As an answer to the original question...FUCK NO.
Poll
Would you give up your car for an Iraqi Citizen?
| Yes | 16% | 16% - 19 | ||||
| No | 83% | 83% - 93 | ||||
| Total: 112 | ||||||
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6711
You are in Crooklyn, go steal one for them.Superior Mind wrote:
As an answer to the original question...FUCK NO.
Wow your ignorance amazes me.
You think that the only reason we are rich is because we "exploit" third world countries!!!
LOL if by exploit you mean give jobs then yes.
You think that all the engineering, designing building, manufacturing, and marketing, of products in this country is done by a ten year old in honduras LOL!!!!
You think that the only reason we are rich is because we "exploit" third world countries!!!
LOL if by exploit you mean give jobs then yes.
You think that all the engineering, designing building, manufacturing, and marketing, of products in this country is done by a ten year old in honduras LOL!!!!
?
Would an Iraqi give up his AK so another Iraqi could live in peace? Probably not.
oh wow, totally disagree.Marconius wrote:
Not in the least...the majority of Iraq, even during the dictatorship, actually had comfortable living conditions (electricity, running water, transportation, etc.), and their economy was slowly picking up after the Gulf War (able to attain and share more resources and programs out to the citizens, etc.). It had been doing nothing but rise to a 2nd-world level until we went in...
First we have to go behind the definition of "3rd world". A relic from the cold war days, "3rd world" is a former political classification for the beliggerent in the cold war. "1st world" being the NATO and allies, "2nd" being the Warsaw pact countries and "3rd" being any nation without allignment. So, according to that very definition, Iraq was indeed a "3rd world"
Now, people make the assumption 3rd world means damn poor folk, which is generally true, but that is not the actual definition. In the case of Iraq bing poor before the invasion you must without a doubt put it into "3rd World" category though. As the only major built areas were baghdad, kirkuk, mosul, tikrit and one or two cities in the south such as the port and najaf (i know i gotta be forgetting some). But the rest of the millions of Iraqis lived in absolute poverty, barely sustaining themselves. so yes, Iraq was a "3rd world" nation before. Even baghdad, the most advanced of all cities in the country saw examples of extreme poverty. take the marsh arabs living in the heart of the city in the early 90's and prior who lived on reeds where the tigris and euphrates met right on the water, that is until saddam had the marshes drained because the marsh arabs were shiites, thereby destroying their communites and livelyhood.
perhaps you mistake the wealth of the elites of the society with the nations prosperity. remember, iraq might have had money but that was to sustain the worlds 4th largest army at a time. Trying to raise themselves to second world status....no sir, the baath party was too interested in making solid gold bathrooms and presidential palaces. that last senteance is kinda funny. yeah Iraq had money but the iraqis were dead broke.
no matter how poor a nation is, you will still have a basic class seperation in society. the have and have-nots.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-11-30 15:36:27)
Simply not true. They have their own resources, they can produce just like us, and they can trade just like us. There is no limited quantity of standard of living in the world, such that some countries must give up their for other countries to gain.Elamdri wrote:
Something people tend to forget about the Third World is that the First World depends on the Third World in order to maintain it's wealth. By exploiting the people in nations like Iraq, we maintain our own standard of living. Thus, for the standard of living to go up in Iraq, the standard of living in the US and other advanced, industrialized nations must go down. It's fine and dandy to say you support the political and economic development of Iraq, but if that same development were to threaten your standard of living, would you be as OK with it? Ask yourself if you're willing to give up your TV, your car, your PC, your job, your home... so someone living in Iraq can have those things.
3rd world is a retarded way to classify a nation
No. My car would do nothing to improve their lives. I'd rather give something more meaningful, such as a donation to a charity working in Iraq.
Did you read anything I wrote, this is based off of dependancy theory. Not my own beliefs.Phantom2828 wrote:
Wow your ignorance amazes me.
You think that the only reason we are rich is because we "exploit" third world countries!!!
LOL if by exploit you mean give jobs then yes.
You think that all the engineering, designing building, manufacturing, and marketing, of products in this country is done by a ten year old in honduras LOL!!!!
Let me try to explain it in layman's terms.
Lets take an analogy. In the US there is a Limited amount of money. Lets say for the sake of the arguement, 10 Trillion dollars.
Now, that money is divided among the population of about 300 million. Thats about $33,000 per person. BUT, not everyone MAKES the same amount of money. But every person who has more than $33,000 is living off the detriment of others, and because the LIKE their standard of living, they shape things so that they keep their standard of living.
Now apply that to the world. Theirs a limited amount of money and natural resources. Thus, countries like the US who have the lion's share must maintain the system as it is, or the US standard of living will go down. Its a simple idea of limited resources and unlimited wants.
Money represents value. The amount of money in the US is infinite, we print it. Your analogy fails because there is not a limited amount of money in the US.Elamdri wrote:
Did you read anything I wrote, this is based off of dependancy theory. Not my own beliefs.Phantom2828 wrote:
Wow your ignorance amazes me.
You think that the only reason we are rich is because we "exploit" third world countries!!!
LOL if by exploit you mean give jobs then yes.
You think that all the engineering, designing building, manufacturing, and marketing, of products in this country is done by a ten year old in honduras LOL!!!!
Let me try to explain it in layman's terms.
Lets take an analogy. In the US there is a Limited amount of money. Lets say for the sake of the arguement, 10 Trillion dollars.
Now, that money is divided among the population of about 300 million. Thats about $33,000 per person. BUT, not everyone MAKES the same amount of money. But every person who has more than $33,000 is living off the detriment of others, and because the LIKE their standard of living, they shape things so that they keep their standard of living.
