Chronicantank - the other thread...

[tris-]

why do you believe countries should evolve at their own pace? if in the end they reach what we would class as 'civilized' or what ever other inappropriate word people like to use, then does it matter its hurried along?

if the country is in a bad state, people are suffering. dont you think its fair to cut the suffering short and speed up their evolution as you put it?

just interested :worthy:

 

[Azurus]

On the one hand if people are suffering things should be done to help, but in a constructive way such as providing aid. (Note:Not regime change).

On the other hand countries such as the USA taking an active interest in developing countries will most likely lead to them fucking them up.

And to all those Americ haters who think Iran should have nuclear weapons, dont think you are being all insightful about it. It is really easy to just sit back and think that. If no one regulated these things and America stayed out of the middle east Isreal wouldn't last 5 seconds.

 

[Lamp]

Whether you agree with America's foreign policy or not, there's method in its madness. They do not invade / sanction / bomb etc random countries. They take action against those who threaten peace / stability, or assist in coups in countries where the people are being butchered on a daily basis.

They've gone into Iraq. OK. But they seem to have left Switzerland alone...

 

[Azurus]

There is this stupid culture around now of everyone hating America it's pathetic.

 

[spook]

No one should have nuclear weapons. Not much to do about the the ones that exist no though as they're more of a political weapon and I doubt any politician would put away a powerful thing as nukes are. I'm not sure where the downgrade of active warheads between Russia and US is atm, but no matter what, it's too slow.

Naturally, as long as the "bandit states" (pardon the saying, but that's how press at home usually put it and I can't find a more fitting saying) also has nukes or plan to create some, it'd put Russia and US on the bottom of the food chain if a conflict escalates.

<shrug> I've never studied politics, so it's thoughts from dinner and such

 

[Chronictank]

Sorry went on lunch so late reply

Firstly i didnt say they should have nukes, i said they should have nuclear power, how anyone with a straight face can say it is a good idea to say no we can have it, but you cant is beyond me.

Secondly, its not anti-americanism its just stating fact. America is the leading force saying Iran should have no nuclear power full stop, the UN however says they should have it regulated, which i am all for.

Now back on topic,
You cannot just force people into a regime, there is a natural evolution of society and attitude which leads to a stable and all in all productive government/law basis.
Doesnt matter how much aid you send someone, if the underlying principles of the countries general populous are not compatible with the state of law you are trying to enfoce you will have a civil war on your hands. See iraq for a rescent example.
However if you let things evolve at their own rate (which they will), peoples ideals will progress together forming a stable social fabric.

You claim the middle east would be a mess if the "West" didnt stick their nose in, that is completely wrong in my opinion. They were doing fine before there was any hostile takeovers.
A good example of a society left to progress at their own rate is China, starting from a monarchy to "communism", in a very broad sence as very little of the communist regime remains. But they are a productive and quickly developing society, eventually when the country is ready they will move to a fully fledged democracy.

What you have to remember is that the middle east has been kept where it is by the powers that be, be it the Mongols, Romans, Russains, Germans, English whoever who came to the East to exploit the very rich rescources. And more rescently the richest of them all Oil. As a result they are hundreds of years behind the rest of the world.
Another example of eastern society developing succefully is places like India and Pakistan where the core fabric of society has developed at its own rate without forced regimes (ableit still behind the rest of the world due to being controlled by a foreign body in 1800's).

(here comes the controversial bit), i believe regardless of his reigeme Sadaam Hussain should never have been removed from power using foreign force, the fact of the matter is the way the country was run was how it needed to be run at this point in time in his opinion. As the society is simply not ready for democracy, and Iraq was by no means a international threat as proven after the war had concluded. You cannot force ideals on people like that, they have to be given time to develop themselves.

Eventually (at least i hope), society will reach the level where everyone is aware that they arent the most important thing in the world, and there will be no need of a government. That in my opinion is the highest form of government, when there is no need of a government.

So in short in my opinion, regardless whether you agree or not there is a natural progression of peoples ideals and consequently the way people are governed.
Something like Tribe -> Monarchy/Imperialism -> Demoracy (with Monarchy backing)/Dictatorship/Communism -> Democracy

Lets just look at the world leaders:
Britain
Monarchy -> Democracy (with Monarchy backing) -> Democracy
America
Monarchy -> Democracy (with Monarchy backing) -> Democracy
China
Monarchy -> Communism -> on their way to Democracy
Russia
Monarchy -> Democracy (with Monarchy backing) -> Communism -> Democracy

Obviously a VERY simplistic illustration, but its just to illustrate a general point

Just my 2 cents

 

[Azurus]

I agree with most of you points chronic, but i still think if America pulled out of the middle east Isreal would be in danger that is fact.

But i guess we will never know, the area has oil and will therefore never be left alone until we develop an effecient renewable energy source.

 

[Chronictank]

I agree with most of you points chronic, but i still think if America pulled out of the middle east Isreal would be in danger that is fact.

