My bottom line is that our life thrives on money. So no matter how much good intent there might be in "helping" under developed countries - the interest will only start once the said country has some sort of resource on the table. Zimbabwe has been proper fcuked for how long? No one steps in - there's no benefits in Zimbabwe. If there was some form of natural resource justifying a rebuild of that nation then it would've happened a long time ago.
As much as we want to believe that there's good in this world, we can't look beyond the fact that nothing happens for free in this context. Even if some UN backed plan comes to fruit, the punch line will not be saving a nation but more in exposing their resources through so called "education" of that nation with the promise that it will be left in a better condition, and even though it will initially work it will run smack in to a wall as you don't need an IQ in double digits to know that the feeling you draw parallels to of being a whore equals to being used.
What good will money be in a dying, overpopulated, overheated, polluted world? It's no more about money! It's about sustainability! Can you see sustainability in a handfull of extremely wealthy and powerfull nations(multinational businesses) continuing their actions with dissregard to the environment and keeping a blind eye to oppressions and conditions of poor nations? What kind of long term sustainability is that!
I don't see what you mean by rape. A nation should get proper compensation for the exploitation of it's resources from other nations. If this ensures food, health, clothing and shelter to them i can't see the rape in that.
What good will money be in a dying, overpopulated, overheated, polluted world? It's no more about money! It's about sustainability! Can you see sustainability in a handfull of extremely wealthy and powerfull nations(multinational businesses) continuing their actions with dissregard to the environment and keeping a blind eye to oppressions and conditions of poor nations? What kind of long term sustainability is that!
I don't see what you mean by rape. A nation should get proper compensation for the exploitation of it's resources from other nations. If this ensures food, health, clothing and shelter to them i can't see the rape in that.
in a perfect world Pike it would work, people in general do not care about the 'long term' they only care about the short term and if they don't see an immediate effect they generally do not care.
this is how war starts, you go in try and educate the people, and tell them that there leader is corrupt and then bam the leader declares war all hell breaks loose, and the country is back were it started.
edit
spelling, i keep missing keys today.
When children fight together, an adult has to step in, especially if one of them is asking for help. It sounds overly simplistic but sometimes the simplest is what has the best chance at working. That's were a revitalized UN can come in.
in a perfect world Pike it would work, people in general do not care about the 'long term' they only care about the short term and if they don't see an immediate effect they generally do not care.
I agree it's all about caring. For those who have children, granchildren it's a little easier to understand. Imagine having only a short time left to live du to old age or sickness and looking into your granchilds eyes knowing full well that the environmental upheaveals and dissaters are the legacy you are leaving to them.
I would like to point out that the UN is not impotent, it's members are. i hate, and i mean hate how people will say "the U.N" like it exists. it doesn't, the member nations exist and it is they who do nothing. please remember that.
no one wants whats best except for themselves. the U.N will never work because countries are not interested in doing anything good.
I would like to point out that the UN is not impotent, it's members are. i hate, and i mean hate how people will say "the U.N" like it exists. it doesn't, the member nations exist and it is they who do nothing. please remember that.
no one wants whats best except for themselves. the U.N will never work because countries are not interested in doing anything good.
Countries are governed by elected people and they obey the voting population and powerfull lobbyests groups. So it boils down to us, our vote and our our opinion.
That being true, it is also true that we make day to day decisions that go deep in their influence on the world. The products you buy, the food you eat, the choices of activities and entertainement you make and last but not least; the hope and good will you harbour towards others.
When children fight together, an adult has to step in, especially if one of them is asking for help. It sounds overly simplistic but sometimes the simplest is what has the best chance at working. That's were a revitalized UN can come in.
Countries are governed by elected people and they obey the voting population and powerfull lobbyests groups. So it boils down to us, our vote and our our opinion.
Which is EXACTLY why the UN won't work. It's more like 2 people fighting, and a group of people stepping in to decide who's right and who's wrong. You will very rarely get a consensus on stuff like who's wrong or right as it will be a group full of cliques. Additionally, if the members aren't supplying equal stuff to it, then the members won't consider themselves equal. Plain and simple.
This was in response to the statement by SS that rich nations only care about themselves and not about what's best globally.
Again you take time to read through posts looking for lines that you can comment on to make a whimsical remark to look smart. If that's the best contribution you have them keep it to yourself.
