Justifiable Conquest?

9th Engineer · 12-02-2006, 07:52 PM

I've been thinking about this for a while, is it acceptable for a country to offer a failing country aid under the condition that they officially join the stronger country? Remember the girl with the massive tumor? How many other people have no access to health care, and no opportunity for their kids to be educated? Is there some way for countries to help besides pouring money into the pockets of the corrupt governments that don't care one way or another about advancing their country? Perhaps amalgamation with a more powerful country is sometimes the answer. What do you guys think is the best way to bring third world countries into the 20th century?

Aliantha · 12-02-2006, 08:13 PM

9th, what you've posed in the first part of your post is basically the begining of colonialism which leads to imperialism. Good or bad? The countries that were 'absorbed' by the more advanced country generally tend to say bad. I don't think this is the answer.

I think more people need to be socially conscious of the world happening outside their window.

I don't think there's a way to 'solve' the problems of third world countries, but I do think wealthier nations have a moral obligation to care and in that, to attempt to alleviate the suffering.

Clodfobble · 12-02-2006, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

...is it acceptable for a country to offer a failing country aid under the condition that they officially join the stronger country?.... Is there some way for countries to help besides pouring money into the pockets of the corrupt governments that don't care one way or another about advancing their country?

If the existing government is corrupt, who is going to officially "agree" to join the stronger country? Unless you're talking about staging a coup on the current government in the impoverished nation, which is a different move entirely.

xoxoxoBruce · 12-02-2006, 09:47 PM

Doctors without borders.

DanaC · 12-03-2006, 03:56 AM

Maybe those developing countries wouldn't be so poor if we wealthy western nations didn't operate such protective policies on trading goods, thereby excluding them from many markets, except those that we choose to let them participate in....by participate I mean work for a dollar a day in one of the west funded sweat shops.

Undertoad · 12-03-2006, 07:10 AM

Not at all. You can check that by looking at the countries that the west does trade with, and those that it doesn't. We started with Japan 55 years ago... then South Korea... Hong Kong... Taiwan. These countries were the sweat shops of the west 30 years ago; now they are incredible economic marvels that will even outgrow the west. You can't get computer components from anywhere else.

tw · 12-03-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Not at all. You can check that by looking at the countries that the west does trade with, and those that it doesn't. We started with Japan 55 years ago...

At the same time, Philippines was also a major American trading partner. What happened? It is called selective sampling. We remember success stories and ignore the failures.

9th Engineer · 12-03-2006, 12:27 PM

There will always be successes and failures, just because not every country we export labor jobs to doesn't turn into an economic powerhouse doesn't mean we're responsible for keeping them down. Quite the opposite perhaps, we gave each of those countries an opportunity for advancement, some took it and others didn't. I think that a population should be forced to take a close look at itself and its future, along with what it is willing to tolerate amongst itself. If it doesn't have a problem with nonexistent medical training programs and industry then it can just continue to wallow in their primative pride. If they decide it's about time for a change, well then I think they should be given the opportunity to educate themselves.

Urbane Guerrilla · 12-12-2006, 08:47 PM

Every impoverished country out there likely has its politics to blame -- blunders by their executive and legislative branches of government may have the severest of effects on a small, less-than-developed economy, as the public sector is often proportionately very large compared to the private in such a place. Not always the case, but when it is there's trouble waiting to happen.

The real, proven way out is to do the Milton Friedman: political liberty hand in hand with economic liberty.

Spexxvet · 12-12-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

... Is there some way for countries to help besides pouring money into the pockets of the corrupt governments that don't care one way or another about advancing their country? ....

Yes. It's called the United Nations. You may have heard of it.

Spexxvet · 12-12-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

.... I think that a population should be forced to take a close look at itself and its future, along with what it is willing to tolerate amongst itself. ...

For most of these people, "the future" is their next meal. They really don't give a big rat's ass about their government, until their government kills them or throws them in jail. When you're focused on the bottom levels of Maslow's heirarchy of needs, you can't worry about "government", and you certainly don't have "primative pride". These aren't rich suburban European-Americans deciding which orthodontist they should use.

12-14-2006, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I've been thinking about this for a while, is it acceptable for a country to offer a failing country aid under the condition that they officially join the stronger country? Remember the girl with the massive tumor? How many other people have no access to health care, and no opportunity for their kids to be educated? Is there some way for countries to help besides pouring money into the pockets of the corrupt governments that don't care one way or another about advancing their country? Perhaps amalgamation with a more powerful country is sometimes the answer. What do you guys think is the best way to bring third world countries into the 20th century?

Sure, offer it, but not by force.
There is not a nation out there where the people of that nation could not remove the current government if they CHOSE to.

