THe United States: Best Country On Planet

[Scourge]

gop_jeff... thanks for the welcome!

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by Scourge
Or is it survival of the fittest?

Bingo!

 

[Scourge]

Survival of the fittest... so might is right?
Do you suggest suspending the rule of law in favor of the rule of the jungle? If I CAN kill you and take what's yours, more power to me? And vice versa?

I just wish to clarify this before I nail boards across my door, and start hoarding canned goods.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by Scourge
Survival of the fittest... so might is right?
Do you suggest suspending the rule of law in favor of the rule of the jungle? If I CAN kill you and take what's yours, more power to me? And vice versa?

I just wish to clarify this before I nail boards across my door, and start hoarding canned goods.

I didn't say I agree with it, I was just answering your question. Our country - and the West in general - always has and probably always will use its superior might to take what belongs to other cultures and exploit them for our own gain. It seems to be our fate to live down to Darwin's lowest expectations in that regard. It would be nice to believe that we have their best interests at heart, but 400 years of Western history do not support such a belief nor give one hope that we may evolve into the altruistic beings we pretend to be anytime soon. I suppose the best we can do is be thankful we're Americans and not members of the "less advanced" cultures we exploit.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Scourge
Dear Moi,

I didn't say the U.S. was at or near the bottom in terms of giving aid, only near the bottom PERCENTAGE-wise. I mean if I give $100 to charity and Bill gates gives $500, sure he is giving more, but is he really a humanitarian? It's the amount you give compared to the amount you have I was referring to.

On a side note: We could end world hunger if we put a few years of defense budgets towards the problem! that old saying about the army having a bake sale to raise money for arms is kind of true... all this capital and few good uses...

Absolutely untrue. Most world hunger is due to sovereign country politics and economics - not allocation of the U.S. budget.

Zimbabwe is a prime example. Prior to Mugabe, Zimbabwe was a net exporter of food. Now, due to Mugabe's seizure of white owned farms as gifts to his cronies, food production has been destroyed.

If anything, dismantling the U.S. defense department would encourage more Mugabes.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Scourge
OK....
Since we have changed the subject from my original point...(lol) we might as well discuss this. they might be more factors determining poverty and famine than just style of government. If the U.S. was situated on desert land and did not border any bodies of water (for example) would capitalism and democracy be feeding everyone? it's easy to be in a free market when you have both power and capital, it's not so easy when you have neither. Perhaps, if we didn't get rich off the backs of less fortunate countries we could talk about hand-outs, but we have taken hand-outs by force or coercion from too many small states/countries and used that power to build the empire we now reside in. Where's the equality in that? Or is it survival of the fittest? Most ruthless? He who goes for the jugular writes the textbooks...

OK, let's talk about your landlocked desert nation (Chad, maybe?) With the benefits of capitalism and free trade, the economy of said country would be free to create whatever goods are most beneficial for trading for other things, like food, water, etc.
And which countries, specifically, have we gotten rich off of?

 

[Scourge]

OK, let's talk about your landlocked desert nation (Chad, maybe?) With the benefits of capitalism and free trade, the economy of said country would be free to create whatever goods are most beneficial for trading for other things, like food, water, etc.
And which countries, specifically, have we gotten rich off of?

Specifically (scratches head) all of Central America? maybe parts of East Asia... I would have to go check out specifics but the Dole situation (I think it was Dole, maybe Del monte?) in terms of bananas and meesing with governments and exploiting peasant workers, etc. is what i was referring to. Don't forget along with Capitalism, we had a huge rich land, capable of growing almost anything, tons of water, and a massive unpaid slave workforce to get us going. that, I consider to be an advantage, it wasn't all hard work and entrepreneurial spirit.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
And which countries, specifically, have we gotten rich off of?

Are we counting the Native American nations that covered the western hemisphere and whose lands we took by force, or should we just let that slip?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
I didn't say I agree with it, I was just answering your question. Our country - and the West in general - always has and probably always will use its superior might to take what belongs to other cultures and exploit them for our own gain. It seems to be our fate to live down to Darwin's lowest expectations in that regard. It would be nice to believe that we have their best interests at heart, but 400 years of Western history do not support such a belief nor give one hope that we may evolve into the altruistic beings we pretend to be anytime soon. I suppose the best we can do is be thankful we're Americans and not members of the "less advanced" cultures we exploit.

Sad, but true.

 

[DKSuddeth]

OK, let's talk about your landlocked desert nation (Chad, maybe?) With the benefits of capitalism and free trade, the economy of said country would be free to create whatever goods are most beneficial for trading for other things, like food, water, etc.

a whole lot of sand makes a whole lot of glass

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
Are we counting the Native American nations that covered the western hemisphere and whose lands we took by force, or should we just let that slip?

Touche! But, do you count that as exploitation or conquering? I would say the latter.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Scourge
Specifically (scratches head) all of Central America? maybe parts of East Asia... I would have to go check out specifics but the Dole situation (I think it was Dole, maybe Del monte?) in terms of bananas and meesing with governments and exploiting peasant workers, etc. is what i was referring to. Don't forget along with Capitalism, we had a huge rich land, capable of growing almost anything, tons of water, and a massive unpaid slave workforce to get us going. that, I consider to be an advantage, it wasn't all hard work and entrepreneurial spirit. [/B]

Exploiting workers to corner the world banana market is the best you can do? Seriously?

