running well enough to be self-governing. It's like raising a child. Paul Watson wrote: As we have seen in Africa it is very dificult thrusting western culture and economics onto them and then expecting them to run with it without falling. I think the process often dismissed as a simple cookie-cutter procedure, when it is one most difficult things to do well. "well, we can go dethrone King Muhaben John Chang, create a democracy [fanfare] and introduce capitalism [ta-daaaa], and what a fine place the Afghiraqoreans will have. Shouldn't take more than 3-4 years I think" It has worked in the past (namely Germany and Japan), and it can again. Just a lot of work, and a concerted international effort is required. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

                  P 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • B brianwelsch

                    Paul Watson wrote: looses a couple sandwhiches out of his picknick basket :laugh: I agree that education is the key. So if you switch regime's and educate the citizens there may be a good chance for success down the road. I also believe it is a 10-15 chore to help get a nation running well enough to be self-governing. It's like raising a child. Paul Watson wrote: As we have seen in Africa it is very dificult thrusting western culture and economics onto them and then expecting them to run with it without falling. I think the process often dismissed as a simple cookie-cutter procedure, when it is one most difficult things to do well. "well, we can go dethrone King Muhaben John Chang, create a democracy [fanfare] and introduce capitalism [ta-daaaa], and what a fine place the Afghiraqoreans will have. Shouldn't take more than 3-4 years I think" It has worked in the past (namely Germany and Japan), and it can again. Just a lot of work, and a concerted international effort is required. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

                    P Offline
                    P Offline
                    Paul Watson
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #13

                    brianwelsch wrote: It has worked in the past (namely Germany and Japan), and it can again. Just a lot of work, and a concerted international effort is required. What were Germany and Japan like before the regime change? Also remember that the Germans and Japanese realise that change happened because they were the agressors and were rightly put back in the bottle. The people themselves know that. In Iraq for instance I don't think the Iraqi people think they personally have done anything wrong. I know it is a bit irrational and daft to think it but they must be thinking "Get rid of Saddam, he is the one you want! Not my house and children! Please! Leave me alone, I just want to survive." It is tough, no doubt. I think in some cases we have to bite the bullet, piss off a whole generation and do it. But in those cases then re-building afterwards cannot be a 3-4 year thing. It must not be "Right, back on your feet, still got your crutches but thats ok, goodbye" effort. It has to be for a generation at least, two preferably. All the time trying not to come off to the new generations as a hostile posessor. God, that is tough :-D Look how long it is taking for Africans to get over the Western slavery issue. Been many generations but we still blame the West. (Frankly after generation ## the account should be square and we should have no more rights to lambaste the west. Even more frankly Africa has been paid in full long time ago, now it is just being a lazy bunch of bastards taking advantage of good hearted westerners.) brianwelsch wrote: King Muhaben John Chang Wow, you have half the world in that name :-D

                    Paul Watson
                    Bluegrass
                    Cape Town, South Africa

                    Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • J JoeSox

                      Paul Watson wrote: Iraq is an extreme, there are other dictatorships where people are opressed not through gassings, killings etc. I personally, speaking as an American Vet, am not currently worried about other dictatorships right now, it is a good topic and I would like to talk further but I better get my ass to bed:-D:zzz::zzz: Like the Sgt. in my sig, says "but when I was there I was fighting to protect my friends", I think this has more meaning. Later,
                      JoeSox
                      www.joeswammi.com "You may be against the war, but don't be against the soldiers there who are fighting it. I joined to serve my country but when I was there I was fighting to protect my friends," Sergeant Charles Horgan said in a hospital after Iraqi troops in civilian dress opened fire on them at the city of Nassiriya

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Lost User
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #14

                      Just on a side note, President Chirac has sent a note to the UK government he wishes the members of the british armed forces well, and that he sympathises with the casualties. There are a lot of people in the UK against the war who have the same sentiments (for all caught up in the conflict). And that last part of your sig shows what it is like when the politics doesn't matter any more. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes

                      • Login
                      • Don't have an account? Register
                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups