Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > UK writing off poor nations' debt

UK writing off poor nations' debt
Thread Tools
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 05:45 AM
 
UK writing off poor nations' debt

Good move IMO. Do you think other will follow or that they should follow? What's your opinion?

Discuss�

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
ism
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 07:50 AM
 
I'd be happy if they wrote off mine.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 08:16 AM
 
To be honest, I believe a better solution would be to hold mational leaders personally liable for any debts their nations default on during their terms.

Let's face it: most of the loans from these banks have been squandered by the leaders of these nations. If they would steal that money from their nation, then why not hold them responsible for paying it back?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 08:58 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Let's face it: most of the loans from these banks have been squandered by the leaders of these nations.
Not true. The figures I've seen say that about one fifth was wasted on corrupt leaders and a lot of those loans were made knowing full well they would go to propping up corrupt leaders.

http://www.jubileeusa.org/ has good information on the history of the debt crisis.
( Last edited by Troll; Sep 27, 2004 at 09:03 AM. )
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2004, 09:28 AM
 
Some interesting facts on third world debt:


For every �1 in grant aid to developing countries, more than �13 comes back in debt repayments.
Source: Global Development Finance 2001, based on 1999 figures for grants and total debt service.

Costa Rica borrowed less than �4 million from Britain in 1973. By 1999 it had paid Britain more than �7 million of that loan but still owed more than �1 million.
Source: House of Commons Hansard Written Answers, 10 June 1997

After debt relief under the enhanced HIPC initiative, debt service in Mali was $88 million in 2000. This is greater than the level of government spending on health ($54 million in 1998), in a country where one in four children do not live to see their fifth birthday, and where per capita spending on health is $5 as compared to the World Bank's recommended level for basic health care of $12.
Sources: for Enhanced HIPC, Aug 11 2000; UN Human Development Report 2000; Halfway there?, Oxfam International position paper, July 1999

Due to the HIV/AIDS crisis, life expectancy in Zambia is expected to drop from 43 to 33 years, a level last experienced in Europe in medieval times. Over half a million children are out of school, and these numbers are not declining. Yet debt service after enhanced HIPC still remains more than spending on health and education in 1998 combined.
Source: Decision Point document; UN Human Development Report 2000; Halfway there?, Oxfam International position paper, July 1999

For each additional one per cent of GDP spent on health and education, child mortality is reduced by 24 per cent. In 1999 Zambia paid $438.5 million in total debt service, 13 per cent of GDP. If this money had been invested in Zambian health care, using the UNDP analysis suggests that child mortality would have been reduced from a rate of 202 deaths per 1,000 live births to only 8 per 1000 live births, the same rate as in the United States.
Sources: UNDP - estimated from regression analysis; Debt service from GDF 2001; under-five mortality rate from UN HDR 2000

The cost of providing basic health care and nutrition for all would be less than is spent in Europe and the US on pet food.
Compiled by Dr Robinson Rojas (www.rrojasdatabank.org/sust2.htm) from Euromonitor 1997, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA 1994, HDR 1998, and Research Advisory and Business Intelligence Services 1997

If debt had been cancelled in 1997 for twenty of the poorest countries, the money released for basic healthcare could have saved the lives of about 21 million children by the year 2000, the equivalent of 19,000 children a day.
Source: UN Human Development Report, 1997, p93

Full cancellation of third world debt would cost Britain's 26 million taxpayers less than 4p a week or �2 a year each.
Source: In Our Own Backyard, Jubilee 2000 report
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 07:10 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Some interesting facts on third world debt:


For every �1 in grant aid to developing countries, more than �13 comes back in debt repayments.
Source: Global Development Finance 2001, based on 1999 figures for grants and total debt service.

