Go to Eight Your Home Town
- Add a comment
- Go to Kingmi's Global Question of Yesterday Re-visited.
void-is, the issue I saw in the book I read, was that the pentagon wants to
keep a huge stash of weapons prepared to fight that last war. China, they said, in 25 years! But now we see our threats coming from the 3rd world, where they least expected it. I thin everyone agrees that a) there is enough area in the world that warrents American military patrolling if not direct action, and b) that our interests lie with a peaceful world where global trade can be pursued. The question is what typoe of military whoud we be building? One that threatens our trade partners like China, Japan, EU, and Russia? Or one that is capable of doing what we did in Afghanastahn? Thanks for reading, sorry this was so lengthy, I just woke up and feel unnusually lucid.
posted by
kingmi
on January 16, 2005 at 8:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi, I agree. I'm just wondering whether in fact, this is what
American policymakers really want. Do they want a peaceful world where their weapons are useless? Or do they want a world where insecurity keeps American weapons factories busy? This is what i have doubts about.
When a country is stable and trading and people are fed and busy, sure, terrorism goes bye bye...
posted by
void-is
on January 16, 2005 at 8:31 AM
| link to this | reply
void-is, true but when the 3rd world is developing, they will shame their
terrorists into inaction, and we will be the benificiaries of our own export! Thank you for reading and commenting!
posted by
kingmi
on January 16, 2005 at 8:26 AM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi, great post. As for the question of terrorism, I think that
wiping out world hunger will go a long way to also wipe out terror...but the downside of that is that American Economic Interests will also suffer, since they are dependent on world insecurity... That's what happens when America's number one export is security...
posted by
void-is
on January 16, 2005 at 8:19 AM
| link to this | reply
Alf, OBL attacked USA to deliver a message. Get out of the middle east,
stop commerce with these oil-rich countries, remove your troops, find your resources elsewhere, and leave this part of the world for me to take over. I think you will agree that a fascist like OBL will have considerably more trouble dominating and subjugating countries that are connected and trading, working and investing, hoping and motivated, than he will toppling the governement of weak, unmotivated, hungry people. I respect your opinion but I do disagree with it. I think in the light of general rules helping non-developed countries to make progress and improve their lot in life, the terrorist will be shamed by his own mosque-dwellers, into desisting.
posted by
kingmi
on January 14, 2005 at 8:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Alfie, Thank you for your comments! Wow, people are rocking and talking!
posted by
kingmi
on January 14, 2005 at 8:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi...
Interesting post. Do I understand correctly that you believe eradicating hunger would eliminate terrorism though? If so, then I think I would disagree. This middle eastern brand of terrorism does not exist because people are hungry...it is philosphical, theological, which is much worse. The Koran tells these people that everyone who does not believe as they do are infidels, worthy only to exist in a servant capacity. If they had their way then those of us that were not killed would be fetching them things and doing for them as second class citizens. If you don't believe it look it up. World domination is their intent and they have a good start on it as they are currently the fast growing religion. Not all people in this religion are extremists, some are moderate and therefore a liitle more prone to human rights...but they are not the ones running the show. I believe the only way to thwart terrorism is to simply not tolerate its existance...whatever that means. Holland, the diplomatic nuetral country that it is, has been overrun and is being overtaken with these religious zealots...that is part of their plan.
Don't get me wrong though. I am all for wiping out hunger in the world, I just don't think it will have any effect on terrorism. Great post Kingmi, keep 'em coming.
posted by
A_Norseman
on January 14, 2005 at 8:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Renigade, Thank you for reading and for your continued encouragements!
Globalization happens when companies cooperate with governments, when security is guarenteed, finance (credit) is granted, trust begins, people are hired and (trade) begin working. The market works as it does everywhere. The more likely trade partners for companies in Africa and Asia would be in Europe. It wouldn't have anything to do with us.
posted by
kingmi
on January 14, 2005 at 8:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi
You are, of course, assuming that these countries would want and welcome our help.
After having travelled to and lived in more than a few third-world countries (Iraq included), I can say with some sort of confidence that we would have to be very careful not to look condascending or too pushy in our efforts. Remember, many would highly doubt that our intentions are noble. That being said, I must say that I agree 100% with you in theory--I just think the practice of it would be a logistical and political nightmare.
posted by
Renigade
on January 14, 2005 at 7:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Ben, Thanks!
posted by
kingmi
on January 14, 2005 at 5:34 PM
| link to this | reply
The glam club contribute efforts as mostly are too attached to their materialistic possessions to give them away.
Ben.
posted by
A-and-B
on January 14, 2005 at 4:46 PM
| link to this | reply