#1
Some people think that countries should worry about their own problems before helping other countries. Others believe that it is first world countries' responsibility to help people in other countries.

What are your views on this subject?
sup?
#3
if a big disaster happends then sure why not help out, but countries like the US who are majorly in debt should worry about their own well being first
thats just my opinion though
Gear:
Jackson DKMG Dinky (EMG 81/85)
Ibanez GIO (i put a Dimbucker in the bridge)
Crate GT65 (65 watts) to be upgraded soon, suggestions welcome (must be tubed)
Floor Pod (for sale)
#4
I think it's good that we have the heart and intent to help but it never gets to the people who deserve/need it.
Quote by Pookie6
Yngwi3, You win this whole monstrosity of a thread.

Quote by uk.mace
For the best tingle, use Original Source mint. That shit feels amazing on your balls.


Godfather of The Diezel Mafia
#5
A human is a human. Take Burma for example, I think aid should be given in any form that is required. For the types of countries that have corrupt governments, I think food and clothes should be the limit.
PLAY UP POMPEY

POMPEY PLAY UP!

#6
My philosophy teacher outlined an interesting thesis today. He said that countries like America are no different than Nazi's. Whilst the outputs are different, the premise is essentially the same; 'we need people to be subject to this particular rule'. For America, it's democracy, for the Nazi's it was their fantastical idea of the one true world order.

I'd agree with this but wouldn't put it on the same levels as each other. As explained, the output of rule are significantly different. Foreign intervention via military action is tricky ground. Either way; the need of 'want', not 'what should' is important.

Well thought out charity work should always be accepted.
#8
I believe that if we help third world countries by just giving them hand outs we're doing more harm than good and they end up depending on us, but if we teach them how to improve the faults in their country then we're truly helping them

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" kind of applies here.
#9
Quote by Craigo
My philosophy teacher outlined an interesting thesis today. He said that countries like America are no different than Nazi's. Whilst the outputs are different, the premise is essentially the same; 'we need people to be subject to this particular rule'. For America, it's democracy, for the Nazi's it was their fantastical idea of the one true world order.

I'd agree with this but wouldn't put it on the same levels as each other. As explained, the output of rule are significantly different. Foreign intervention via military action is tricky ground. Either way; the need of 'want', not 'what should' is important.

Well thought out charity work should always be accepted.


Hmm America would like Democracy to prevail and dictatorships/communism to not take over countries that do not want them. On the other hand the Nazi's were performing mass ethnic cleansing killing millions to achieve this world order. Yeah I see the similarities.
#10
Yes, I'm a good person.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#12
Quote by Doobergn
Hmm America would like Democracy to prevail and dictatorships/communism to not take over countries that do not want them:


How is this their business?


Yes I think aid should be given appropriately, I think Burma needs to stop refusing it =/

However aid is the limit. Countries should not be invaded, have their leader hunted then murdered, have many of their people killed and then their natural resources stolen. It's just wrong. World policing is for dictators, which is pretty ironic.
#13
Quote by Doobergn
Hmm America would like Democracy to prevail and dictatorships/communism to not take over countries that do not want them. On the other hand the Nazi's were performing mass ethnic cleansing killing millions to achieve this world order. Yeah I see the similarities.

Well done for your lack of reading comprehension.

Firstly, the Americans are rather disliked by Iraq's citizens. Invading to install people's choice sounds too contradictary for me to take it seriously.

Secondly, I already illustrated how significant the differences in output are. However, they are both after the same goal; they want people to be under the same kind of objective rule. That is the similarity.
Last edited by Craigo at May 9, 2008,
#14
Quote by Mistress_Ibanez
How is this their business?


Yes I think aid should be given appropriately, I think Burma needs to stop refusing it =/

However aid is the limit. Countries should not be invaded, have their leader hunted then murdered, have many of their people killed and then their natural resources stolen. It's just wrong. World policing is for dictators, which is pretty ironic.

Funnily enough, noone actually asked if we supported invading countries, killing leaders and people and stealing natural resources. That would make for a pretty one-sided thread.
#15
Quote by SmarterChild
Funnily enough, noone actually asked if we supported invading countries, killing leaders and people and stealing natural resources. That would make for a pretty one-sided thread.



They did it under the guise of helping, though.
#17
Quote by Mistress_Ibanez
They did it under the guise of helping, though.

No they didn't. They did it under the guise that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the West. Then when they realised that that was utter crap, they tried to portray it as a good deed for the people of Iraq.
#18
Quote by SmarterChild
No they didn't. They did it under the guise that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the West. Then when they realised that that was utter crap, they tried to portray it as a good deed for the people of Iraq.
It was all about the fictional WMDs.

Remember those aerial shots of trucks they said were used to transport WMDs about so Hans Blix couldn't find them?
#19
Quote by freedoms_stain
It was all about the fictional WMDs.

Remember those aerial shots of trucks they said were used to transport WMDs about so Hans Blix couldn't find them?

And the dodgy dossier with the claims that Iraq could attack the West within 45 minutes.
#20
Quote by SmarterChild
And the dodgy dossier with the claims that Iraq could attack the West within 45 minutes.
That's my favourite made up threat, in the saddest possible way.
#21
Quote by freedoms_stain
That's my favourite made up threat, in the saddest possible way.

Nah, I much prefer 'I'm gonna get my Dad on you' as a made-up threat.
#22
Quote by SmarterChild
Nah, I much prefer 'I'm gonna get my Dad on you' as a made-up threat.
lol, how does that transfer to the international stage?

Replace dad with USA or Russia
#23
Quote by freedoms_stain
lol, how does that transfer to the international stage?

Replace dad with USA or Russia

You never said it had to transfer to the international stage. Fine, we'll substitute dad for Uncle Adolf or Uncle Joe. Or even anti-communism.

/epic unfunniness
#24
Quote by SmarterChild
You never said it had to transfer to the international stage. Fine, we'll substitute dad for Uncle Adolf or Uncle Joe. Or even anti-communism.

/epic unfunniness
Well it doesn't have to but I thought it should stay semi-relevant to the thread, which has sorta lost it's way.

Aid, is good if it's done right.
#25
Aid should be delivered on the terms of the country in question. Forced aid is out of the question.