How would you fix the World? That is, have Peace, Happiness, and Love for One Another reign supreme?
I’ve been labeled a war-mongering racsist troll by some (most?) here, so tell me how you would do it?
I’m serious here-so many of you, it seems, are dissatisfied (to put it mildly) about the way the US is behaving; give us an alternative that will, you believe, satisfy international terrorists and let them go back to raising their families and quit blowing up innocent civilians.
I’ll just say it again: we talked to the IRA, we bombed Iraq. If that’s not a double standard I don’t know what is.
Either way the best thing that could be done would be if the war on terror actually went after terrorists and was not an excuse for neocons to mould the wolrd in their image.
Unfortunately because non-state sponsored terrorism is real fucking hard to fight it’s much easier to just choose an arbitary state and blow the fuck out of it - you probably feel safer, I just see a lot of dead Americans who are dying because their leader either doesn’t understand or won’t acknowledge the nature of the war he’s committed himself to.
Oddly enough, I’m not interested in satisfying international terrorists.
Nor do I care to “let them go back to raising their families”. The very
concept implies that it’s somehow our fault that they’re terrorists.
A big part of the solution is to bring the standard of living up to American levels throughout the world. Here’s where the conservatives start screaming “you want me to give the money I earned with my hard labor to these primitive lowlifes?” No, I don’t mean by total first-world sacrifice, because that’s not going to happen, but rather by working gradually to build the infrastructure throughtout the world to make sure everyone has basic services and eliminate baby starvation, 30-year average lifespans, and all of the other tragedies this world should be past by now.
The trick is to spread basic services and education the world over. The costs would be worth it, and it wouldn’t actually result in everyone paying 50% taxes. Imagine what the anti-terrorism and Iraq war money could have done for Africa or the poorer parts of the middle east if we were in a situation where it could have been spent that way.
People who are fat and happy and who aren’t seeing friends and family starving or persecuted tend not to have as much desire to blow themselves up.
The other part is to get cable TV everywhere and spread Britney and Friends the world over. And to make sure that nobody in this world is more than 30 miles away from a strip mall and Wal-Mart. Sending cultural differences to the history book would be a shame, but it’s a key part of world peace.
Getting people to decide it’s time to give up religion would help a lot, too. Not saying it’s the right thing to do, but it’s another key to world peace.
And America needs to take an objective stance on what’s going on in Israel, rather than defending the government actions there even in those situations where their actions are so extreme and wrongheaded that they’re doing nothing but putting the terrorists there in a position of even greater power among the Palestinian people.
Are any of these things feasible? Probably not. But that’s what it would take. But I don’t really see any feasible solutions to the situation we’re in, short of a 1984-ish total control/observation society having to form after some loon finally nukes a major city.
Bombing the hell out of these people and letting them continue to live in the Middle Ages is just giving more people less to live for and more rationale for terrorist activities.
Kind of off topic, but the other evening while driving home, I heard a story on All-Things-Considered about HMong refugees that have finally been given permission to immigrate to the US. The largest group of HMong refugees in the US live in St. Paul Minnesota, and chances are that a large group of these new refugees will end up in St. Paul. Anyways, this is a bit of a controversial topic for the St. Paul people. They had the mayor read a letter he had received from a resident complaining about the drain on resources that the new refugees will be. The letter writer started out by stating “I’m a retiree who lives on social security and medicare, and I don’t want my taxes raised to provide for services …” I’m not sure if any one noticed the irony. (The writer was probably getting more out of social security and medicaid than he/she contributed in the first place, social services are OK for me, but not for anyone else…)
The problem with this notion isn’t the cost. It’s the fact that there’s not an army on Earth big enough to make it happen.
By and large, people aren’t starving and ignorant and disease-ridden because of a lack of charity. They’re starving because there are men with guns who take their food, ignorant because there are wealthy elites who don’t want them educated, and disease-ridden because only a mad saint of a doctor would accept certain poverty and possible violent death by tending to them when he could have a comfortable practice in a first-world country.
True, that does make me feel better, and I bet I am not the only one.
Therein lies a big problem, IMHO-I really am not a warmongering type of person, but I am one who will defend myself and my family. And then along comes Mohammed who figures it’s OK to blow up not only my family and friends, but his children besides.
As much as I want to understand Mohammed’s “issues”, I have a hard time doing that. I just see a better world getting rid of Mohammed and all his friends.
What is the word for someone who hates a certain religion? I don’t think it is racsist, but there must be a word. Whatever the word is, that is what I am, I guess. (Oh, and I am not religious myself, so don’t go that way.) 'Cause I am really beginning to hate the Islamic religion
I think the word is “bigot”.
