 |
| |
|
|
KoalaBear33
|
 |
Toronto
Jul 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by roalan
Does anyone know in how many other countries budgets there is an item for Foreign Aid to the US?
We sure as Hell have a lot of Foreign Aid items for them.
They take our $ and run cursing us all the way home.      |
I don't think you understand how capitalism works. Did you know that a large chunk of cash flowing into USA is from foreign investors? Did you know that Japan is the largest foreign holder of US debt? Did you know that the Middle Eastern monarchs invest nearly all of their money in USA? If all this dissapeared, the system would collapse.
As far as others taking the money and running, well, they are not taking it from you. You are giving it to them. If you don't want to then you shouldn't. Also, most of the US aid is given with ulterior motives. For example, USA pumps billions into countries via IMF but that is mostly to prevent the collapse of capitalism (if even 30% of the countries defaulted on their debt, USA and many other countries will go into a recession or depression even). You DO give money as aid but in terms of ability it is very small. For example, USA is one of the countries with the lowest donations relative to GNP.
I'm not saying that USA is bad or that its aid is meaningless. What USA does donate is welcome. But the negative actions carried out by USA is worse. All I'm saying is that, if USA dropped its donations zero, and stopped interfering with other countries, the world would be better off.
KoalaBear33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KoalaBear33
|
|
Toronto
Jul 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
About oil...
It seems that some of you have no idea why oil is valuable; It is not valuable because the Western countries need it--they don't. All the Western countries already have what they need. Did you know that the vast majority of oil that USA uses does NOT come from the Middle East? It comes from countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, etc.
So why is USA interested in Middle Eastern oil? It's because it is important to other countries, particularly high energy users like China and India. In a decade or so, these countries will start using up huge amounts.
How about Europe/Japan? This plays a part but USA is not in it for a "charitable cause". Europe can get their oil from Middle East easily, without US help. Europe has much better relations with most Middle Eastern countries.
What it all boils down to is money. Oil is the #1 industry and whoever that controls it makes lots of money off it. This is the only reason countries like USA are even involved in the Middle East. They don't really need it themselves but they can profit from it. The same argument applies to Russia.
As far as oil being replaced, it won't happen any time soon (not for at least 75 years). Even if alternative sources are found, only Western countries can afford it. The rest will still rely on other means. Besides, it will take time for the technology to be adopted (which will be decades). For example, television is still the hottest electronic device in many developing countries and so-called 2nd word countries, even though computers are almost ubiquitous in rich countries.
In some sense, if you live in a country with a valuable resource, it is a curse. Other countries will always invade you, kill your people, etc. Whereas, if you didn't have a valuable resource, it would be more peaceful. Oil is what gold was a few hundread years ago!
KoalaBear33
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7
In the spirit of OT...
Oz, you mentioned last page that bush "won" by negative several thousand votes.
What is the difference between Bush's supposed trampling of the constitution and your assertion that he lost even though he won according to the constitution? Is this a pick and choose document? Are you aware that the popular vote means nothing at all? |
Hi,
Sorry for the confusion -- I meant to make two different points.
The first (re: the negative 300,000 votes) was indeed an acknowledgement of the nature of the Electoral College as a "might" vs. "right" example.
My comment on Bush's trashing of the Constitution proceeds, not from that point (about which -- granted -- I do harbor some bitterness, due to the manner in which the 2000 elections were "resolved) but from the perversion of our Constitution's words and intent -- Specifically, Bush has (as Lincoln did) effectively suspended habeus corpus.
The reason that it was a a legal and understandable (if ugly) necessity under Lincoln, and an atrocity under Bush, is twofold --
1. It is an emergency power limited to wartime and, even though common parlance (which is different than law!) calls it a "war", WE ARE NOT AT WAR!!! -- THAT determination is a prerogative SPECIFICALLY given to the Congress, and to Congress alone!
2. We're not only NOT talking about a war AS LEGALLY DEFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION, we're not even talking about a conflict against another nation, wherein there is the expectation of a victory, treaty, peace, etc. after how ever much time has gone by. Oh, no -- we are talking about a "war on terrorism" (which Mr. Ashcroft just DIRECTLY linked with the 20+year-long travesty of the "war" against drugs) WHICH WILL NEVER END!
This means that the Bushies have chosen to use the word "war" -- without the legal nicety of actually having Congress declare one -- to ensure a very long period of time during which military tribunals can deport, execute, etc; during which AMERICAN CITIZENS can be deprived EVERY right of attorney-client privilege (including access to one in the first place) -- and, thanks to Ashcan's despicable and disingenuous link to our miserably failed "war" on drugs -- means that it's very easy to imagine a lot of people being denied due process for a very long time.
Add to this some of the reactions we've seen since Reagan first wrapped the GOP in the American flag and called everyone else "anti-American" and I fear a descent into the sort of authoritarian nightmare we tend to cluck our tongues at when they exist in other parts of the world -- like in Iraq.
-Oz.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KoalaBear33
|
|
Toronto
Jul 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ilcattolico
Rome is by far the most dominant civilization that has ever existed. |
Tough call... Rome was the most dominant WESTERN civilization... whereas civs like Mongols were dominant in the EAST, not to mention old ones like the Indus valley civilization... Incas or maybe Aztec dominated the Americas.
