Thread: WW3???

pray tell why they not have much of a choice.?

WW3 has started..usa plans sustained war for generations.Russia might say too much and start the bigger war...usa is happy just trying to maintain the worth of their Dollar,which is pretty worthless.The usa is forcing the World to buy oil with american dollars,when Iraq decided differently,they were overthrown.

didn't the Chinese and Russians do something similar, jeez hope they not get overthrown.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

if it was they would take their war chest and wipe out world poverty

The west has no productive interest in maintaining a state of poverty for 3rd world nations. It serves no purpose. An economically barren neighbour is a drain on foreign aid and contributes nothing to the global economy. In the olden days we would just invade them and run their country for them as part of an empire. That is no longer considered a geo-politically acceptable approach to foreign affairs so until these countries reach a state of economic productivity and global market engagement they are nothing but worthless charity cases.

What reasons do you imagine the west would have in deliberately maintaining a state of poverty for a 3rd world nation?

Originally Posted by chassamui

Message for the OP.
Crepitas you seem to have made quite a few depressed or sad posts lately mate. Hope you are not too down in the dumps and suggest that your concerns should be measured by what you can actually do about it.
In most cases we can't do anything about the big stuff even if we wanted to. The best solution to these kind of issues is your favourite chill out tracks through the ear buds while you enjoy a two hour 4 handed oil massage.
The world always seems a better place to me after that.

5555 I gotta stop reading Al Jazeera methinks.....4 handed massage may well be a short term solution.....maybe would be better to just bin the frickin computer.

on topic..in reality I guess the world is already at war as against a world war ..just semantics...tis neverthess depressing

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by pseudolus

if it was they would take their war chest and wipe out world poverty

The west has no productive interest in maintaining a state of poverty for 3rd world nations. It serves no purpose. An economically barren neighbour is a drain on foreign aid and contributes nothing to the global economy. In the olden days we would just invade them and run their country for them as part of an empire. That is no longer considered a geo-politically acceptable approach to foreign affairs so until these countries reach a state of economic productivity and global market engagement they are nothing but worthless charity cases.

What reasons do you imagine the west would have in deliberately maintaining a state of poverty for a 3rd world nation?

I would imagine that while the governance of developed countries probably does not consciously maintain world poverty..it certainly happy to largely ignore it in their own self interest. ie how much of the world's consumption of food and products are produced by poverty stricken labour?

Plenty but from a purely capitalistic standpoint turning the poverty stricken into consumers is far more beneficial to the bottom line.

What a bunch of cobblers' ballbags.

So the reason we give aid money to 3rd world nations is so we can exploit it back from them? What a great idea

We give aid money to poor countries because we can afford it and they need it.

We also try to implement education and health programs in the hope that one day they can drag themselves up by the bootstraps and develop a functioning economy. If they develop a working economy then the net productivity of the planet is increased and the potential for wealth increasing international trade is increased. Only then does whitey get payback on his charity and social investment.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by pseudolus

if it was they would take their war chest and wipe out world poverty

The west has no productive interest in maintaining a state of poverty for 3rd world nations. It serves no purpose. An economically barren neighbour is a drain on foreign aid and contributes nothing to the global economy. In the olden days we would just invade them and run their country for them as part of an empire. That is no longer considered a geo-politically acceptable approach to foreign affairs so until these countries reach a state of economic productivity and global market engagement they are nothing but worthless charity cases.

What reasons do you imagine the west would have in deliberately maintaining a state of poverty for a 3rd world nation?

Who made your Nike's and what was their gross production cost...

Some truly exist in a comparative illusion as to how the world really works.

Amazing.

Originally Posted by Necron99

Who made your Nike's and what was their gross production cost...

I don't think using low paid workers in 3rd world countries to manufacture things is immoral. Salaries in these places are usually attractive compared to what is on offer elsewhere in that local economy.

It cuts both ways anyway. Call centre workers in Aussie are getting made redundant so Indians can have the same job on a tenth of the salary. Who is laughing about this? It's not the Aussies.

Originally Posted by Looper

The west has no productive interest in maintaining a state of poverty for 3rd world nations.

Originally Posted by Norton

Plenty but from a purely capitalistic standpoint turning the poverty stricken into consumers is far more beneficial to the bottom line.

Must be careful in replying to this.... bound to get deleted if one of these doesn't agree heh Norton?

Anyway no - they want what the countries have in the ground, without the hassle of the people living there. Africans? Test ebola on them etc a vast labratory where the little black faces do not matter. Cost way too much to increase their standard of life up to being a debt ridden consumer so they have no interest.

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by bsnub

The key fact you seem to miss is that both of these nations are Oligarchies just like the US yet you seem to turn a blind eye to their crimes.

Snub you almost get it, and yet you don't.



You grumble about Crimea (where the population wanted to be part of Russia) and forget to think about the blatant wars started by the US, and regime changes in recent times. I guess as a merkin you are basically pleased about the US taking over the world.

US troops in China and Russia?
Really?

Or do Marine embassy Guards count as "troops".

map made in USA, they aren't especially good at geography

Originally Posted by pseudolus

they want what the countries have in the ground, without the hassle of the people living there

The idea that all wars and conflict are actually about resources is the most tired and clapped out old red herring in the book.

Did you know there was a learned professor who convinced large numbers of people that the Vietnam war was actually about tungsten reserves and not communism and they lapped it up

You don't need to go to war or subjugate your neigbbour to get their natural resources anymore. That was the economic model in the age of empires which has been over for some time. Nowadays you can...... BUY it from them!! what a novel idea.... international trade!! Then they have money and can buy your products. It is called economic activity and benefits all parties involved.