[quote=“CindySue22”]
True, that does make me feel better, and I bet I am not the only one.[/quote]
Prehaps you don’t understand the word ‘arbitary’?
Therein lies a big problem, IMHO-I really am not a warmongering type of person, but I am one who will defend myself and my family. And then along comes Mohammed who figures it’s OK to blow up not only my family and friends, but his children besides.
So you attack Saddam who had nothing to do with it and give up with Afghanistan after its purpose is served and let it slip back into chaos?
Yeah, good battle plan.
The irony of your statement is that unless you advocate the complete and total annihilation of Mohammed and his friends, their community, their families and everyone who knows them, the only way you are going to “get rid” of them is by understanding and addressing their issues at the root. If you don’t understand why people become terrorists you will never get rid of them. Islam is not the answer, it plays a part, but there is far more to the issue than Islam. Just as there is more than just catholicism that motivates the IRA, so is it that more than Islam motivates the al-Qaeda.
My God (just a phrase), you people are clueless! You haven’t given me, or anyone else, a solution-which is what I asked for.
Because no one knows? Though if you put a gun to my head and demanded one, I’d say “high tariffs, strict capital controls, massive subsidization of bleeding-edge technologies, and stealing markets from existing superpowers.” That’s how the US, Japan, Korea, and (probably) the UK got rich.
When countries get rich, their citizens calm down a bit.
Human history tells us over and over that if you have a problem with a group of people, you kill as many of them as you can and don’t worry about the collateral damage. But we’re much more civilized now! We’re so steeped in ignorant cultural relativism and “compassion”, perfect weapons for our enemies to use against us.
We let terrorists into our country and teach them how to kill us in our own educational institutions. Our open-door immigration policies have zero emphasis on actually creating Americans out of immigrants. It’s probably to the point where even saying “hey, now that you’re here, how about becoming one of us?” will shock and appall people!
I live in an area with a high Hispanic population. Do you know how we communicate? Simple, I fucking learn Spanish.
Our country is a comatose woman that policy-makers rent out for sex. It’s not a melting pot, it’s “this part is Mexico”, “this part is Korea”, “this part is Caucasian”.
Right now there is no solution, because no solution is possible under our current system. We’ve evolved beyond solutions. The difference in ideology between relativist Americans and psycho-fuck Islamic fundamentalists is too great.
Careful there-speaking the truth is not appreciated in most places.
Are you doing your part Denny? Are you giving portions of your hard earned money to poor families in Africa or the middle east? Cause it would be ballsy of you to say I should be ENFORCED by my government to do it if you aren’t even doing it of your free will.
Cherub,
Actually, we do give to Feed the Children, which benefits third-world kids, as well as to the United Way and other charities.
But I’m not saying ‘everyone take all their extra money and give it to the third world.’ I’m saying it would take something far bigger – a worldwide push to better life for all people instead of keeping the status quo.
But that will never happen. With the despots who want to keep people down to maintain their power bases, and people like you who yell ‘not with MY money!’ (see my original post – thanks for playing to stereotype), I realize that we’re stuck with 2/3 of the world living in conditions far, far crappier than what first-world countries enjoy. Because you can’t change human nature.
I’m glad you can quickly stereotype me.
I never said in my post “not with MY money”. In fact, I give about 15-20% of my income to charities. And I do that as part of my own FREE WILL. I’m not forced to do it by my government. I’m sure you’re high on civil liberties and freedom…how is it freedom for your government to enforce you to pay for children in Africa? And even if that did happen, who’s to say that’s where the money ends up going? Are you saying that every charity works impeccably and a government enforced one would work as perfectly in your dream vision?
Would you enforce this government enforced world saving if it was a flat rate for all citizens, like 5%. Or do you think it’s only applicable to “rich folk” since we know they’re greedy and never give to charity freely.
Well, if it really could eliminate starvation and poverty – ie: if it wasn’t like every government plan REALLY turns out – I’d be all for a flat tax imposed on everyone who makes money to accomplish it. It’d be worth the forced sacrifice. The end would justify the means.
But of course, that’s a pipe dream. Even if we had a perfect plan in place, the governments of the world would screw it up in implementation, drawing it out and increasing costs ten-fold, without accomplishing the final goal. So it’ll never happen.
I’m not proposing workable solutions. I’m just talking ideal solutions.
Using taxes to lend aid to starving African children or to help curb the spread of AIDs sounds a lot more productive than using that money to pay for the liberation of Iraq (something every taxpaying American contributed to, no matter what they think about the war). It would probably be cheaper too.
It would make you feel safe at night knowing you bombed the hell out of someone who couldn’t attack you anyway though!