Costa Rica borrowed less than �4 million from Britain in 1973. By 1999 it had paid Britain more than �7 million of that loan but still owed more than �1 million.
Source: House of Commons Hansard Written Answers, 10 June 1997

After debt relief under the enhanced HIPC initiative, debt service in Mali was $88 million in 2000. This is greater than the level of government spending on health ($54 million in 1998), in a country where one in four children do not live to see their fifth birthday, and where per capita spending on health is $5 as compared to the World Bank's recommended level for basic health care of $12.
Sources: for Enhanced HIPC, Aug 11 2000; UN Human Development Report 2000; Halfway there?, Oxfam International position paper, July 1999

Due to the HIV/AIDS crisis, life expectancy in Zambia is expected to drop from 43 to 33 years, a level last experienced in Europe in medieval times. Over half a million children are out of school, and these numbers are not declining. Yet debt service after enhanced HIPC still remains more than spending on health and education in 1998 combined.
Source: Decision Point document; UN Human Development Report 2000; Halfway there?, Oxfam International position paper, July 1999

For each additional one per cent of GDP spent on health and education, child mortality is reduced by 24 per cent. In 1999 Zambia paid $438.5 million in total debt service, 13 per cent of GDP. If this money had been invested in Zambian health care, using the UNDP analysis suggests that child mortality would have been reduced from a rate of 202 deaths per 1,000 live births to only 8 per 1000 live births, the same rate as in the United States.
Sources: UNDP - estimated from regression analysis; Debt service from GDF 2001; under-five mortality rate from UN HDR 2000

The cost of providing basic health care and nutrition for all would be less than is spent in Europe and the US on pet food.
Compiled by Dr Robinson Rojas (www.rrojasdatabank.org/sust2.htm) from Euromonitor 1997, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA 1994, HDR 1998, and Research Advisory and Business Intelligence Services 1997

If debt had been cancelled in 1997 for twenty of the poorest countries, the money released for basic healthcare could have saved the lives of about 21 million children by the year 2000, the equivalent of 19,000 children a day.
Source: UN Human Development Report, 1997, p93

Full cancellation of third world debt would cost Britain's 26 million taxpayers less than 4p a week or �2 a year each.
Source: In Our Own Backyard, Jubilee 2000 report
Very interesting and shows that the socalled first-world has used its lucky jumpstart in development to exploit the thirdworld, while keeping it under control. Couple that with the high tarrifs for agriculture products from the thirdworld in the west and with the subventions for first-world-farmers, and you get a pretty condemnable policy.

I'm wondering if exploitation of other countries is a requirement for capitalism to work or if at least the deciding powers think that to be the case.

Taliesin
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 10:01 AM
 
Success isn't 'luck'.

It has more to do with hard work and making the right decisions.

Failure isn't a sign of 'bad luck' - it's indicative of laziness and poor decisions.

I'd say 'first-world' countries merely worked harder and made better decisions.

Nobody forces a country to accept a loan from another country. They take it willingly. Don't try to cop a plea after making a bad decision to accept the loot.
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 10:43 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Let's face it: most of the loans from these banks have been squandered by the leaders of these nations. If they would steal that money from their nation, then why not hold them responsible for paying it back?
True... but it's more costly to hold them responsible.

Because these loans were given, knowing they would be hard/impossible to pay back... with insane interest rates... it's impossible.

In most countries cases, they couldn't even afford to pay the interest, much less the loan.

The chances on regaining the money are 0, since it's impossible. That's really the bottom line.


There should be some accountability for those who issued such rediculus loans. If I worked at a bank, and did that... management would deny the loan... then repremand me for even wasting their time with that. The corruption in this case was 2 sided.

Corrupt government officials gave the loan... recieved by other corrupt officials at the recieving end. Don't think people in the UK who helped get these loans out didn't benefit it any way.

There's no way to get back the money without a nation invading another nation and taking money. That's really the final answer. That ultimately is costly as well.

I'd rather the time/effort be spent on fixing the problem... rather than pretending to fix something that's impossible to fix.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Success isn't 'luck'.

It has more to do with hard work and making the right decisions.

Failure isn't a sign of 'bad luck' - it's indicative of laziness and poor decisions.
An aquaintance of mine's mother had to quit her job to take care of her father after he fell. (this was before the family leave act of 1993 and such... quite a while before such things existed). Few months after she left, a big promotion was given that would have been hers provided she was on the job.

Eventually came back to work after he passed away... but of course had to restart here career. When your gone for years, you don't go back to where you left off, you have to fight your way back in.

Was her 'failure' in the business world the result of lazyness and poor decisions? Considering paying someone to take care of the man would have been much more than her job pays (24hr care is extremely expensive as many know... and insurance can fight for years saying it isn't necessary, despite it really being so).

Or was her 'failure' bad luck because of timing? Perhaps it had happened a few years later, better insurance laws would have given an avenue to get insurance to cover more of the medical costs associated with care.

