Originally posted by: AcidicFury
I still think its funny that noone has tried to even rebut my main points.
To be honest, I did read you post - and it was so assinine that I passed up phrasing a response in order to reply to others. If you insist, I'll do a quick rundown.
Originally posted by: AcidicFury
First of all, the Third World is sick and tired of being exploited for economic use. You say you are a student of history, yet you are leaving out some very key points. The entire Third World was once subjugated to colonialism, where the colonizer extracted the needed resource, and left. Now, places like Latin America and Africa have no infrastructure, barely any industry, and are in dire need of resources.
Ridiculous. Do you think the average worker in Latin America or Africa is so profoundly affected by the machinations of the West, or has the global outlook to grasp at that idea? In the highly politicized U.S.A. one can only get ~50% of the voting-eligible public to get out there and vote - which we can use as a simple indicator of interest in national affairs - and then we're still talking about a G-7 nation where the literacy rate is relatively high. The average Third Worlder doesn't CARE about the big bad West. They may seize onto blaming the West for various things, but only at the behest of various local political leaders who see scapegoating as an easy way to gather an adoring flock.
They export crops and raw materials to the West to be manufactured. Because of this, they are constantly on the lower end of the global economy. They send something to the West, get a little bit of money for it, then have to buy the manufactured good. Even if the factory where the good is produced is in their own country, they still have to pay exorbitant prices for it. The only reason anyone ever invests in a Third World country anymore is for the cheap labor, and this serves to perpetuate self-interest.
Second, you talk about having the US create friendly governments. This is wrong. No one should have to suffer under a government like in Congo or even 1980's Iraq where the whole point of the government is to help the US. This does not help the people of the country, and goes against every human rights decree on the planet. As I stated in my first point, we only go to countries in order to expolit them economically. It's the way capitalism works. No politician will deny this. In order to win hearts and minds, we need to take the moral high ground, not by exploiting countries and creating puppet governments, but by genuinely helping these countries build up infrastructure and industry under the supervision of their own government. This in turn will help both them and us, ultimately resulting in better global trade holistically.
Ridiculous. Where there's trade, there's profit on both sides of the coin. I can't explain this in more depth because this is as simple as it can possibly get.
What's more: This is the only realistic system. Whose ludicrous notion is it that compensation or assistance is owed to less priviliged nations for any reason? Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps and quit wringing your hands as your better-offs. Or if you don't want to play the trade game, convert a la North Korea.
The governments in favour of free trade in this world will always lobby for others to follow the same rules. But active suppression of dissenters? There's a reason you have to fall back in time and reference 1980s Iraq. It's because those were the last dying gasps of a militant CIA. Those days are long gone, to never come again. Not with the new system of committees and checkpoints instituted since Reagan.
There may come a time where business executives realize that assisting in the education and enrichment of South America, Africa, etc. is to their benefit - to open up two Holy Grails of new markets - but national governments have an infestimal say in such matters. The U.S. Gov't is not the be-all, end-all of world decisions. At most they could offer tax incentives to go hither, but why should the American public alone pay to develop markets overseas?
Third, there is no more evil that we do than to exploit nations. This is the terrorism that we create, and we create a hopeless situation for any country that is unlucky enough to get in our way.
Fourth, there is a way to win. We stop doing all of the dirty stuff that has made us famous (or rather infamous) throughout the world. If we help prop up governments and economies with no expectation of any interest or repayment, we can have a friendlier world. This is the way that many Christians should advocate, because this is in the Bible. But religion has twisted our beliefs into denying freedoms to those who are just as worthy as us to receive them. We need to transcend this, and follow the true Christian way.
We'd also be
the sucker nation(s) of all time. I try to avoid a personal tone in my P&N posts, but WTF? You can't possibly have written that with a straight face. This isn't some weird made-for-TV movie where everyone grasps hands and works together for the betterment of all mankind. That'd be nice, but for every optimistic nation-player in the scheme, there are twenty that'll act like leeches instead. Again, whose paycheque is this coming out of, or are we using the money machine to cover this one?
Mankind has always progressed slowly, in fits and missteps. As long as continue to resemble humans, this will not change.
Finally, most people in the world ARE invested into what the US does, both economically and politically. If the US sanctions a country, there is almost no help for the starving people there. If we do not have the most friendly relations with a government, we are not as much inclined to help them. The current way of US aid is too selfish. We should not just give a country a blank check and tell them to be friendly to us or else. We need to create governments that are representative of the people, using candidates that come from the people, not using exiles or CIA informers.
Your alternative seems to be, "Just give a country a blank check and tell them to act however they'd like." Or is that, "Just give a country a blank check and tell them to be democratic, but don't add the 'or else' part. We're sure they'll change on the spot 'just because'."
