|
Post by seven stars on Feb 15, 2005 15:55:44 GMT -5
Forgive me Master C but it sounds like your statements are moving in opposite directions. Florel hit the nail on the head. Governments are entities which ideally act in the interests of their own countries and their people. Friendships between governments per se are an illusion of convenience to facilitate support for policies. I am concerned that when people insist on the conformity of reality to fit these contrived concepts of governmental entity that we may lose our opportunities to make improvements in life for the people involved. So the U.S. would ideally act only when advantageous for itself, and only in the best interest of americans and their lifestyle? Wouldn't you think it an embarrassment to have, with benefit of an educated assessment of history's pitfalls, squandered perhaps the greatest opportunity to advance the well being of humankind? Do you mean the well being of humankind, or Americankind? I'm sure I'm missing something here. Forgive me for being slow, I intend no offense!
|
|
generaldu
Senior Addict
The subway charms us so, where balmy breezes blow, to and fro. - Lorenz Hart - "Manhattan"
Posts: 312
|
Post by generaldu on Feb 15, 2005 16:20:35 GMT -5
Wouldn't you think it an embarrassment to have, with benefit of an educated assessment of history's pitfalls, squandered perhaps the greatest opportunity to advance the well being of humankind? To be reduced to a medium for gambling, drugs, and sex trades would be a towering insult to the many of our ancestors who had the presence of self worth to devote themselves to worthy works. Don't you think we should reflect on what it is we are promoting "freedom and liberty" towards? In our current internal political debate on the "values" issue both parties have painted themselves into corners. Liberals waste their time defending every form of licentiousness as free speech while Conservatives pretend to uphold pristine standards that are more honored in their breach than in their observance. And while they noisily bicker, profit mongers control most outlets of cultural expression and coarsen everything to the lowest common denominator of taste. In history, timing is everything, so while there is still a chance that America will emerge from its decadent doldrums and provide a more inspired form of leadership; in the meantime, this is an exasperating period to live through.
|
|
|
Post by MasterCrabby on Feb 15, 2005 16:39:05 GMT -5
You have a point, here. I suppose I may identify our healthy growth and betterment in the United States as a general benefit, assuming that the self-interest is sufficiently enlightened. After all, a poor person can not create employment for others, nor contribute to the solution of costly projects which are found in need. It is in our own interests in the long run that desperation and instability be minimized generally. Self-interest is not opposed to outward prosperity and success, as it tends to increase the quality of our peripheral life experience, reducing anxiety and insecurity.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Feb 15, 2005 17:30:01 GMT -5
So, if I'm hearing you correctly, U.S. success and advancement of herself will residually benefit those outside of her borders. Is there any place in this paradigm for the nations direct responsibility to her neighbors?
Even if there isn't, certainly one has to recognize the deficiencies of this government with regard to the service of it's own people. I'm not a bleeding heart, and I don't believe that a government policy is the solution for everything. But, is there an excuse for the utter lack of attention that certain basic issues receive in the most wealthy society ever conceived?
|
|
|
Post by MasterCrabby on Feb 15, 2005 18:06:33 GMT -5
Well, I had been speaking of how rational self-interest drives progress. This is manifested in individuals who are conscious to develop in this way, avoiding the snares of slogan peddling and irrational appeals to approval from organizations. It is we who create labels and parties, and we should be careful to keep that in perspective. All too often, we see leaders claiming a refuge by blaming their dumbed-down organizations for their inability to resist trading consideration and attention in for an irrational grab at the big piece. I accept your assertion that mediocrity has been commonly agreed to be acceptable. Finger pointing has justified inadequate oversight in many cases, and as long as no one looks too good, many people will kid themselves that better can't be expected. Without rational attention to the persuit of one's gain, happiness is put at risk. Progress in solving problems can't be had by luck, and as needs are ignored in the short run, the future costs are likely to be greater.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Feb 16, 2005 11:27:43 GMT -5
I certainly agree with you that finger pointing has absolved numerous people of responsibility over the years. This obviously effects productivity as well.
Allow me to apologize for my previous post. After reading it again, I realize that it was phrased as a rhetorical question, followed by an opinion and a leading question. That is a rather confrontational way of maintaining a discussion, and I do apologize for carrying on that way MasterCrabby.