I'd say 'first-world' countries merely worked harder and made better decisions.
The US really has to thank slavery for it's economic position. The boom created by slavery put it in a position to advance into the industrial and information age very quickly... leaving others in the dust.

There are many illigitimate ways of being 'first-world'. Nazi germany dwarfed the US in being 'first world' during part of WWII. Did they get it through 'working hard and better decisions'? Or taking over most of europe, genocide, and enslaving those who weren't weak enough to kill yet?

The US fell into a great position. It used slavery when the church said slaves were sent by God to help white people.... they benefited for years, and accelerated economically. Then slave laws changed, but the benefits were still there. The US had a huge economic gap between it, and the rest of the world. That's pure luck that the timing worked out. Anything changing the timing of anything involving the introduction of slavery, or the discovery of america could have effected our current economic status.

Far from 'hard work'.

It would be 'work' or 'skill' if that was planned out... but it wasn't. The cards just fell that way.

Nobody forces a country to accept a loan from another country. They take it willingly. Don't try to cop a plea after making a bad decision to accept the loot.
Nobody forced America to sleep on 9/10/01. The people who should have been paying attention were slacking off and not doing their job. The result was the next day.

In the case of these nations... similar corrupt people were sitting in charge.

So America deserved 9/11 because some intelegence guru's were playing golf rather than translating intelegence findings? because of a personal bad decision America earned 9/11?
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 10:51 AM
 
huh ?
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃO⅃
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 11:09 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Success isn't 'luck'.
It has more to do with hard work and making the right decisions.

Failure isn't a sign of 'bad luck' - it's indicative of laziness and poor decisions.
Trademark of a conservative. I understand why some people feel this way, and of course there's an element of truth in it.

But there is much to be said for the opposite opinion as well. It just comes down to personal life experience, and emotional inclination, I guess.

P.S. lovely post, macvillage.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 11:23 AM
 
Originally posted by Mithras:
........P.S. lovely post, macvillage.

OK, then, tell me what he said.

Because I can't seem to translate that drivel into anything that makes sense.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 12:31 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
OK, then, tell me what he said.

Because I can't seem to translate that drivel into anything that makes sense.
He's saying that we're still prospering from slavery that was abolished almost 150 yrs ago. More liberal silliness.

People, it's mostly about WW2 and our industrial "ramping up" during and after the war. We distinctly led the way in industrial development and production, and are still reaping the benefits of that. The great depression saw an almost complete evaporation of any advantage we held due to slavery concerns, due to the collapse of agricultural exports during that time. The transition from being a largely agrarian exporter to industrial power-house is where we found the success we're still enjoying today.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Logic  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 01:16 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
He's saying that we're still prospering from slavery that was abolished almost 150 yrs ago. More liberal silliness.

People, it's mostly about WW2 and our industrial "ramping up" during and after the war. We distinctly led the way in industrial development and production, and are still reaping the benefits of that. The great depression saw an almost complete evaporation of any advantage we held due to slavery concerns, due to the collapse of agricultural exports during that time. The transition from being a largely agrarian exporter to industrial power-house is where we found the success we're still enjoying today.
Yup, that's true.

While we(as in Europeans) were busy fighting Hitler you were busy making money from the war. That is what put you in the position you are today.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 01:19 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Yup, that's true.

While we(as in Europeans) were busy fighting Hitler you were busy making money from the war. That is what put you in the position you are today.
Back that up. I am curious...how much did the US make off of WWII. Better yet, how many lives did the US loose during WWII? How much did we funnel into reconstruction.

Better yet. How much is your freedom worth?
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 01:20 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
He's saying that we're still prospering from slavery that was abolished almost 150 yrs ago. More liberal silliness.

People, it's mostly about WW2 and our industrial "ramping up" during and after the war. We distinctly led the way in industrial development and production, and are still reaping the benefits of that. The great depression saw an almost complete evaporation of any advantage we held due to slavery concerns, due to the collapse of agricultural exports during that time. The transition from being a largely agrarian exporter to industrial power-house is where we found the success we're still enjoying today.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 01:37 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Better yet. How much is your freedom worth?
It's worth quite a lot apparently. The UK is still making debt repayments to the US for 'saving us' in WWII. It's surprising how many Americans see the US intervention as a selfless act of humanity.

