Sudan
-
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 12:59 pm
-
- Posts: 8056
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
-
- Posts: 8056
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
This is true... but is the basis of economic success in the United States solely based on the availability of natural resources, here in the 21st century?TheCatt wrote:You touched on it, but I think the fundamental issue is the scarcity of resources.
I was under the impression that it is not, which is why I think there must be a "way" in Sudan.
I could be wrong.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
A small percentage of out total troop strength is currently in Afghanistan and Iraq, no matter what else you've been told.Mommy Dearest wrote:How are we going to pay for it, and where are the troops comeing from? Oh and let's not forget, How are we getting out?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Mommy Dearest wrote:How are we going to pay for it, and where are the troops comeing from? Oh and let's not forget, How are we getting out?
I agree! Their lives aren't worth the financial cost to us.
Also, sacrificing one American military volunteer in place of 300 or so foreign women/children/innocents is wrong because American lives are at least 1000 times better.
No... wait. On second thought, I don't believe that. It's the duty of the Haves to help the Have-nots, because nobody else can. It might hurt us a little, but it's hurting them a lot.
I thought someone would call me on it... but White Man's Burden is a really negative view of the idea you can improve the lot of "brown people." It suggests the entire practice is futile.
Is THAT true? I don't know that there's enough evidence. Historically, when western countries try to "improve" brown countries, they did it as permanent occupiers.... which introduces an entirely new set of problems.
Is THAT true? I don't know that there's enough evidence. Historically, when western countries try to "improve" brown countries, they did it as permanent occupiers.... which introduces an entirely new set of problems.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Solely? No.GORDON wrote:TheCatt wrote:You touched on it, but I think the fundamental issue is the scarcity of resources.
This is true... but is the basis of economic success in the United States solely based on the availability of natural resources, here in the 21st century?
I was under the impression that it is not, which is why I think there must be a "way" in Sudan.
I could be wrong.
Largely? Yes.
America's vast reserve of natural resources, and sheer abundance/density of natural resources has made it more competitive than places where such resources had to be brought in, or finished good purchased. This advantage allowed superior economic growth in the 1700 and 1800's upon which our nation has built.
But eayh, ther's a better way for sudan.
It's not me, it's someone else.
I would argue that such occupations can have large short-term disadvantages for the people, but larger long-term benefits.GORDON wrote:I thought someone would call me on it... but White Man's Burden is a really negative view of the idea you can improve the lot of "brown people." It suggests the entire practice is futile.
Is THAT true? I don't know that there's enough evidence. Historically, when western countries try to "improve" brown countries, they did it as permanent occupiers.... which introduces an entirely new set of problems.
India would be a good example. They struggled under the class sytem, but once the whities disappeared, they kept all the benfits from the occupation and are building on the,
Sorta like slavery in the US. Bad for slaves, good for their ancestors.
It's not me, it's someone else.
-
- Posts: 8056
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
-
- Posts: 8056
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
I don't know about you, but that pretty much finishes up any usefulness of the UN as far as I'm concerned. When they can't even decide if someone who is killing everyone they can get their hands on of a certain race is really genocide or not, then there is a serious problem with thier priorities.
What are they thinking? That it's not really genocide until you've finished the job? Seems like would be a little late then to me. I guess if you promise to leave one alive then they'd be willing to not press the genocide issue, maybe?
Fucktards.
What are they thinking? That it's not really genocide until you've finished the job? Seems like would be a little late then to me. I guess if you promise to leave one alive then they'd be willing to not press the genocide issue, maybe?
Fucktards.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
France is against action.TPRJones wrote:I don't know about you, but that pretty much finishes up any usefulness of the UN as far as I'm concerned. When they can't even decide if someone who is killing everyone they can get their hands on of a certain race is really genocide or not, then there is a serious problem with thier priorities.
What are they thinking? That it's not really genocide until you've finished the job? Seems like would be a little late then to me. I guess if you promise to leave one alive then they'd be willing to not press the genocide issue, maybe?
Fucktards.
I can't find the article which said China and others disputing the genocide, but here's a very new story about the UN making noises like they care: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/international/africa/27nations.html
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."