Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:05:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1328 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > The question now is: "what comes after Saddam?"
> > If he is kicked out, it is more than likely to be another military dictator.
> > If he abdicates, it's the same. So far, no gains for the people.
> > If war goes ahead, and he loses, two options are possible: military
> > government by the US, in which case little would change in the relation of
> > the commonfolk with the government; or a puppet government (1), which would
> > never be able to grant popular support even if it were truly democratic!
> > When we know what is prepared to the "after-war", it will probably be easier
> > to accept it. It will be so even for the iraquis, if they know they can face
> > more than a rhetoric democracy after the bloody conflict...
> >
> >
> > Pedro
> >
> > (1) - even if it weren't one, it would always have that stigma
>
> Now this is a serious thought--
>
> Is the best solution to have the American Flag flying over the streets in
> Bagdad? In Israel? Have the U.S. take over these countries and say, "Well,
> now you're part of the U.S."?
Every single foreign power that has taken over the Middle Eastern countries
has left without glory... ever since the Assyrians at least, ending in the
British so far. So no, I don't think the US should do that. What would
anyone gain? The anger would still be among the people.
> I mean, Is this a viable solution? We could then send aid, education, and
> just have the residents live in a democratic society?
One could send aid, education and a form of government; but they can only be
profited from if there is a will to do so. There isn't.
The sad thing is, if more "higher" education were granted to the average
citizen in those countries, they could understand the futility of it all;
but any attempt to teach notions of democracy "western style" (tm) would be
faced as propaganda - such is the point we've come to.
> It may be expansionist but would it solve the problems?--'The United States
> of the World'?
No. The people are not ready; there are still nationalisms left from the
19th century! :-)
But perhaps more important, the world economy is not ready. If there was
only a single nation, where everyone had the same rights and obligations,
the same concepts of justice and fair remuneration, where could the
companies search for cheap labour? We would assist to a substancial collapse
of the productive system that would throw us back to the Age of Agriculture,
with everyone producing for themselves. Not to mention the lack of
competition... it would have to be both a premise and a consequence of that
Union - therefore proving it impossible in realistic terms.
Now call me selfish if you want, but I kind of like the priviledges I enjoy
in my society, even knowing others will never have access to them. That's
sad, even when I know it's waht forces the human kind to progress.
> I dunno, I'm getting sick and tired of people being repressed, dieing and
> not having the 'freedom' to live in peace.
Peace is easier to accomplish than the US of the World. Such as freedom. And
more important: universal happiness.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes: <snip> (...) Now this is a serious thought-- Is the best solution to have the American Flag flying over the streets in Bagdad? In Israel? Have the U.S. take over these countries and say, "Well, now (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