I would recommend you spend a couple of hours Googling around the details of MacNStein's post above, which is a pretty good starting point.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 01:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Yup, that's true.

While we(as in Europeans) were busy fighting Hitler you were busy making money from the war. That is what put you in the position you are today.
No, some Europeans were fighting other Europeans (nazi and facsist scum), who started the whole war. Other Europeans meanwhile were appeasing and acting like cowards, something they are continuing with today.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 01:54 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
No, some Europeans were fighting other Europeans (nazi and facsist scum), who started the whole war. Other Europeans meanwhile were appeasing and acting like cowards, something they are continuing with today.
The US is lucky in having never experienced invasion. Unfortunately this means that it is unable to appreciate the trauma of such an event, and is therefore quite casual when visiting occupation on others.

Were America ever to have been invaded (unlikely to have ever happened due to it's superb geographic protection as well as military strength) then there would have been just as many collaborators as seen on continental Europe. Possibly more, given your particular penchant for unbridled capitalism.



p.s. I am assuming you don't consider Allawi to be an appeasing coward? No? Brave patriot? Thought so.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 01:57 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
The US is lucky in having never experienced invasion. Unfortunately this means that it is unable to appreciate the trauma of such an event, and is therefore quite casual when visiting occupation on others.
And you were alive during WWII?
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 01:59 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
It's worth quite a lot apparently. The UK is still making debt repayments to the US for 'saving us' in WWII. It's surprising how many Americans see the US intervention as a selfless act of humanity.

I would recommend you spend a couple of hours Googling around the details of MacNStein's post above, which is a pretty good starting point.
Your right, given the attitude of most Europeans, we should have let you fall to Germany.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 02:07 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Your right, given the attitude of most Europeans, we should have let you fall to Germany.

And you were alive during WWII?
ha! well done, keep it up!



     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 02:09 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
ha! well done, keep it up!



Were you alive during WWII?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 02:28 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
The US is lucky in having never experienced invasion. Unfortunately this means that it is unable to appreciate the trauma of such an event, and is therefore quite casual when visiting occupation on others.
Never heard of Pearl Harbor? or 9/11? No, we've never been invaded...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 02:32 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
He's saying that we're still prospering from slavery that was abolished almost 150 yrs ago. More liberal silliness.

People, it's mostly about WW2 and our industrial "ramping up" during and after the war. We distinctly led the way in industrial development and production, and are still reaping the benefits of that. The great depression saw an almost complete evaporation of any advantage we held due to slavery concerns, due to the collapse of agricultural exports during that time. The transition from being a largely agrarian exporter to industrial power-house is where we found the success we're still enjoying today.
The only reason the US was in that position during WWII was because of slavery.

If it wasn't for slavery, the US would have/still be a 2nd world country at best. NYC became a city by trading slave goods. Phili a port city. Same with most of the east coast.

If it wasn't for slavery, the US wouldn't have been on the map for WWI or WWII.

Every country needs a catalyst event to jumpstart the economy. For the US, it was clearly slavery. That's what put the US in the position it needed.

If I went back in history and undid slavery... most likely western culture would have left the US. The Europians were here on business, not to settle here. And the few who did come to just live here relied on trade with those here to profit. Why do you think the US had to fight for independence? Beacuse of $$$. British didn't give a crap about freedoms. They wanted $$$.


You yourself may not have a direct benefit of a slave... but your society is built on the benefits free labor brought to the country.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 02:50 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Never heard of Pearl Harbor? or 9/11? No, we've never been invaded...
i would say there's a huge difference between being invaded/occupied and being attacked.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 02:53 PM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The only reason the US was in that position during WWII was because of slavery.

If it wasn't for slavery, the US would have/still be a 2nd world country at best. NYC became a city by trading slave goods. Phili a port city. Same with most of the east coast.

If it wasn't for slavery, the US wouldn't have been on the map for WWI or WWII.

Every country needs a catalyst event to jumpstart the economy. For the US, it was clearly slavery. That's what put the US in the position it needed.

If I went back in history and undid slavery... most likely western culture would have left the US. The Europians were here on business, not to settle here. And the few who did come to just live here relied on trade with those here to profit. Why do you think the US had to fight for independence? Beacuse of $$$. British didn't give a crap about freedoms. They wanted $$$.


