|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:14 pm
As a Western society it is natural to see that the standard of living has never been higher in countries such as the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, and just about every country that signed the NATO agreement. Non Proliferation is at its height with only a few dissident countries such as North Korea, India, Pakistan, to a lesser extent Iran. All that have allied with the Soviet Union in the past have either had to conform to the new globalization policies or suffer sanctions and open condemnation by the remaining superpower and its allying states. No country can stand opposed to us as we are as Wolfowitz put it "a new world mediator." And yet this standard of living is limited to less than 1 billion of the worlds 6 billion. In the Middle East, Latin America, Africa, and much of Eastern Asia, as well as much of Eastern Europe many of the people are living in poor conditions and have very unstable job opportunities. Many countries to counter this have resorted to dictatorship or radical leftist revolts during the 50s-80s, yet now it is crime organizations that have paved the way of the new evil. With no Soviet Union to blame or to fund blossoming leftist countries right wing politicals naturally blame organizations like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, the FARC, IRA, AUC, ELN, the Sandinistas, Cartels, Mafias, MS 13, M-19, Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings etc..etc..for the ills of the world and the dissolving of world peace. So in plain question, are the people of the third world justified in choosing leaders like Chavez, Castro, bin Laden, al Sadr, Lula, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Morales, Arafat (until his death) to stand against the West in an attempt to nationalize their products that the West and Europe have had exclusive monopolies to for centuries? Or are these radical revolutionaries too far out to even be considered possible to help the other 5 billion below the poverty line? Or must we all come under one government? Are the revolts led by Castro, Guevara, bin Laden, Sandino and many others endangering to world peace or Western well being and global dominance?
I will not act like I'm impartial I am a staunch supporter of revolutions, both peaceful and violent and do not believe in Western domination in world issues. And I would like to see your points and debate on them if you'd like.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:44 pm
I would but I'm washing my hair lol joke
I'm not so great at expressing myself with words so debating is my weakpoint.
I can tell you I think we do, but can't explain why xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:45 pm
While some countries do need them. It's the natural order of things. The rise and fall of civilization. Right now the east is rising and the west is falling. As countries (especially US) depend on Japan and China for all of their goods.
World peace will never happen and some part of the world will always be hungry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:50 pm
Well one can argue on the point of and Eastern rise. If you look into Asian markets, our dependency on there is not so blunt. We invested money into Japan and China shortly after World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union in order to utilize the cheap labor of the land. Because of that debt that the East owes the West we are able to build our appalling sweat shops and what not. Though I will agree that I do see an Eastern rise yet more to the point on China rather than in Japan. Japan, unfortunately neither has the resources nor the population to ever achieve the greatness that China or even the two Korea's can. In terms of economic know how the Japanese have everyone beaten however in terms of future stability they will have to start making deals of their own with leftist countries especially China. Its unfortunate that the new Prime Minister Abe takes a bit of an anti leftist approach to things. I was hoping for progress in Japan in terms of long term economic stability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 4:47 pm
There are different types of revolutions, keep that in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 4:59 pm
Peace will only come through not having it.
Standardization is the effigy of some ridiculous fictional novel: an idea that the world could be one won't happen until people lose their own faith in their covenants [being metaphorically used to represent whatever nationality // belief they choose.]
But that's just my opening stand; Now, I believe the question was something about choosing leaders directly opposed to Western living? I won't even delve into religious faculties and beliefs that run against the grain of other religions, though I hope in bringing this up I have at least stirred the possibility that radicals in power can certainly grind against countries who's dominant religion isn't complimentary.
But that's not what I really wanted to spend all of my, personal, focus on. It's that a country is a strand unionized amount of people attempting to survive through whatever ordinary means they can. It really is a dog-eat-dog world, and as America, we cannot simply stand idle while other nations contribute to the potential destruction of our own [just as every other nation would rather not have America attacking them].
That's just an example. Brittan wanted America, America revolted.
Although I'm perhaps being a bit sketchy, as, at home business have offended my train of thought, perhaps you can attain my point? XD, Maybe?
I return to "Peace will only come through not having it at all." Maybe when the world has no trace of human organization left, and, morality beyond what we have now...
Herm.
Well, you get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:01 pm
I agree with Xyloid.
I happen to think the world still needs them because there are many places on the earth that could have one hardly leaving an affect on anyone else. Besides we have to change, I mean after all we can't live on this planet forever since the sun will eventually hit it's Red Gaint stage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:05 pm
Soko_Lena I agree with Xyloid.
I happen to think the world still needs them because there are many places on the earth that could have one hardly leaving an affect on anyone else. Besides we have to change, I mean after all we can't live on this planet forever since the sun will eventually hit it's Red Gaint stage.
XD! If we don't nuclearize-explodize the world before then...
That's still, what, a hundred thousand years in the future?
You mean the melting of our Icecaps, right?