But i guess we will never know, the area has oil and will therefore never be left alone until we develop an effecient renewable energy source.

nop they cant, you are 100% right.
The damage is done, best we can do is stick on a band aid and hope it heals.
Israel is causing alot of its own problems, and the fanatics are using it as ammo to fuel their arguments at anti-westernism.
Personally i think the best thing Isreal could do was to leave the homes and facilities standing instead of demolishing them as a good will gesture, and maybe a "care package", then say off you go and govern yourselves to the palestinians.
Rather than stripping the place dry and cutting their funding, then expecting them to be thankful.
That way these muppets going round crying blow yourselves up wouldnt have a leg to stand on
There we have it, idiots guide to fueling terrorism

 

[Chronictank]

above i put Russia as monarchy with democracy which is wrong, pasted that by mistake sorry

and to add to above, nerf edit timers.
It's all well and good saying this in hindsight, not so easy to think it through at the time

 

[Outlander]

I think that if they got everyone in in the middle east to dress as clowns for just one day, then this would all be resolved.

 

[Bugz]

I think that if they got everyone in in the middle east to dress as clowns for just one day, then this would all be resolved.

Leave the silly comments for less mature discussions. I enjoy reading these discussions and don't really want lame comments like that in them (although i do enjoy reading them on other threads ofc).

 

[Outlander]

Leave the silly comments for less mature discussions. I enjoy reading these discussions and don't really want lame comments like that in them (although i do enjoy reading them on other threads ofc).

all you did there was emphasize my post

and these countries should all be left alone imo.

 

[Phooka]

I think america was rite to get saddam out of there. I dont care they went in under false pretences. You cant help countries like that by sending aid because their leaders will: a. Simple refuse the help b. Take the money and goods and build another palace.

If you think waiting till they get their on their own its bollox too, if I see someone get the crap kicked out of him on the street i dont say; "Oow let him goto the gym or a karate club and then in a few years he can take care of himself..." The biggest mistake America made in afghanistan and Iraq imo is Education.... Tell the people WHY you are still there and cant leave them.
These are mostly countries that are far behind the 'Western Worlds' they are so to say stuck in the Middle Ages.. If some Elder back then yelled WITCH!!! evryone else got off their ass threw the cow into the river then burnt her at the stake. They havnt had the oppertunity to have a mind of their own, if america was smart they would have used it too get everyone on their side instead of letting the other party use it to get them against the americans.

 

[Azurus]

'I dont care they went in under false pretences.'

You should care, how can a country preach democracy when it has to lie to its own citizens in order to get what it wants?

 

[Phooka]

'I dont care they went in under false pretences.'

You should care, how can a country preach democracy when it has to lie to its own citizens in order to get what it wants?

i knew it were false pretences b4 they even invaded, if you didnt your a tard tbh (unless you didnt follow the news then you just didnt know what was going on ) I have had the discussion loads of times and not 1 person ever could tell me how else too get saddam out of there. To me he was evul and needed to be stopped, big up too Bush for being the ass he is. Im pretty happy Bush is president mainly because you know what he is a retard and you know what he is planning to do..

And yes i should care but i dont trust any goverment newayz atm

 

[Strega]

I agree with most of you points chronic, but i still think if America pulled out of the middle east Isreal would be in danger that is fact.

I disagree. The state of Israel, since its founding in 1948, has had little trouble fending off aggressors in the various conflicts that have arisen over the years. For instance, the war of independence lasting from 1948-1949 where Israel was attacked by six arab nations resulted in a 60% increase in Israeli-controlled territory. This, along with casualty statistics from the 6-day war, Yom Kippur etc all point in the same direction; that losses sustained by Israel were far less then that of the opposing forces. It is worth mentioning that superior air power, courtesy of USA, has had an impact. Should yet another war become imminent I think they would be just fine. Political influence and terrorism is another chapter though.

Personally, I dislike USA's foreign policy and the way the nation play world police. Hopefully this will improve with a new president, although the people behind him may pull his strings. Clinton did the same for USA's foreign policy as the Wright-brothers did for aviation. Ok, he might have enjoyed a cigar too much but who cares. Having said that, take a look at world history and the empiric cycles through centuries. Amongst many examples, the Romans did it, European colonial powers did it, Germany did it etc. The quest for world supremacy and control and preservation of interests seems to stand in the center of human evolution. On a relevant side note to all of this; Even if we live in a world of enlightenment, where tolerance is exercised (atleast promoted), it is sad to see the amount of conflicts generated by religion worldwide.

 

[Azurus]

Strega would you say Isreal would be safe if another Arab nation such as Iran aqquired nuclear weapons? That is what i mean by it being under danger.

 

[Strega]

Strega would you say Isreal would be safe if another Arab nation such as Iran aqquired nuclear weapons? That is what i mean by it being under danger.

Under those circumstances I would say no, as they make an obvious target. However, keep in mind that the essence of nuclear weapons lies in having them, not actually using them. Hence I would doubt any such attack on Israel.

 

[Thorwyn]

I have had the discussion loads of times and not 1 person ever could tell me how else too get saddam out of there.

