The world in its current position?

Post Reply New Topic

So I'm sure we all know what going on around the world in different countries, and I just wonder how can we and the other select ( yes I know I said select ) few countries can be civilized while other countries seem to have just stop evovling and resorted to war, no order, not even try to build up there country to be civilized, and them we have our county ( USA ) which is to an extent, what happened. Why is it that it has come to the point where these countries are so bad we can barley help them unless they attack us or threaten us?

I think you have been brainwashed by the American viewpoint that we are helping them. Actually we are exploiting them and trying to force them to adopt our capitalist, money rules everything around me viewpoint.

Sure, I don't like Islamic law, but neither do I like an economic policy based on infinite growth. We ran out of people to exploit at home, capitalism is a beast that has to be fed forever, and now that there is no communist bloc or space program, the plan is to turn the Islamic world into our colony.

Very "The White Man's Burden." Interestingly, this sort of viewpoint seems to be the most common among Americans.

Honestly, no. If, by the people who are "attacking" the US, you mean the Muslim world, it was attacked first. Now, I don't know as much as I would want about it, but the United States had a puppet regime in Iran until the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and, lo and behold! Iran is their main opponent in the area. Since they've started openly backing Israel, they have made everyone with claims on it hostile to unfriendly. Conversely, they never did anything wrong to Saudi Arabia, so now it is one of their rare friends there. The "Arabs" (well, the Pakistanis are not Arabs, nor the Iranians, but then, "Muslim" would include Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia, so...) are not the aggressors, here. How could they, and why would they?

Otherwise, I don't see what is civilized about the United States. A land of plenty that does not want to feed its people? the mentality of which blames the poor for their sakes? where, after two centuries, there are still real differences based only on skin colour? If that were "civilization", I would blame no one for refusing it.

Happily, no one is better than others, and "evolution" is not a linear process, nor does it go from worst to best; only from before to after.

Last edited by enrico_dandolo on 12 Mar 2012, 5:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

Have you asked yourself WHY those countries would get so desperate that they would resort to that in the first place?

People have tried talking and it got them nowhere.

Sadly the quickest way to get attention is to pick up a gun or attack someone. I don't like that fact, nor do I agree with it but I understand why they feel they are out of options and not being heard.

Don't just accept what the media feeds you as "true". Go and do your own research thoroughly and form your own opinion based on whatever information you can find. And that information should come from both sides (50% /50% spilt).

Here's a tip: before helping someone, ask them if they want your help.

Here's another tip: imperialist aggression is not usually classified as "help".

Relax. Remember the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, British Empires. Here in the states we have been brainwashed to think it can't happen here. HELLO!! ! It is happening here.

Suggestion -- learn to speak Portagese, it's the language of Brazil. (Brazil also has Rio)

The poorer and more podunk the country the more likely you have warlords running the place, stealing human aid, and essentially showing thuggish behavior to keep their power. Anything that remotely looks like representative democracy or a western economy is incredibly difficult to seed in a place that doesn't even have the basic social contracts in place.

If you really want to understand, try watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUEGHdQO7WA

It might help give you some perspective.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUEGHdQO7WA[/youtube]

I beg to differ here. Many poor, "podunk" countries have, if not "good", at least effective governance & the ability to maintain a modicum of social harmony. Costa Rica, Paraguay, Tanzania & Mongolia are a few that come to mind here.

The other point is that social collapse can happen anywhere, given the right conditions & sequence of events. Oftentimes it has happened even in "civilized" or "advanced" countries. Look at what happened in Lebanon from 1975 to 1990. Or Yugoslavia from 1991 to 1999. Perhaps Greece in the near future.

Also, countries can & do often bounce back from such a horrible state of affairs. Take Rwanda for example. While hardly a model of liberal democracy, it does have competent government, social peace, even universal health care, in spite of being one of the least economically developed countries in the world.

The places that collapse and don't get up quickly tend to have no human capital. They are uneducated.

Iraq will have a very different outcome from Afghanistan. Germany after WWII didnt become Somalia.

Right, and there's always caveats just like a lot of factors feed in to why a country with great coastlines and location could be in the crapper.


There's still a big difference between a society that gets hit, falls down, and gets back up with help from a country that was never there to begin with. With former 1st/2nd world societies that have been struck down and get back up its still comprised of a majority who were raised on the previous system, think it, breath it, sleep it, etc., so that once order is restored they bounce back quickly. For society's who haven't had that there's really no way to compare. I like to think technological creep is starting to solve at least some of that but overall it seems like it takes a lot to move people who are used to living on a barter and warlord system and move them to a representative democracy with mixed blend capitalistic economic system; ie. its not in their social DNA yet and it seems like it takes a few generations to change that.

That's the main argument for invading other countries. The US has not helped as many countries as it said it did.


You mean "exploiting other countries for their resources" like it has happened in colonialism? ^^

Yeah, well, usually you do ask people if they want your help. ^^


I don't think the Western world is "civilized". All I can see are masses of suppressed individuals who can only bear to exist because they dedicate their whole lives to consumerism and fitting into one-dimensional categories that society has prepared for them. I guarantee you, the people cannot be kept off the streets forever, however many laws you create... The masses can be quite powerful and I have to say that what is going on in the USA at the moment is not all nice and civilized. Human rights are violated and not many people seem to care.

I don't know what else to say about this. ^^

My question would be, "Why is it that it has come to the point where the "first world" has become so bad and people still do not react?"

The "system" is back in place. ^^

So you're baffled because the world is exactly the way it has always been for the last several thousand years: rent with wars and violence?

Well the reason the world is acting the normal way thats it always acted is because its thats the way the world normaly acts.

Why would you expect otherwise?

I mean seriously- what exactly about "the world situation today" puzzles you?

I would take that a step further than you actually, despite people being more cynical than ever thanks to the news and a general increase in social awareness thanks to the luxury of caring we have and exposure to others' sufferings, we are actually a much more PEACEFUL planet today than we have been probably since at least the Neolithic times if not ever, when you are talking about the number of people who die as a result of murder, war, and political violence.