Which is EXACTLY why the UN won't work. It's more like 2 people fighting, and a group of people stepping in to decide who's right and who's wrong. You will very rarely get a consensus on stuff like who's wrong or right as it will be a group full of cliques. Additionally, if the members aren't supplying equal stuff to it, then the members won't consider themselves equal. Plain and simple.
The idea here is one of law and order. This works on all levels of groups of people. Families have laws in their houses, cities, states(provinces) and on and on. You may say it stops at the level of countries because of their independant nature, but we see in europe for example, associations of nations can also be governed with common and accepted laws.
The idea of a group of nations governing all nations out of a consensus is still very valid. Not so much is missing for that to come about but perhaps not in the form we've already seen.
This was in response to the statement by SS that rich nations only care about themselves and not about what's best globally.
Again you take time to read through posts looking for lines that you can comment on to make a whimsical remark to look smart. If that's the best contribution you have them keep it to yourself.
I'm not sorry. How the fcuk do you expect to be taken seriously when you open an argument with such a fcuking dumb statement? Maybe it's me who is the dumb fcuker. Maybe 800000 Tutsi should have voted with more care and taken the time to explain to their obedient government that they didn't wish to be slaughtered. Fcuk me Pike, why am I wasting time posting this when I should be heading over Darfur while the death toll is only 200000 - 400000. Thank you pike, your genius has just saved half a million poor souls whose only crime was forgetting to live in the world inside your head.
Now about world hunger, tell me oh great sage, what's the great answer you have there?
What? What's that Pike? 'We just have to have our cake and eat it'. Well fcuk me, that makes sense too.
Any other pearls of cosmic wisdom you wish to share? What? Your joking right? 'Smile and the world smiles with you'. How the fcuk did we all miss that one?
You fcuking dullard.
Edit for typo. Edit as I was, at first, a little harsh.
I'm not sorry. How the fcuk do you expect to be taken seriously when you open an argument with such a fcuking dumb statement? Maybe it's me who is the dumb fcuker. Maybe 800000 Tutsi should have voted with more care and taken the time to explain to their obedient government that they didn't wish to be slaughtered. Fcuk me Pike, why am I wasting time posting this when I should be heading over Darfur while the death toll is only 200000 - 400000. Thank you pike, your genius has just saved half a million poor souls whose only crime was forgetting to live in the world inside your head.
Now about world hunger, tell me oh great sage, what's the great answer you have there?
What? What's that Pike? 'We just have to have our cake and eat it'. Well fcuk me, that makes sense too.
Any other pearls of cosmic wisdom you wish to share? What? Your joking right? 'Smile and the world smiles with you'. How the fcuk did we all miss that one?
You fcuking dullard.
Edit for typo.
Edit as I was, at first, a little harsh.
There you go again Tom with your: "Edit as i was at first a little harsh."
Who are you writting THAT to Tom and for what reason? Are you telling people how great you are and that you've spared me from some harsh judgement that you could have bestowed on me? You need to stop right now and look at your real motives. It's easy to get caught up in the ego trip in these forums...
Yes innocent people in Somalia, in Rhawanda, in Dharfur, are and have been oppressed by warloads, clan leaders and corrupt goverments and it's important to bring it up and have points of views pushed around about it. Of course we won't come up with a solution here today at Toms Hardware Forum that will be the worlds salvation but neither will going off to the pub to drink and forget about it all.
A nation should get proper compensation for the exploitation of it's resources from other nations. If this ensures food, health, clothing and shelter to them i can't see the rape in that.
I really wish I could see the world as simple as that. The compensation factor you talk about is more twisted than a hillbilly orgy. Africa has been fcuked over way too many times. When the resources run out, said "helping" countries pack up and fcuk off. They leave some 1st world decency, but it doesn't really solve the problem of helping them.
Remember our gold and diamont rush in South Africa? If the intent was as simple and coherent then surely we would've prospered? No, we kinda fcuked ourselves and that was largely due to internal politics. And that Pike is what will make any and all effort in "educating" and "helping" turd world countries worthless - the situation in any turd world country with resources is more compound than what might be estimated. Nigeria is being exploited for gas and the locals aren't so keen on that - so they kill and take people hostage from 1st world countries. I can bs myself in thinking positive, but it's just the way the world ticks. The tick obviously points to the ticking time bomb of this day and age.
