Smooth Running Democracies

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The trade thing can get really stupid (Cuba for example), but if you are going to pull aid, pull out everything and let them control their own goddamn resources.

Sounds good to me. Then we can pull back and see who really give a shit.

[regular.joe]

Sure, that's mature..."I'm gonna take my marbles...and go home!"

[Griff]

I think PH's point is they are not our marbles.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Most people grind their axe with our foreign policy because we exploit countries, making their people poor, and creating a wealth disparity that people will risk their lives to get on the top with..

What? You are starting to sound like a college student...LOL.

There are few victims as far as nations go in this. We are all in bed with whom ever we are by choice. The values, and behavior of these so called "third world" people create this wealth disparity with or with us. We are not that powerful. If a U.S. corporation does bad business in the third world, I agree it's bad business....It takes two to tango.

On the whole the U.S. government, while doing it's best to look after what is currently perceived as our best interest internationally, does not usually act in a malicious manner. With the exception of Iraq, and Afghanistan, The U.S. military is in these third world nations by request, their major mission is not direct action, but rather assisting at the behest of the foreign government in their internal defense.

When asked by a foreign government for assistance by our professional military men and women with their internal defense, I would not send you pierce. I do not mean that as a put down, or insult. I don't think you are the best qualified for that job. It does not appear that you have and are fitting yourself to accomplish that job in this world. That's fine. So it is fitting and proper, that we send a professional in the requested area. Because you don't like the current outcome in Iraq, we should pull our much need assistance out of other countries? I don't think so.

[Undertoad]

Here is the nighttime sky of two countries.

Three generations ago, both were desperately poor third-world countries.

One of them got US military, aid, attention and a TON of corporate business.

The other got nothing.

Where would you rather live?

[classicman]

I'll take the one with electricity, but thats just me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, no, definitely North Korea. I'd get lots of sleep, uninterrupted by electricity, and with no food, my diet would be a cinch.

[classicman]

Its amazing how the light ends exactly on that line.

[piercehawkeye45]

UT, stop drawing attention away from points. One, South Korea is not one of the countries I was talking about how we exploit, so I don't see how that has to do with anything. Also, you are comparing it to North Korea, which is a joke.

Get the corporations out of Africa and see what happens.

[Undertoad]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you only wanted to point out perceived failures of US involvement, and not utterly massive, extreme successes. You should have been more clear in the first place.

[piercehawkeye45]

There is more than one type of involvement. I was focusing on one type, and you showed an example of the other. I went with Merc to more of an extreme, but I don't mind foreign intervention if it mutual, but if it is a one way relation, then I have to criticize.

[Undertoad]

What is the "other type" of involvement? when you say

Most people grind their axe with our foreign policy because we exploit countries, making their people poor, and creating a wealth disparity that people will risk their lives to get on the top with.

Honestly, if our corporations and military pulled out of poor third world countries that people are risking their lives to leave from, they would be much better off.

South Korea was a third world country that people risked their lives to leave from. Our military involvement there was followed by corporate involvement there. They are now becoming rich.

We exploited the hell out of them. We used them, and continue to use them, as a pawn to place and protect American military interests in that sector of the world. They were a source of tremendous cheap labor for a few decades. And then, because they were a strong people to start, they quickly started to figure it out for themselves. Now they are rich and becoming a power all their own, a center of the world of computing and electronics that is seriously rivaling Japan.

But it never would have happened without that first step up.

Countries *hope* they need to be as exploited as South Korea. The problem with the African countries is that they are not exploited enough. Being "exploited" by the US is like a teenager being "exploited" by working at MacDonalds. Here's a shit job for shit pay dispensing pieces of shit. But as a "starter job", it's the one teaching teenagers to dress decently, show up on time, deal with the general public, deal with managers, etc... it's the job that teaches you what it's like to have a job. If Africa could just get a job at MacDonalds, they might be able to get their foot in the door for a better deal elsewhere.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Countries *hope* they need to be as exploited as South Korea.

Thats why people are blowing our troops up in Iraq?

You are giving the recipe of success for a single type of culture that does not exist all throughout the world. If a country wants to be a free market economic society, then I could care less, but if a country doesn't want to be free market, the US shouldn't play any role in forcing it to become one. From what I've heard, many Iraqis have resisted the free market aspect of the US rebuilding and if we don't respect that, we will have bigger situations in the future. It is their choice, it is not our place to force a country to become free market.

Also, countries can become successful without free market systems so it isn't the only option.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Thats why people are blowing our troops up in Iraq?

Come on man, that is a really stupid narrow minded statement. You really believe we are in Iraq because of business interests and an attempt to exploit the Iraqi economy?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Come on man, that is a really stupid narrow minded statement. You really believe we are in Iraq because of business interests and an attempt to exploit the Iraqi economy?

Explain why the largest embassy in the world is the US Embassy in Baghdad. Explain why the reasons for invading Iraq so strongly correspond to the Project for New American Century where America must protect "OUR" oil and where America must do anything necessary (including Pearl Harboring of Russia, India, or Germany) to keep the US as #1. But somehow the invasion had no basis in exploiting the Iraq economy and resources even when Iraq was a threat to no one?

Explain why we are in Iraq when Iraq was never a threat and when the smoking gun (always necessary to justify a war) does not exist? Explain the many corporations reaping massive profits with no-bid contracts (ie Haliburton) that are also closely aligned to top George Jr administration staff?

Since we created a war in Iraq for none of the Military Science 101 reasons that justify war, then why are we there? TheMercenary does not answer that question; only makes accusations. Every action to get American into war with Iraq was not justified by a 'smoking gun'. But then those who promoted the lie also defined a need to protect "OUR" oil - a political agenda.