You yourself may not have a direct benefit of a slave... but your society is built on the benefits free labor brought to the country.
Bull. Sorry, I disagree. Almost every Western country benefitted from slavery at that time, whether it was outwardly legal or not. I've heard the arguments, especially from black reparations thieves who are still trying to get deductions on their taxes for it. It's just a big load of crap.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 02:55 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
i would say there's a huge difference between being invaded/occupied and being attacked.
You didn't say occupation, you said invasion. And Germany never occupied GB. As your ally, we made sure of that.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 03:05 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
i would say there's a huge difference between being invaded/occupied and being attacked.
Once again. Where you alive during WWII?
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 03:06 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
You didn't say occupation, you said invasion. And Germany never occupied GB. As your ally, we made sure of that.
Encarta Dictionary:
Invasion: 1.a hostile entry of an armed force into another country, especially with the intention of conquering it


Actually the UK won the Battle of Britain (with help from members of the exiled Polish airforce). Give History Channel a try.

Although having said that London did endure the Blitz (imagine Pearl Harbour every night for a year over residential areas and you'll be getting close)
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 03:18 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
Encarta Dictionary:
Invasion: 1.a hostile entry of an armed force into another country, especially with the intention of conquering it


Actually the UK won the Battle of Britain (with help from members of the exiled Polish airforce). Give History Channel a try.

Although having said that London did endure the Blitz (imagine Pearl Harbour every night for a year over residential areas and you'll be getting close)
Ok, quit the smartass BS, or you can sit and talk to yourself.


1. We WERE attacked at Pearl Harbor with the intent of being conquered. The Japanese intended to smash our Pacific fleet (did a pretty good job of it too) and then take over our interests in that area.

2. If we hadn't entered that war, you would be speaking German now.

3. Yes, London was practically bombed back to the stone-age, but you were never occupied... Using your logic, and since you weren't occupied, were you actually ever "invaded"?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 03:36 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
2. If we hadn't entered that war, you would be speaking German now.
If you hadn't entered the war, Germany would have developed the nuclear bomb and the V2 and you would be speaking German now.

This "We saved you 50 years ago so you owe us," argument is so tired.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 03:39 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Ok, quit the smartass BS, or you can sit and talk to yourself.

I honestly can't help being smart in comparison to your nonsense. You really don't seem to have even the most basic grasp of history,

1. We WERE attacked at Pearl Harbor with the intent of being conquered. The Japanese intended to smash our Pacific fleet (did a pretty good job of it too) and then take over our interests in that area.
They had no intention of invading the US homeland. Any simpleton could see that was what I meant.


2. If we hadn't entered that war, you would be speaking German now.

The tide had turned against Hitler in Russia by that point, and this was the biggest factor in his decision to abandon his plans to invade the UK. And of course I'm grateful that the US entered the war, eventually. I just resent the implication that it was some kind of mercy mission, when the main imperatives were financial and strategic.


3. Yes, London was practically bombed back to the stone-age, but you were never occupied... Using your logic, and since you weren't occupied, were you actually ever "invaded"? [/B]
I never said the UK was invaded.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 03:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
If you hadn't entered the war, Germany would have developed the nuclear bomb and the V2 and you would be speaking German now.

This "We saved you 50 years ago so you owe us," argument is so tired.
I doubt it. Their main people in those fields had already ran and they lacked the brainpower to do it. They abandoned their "heavy water" experiments pretty early on. Eventually, they may have succeeded, but we'll never really know.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 03:47 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
I honestly can't help being smart in comparison to your nonsense. You really don't seem to have even the most basic grasp of history,

They had no intention of invading the US homeland. Any simpleton could see that was what I meant.

The tide had turned against Hitler in Russia by that point, and this was the biggest factor in his decision to abandon his plans to invade the UK. And of course I'm grateful that the US entered the war, eventually. I just resent the implication that it was some kind of mercy mission, when the main imperatives were financial and strategic.

I never said the UK was invaded.
I don't think you need to go much farther than yourself to find the "simpleton" here...

Hawaii WAS a part of the US, even at that time. Wake up.