Cough, cough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:26 pm
I will keep in mind Xyloid that there are different types. I know the root term of revolution is change and there have been many types. Mao's Cultural Revolution, Gandhi's Peaceful Revolution, Guevara's Mestizo Unity Revolution, The Civil Rights Movement, The Rise of Judaism, the Rise in Democracy, Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch. All of them different types of revolutions all affecting the world differently.
Also, Kraphitie, leaders are not chosen because of their direct opposition to Western living, rather they are chosen so that they may give their people the opportunity to have a similar standard of living as the West, as well as control over their resources, all without having to conform to Western thinking. We, as the West, are contributing to the destruction of entire cultures and ways of life because of our taking of what belongs to them. Hence why they elect such radicals like Khomeini, or Chavez. It is because we have backed them into a position to either fight back or be assimilated into a game where they have no say. In all fairness though, it is a dog eat dog world, however I do not support the usage of people's labors and sufferings to take land for oil wells, and to enslave millions in the pursuit to make a few dozen privileged men and women richer and more powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 7:40 am
@_@
I'm sorry, but this debate is waay out of my league.
As is ALL Motoz debates. :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:13 am
yokomotoz Well one can argue on the point of and Eastern rise. If you look into Asian markets, our dependency on there is not so blunt. We invested money into Japan and China shortly after World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union in order to utilize the cheap labor of the land. Because of that debt that the East owes the West we are able to build our appalling sweat shops and what not. Though I will agree that I do see an Eastern rise yet more to the point on China rather than in Japan. Japan, unfortunately neither has the resources nor the population to ever achieve the greatness that China or even the two Korea's can. In terms of economic know how the Japanese have everyone beaten however in terms of future stability they will have to start making deals of their own with leftist countries especially China. Its unfortunate that the new Prime Minister Abe takes a bit of an anti leftist approach to things. I was hoping for progress in Japan in terms of long term economic stability.
But as far as for standing by as standing idle by while violence happens - as already stated, it's a dog eat dog world.
Read Mathlus sometime. Disease, war, and famine must exsist in a society. Basically, world peace will never happen. Humans are basically self serving "take what you can, give nothing back" people. The reason why not much of anything is made in America anymore, is because there are more benefits to do it off shore. More money in the owner pockets.
I have no problem sleeping at night because people die under dictatorships. Better them than me. Cruel yes, do I care? No. I'm prepared to sit idle by. The problem with communist governments and dictatorships, is that they forget the human element. That the leader, is out there not for the will of the people (or if so, that is only half of his goal) but for himself. This may be really old school but Communism will never work. And dictatorships are funamentally weak because there is no way for the people to voice their opinions. Which leads to the formation of radical groups who wish to kill the dictator. And these dictators hardly ever leave a will to who will be the next dictator. They immortalize themselves.
Now I have to ask: What is so bad about weastern thinking? We're not the ones living in our little huts, starving to death.
That was rhetorical and an exageration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:37 am
I believe that the most effective revolutions are peaceful ones. It has been proven over and over. From Ghandi to Martin Luther King Jr. They work and the transition to whatever it is that the revolutionaries want is peaceful and better for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:36 pm
it may not b the ppls choice or decision, cuz isnt it usually run by the gov.? but some ppl may want it, some may not...only the ppl themselves can say whether it was good 4 them or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:55 pm
marshjazz yokomotoz Well one can argue on the point of and Eastern rise. If you look into Asian markets, our dependency on there is not so blunt. We invested money into Japan and China shortly after World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union in order to utilize the cheap labor of the land. Because of that debt that the East owes the West we are able to build our appalling sweat shops and what not. Though I will agree that I do see an Eastern rise yet more to the point on China rather than in Japan. Japan, unfortunately neither has the resources nor the population to ever achieve the greatness that China or even the two Korea's can. In terms of economic know how the Japanese have everyone beaten however in terms of future stability they will have to start making deals of their own with leftist countries especially China. Its unfortunate that the new Prime Minister Abe takes a bit of an anti leftist approach to things. I was hoping for progress in Japan in terms of long term economic stability.
But as far as for standing by as standing idle by while violence happens - as already stated, it's a dog eat dog world.
Read Mathlus sometime. Disease, war, and famine must exsist in a society. Basically, world peace will never happen. Humans are basically self serving "take what you can, give nothing back" people. The reason why not much of anything is made in America anymore, is because there are more benefits to do it off shore. More money in the owner pockets.
I have no problem sleeping at night because people die under dictatorships. Better them than me. Cruel yes, do I care? No. I'm prepared to sit idle by. The problem with communist governments and dictatorships, is that they forget the human element. That the leader, is out there not for the will of the people (or if so, that is only half of his goal) but for himself. This may be really old school but Communism will never work. And dictatorships are funamentally weak because there is no way for the people to voice their opinions. Which leads to the formation of radical groups who wish to kill the dictator. And these dictators hardly ever leave a will to who will be the next dictator. They immortalize themselves.
Now I have to ask: What is so bad about weastern thinking? We're not the ones living in our little huts, starving to death.
That was rhetorical and an exageration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
