EPGAH
Posts: 500
Joined: 12/25/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy ...have those cultures failed? Was the US a failed culture when slave owning was legal, or was it a developing one? As to maintaining law and order when there are many starving, law and order is generally one of the first things to break down. As a world based on law and order is a good thing that has global consequences, it is one reason why it is in our own best interests to ensure that no-one in the world starves. Feed them there or feed them here......... Apparently it did fail, else it wouldn't have changed...Oddly, people who need to reduce labor WITHOUT turning to illegals introduce machines to do what the extra "workers" used to do...(Some even take the opposite approach and charge people MORE to do it for themselves...Think of that the next time you're pumping gas! ) As to feeding them, that might not be such a good idea, "Give a man a fish, you feed for a day, teach him how to fish, you feed him forever"...But to do that, we'd have to restructure their society to be more equal, which the people there who have grown rich off corruption and intercepting the chain of food to the poor people (And sometimes even telling the poor that it's America's fault they're starving!)...would GREATLY resent! Indeed, they'd consider it American "imperialism", and rather than just passively complain (Like our laws constrain us to do--anyone who attacks invaders in America is a vigilante--Heck, the Minutemen, who only WATCH are called vigilantes, when "voyeur" might be more accurate...I can understand the confusion, both words start with V), they'd actively ATTACK the Americans for trying to improve their country. And heaven defend us if we successfully invade and improve a country with our "imperialism"...For references, please look at the Native American Indians (Who enjoy tax-free status on land we already "conquered"), Hawaii (Now a State of the Union), Puerto Rico (A "State" that doesn't have to pay taxes...Would that be called a Welfare State? ), and/or Japan (We gave them the transistor and their law claimed all inventions stemming from it, which includes the Integrated Circuit, without which, Nintendo and the rest of their thriving computer-industry would have been impossible...But they never mention that, and indeed, still consider all non-Japanese "inferior" somehow...Isn't that institutionalized racism worse than our own? ) But if you keep feeding the enemy countries, it frees their leader-castes to pursue "other projects"--including military development (No more "guns or butter" choices, if America is supplying the food! Think of North Korea...)--without having to worry about feeding their peoples (Assuming that ever weighed on their minds to begin with! ) If you feed them, you're keeping them addicted to your aid, but if you cut that aid (after all, these are INDEPENDENT nations, just ask any of them!), then you're racist and/or isolationist, rather than being praised for giving the so-called "independent" nations a chance to see how they fare WITHOUT our aid...Would that qualify as addiction? If so, we're the enablers...If not, we're wasting a LOT of food and money on countries that see us as nothing but a food-supply...and while feeding animals is "wrong" and dangerous anyways, how much MORE dangerous is it to feed an enemy army? One that could easily turn on us, regardless of our continued support and feeding of them? Also, your last line, "Feed them there or feed them here", sounds a lot like Bush's "fight them there or fight them here", but whether that was intentional or not, it is quite disingenuous, since it's not a mutually-exclusive choice: America hasn't shown any willingness to cut off foreign aid from Mexico, El Salvador, or any other country that sends us their people against our will, so they get to reap BOTH: Our foreign-aid generosity abroad, AND steal from us in our own nation! If we did make them choose--or better yet, threaten to invade the evacuated areas--I bet the illegals would stop in hours...Think about it!
|