And as for the rest, it's just bull. You're just sitting there whining that the US didn't do anything for you jerks during WW2. That's crap and you know it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 03:50 PM
 
If the US hadn't entered into the second world war (which the UK desperately wanted, and the US government knew they had to), the US would have eventually faced a superpower with the military might to make the Soviet Union look like a kid with a BB gun.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 04:01 PM
 
Originally posted by moodymonster:
If the US hadn't entered into the second world war (which the UK desperately wanted, and the US government knew they had to), the US would have eventually faced a superpower with the military might to make the Soviet Union look like a kid with a BB gun.
Doubtful. They would have expended their resources just HOLDING that territory. They would have spread themselves far too thin to do much of anything else for at least a generation, if not longer. The Soviets had manpower derived from a huge population, the Germans didn't.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
DBursey
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 05:41 PM
 
Actually the UK won the Battle of Britain (with help from members of the exiled Polish airforce). Give History Channel a try.
They had help from hundreds of Canadian airmen as well. Canada also had the world's third largest blue water navy in 1940. Those forces, plus our large merchant marine fleet pitched in from day one as part of the allied effort, which at the time did not include the US.

In a nod to the thread topic, I might also point out that the UK may be considered as in keeping with Canada's example of debt forgiveness to third world nations. I'd find a link but I'm off to coach my boys. 7pm ice time!
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2004, 05:51 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Bull. Sorry, I disagree. Almost every Western country benefitted from slavery at that time, whether it was outwardly legal or not. I've heard the arguments, especially from black reparations thieves who are still trying to get deductions on their taxes for it. It's just a big load of crap.
Of course other countries had benefits. But the US had by far the most.

If I learn how to make a faster computer (that runs os x ;-)) cheaper. I can make money. I'll sell it to you for less than you can buy it anywhere else.... so you get benefit.

But I'm still going to make much more benefit.

This is why *technically* buying diamonds that were mined with slave labor is illegal... though it's still widespread, we just buy from countries who mix them all in a giant bag, so nobody knows where they came from (India, Israel, come to mind). Doesn't change the ethics though.

We also had trade restrictions on Iraq... but throughout the 90's, we had Iraqi oil in our cars. Same deal. It was a workaround. We may not have liked Iraq... but not enough to stop with all their oil. We just wouldn't purchase directly from them.


So yes, your right, the western world did benefit. But not nearly to the extent the US did.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 02:30 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Doubtful. Doubtful
The point is that you have absolutely no way of knowing what might have happened or not happened if the US hadn't entered WWII. And it's a pointless exercise anyway because the US entered of necessity not choice.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 03:02 AM
 
Originally posted by DBursey:
They had help from hundreds of Canadian airmen as well. Canada also had the world's third largest blue water navy in 1940. Those forces, plus our large merchant marine fleet pitched in from day one as part of the allied effort, which at the time did not include the US.

In a nod to the thread topic, I might also point out that the UK may be considered as in keeping with Canada's example of debt forgiveness to third world nations. I'd find a link but I'm off to coach my boys. 7pm ice time!

yep, fair play to the canadian pilots - and the navy - didn't mean to diss by ommission!

one thing that's always been kept very quiet is that canada 'took care' of the crown jewels and most of our gold reserves for us when invasion looked likely.

i singled out the poles mainly because they had an incredible kill ratio compared to the british fighter pilots.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 03:09 AM
 
Originally posted by moodymonster:
If the US hadn't entered into the second world war (which the UK desperately wanted, and the US government knew they had to), the US would have eventually faced a superpower with the military might to make the Soviet Union look like a kid with a BB gun.
And we�d have still ended the whole shebang with maybe 4 bombs, instead of 2.

All the WWII �what-if� posturing is entirely pointless. One nation, and one nation alone emerged from WWII a nuclear superpower, able to b1tchslap entire nations and armies without setting a boot on the ground- the US.

All the other �what-if� WWII bullcrap takes a distant backseat to that fact.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 03:19 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
[Doubtful. They would have expended their resources just HOLDING that territory [Russia]. They would have spread themselves far too thin to do much of anything else for at least a generation, if not longer.
Originally posted by MacNStein:
2. If we hadn't entered that war, you would be speaking German now.

So, Germany was bogged down in Russia, unable to do much of anything (presumeably including invading Britain) for a generation. Yet according to you, if the U.S. hadn't intervened after the Battle of Britain, we would all be speaking German.

