Originally posted by Thequ1ckHow many years has the war been going? Sadams record [600,000/24]
The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth.
=25,000/year. US forces and friends fixing the problem has cost the Iraqi's approximately (60,000/2.5) = 24,000/year. Oh plus [4,500,000/2.5]= 1.8 million a year made homeless. Hey not bad going there. And they were trying to fix the problem.
This is one of those with friends like these who needs enemies moments.
1 edit
According to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”
That is about 210,000 children each week, or just under 11 million children under five years of age, each year.
Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen.
source:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIs it fatalistic or knee jerk liberal to contend that some cant stand the thought of peace and would rather spend all the planets resources making guns and toys of war than tackle things like poverty. But that would be too hard. I mean for a start, the process of turning small nations into debtor nations of the IMF and world bank by the west, and then transforming them into modern economic 'miracles' that would distance themselves from their traditional ways and diversity, instead embracing modernization and staple crops that starts a steady decline that leads often prosperous most always self sufficient nations down a track of urbanization and the adoption of quasi market economies that eventually fail and when the staple gets shaky the people are usually unprepared to take care of themselves because they have divested themselves of their traditional pursuits due to the fact that they had to change their lifestyle to pay back a loan that they just had to have.
According to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”
That is about 210,000 children each week, or just under 11 million children ...[text shortened]... ar 2000 and yet it didn't happen.
source:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp
Apparently.
It doesn't just stink to high heaven, it stinks in hell as well.
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNo -- otherwise it would have. And another thing -- you're discounting the posibility that when the war is over, the Middle East might be transformed into a stable, functioning state able to stand alongside civilized nations instead of being the world's problem child. You're pie-in-the-sky utopianism is silly. We're fighting a war, what are you doing?
Given these statistics in addition to the millions of lives that could
have been saved by wiping out third world debt, could a better
solution have been reached?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo the only possibilities are those things that either have already happened or are presently happening? Have you seen nothing change because people have decided things a certain way were just not good enough anymore?
No -- otherwise it would have.
What you really seem to be saying is you cant change the way things are?
And you were advising me of a lack of what was it again??
Originally posted by kmax87Maybe a little fatalistic if you believe in democracy.
Is it fatalistic or knee jerk liberal to contend that some cant stand the thought of peace and would rather spend all the planets resources making guns and toys of war than tackle things like poverty. But that would be too hard. I mean for a start, the process of turning small nations into debtor nations of the IMF and world bank by the west, and then transf ...[text shortened]... to have.
Apparently.
It doesn't just stink to high heaven, it stinks in hell as well.
A game-theoretic explanation for the democratic peace is that the public and open debate in democracies send clear and reliable information regarding the intentions to other states. In contrast, it is difficult to know the intentions of nondemocratic leaders, what effect concessions will have, and if promises will be kept. Thus there will be mistrust and unwillingness to make concessions if at least one of the parties in a dispute is a nondemocracy.
If a game has a unique Nash equilibrium and is played among players with certain characteristics, then (by definition of these characteristics) the NE strategy set will be adopted. Sufficient conditions to be met by the players are:
1. The players all will do their utmost to maximize their expected payoff as described by the game.
2. The players are flawless in execution.
3. The players have sufficient intelligence to deduce the solution.
4. There is common knowledge that all players meet these conditions, including this one. So, not only must each player know the other players meet the conditions, but also they must know that they all know that they meet them, and know that they know that they know that they meet them, and so on.
2 edits
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSee points 2 and 3 of Nash's game requisites to find out which one of us is the utopian...
No -- otherwise it would have. And another thing -- you're discounting the posibility that when the war is over, the Middle East might be transformed into a stable, functioning state able to stand alongside civilized nations instead of being the world's problem child. You're pie-in-the-sky utopianism is silly. We're fighting a war, what are you doing?
And where does that leave Iran if a successful democracy is instituted in
Iraq? The one Islamic card shark at a table of friends, I wonder what
the outcome there will be...
Originally posted by Thequ1ckBut if they knew what you say they knew even though that meant that they knew that we knew that they knew that we knew that they knew that we knew that we were never going to allow them to know more than we wanted them to know and what that would do to our relationship when it became apparent that they began to understand and know that we were only waiting for them to know that and how if they then started to act as if that was their understanding all the time anyway would we admit to it and display some recognition of that knowledge that we knew at some time would become self evident that once you were in the know you knew and that was all there was to it.
See points 2 and 3 of Nash's game requisites to find out which one of us is the utopian...
And where does that leave Iran if a successful democracy is instituted in
Iraq? The one Islamic card shark at a table of friends, I wonder what
the outcome there will be...
Originally posted by kmax87LOL
But if they knew what you say they knew even though that meant that they knew that we knew that they knew that we knew that they knew that we knew that we were never going to allow them to know more than we wanted them to know and what that would do to our relationship when it became apparent that they began to understand and know that we were only waiting fo ...[text shortened]... ld become self evident that once you were in the know you knew and that was all there was to it.
Shh.. the soviets are listening.
I never liked Nash's work, it was all hamster thinking.
Interestingly enough he found that his theory didn't work on women.
Maybe it's because they know that we don't know and if we did know
it too late because they now know something else.