And FYI, bananas don't do well in most of the US. They take a very tropical climate to grow.

And I'm not saying that the US's natural resources had nothing to do with its development - they certainly did. But resources can be grossly wasted, as they were in the USSR. So America's economic system is certainly responsible for the efficient use of those resources.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Touche! But, do you count that as exploitation or conquering? I would say the latter.

I wouldn't. While it is true that a few tribes did fight back and were eventually beaten with military force, the cherokee were not as lucky. In fact, the cherokee attempted to adapt to the white mans way of life more than any other tribe. Through the blatant disregard for supreme court orders, Andrew Jackson had the army ride in, roust cherokee families from their homes, and herd them into pens. Without letting the cherokee take any of their belongings, they started the long forced march to Oklahoma while the greedy settlers started ransacking the former cherokee houses for anything of value. Then the state of georgia sold lotteries for the land.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Touche! But, do you count that as exploitation or conquering? I would say the latter.

I doubt that the victims would find that distinction relevant or take consolation in being conquered and not merely exploited.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Scourge
Dear Moi,

I didn't say the U.S. was at or near the bottom in terms of giving aid, only near the bottom PERCENTAGE-wise. I mean if I give $100 to charity and Bill gates gives $500, sure he is giving more, but is he really a humanitarian? It's the amount you give compared to the amount you have I was referring to.

On a side note: We could end world hunger if we put a few years of defense budgets towards the problem! that old saying about the army having a bake sale to raise money for arms is kind of true... all this capital and few good uses...

Personally, I think the percentage is way too high. Who decided that my money is better spent helping out the other countries on earth? That's just a ridiculous premises to start with. The fact that we give even one penny should be applauded; people should't be standing there with their hands out and no other country should be pointing their fingers at us in an attempt to shame us into giving more.

I am not interested in ending world hunger. Nor am I interested in curing the African continent of AIDS. Since when is it my responsibility to clean up the problems of the world? I just cannot understand the premises underlying those statements.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Moi

I am not interested in ending world hunger. Nor am I interested in curing the African continent of AIDS. Since when is it my responsibility to clean up the problems of the world? I just cannot understand the premises underlying those statements.

Hehe sorry, I just got to get this out of my system:

"Remember Peter, with great power, comes great responsibility."

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by Moi
Personally, I think the percentage is way too high. Who decided that my money is better spent helping out the other countries on earth? That's just a ridiculous premises to start with. The fact that we give even one penny should be applauded; people should't be standing there with their hands out and no other country should be pointing their fingers at us in an attempt to shame us into giving more.

I am not interested in ending world hunger. Nor am I interested in curing the African continent of AIDS. Since when is it my responsibility to clean up the problems of the world? I just cannot understand the premises underlying those statements.

They are our fellow human beings, and we inhabit this world together. You either understand that or you don't.

 

[Scourge]

Exploiting workers to corner the world banana market is the best you can do? Seriously?

that was just an example of business tactics used by the strong (us) against the wek (them). Do you think that was an isolated incident? that's a metaphor for U.S. diplomacy!
So is not apologizing for making mistakes (even ones that kill people!) a la George Bush the first among others (that whole 'I don't care what the facts are' statement) this is just how this country operates. Take what you want and screw everybody else.

And Moi - why should we help others out? We have most of the world's wealth and it isn't because 'God blessed America' or because we deserve it...
we seize power and advantage like some school yard bully and act as if it was a level playing field. And bemoan those who thinks its unfair, but really, it is. We have a hand in setting economic policy (world bank/WTO) other nations have to abide by and it's not the working class who is making the decisions, nor is it equal representation among the world's countries, its that small cadre of rich white men who rule the planet! Arrgghh!

(aside: Mr. Moore, am I finished? "Yes. that's all for now, Scourge.")

 

[Scourge]

The fact that we give even one penny should be applauded; people should't be standing there with their hands out and no other country should be pointing their fingers at us in an attempt to shame us into giving more.

look, someone said U.S. was the greatest country and that we gave more aid to the world than any other nation (except Japn). I responded.
That was the premise of what I said.

 

[5.10 leader]

Scourge,

To the extent that no country has the right to expect a handout from another state, we are in agreement.

I do feel however that the western world has a duty to try and eliminate world poverty. However simply handing out money is not the solution. As most of the worlds poorest countries are controlled by totalitarian governments, handing over large sums of money achieves little other than bolstering the world arms trade and providing the dictator with a contingency fund in a Swiss bank to cover the eventuallity that he has to flee the country. Long term education and direct action is needed.

As most western countries have built their wealth through the expoitation of, particularly but not exclusively, Africa I feel it is our duty to provide aid as required.

I say this as a Brit whose Empire was built on the exploitation of the so-called under-developed countries and most certainly not as a criticism of the US