I`ve had the discussion loads of times as well and not one person ever could give me one good reason why getting rid of Saddam was a good idea and getting rid of Kim isn´t. If we want to be the good guys and free other countries from their dictators, then we should at least be consequent and finish the job, instead of picking one country where having influence is politically nice to have. The people in North Korea aren´t suffering less than the people in Iraq did. They just don´t happen to suffer a couple kilometers above oilfields.

 

[Darksword]

On the one hand if people are suffering things should be done to help, but in a constructive way such as providing aid. (Note:Not regime change).

On the other hand countries such as the USA taking an active interest in developing countries will most likely lead to them fucking them up.

And to all those Americ haters who think Iran should have nuclear weapons, dont think you are being all insightful about it. It is really easy to just sit back and think that. If no one regulated these things and America stayed out of the middle east Isreal wouldn't last 5 seconds.

Just thinking purely from a theoretical view here;

Maybe thats saying something about Israel? it isnt wanted there, so why is it? Maybe America should just get the fuck out and let all the chaos ensue, wars etc etc, and maybe, just maybe in 20 years time after all the countless loss, the region will be in a stable condition.

Whos to say that the tyrants will end up in power? after all the PEOPLE of the middle east are all very friendly; Iran having nuclear weapons is only scaring because the govt. is scary, the people are not. Israel having such support from America is obviously causing alot of problems in the middle east, whos to sya that these problems will persist if America just gets out now?

in reality this whole situation is far too complicated, with the west involving itself in every fucking little thing, surely the problem is being dragged out? <shrug>.

Thoughts like these, the realisiation that man will kill each other forever, and destroy forever, we wont ever achieve peace, make me hate being alive. Alas, theres something to make me smile everyday so

 

[Strega]

Heh, your signature is very fitting to this discussion Darksword^^

 

[Darksword]

Heh, your signature is very fitting to this discussion Darksword^^

Bunny could sort out the whole middle east

 

[Phooka]

I`ve had the discussion loads of times as well and not one person ever could give me one good reason why getting rid of Saddam was a good idea and getting rid of Kim isn´t. If we want to be the good guys and free other countries from their dictators, then we should at least be consequent and finish the job, instead of picking one country where having influence is politically nice to have. The people in North Korea aren´t suffering less than the people in Iraq did. They just don´t happen to suffer a couple kilometers above oilfields.

This is very tru. Its N-Korea's dOom they dont have oil But they stilll deserve help. I wouldnt be one bitching if bush or neone else went in there too help them. Same as im not bitching about iraq.

 

[Bracken]

There is this stupid culture around now of everyone hating America it's pathetic.

I don't hate America. I hate the lies and hypocrasy of it's government (like our own...). They invaded Iraq (twice) firstly on the pretext that it was occupying an independent state (Kuwait) and then because they said it hadn't complied with UN resolutions. At the same time they are snuggling up to China trying to get huge contracts/ market agreements from them while China occupies an independent state (Tibet) and has done for 50 years, while refusing to comply with UN resolutions relating to it. And that's without going into their wider human rights record. Let's face it - their foreign policy is based not on what's "right", but by economic motives.

 

[Chronictank]

What you have to ask yourself is, if the West stayed out of the middle east would we have the situation of global unrest as we have now?
My honest belief would be the answer is no, if i said otherwise i would be lying.

The helping someone in the street analogy is completely irrelevant, when you see someone being beaten in the street you know it is happening, you seen it for yourself.
Im not denying there were things like the secret police going on in Iraq, but you cant honestly say the media didnt blow it all out of proportion. There is greater abuse going on all over the world such as Africa, in Iraq it was a pretty controlled enviroment and just because they are not "westernised", does that mean they have a less legitimate rule of law?

Before Sadaam was removed, there WAS peace in Iraq, there WAS a constant uninterupted flow of oil out of the country abliet with a uneven distribution of the wealth, example being Iraq had the best national health service in the world,, now look at it. If rescent events show anything, its that he obviously had the approach that worked for him to keep the religious fanatics in line.
For every one person you have saying how bad sadaam's regime was, i bet you i could equally find someone who said he was running things fine. Thats the power of the media, as said in the other thread unfortunately biased media sells papers so it will remain so.
I will reitterate what i said in my first post, you cannot move a country from a dictatorship into a democracy overnight, it takes a progression of the ideals the general populous holds to be ready for democracy. In Iraq people quite obviously needed to be told what to do to keep all parties in line, now regardless who gets voted into power there is going to be riots in oposition (as we have seen so far), eventually i hope they will realise that it is pointless fighting each other and just get on with it or worst case another dictator will emerge and take the country back to square 1.

i am not pro-sadaam as i think he was psychotic when he was in his prime, but the key word is was. As far as he was concerned the country was at war, therefore he should be held accountable for killing civilians in the same league as Bush and yes im gona say it Churchill (avoids flying objects), who all in their reign have signed orders to bomb civilian populations yet are not in the docks on war crime charges.

As for Iran having nukes, please keep it to the relevant thread