|
|
|
Post by MasterCrabby on Feb 16, 2005 14:34:26 GMT -5
Actually, I was thinking that your question was in need of an answer that I don't like on either end. To say that one government owes responsibility due to means available doesn't seem right. Our wealth is neither ensured over time, nor is it clearly titled to use publicly. If we spend too much without any expectation of return, who do we turn to when we are in trouble? Do you think other countries will meet needs here? On the other hand, to say there is no use in investing in people who live elsewhere is not practical, either. I think the primary calling of a government is support of internal progress. That being addressed, it is useful to create well being generally. I wouldn't see it as responsibility per se. Anyway, don't apologize for anything. I really like these discussions, and your comments are welcome. These issues really make me think, and that's appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Feb 16, 2005 15:39:41 GMT -5
In response, I'll say to you that I did not intend simply to imply a link between wealth and responsibility. Forgive me for that miscommunication. I did intend draw the importance of an accountability component to the power of our government. My statements were driven by a belief in an inherent responsibility to our neighbors, which we carry regardless of our wealth or status in the world. I say this with regard to individuals in the context of community, nevertheless, I do regard this principle to be universal. For the most part I am in agreement with you despite my harping. Our wealth is neither ensured over time, nor is it clearly titled to use publicly. If we spend too much without any expectation of return, who do we turn to when we are in trouble? Do you think other countries will meet needs here? On the other hand, to say there is no use in investing in people who live elsewhere is not practical, either. I think the primary calling of a government is support of internal progress. That being addressed, it is useful to create well being generally. I wouldn't see it as responsibility per se. Point well taken. I suppose the conversation then becomes lost in endless debate over where and to what degree these investments are worthily placed. Hence the inability of our government to get anything significant accomplished on these fronts.
|
|
generaldu
Senior Addict
The subway charms us so, where balmy breezes blow, to and fro. - Lorenz Hart - "Manhattan"
Posts: 312
|
Post by generaldu on Feb 16, 2005 15:52:54 GMT -5
A point in this discussion that was better understood some decades ago is that the prosperity enjoyed by Americans is to a large degree an accident of history and the disparity in economic fortunes around the globe needs to be addressed proactively as a matter of common decency.
With the growing industrialization of parts of the "Third World" we see some movement in that direction but immense populations (such as in many African nations) do not share adequately even in the opportunity to pursue an economically viable existence.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Feb 17, 2005 11:46:01 GMT -5
A point in this discussion that was better understood some decades ago is that the prosperity enjoyed by Americans is to a large degree an accident of history and the disparity in economic fortunes around the globe needs to be addressed proactively as a matter of common decency. I don't disagree with you here. As you mentioned, however, this line of thinking is virtually extinct in todays generation of Americans. With the growing industrialization of parts of the "Third World" we see some movement in that direction but immense populations (such as in many African nations) do not share adequately even in the opportunity to pursue an economically viable existence. It's a valid concern. Should be noted though that part of the problem is that there isn't enough to go around. That reality should serve as a wake up call for those who enjoy excessive resources without considering those who experience corresponding deficiencies. One of my best friends is Congolese (Zairian), from Kinshasa. He has expressed to me how much the people of his community loved Mbutu, and prayed for him. This conversation opened my eyes to how much "in the dark" the people of Zaire really were to the activities of their millionaire governors while it was taking place. Not only are the opportunities hoarded, but the revenue is as well. Even in those countries where wealth is present, truthfully only small groups of their people ever reap the benefits. Zaire was just one example of this kind of situation in Africa.
|
|
generaldu
Senior Addict
The subway charms us so, where balmy breezes blow, to and fro. - Lorenz Hart - "Manhattan"
Posts: 312
|
Post by generaldu on Feb 17, 2005 13:31:59 GMT -5
Evil rulers have exploited nationalist pride to mask their offenses in many nations, including our own. That is why, although we all find ourselves living within arbitrary borders clinging to some notion of group identity, we have to remember we're all "Earthlings" (maybe we need a contest to pick a less corny name for ourselves) living on a rapidly shrinking planet.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Feb 22, 2005 10:07:36 GMT -5
Evil rulers have exploited nationalist pride to mask their offenses in many nations, including our own. That is why, although we all find ourselves living within arbitrary borders clinging to some notion of group identity, we have to remember we're all "Earthlings" (maybe we need a contest to pick a less corny name for ourselves) living on a rapidly shrinking planet. Are you running for office any time soon Generaldu? If so you have my vote. (I mean to say that I don't believe I have disagreed with you yet) By the way, I'll spare you the "Mork for President" chant . ("Nanu Nanu", "Greetings Earthlings") Forgive me, I'm feeling a little jocular this morning .
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Feb 23, 2005 11:34:41 GMT -5
archive.parade.com/2005/0213/0213_dictator.htmlI posted this link on the other leader thread as well. Posted here specifically because of number ten on the list, Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Guinea. I do not know much about him, however, based on the article it would seem that he is a perfect example of what you are pointing to Generaldu.
|
|
|
Post by ID on Feb 25, 2005 18:35:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ID on Feb 25, 2005 18:38:15 GMT -5
I'm not trying to put down the Israeli military, but I just don't think facing and beating the Arab armies is not all that formidable as once thought. This is based on the last two Gulf Wars that I've withnessed. One on one, Arab armies are a no match for anyone, as they'll get their pants whipped every time. The Arab political and military leaders' incompetence in leading their men in the battle fields is world reknown famous. We would have a better ideal on how good the Israeli military is if they face better quality enemies. Where the Arabs get dangerous is when they go undercover and become terrorists. That's a whole new ball game. And who can blame them for being frustrated that they can't win a fight fairly on the fields so they have to resort to hiding behind womens' skirts. Please, someone edit this person's post. It can make some peoples blood boil.
|
|