|
Krishna
कृष्ण,LOL


Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
|
|
Quote:
lonestar2004 said: omg Krishna, zahudulla i new y'all would find something the u.s. did wrong. in relation to the tidal wave and debt
so you don't believe that the poverty of these nations had an impact on their lack of having a pre-warning program developed? japan and the US have such a program developed for tsunamis in the pacific ocean - and both aren't poor nations -is there a connection there? such a program is certainly "frivolous" - tsunamis are rare and such a program would require continued spending all for the off chance that a tsunami would occur. i think the poverty of india, sri-lanka, indonesia, and thailand directly correlates to their inability or unwillingness to spend on a tsunami pre-warning program (such a program was suggested to those governments at some conference in Australia in 2002 - i'll find a source if you want one, but i heard it on NPR this afternoon - but economic factors were involved in the rejection of such a program).
That point being made - you don't believe that the history of interaction between the west and India, Sri-Lanka, Indonesia, and Thailand has something to do with those countries level of poverty? Seriously? So they are poor only as a result of their own mistakes? What about colonialism? Their own mistake in letting the British in?
I certainly don't "blame" this tragedy on Bush.... that would just be absurd. This tragedy occured because of natural plate movements. However, the unpreparedness of these Asian nations for such a disaster is a direct result of their level of poverty, I believe. Simply look at the system Japan has in place for the case of a tsunami. Such a system costs a lot of money - to train people, to continually moniter earth-patterns, to have a system of communication, to have a constant supply of emergency supplies, etc etc etc... The only connection between the West and this tragedy is that (I believe) these nations are 3rd world nations largely because of the influence of the West over the past, say, 500 years. And because they are 3rd world nations, they did not have the economic resources to plan for such an event. Thus, when such an event occured, they weren't prepared for it.
Do you disagree with any points that I've made?
--------------------
|
Pali_Gap
Stranger
Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 67
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: Krishna]
#3553744 - 12/28/04 05:28 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Suppose some neanderthals got hit by a hurricane or earthquake or something like that 30,000 years ago and a band of archiac modern-like homo sapiens didn't help them? Did we as a species do something wrong?
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 month, 29 days
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: Pali_Gap]
#3553836 - 12/28/04 05:45 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Suppose some neanderthals got hit by a hurricane or earthquake or something like that 30,000 years ago and a band of archiac modern-like homo sapiens didn't help them? Did we as a species do something wrong?
This is irrelevant fantasy.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Pali_Gap
Stranger
Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 67
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: GazzBut]
#3553896 - 12/28/04 06:00 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
Suppose some neanderthals got hit by a hurricane or earthquake or something like that 30,000 years ago and a band of archiac modern-like homo sapiens didn't help them? Did we as a species do something wrong?
This is irrelevant fantasy.
99.99% of the Bush bashing I've seen is irrelevant fantasy.
|
Krishna
कृष्ण,LOL


Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: Pali_Gap]
#3553977 - 12/28/04 06:18 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Pali_Gap said:
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
Suppose some neanderthals got hit by a hurricane or earthquake or something like that 30,000 years ago and a band of archiac modern-like homo sapiens didn't help them? Did we as a species do something wrong?
This is irrelevant fantasy.
99.99% of the Bush bashing I've seen is irrelevant fantasy.
Ok first of all, I don't think that my comments count as "Bush Bashing" at all. The only thing Bush is guilty of is continuing the policies towards Asia that the West has had for the past 500 odd years. Secondly, your metaphor fails - because in this case, the economic situation of South-Asia can be directly related to Western actions (both pre and post colonialist) - we are directly responsible (not wholly responsible - because corruption, ethnic/religious disputes, etc must be taken into account - but still directly responsible) for their poverty. Thirdly, are you comparing poor people or south-Asians to neanderthals? Last I recalled, they were the exact same animal as those of us in the West... they just happen to be a great deal poorer.
--------------------
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: Krishna]
#3554047 - 12/28/04 06:34 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Krishna
India spends BILLIONS!!!!!! on weapons while aid groups struggle for funds to fight Polio and Tuberculosis.
instead of one more warhead they could purchase a pre-warning system. and the people could be trained. i sat at a table a few weeks ago with a bunch of Doctors and half of them were from India.
Russia and china are the biggest arms suppliers to India and Pakistan. but the u.s. has just made a big fighter jet deal.
i have heard a few people mention the amount of money the u.s. spends on weapons instead of helping the victims of the tidal wave, but fuck the victims are wasting money on weapons also. ( none of the America haters mention that.)
buying and selling weapons suck but its not all Americas fault.
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
Krishna
कृष्ण,LOL


Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
|
|
Quote:
India spends BILLIONS!!!!!! on weapons while aid groups struggle for funds to fight Polio and Tuberculosis.
instead of one more warhead they could purchase a pre-warning system. and the people could be trained.
definitely agree with you there. India has spent so much money on its army (they have had their own cold-war with Pakistan over the past 50 years) it's disgusting. there is this horrible trend of the developing world also being the largest purchaser of arms. my personal feeling about the largest cause of this is a very small elite in the developing world making a large profit off of this. this one part of the indian gov'ts wastefullness (and there are many - corruption and greed being at the root of most of them) is definitely the existential fault of the indian govt. of course, we must also take into account the historical fact that it was british colonial rule that eventually led to partition, and thus the cold-war style standoff between india nad pakistan, but that is a different topic. and as well, if a developing country sees the developed countries (at the time, the USSR and the USA) getting more and more and more and more weapons (esp. nuclear ones), is it any wonder that they follow suit and arm themselves to the teeth? but putting all these objections aside - even if India did not have a massive standing army, she still would not be rich. Not to mention that Thailand, Indonesia, and Sri-Lanka are all much poorer than India and (except for Indonesia to some extent) do not have large armies. I certainly accept the point that you've made, but I believe that it still doesn't completely answer the questions i've raised...
--------------------
|
Autonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: Krishna]
#3554265 - 12/28/04 07:45 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"The only thing Bush is guilty of is continuing the policies towards Asia that the West has had for the past 500 odd years." Please. The governments of the Asian countries in question are much more guilty of contributing to the situation than the U.S. government or George Bush. I notice that the Asian country which the U.S. has had the greatest influence on (Japan) is much better prepared for natural disasters than these backwaters - how does a blame America first mind set explain this?
-------------------- "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain
|
Krishna
कृष्ण,LOL


Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
|
|
Quote:
Autonomous said: "The only thing Bush is guilty of is continuing the policies towards Asia that the West has had for the past 500 odd years." Please. The governments of the Asian countries in question are much more guilty of contributing to the situation than the U.S. government or George Bush.
I agree, 99%. Read my first post in this thread - the first place I laid the blame is the governments in the countries directly affected. And out of all the Western powers, if we look at things historically, the US is the least to blame for Asia's current situation. If we look at the past 100 years, well we start to rival Britain. But, then again, it all depends on how you view neo-liberal globalisation as having worked. I think it's greatly benefited an elite in the 3rd world (the same elite that for the most part comprises the governments), created a small middle-class, and greatly displaced and destroyed the livelihoods of an overwhelming majority of farmers, "peasants", and so forth. In my mind, this is a negative. In some peoples minds, old methods of agriculture and agrarian ways of life are unfit for our modern economy, and so it's good that it is being done away with. In my view, neo-liberal globalisation has led to the building of, for example, dams in India that flood and displace tens of thousands of farmers. In others views, these dams bring development, and thus the benefits outweigh the externalities. The tangent that I was delving into with the rest of my posts in this thread is just that I believe the trend the West has set for Asia is what has led to their continued poverty, lust for an arms-race, corrupt government, etc. So that's why I only 99% agree with you - existentially, the governments of Asia are to blame - but can we deny the historical impact that the west has had on this region of the world?
Quote:
I notice that the Asian country which the U.S. has had the greatest influence on (Japan) is much better prepared for natural disasters than these backwaters - how does a blame America first mind set explain this?
Japan is an anomoly - an exception - and definitely not the rule. This is a huge topic - the "asian tigers" as they are known in economic circles. Definitely worthy of it's own thread... this upcoming week I'll try to summarize my opinion/explanation of that phenomenon so we can have a proper discussion about it. (god i still have to finish reading "The Road to Serfdom" at pinksharkmarks recomendation, and then post my critique/questions/etc of it... not to mention work and start packing for my move next week.... i give too much time to this place!)
--------------------
|
Autonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: Krishna]
#3557513 - 12/29/04 01:40 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"Japan is an anomoly... " It is THE Asian country most influenced by the U.S., that does indeed make it unique (or if you prefer, an anomaly), and the most successful. It would show deliberate prejudice to throw out the example of Japan in order to make your point.
-------------------- "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain
|
EonTan
bird

Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: Krishna]
#3562028 - 12/30/04 03:42 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Yes they are poor becsaue of their own mistakes. They will continue to be poor becasue of their own mistakes.
It's like they actually believe that if they just keep having children one day things will get better.
Shit I got no home, I got no food, I got no clothing, I got no healthcare....... I know I'll have a kid or two, or three or four.
Irresponsible adults that have children WHILE they are poor, should be SHOT.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: EonTan]
#3562050 - 12/30/04 03:52 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
EonTan said: Yes they are poor becsaue of their own mistakes. They will continue to be poor becasue of their own mistakes.
It's like they actually believe that if they just keep having children one day things will get better.
Shit I got no home, I got no food, I got no clothing, I got no healthcare....... I know I'll have a kid or two, or three or four.
Irresponsible adults that have children WHILE they are poor, should be SHOT.
Actually, in a lot of Third World countries, children are an fiscal asset rather than a burden, since child labor is legal. Children in such countries are the only pension plan for poor people.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
EonTan
bird

Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
|
|
No they are not assets. I guess if you consider a welfare check in the USA worthy of bringing more poor kids into the world a means to a pension plan, you deserve to be poor, and left for dead.
Adding more people to poverty does not solve poverty.
If I am poor enough that it takes ten kids working to keep my house and food on the table, I should do the world a favor and KILL MYSELF.
Or I could share a home with other childless adults and get by without adding more people into poverty.
More people in poverty, or less people in poverty. You decide. We already know what the idiots of the world decide. They don't give a shit. They just keep popping them kidies out and sending them to work so that they can grow up and pop those kiddies out and send them to work. NEVER EVER GETTINg OUt OF POVERTY and DEFINETLY INCREASING THE NUMBER Of PEOPLE IN POVERTY.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: EonTan]
#3562461 - 12/30/04 06:16 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
EonTan said: No they are not assets. I guess if you consider a welfare check in the USA worthy of bringing more poor kids into the world a means to a pension plan, you deserve to be poor, and left for dead.
Did you even read my post? I am NOT talking about the US. I'm talking about Third World countries, where children are sent to work to bring in income for the family.
Quote:
If I am poor enough that it takes ten kids working to keep my house and food on the table, I should do the world a favor and KILL MYSELF.
How incredibly heartless. I'm no liberal, but that statement epitomizes what I hate about conservatives.
Quote:
More people in poverty, or less people in poverty. You decide. We already know what the idiots of the world decide. They don't give a shit. They just keep popping them kidies out and sending them to work so that they can grow up and pop those kiddies out and send them to work. NEVER EVER GETTINg OUt OF POVERTY and DEFINETLY INCREASING THE NUMBER Of PEOPLE IN POVERTY.
Actually, the poverty of many Third World countries is more the result of a difficult transition to industrialization, not of poor people breeding. There have been a few countries, particularly in Asia, which have helped pull themselves out of poverty through sensible fiscal policies.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
EonTan
bird

Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
|
|
Yes I did read your post. I responded to it with an example of how a third world idiot could get by without having to have kids and send them to work.
I also included an example of idiots in America doing the same thing within the laws of the USA, and how that is equally wrong.
Actually I have a huge heart that is why it drives me to drink to watch idiots drop kids out when they live in a pile of shit. Who is heartless here. I am not raising children in poverty.
You can say poverty is a result of this or that, but There is no denying that HAVINg CHILDREN IN POVERTY INCREASES THE AMOUNt OF PEOPLE LIVINg IN POVERTY.
That is what I hate about quasy Libertarians, they always show there Bleeding heart liberalism when faced with the tuff questions.
NO increases in poverty are the result of Breeding in poverty. The original poverty is a result of all your ECONOMIC/SOCIAL REASONS. But the fact remains, if people didn't have kids in poverty, the number of people in poverty would decrease, not increase. You can't argue it.
Now if I am working and supporting my family, and then something happens that creates poverty, I and my family have now increased the number of people in poverty. But As long as NONE of US have children While we are still in poverty, WE DO NOT CONTINUE TO INCREASE THe NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY. The conditions that are leading to poverty might increase the numbers, but NOTHINg like having kids would do.
I agree that nations can pull themselves out of poverty through SENSIBLE DECISIONS. That is why I am arguing for the MOST SENSIBLE OF ALL DECISIONS YOU CAN MAKE IN POVERTY. DONT HAVE KIDS until you are out of poverty.
I find it hard to imagine that YOU CAN"t SEE THAT.
Forget about my Exagerations about killing myself or other people. You can argue against that all day long and I would agree with you. There is nothing on earth that will convince me that having kids in poverty is a OK.
|
EonTan
bird

Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
|
Re: Blame Bush! [Re: EonTan]
#3564797 - 12/31/04 10:05 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I definetly am not arguing that This will solve Poverty. It just limits the number of people added to poverty. This is the one variable MOST WITHIN THE CONTROL of those living in poverty. It is the one variable that is ignored the most, not only by those in poverty, but apparently those looking in from the outside.
The people really just don't give a shit. If they did no child would be born into poverty, some may become poor, but it wouldn't be a birth right.
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Did you even read my post? I am NOT talking about the US. I'm talking about Third World countries, where children are sent to work to bring in income for the family.
I don't think that that occurance is as widely practised as you think it is.
Quote:
Actually, the poverty of many Third World countries is more the result of a difficult transition to industrialization, not of poor people breeding. There have been a few countries, particularly in Asia, which have helped pull themselves out of poverty through sensible fiscal policies.
Spoken like someone who has never been to Asia. Name some Asian nations that are doing well and correlate that with their birth rates. China and India are explosivly populating and when I was in both nations, mainly India, I saw more children begging or stealing then I did working in the factories.
--------------------
Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
|