Now apply that to the world. Theirs a limited amount of money and natural resources. Thus, countries like the US who have the lion's share must maintain the system as it is, or the US standard of living will go down. Its a simple idea of limited resources and unlimited wants.
Dependency is silly.
What are you talking about, just because we can print money doesn't mean there isn't a limited amount. If you print more, the limit just goes higher, but the value of the money goes down. The more money that exists in the system, the less it is worth.jonsimon wrote:
Money represents value. The amount of money in the US is infinite, we print it. Your analogy fails because there is not a limited amount of money in the US.
I suppose it is a bad analogy though, as modern currency is fiat currency...
But, still there IS a limited amount of natural resources. This is the best way I can describe dependancy.
A metro-pole, (US, UK, Japan) moves into a periphery with multi-national corporations.
The multinationals start to use up all the natural resources in the country, and rather than those natural resources going to the countries domestic industry (Which may not exist), the country only gets a few low end jobs and export fees from the multinational.
Then, the refined resources are sent back to the Metro-Pole, or the industry in the periphery is vertically intergrated into the Multi-national corporation. Either way, the final product can then be SOLD in the periphery and since it is far superior to domestic products, or if the domestic industry is not in place, then domestic industry is squelched, and the Multi-National enjoys a monopoly in the region.
All the while, the Multi-National enjoys cheaper labor in the country that they have set up in.
Since the Metro-Pole's government recieves revenue on the Multi-National's business, and the people benefit from the cheaper costs, standards of living as a whole go up, and the new economy becomes dependant on the Mutli-National business in the Third World. Supression of the Domestic Industry becomes paramount, so the Metro-Pole uses political and military means to keep the periphery as it is.
That's dependancy in a nutshell, if you wanna read more about it and World-Systems, try reading some of Andre Gunder Frank.
As long as its not stolen and used to blow up people.
yeah, it was heaven on earthMarconius wrote:
Iraq wasn't a third-world country until we went in and disrupted it...
Capitalist-based countries have lower unemployment rates than Socialist countries. Very few people are on top, but EVERYBODY has the ability to be on the top.
These socialist countries are "3rd World" due to the government giving these people what they need to survive, rarely what they want, yet the people in power prosper from the wealth of the country.
I have no sympathy for these countries - the common people are pawns for greed, I feel sorry for them, but there is nothing I can do about it. Giving money, or my car does nothing for the poor over there.
The US and other "1st World" countries are greedy also, so no need to flame.
My point, IMO, is that we live in an economy that is fueled by businesses that create jobs. The reverse of that is dependence on the government to provide us with what we need to survive. Sooner or later, the supply to the people will run low - because the ones at the top will never do without......
I doubt many of the anti-US ppl here have been outside of our country.
I like the capitalist view. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
These socialist countries are "3rd World" due to the government giving these people what they need to survive, rarely what they want, yet the people in power prosper from the wealth of the country.
I have no sympathy for these countries - the common people are pawns for greed, I feel sorry for them, but there is nothing I can do about it. Giving money, or my car does nothing for the poor over there.
The US and other "1st World" countries are greedy also, so no need to flame.
My point, IMO, is that we live in an economy that is fueled by businesses that create jobs. The reverse of that is dependence on the government to provide us with what we need to survive. Sooner or later, the supply to the people will run low - because the ones at the top will never do without......
I doubt many of the anti-US ppl here have been outside of our country.
I like the capitalist view. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Last edited by KungfuBeer (2006-11-30 22:21:11)
marconius, im really interested in a rebuttal man
meh..... you will just get some 9th circuit BS.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
marconius, im really interested in a rebuttal man
i got more faith in him....or do i really? I just know I think I put an end to the whole "iraq was never a 3rd world" argument with that post I actually took time and effort to write and I get nothing in return.
is this the debate section or the "standing on my soap box because I can because Im an idealogue" section. every day I find less and less of a reason to post.
ideologue
One entry found for ideologue.
Main Entry: ideo·logue
Variant(s): also idea·logue /'I-dE-&-"log, -"läg/
Function: noun
Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
is this the debate section or the "standing on my soap box because I can because Im an idealogue" section. every day I find less and less of a reason to post.
ideologue
One entry found for ideologue.
Main Entry: ideo·logue
Variant(s): also idea·logue /'I-dE-&-"log, -"läg/
Function: noun
Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-12-01 07:57:59)
No I wouldn't give my car for an Iraqi citizen, they would just use it to blow up a populated area
Please explain why for Iraq to become a developed nation we have to give up part of our development. And what is this exploiting that you are talking about?Elamdri wrote:
Something people tend to forget about the Third World is that the First World depends on the Third World in order to maintain it's wealth. By exploiting the people in nations like Iraq, we maintain our own standard of living. Thus, for the standard of living to go up in Iraq, the standard of living in the US and other advanced, industrialized nations must go down. It's fine and dandy to say you support the political and economic development of Iraq, but if that same development were to threaten your standard of living, would you be as OK with it? Ask yourself if you're willing to give up your TV, your car, your PC, your job, your home... so someone living in Iraq can have those things.
Why are countries around Iraq, like the UAE, Iran and Kuwait, have stable and developed societies and not Iraq? Are they not "exploited" also?
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
it's just the socialist mindset, instead of working to elevate the iraq quality of life to ours, we should lower ours to theirs
Soldiers from all over the world have given their lives for them, that should be more than enough.
Elamdri sorry to say but your poli sci professor is giving you a 60 year old world model. it is generally agreed upon that there are actually 6 different classifications that modern political scientist categorize countries, and 3rd world is no longer an acceptable term as it does not pertain to modern times.
NO but FUCK NO>>>
as long as they are willing to piggy back me around yes