Having said that, if I had to pick one, I would go with the Egyptians. Sure, they didn't have as much land as the Romans or the Mongols. But based on my EXTRMELY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE of history, Egyptians had the best mix of technology, culture, religion, architecture, and so on. For example, Egyptians were the masters of agriculture, and many other civs borrowed from them. Egyptians also had a good religion (although it was largely destroyed by the Muslims afterwards). Needless to say, Egypt also built things like the Pyramids, Sphinx, and had elaborate irrigation systems. In terms of technology, Egypt is known for subtle things like the invention of paper (papyrus), literature (had big libraries), etc.
Here are my picks in different categories:
"Best" overall civilization: Egyptians (see above)
Militaristic: Mongols (conquered almost everyone they came into contact with)
Political/governmental/ability to supervise large regions: Romans
Scientific: British (popularized science)
Religious: Indians (lifestyle reflects the religion; huge impact on nearly all Eastern religions)
Architecture (in terms of difficulty): Aztec (no one hears much about these guys but what they built in the jungle/hill environment was very difficult)
Engineering: Romans (no need to say anything here)
Education/school/knowledge: Greeks (these guys spent more time thinking than anyone else  and their thoughts are reflected in nearly the whole globe)
hmm..there you have it.. some of my thoughts... I haven't spent much time thinking so some things may be wrong...
KoalaBear33
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Olaf, how is this on-topic, its an opposition to the arabs thread 
Mongols had an incredible influence on our world just because of the general higgledy piggledy they made of the cultural racial makeup of the world from the far-east all the way to europe. Aren't the Turks essentially a mongol tribe?
I like to generally stear away from discussions of which civs are more significant so I'll try to keep my comments here to devil's advocate. I have problems with the Romans as most significant because IMO their most impressive feat was how much they borrowed from other cultures, the Greeks for the most part who in turn borrowed heftily from the Egyptians. They do of course have an incredible influence on our modern european world.
Last edited by gsmoove23 on 07-11-2002 at 19:11
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Finally an on topic post! I wonder where the moderators are?
|
To us all, and moderators perhaps especially! --
There is a genuinely unique aspect to this thread, which comprises many (granted, by no means all) of its digressions and rants.
For ALL of our lifetimes until 9/11, the clash of arms was between ideological blocks (often very artifically constructed) or between nations, often within the same "civilization" (almost all of Europe's 20th Century wars).
We are living during a time PERCEIVED (rightly or wrongly) as the first large-scale clash of CIVILIZATIONS in a very, very long time. I say "perceived" because there are so many factors in play that the perception might or might not be fully accurate.
Whether or not the perception is 100% correct or not, this clash of civilizations carries, for all sides, historical baggage dating back to the earliest wars between European Christendom and the very first Islamic jihad -- all ca. 700 CE. So we are perhaps witnessing the re-emergence of an unresolved dispute -- and its successors, well past the seventh generation -- which is in its 1300th year of existence!
In these forums, I am ALWAYS asking, "what is a civilization", knowing full well that there is no comprehensive answer, but even our OT rants have served to ask/question --
1. Is there an "Islamic" Civ vs. a "Juedeo-Christian" civ?
2. Is either really a single Civ?
3. Do America and Europe make up one cultural Civ or not -- for that matter, does EITHER Europe or America make up a single Civ?
The thread's initial, well-posed question, about some opposition to an Arab Civ, has led to this, as we are forced to examine, up close and ugly, the first titanic rift between what have historically been different Civs, in our lifetimes -- and it has a 1300 year pedigree, to boot.
So you see it's all very, very much on-topic, for we are all questioning what a "Civilization" is, in a non-academic manner, for the very first time.
So kudos to everyone who has thoughtfully participated, no matter what his or her opinion.
Peace, Salaam, Shalom,
Ozymandias
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by roalan
Bull those foreign investors invest to make money period. If I gert any benifit it is from corporate taxes earned from them. I doubt the foreign investors even pay US taxes on their profits. They send NO $ for any US needy. As for oil you can believe it when the oil Co. can come up with something else but profits are to good to switch. If you are old enough to rem,ember Nixon he wanted the oil co. to develope fuel from Shale. They ignore him. If they had done something like that we would be of the oil standard today.
I scored Eco.-4,25 and Auth/Lib .067 Not as right wing as you thought. |
You know, a couple of days after 9/11 Guliani(mayor of NYC) actually got in front of the cameras and said please stop sending us stuff, to the entire world. The thing was we were flooded with support, we had too many fireman, too many cops, too much equipment, they even asked people to stop giving blood, I was turned away from 2 hospitals in Brooklyn. This support came mostly from neighbouring states but also from around the world. It was pretty amazing after a catastrophe like that, but it goes to show you exactly how rich and stable we are compared to the rest of the world that we can deal with a catastrophe so quickly. Why are we so suprised that we don't get much monetary support from France? Why are we suprised that we give so much. I guess share the wealth would be too radical a thing to say on this thread, but I would expect it.
 if Roalan is left-wing and Traelin is centre what does that mean for the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
You skipped my most important point. I asked why are we suprised that France doesn't give money to the richest country in the world? or that we give more money in international support then any other country(I'm not sure you could say per capita, can anyone find figures for this?)? We ARE the RICHEST country in the world. I simply don't see the significance of saying we give the most money so we deserve to be tre... I should HOPE we give the most money since we HAVE the most.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-11-2002 10:18
i really can't think of THE most influentual civilization. 
|