Are you sure you've thought all this through?
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 04:14 AM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
One nation, and one nation alone emerged from WWII a nuclear superpower, able to b1tchslap entire nations and armies without setting a boot on the ground- the US.
Uh no. Actually, two superpowers emerged from WWII.

Edit: Oh, and a number of nations have (or have had and abandoned it) the power to "b1tchslap entire nations and armies without setting a boot on the ground." The US is not and hasn't ever been the only country with WMD or the ability to deliver them to other nations.
( Last edited by Troll; Sep 29, 2004 at 05:23 AM. )
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 05:26 AM
 
Very funny how the thread turned out after I have claimed that the first-world (Europe and US) had a lucky jumpstart in contrast to the thirdworld.

Europe and US are very similar, the US is made up of ex-Europeans, so what the trouble? Europe had its colonies, the US had slavery, so what the trouble, it's not that different.

But if you want to talk about ww2, and the US-role regarding Germany, I can offer a new hint to this thread. The US was the main-motivator in rearming Germany after ww1, business was too important, and even after Hitler turned out to be a maniac dictator the US supported and financed him. Remember Hitler in Time-Magazine as man of the year?

Taliesin
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 05:44 AM
 
odd how we keep getting "lucky" while other countries fail.

Either we're damned lucky or we're just good.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 06:09 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Europe and US are very similar, the US is made up of ex-Europeans, so what the trouble? Europe had its colonies, the US had slavery, so what the trouble, it's not that different.
Well the UK abolished slavery (in fact deemed it 'piracy') in 1827, whereas the 13th Amendment didn't follow until 1865, following behind Sweden, Spain, Holland, etc.

To me, this grudging approach to basic human rights appears characteristic of many modern republicans, who often seem to view the civil rights movement of the 60s in a similar light - as a kind of pesky hinderence of the right to make money from the suffering of others. To be honest, I think MacNStein and Spliffdaddy's comments speak for themselves, I don't think that ignorance needs any kind of context!

But if you want to talk about ww2, and the US-role regarding Germany, I can offer a new hint to this thread. The US was the main-motivator in rearming Germany after ww1, business was too important, and even after Hitler turned out to be a maniac dictator the US supported and financed him. Remember Hitler in Time-Magazine as man of the year?
Yes, and it's well-established that this was the principal source of the Bush family fortune (selling components for concentration camps etc). An eery echo of WMD sales to Saddam Hussein in the 70s and 80s.

Another point often forgotten is that Germany declared war on the US, not vice-versa, in retaliation for the States' covert (and not so covert) support for the UK.
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 08:18 AM
 
Maybe its my imagination but I'm sure there was this period of time between 1945(ish) and 1991 called the "Cold War".

On one side there was the US, and on the other was the USSR?

Both has enough nukes to destroy the world several times over?

If one fired, the other would hence MAD - mutually assured destruction?

Cuban Missile Crisis?

Star Wars?

SALT treaties, START treaties etc?

NATO? Warsaw Pact?

Iron Curtain?

Maybe its just me and my knowledge of events is a little jaded.

Someone clever once said that they didn't know what weapons world war three would be fought with, but that world war 4 would be fought with sticks and stones.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 08:38 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
odd how we keep getting "lucky" while other countries fail.

Either we're damned lucky or we're just good.
It has nothing to do with luck or with hard work. It has to do with the fact that the North pursues a completely different societal model and development model to that traditionally pursued in Africa and other developing nations.

If you want to know why Africa is in the state it is now, you have to learn some meta history.

There was a time in our history when humankind was totally immersed in the bond with the Natural order. You may have heard of paganism and animism - the belief that humankind lives in harmony with the natural order. It is more than just a religion or a way of life however. The ancients lived in a way which was sustainable. They were nomadic, hunter gatherers who lived off nature but left it intact. They roamed large territories, their culture focussed on the community and their religion centred on mythical and spiritual incarnations of the natural order. For the most part they didn't farm and if they did, then it was subsistence farming. This culture soon roamed beyond Africa which is the cradle of mankind.

In Europe there was a split though. Certain of the humans that wound up in Europe, for whatever reason, went against one of the pillars of contemporary civilisation and started hoarding food. They started excluding other animals and other people from certain pieces of land. They cut out all of the plants and animals that they didn't like, blocked access to the land and replaced what was there with food they could eat. This is known as totalitarian agriculture. The increased food lead to a population explosion which meant they needed more space. In getting that space, they had to exclude other humans from it and war was born. They needed technology which focussed on excluding access, moving distances and killing people. Technology which largely didn't exist before. The Europeans became people who took more than they needed, thus devastating nature and infecting themselves with envy and competition.