Ibby · 12-14-2006, 04:09 AM

no, its removing the MILITARY that's the problem, or removing the other people that took over from the first people when they turn out to be an even bigger problem...

12-14-2006, 08:31 AM

It is never easy... again; I believe that there is no nation where, if the people want they can remove a government. A populist movement will include enough of the military to remove its power structure as well.
Something that has always bugged me about Mexico, with their infrastructure, their amazing natural resources… it just seems like they (as a nation) don’t want it badly enough.
What is the trend? Go to another nation to make it and send the scraps back instead of building yours up from within, where is the pride, the honor, the taking responsibility for your Nation in that?... no thanks.

9th Engineer · 12-14-2006, 05:06 PM

The biggest catch point is the possibility that the residents will effectively leach off the more productive nation while not taking the opportunity to advance themselves. This would cause a huge stigma with the original citizens who would rightly feel cheated, and then we'd get into race riots and stuff. The citizens have to want to earn a better life and be part of a higher level of society, not just be given aid.

12-02-2006, 07:52 PM	#1
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	Justifiable Conquest? I've been thinking about this for a while, is it acceptable for a country to offer a failing country aid under the condition that they officially join the stronger country? Remember the girl with the massive tumor? How many other people have no access to health care, and no opportunity for their kids to be educated? Is there some way for countries to help besides pouring money into the pockets of the corrupt governments that don't care one way or another about advancing their country? Perhaps amalgamation with a more powerful country is sometimes the answer. What do you guys think is the best way to bring third world countries into the 20th century? __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

12-02-2006, 08:13 PM	#2
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	9th, what you've posed in the first part of your post is basically the begining of colonialism which leads to imperialism. Good or bad? The countries that were 'absorbed' by the more advanced country generally tend to say bad. I don't think this is the answer. I think more people need to be socially conscious of the world happening outside their window. I don't think there's a way to 'solve' the problems of third world countries, but I do think wealthier nations have a moral obligation to care and in that, to attempt to alleviate the suffering. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

12-02-2006, 09:47 PM	#4
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Doctors without borders. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

12-03-2006, 12:27 PM	#8
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	There will always be successes and failures, just because not every country we export labor jobs to doesn't turn into an economic powerhouse doesn't mean we're responsible for keeping them down. Quite the opposite perhaps, we gave each of those countries an opportunity for advancement, some took it and others didn't. I think that a population should be forced to take a close look at itself and its future, along with what it is willing to tolerate amongst itself. If it doesn't have a problem with nonexistent medical training programs and industry then it can just continue to wallow in their primative pride. If they decide it's about time for a change, well then I think they should be given the opportunity to educate themselves. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

12-12-2006, 08:47 PM	#9
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Every impoverished country out there likely has its politics to blame -- blunders by their executive and legislative branches of government may have the severest of effects on a small, less-than-developed economy, as the public sector is often proportionately very large compared to the private in such a place. Not always the case, but when it is there's trouble waiting to happen. The real, proven way out is to do the Milton Friedman: political liberty hand in hand with economic liberty. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

12-03-2006, 03:56 AM	#5
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Maybe those developing countries wouldn't be so poor if we wealthy western nations didn't operate such protective policies on trading goods, thereby excluding them from many markets, except those that we choose to let them participate in....by participate I mean work for a dollar a day in one of the west funded sweat shops.

12-03-2006, 07:10 AM	#6
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Not at all. You can check that by looking at the countries that the west does trade with, and those that it doesn't. We started with Japan 55 years ago... then South Korea... Hong Kong... Taiwan. These countries were the sweat shops of the west 30 years ago; now they are incredible economic marvels that will even outgrow the west. You can't get computer components from anywhere else.

12-14-2006, 04:09 AM	#13
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	no, its removing the MILITARY that's the problem, or removing the other people that took over from the first people when they turn out to be an even bigger problem... __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

12-14-2006, 08:31 AM	#14
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	It is never easy... again; I believe that there is no nation where, if the people want they can remove a government. A populist movement will include enough of the military to remove its power structure as well. Something that has always bugged me about Mexico, with their infrastructure, their amazing natural resources… it just seems like they (as a nation) don’t want it badly enough. What is the trend? Go to another nation to make it and send the scraps back instead of building yours up from within, where is the pride, the honor, the taking responsibility for your Nation in that?... no thanks.

12-14-2006, 05:06 PM	#15
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	The biggest catch point is the possibility that the residents will effectively leach off the more productive nation while not taking the opportunity to advance themselves. This would cause a huge stigma with the original citizens who would rightly feel cheated, and then we'd get into race riots and stuff. The citizens have to want to earn a better life and be part of a higher level of society, not just be given aid. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)