When the European colonists arrived in Africa (and North and South America), they found largely animist cultures. In Africa, people's lives were governed by "ubuntu" - a focus on the good of the collective. Europeans at that stage had made the shift to a culture that focussed on the individual, to one that dominated nature and other peoples. Europeans were out to expand, to get more food, to get more stuff and they built ships and invented technology and fought wars to get it. European religion encapsulated the idea that man was different to the animals whereas African spiritualism (and American mysticism) saw man as an intrinsic part of the natural order. Africans weren't lazy, they weren't unhappy and they weren't unlucky. They were performing relatively well agains the set of development objectives and societal aims that they had set for themselves. Famine was rare, wars even rarer.

But the European totalitarian agriculture system works. Killing off competition for your food and controlling access to it, makes you pretty strong. It motivates you to develop technology for waging war which animist societies don't have. The Africans couldn't resist. The nomadic ones would come into an area they had traditionally used and find Europeans had fenced it, removed all of the food and planted crops. Famine resulted. When they tried to access the land, they were killed. War resulted.

What took millions of years to happen in Europe - the shift from an animist society to a totalitarian agriculture society, was happening in Africa and the developing world in a condensed time period. The conflict and famine that you see in Africa today is a result of the shift to the Northern development and societal organisation model. Not only that, but the North has always had an interest in keeping these places underdeveloped. Africa was colonised so that more food could be produced or so that access to more food could be achieved. Keeping that food (today food includes a variety of resources) flowing means making sure the people there don't take the food for themselves or give it to others. You need to keep them in a state of under development. The Cold War which played itself out in Africa was much like colonialism. That is, the North has never had an interest in bringing the rest up to their standard. Their society is based on the notion of competition, on the individual over everyone and everything else.

The Africans only look under-developed when judged against the model we have. They didn't have land ownership, they didn't have crops, they didn't have ships and guns. They had other things but not those we consider important. I think we're only just starting to recognise that our model for development is intrinsic to the value built into our society, religion and culture that you must go forward, take more, horde more and increase your share of power and land and money and well ultimately food. I'm not sure the development model we're following works but questioning it would mean questioning religion, culture and the very basis of our society. What is clear is that the more we pursue this way of life, the more we recognise a need to develop sustainably and the more we incorporate the ideas that the animist cultures already used millions of years ago. But that is a debate for another thread. The point here is just that you can't say the Africans were lazy or didn't work hard. They just had no need to build ships or guns and go off looking to conqeur people and get more land so they could have more food. Africans (and the same applies to the American Indians and many other cultures) had, for the most part, already learned to live in harmony with what they had.
( Last edited by Troll; Sep 29, 2004 at 08:46 AM. )
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 09:30 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Very funny how the thread turned out after I have claimed that the first-world (Europe and US) had a lucky jumpstart in contrast to the thirdworld.

Europe and US are very similar, the US is made up of ex-Europeans, so what the trouble? Europe had its colonies, the US had slavery, so what the trouble, it's not that different.

But if you want to talk about ww2, and the US-role regarding Germany, I can offer a new hint to this thread. The US was the main-motivator in rearming Germany after ww1, business was too important, and even after Hitler turned out to be a maniac dictator the US supported and financed him. Remember Hitler in Time-Magazine as man of the year?

Taliesin
Do you just sit around with your anti-american buddies and think of ways to blame the US for everything in the world? Get a grip, man - and look in your own back yard for once. But, considering you won't let anyone know where you live (which is quite suspect), I doubt you have the capacity to reason without hate.
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 09:32 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
odd how we keep getting "lucky" while other countries fail.

Either we're damned lucky or we're just good.
Ok, now I have to ask:

Earthquake hits Cali and disrupts commerce. As typical of a natural disaster, billions lost.

Was that failure or bad luck?

If it's failure, civilization's code says we need to punish the peron(s) responsibile for the failure to prevent it from taking place again.

I'd love to know who in your opinion should stand trial for the economic impacts of Hurricane Ivan. We can sue them for the billions that failure cost the US, and the states effected.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,