Why IYO are Western Europe and the USA the only humane countries?

CorkMan

With the riots in UK ATM, people are fretting about the possibility about rubber bullets being used. Yet in Syria the government uses live ammunition on it's people and tanks without blinking an eye, with issues far more worse than the UK.

In Africa you have Mugabe, in recent history Idi Amin, Sese Mobutu, Gaddafi, etc. In Asia Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Anywhere in the American continent south of the US is pretty bad, ie Mexico, Brazil and the Honduras. Corrupt government and officials.

Now I know there are other countries similar to us like Japan and Hong Kong, but still. Why do you the US and Western Europe is at it is, and the other countries are as they are? Kind to their citizens and non-repressant and giving them much hope, not crushing them if they want some rights. Is their a historical precedent for the government being what they are ATM.

Corsendonk

CorkMan wrote: »

With the riots in UK ATM, people are fretting about the possibility about rubber bullets being used. Yet in Syria the government uses live ammunition on it's people and tanks without blinking an eye, with issues far more worse than the UK.

In Africa you have Mugabe, in recent history Idi Amin, Sese Mobutu, Gaddafi, etc. In Asia Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Anywhere in the American continent south of the US is pretty bad, ie Mexico, Brazil and the Honduras. Corrupt government and officials.

Now I know there are other countries similar to us like Japan and Hong Kong, but still. Why do you the US and Western Europe is at it is, and the other countries are as they are? Kind to their citizens and non-repressant and giving them much hope, not crushing them if they want some rights. Is their a historical precedent for the government being what they are ATM.

I would be pretty insulted by your post if I came from Central or South America. Most of those corrupt governments were created by the US during the Cold War. While some are still corrupt other South America countries have made great improvements.


Corruption Perceptions Index

Selection of World Corruption Index Rankings
14 Ireland
20 UK
21 Chile
22 Belgium
22 USA
24 Uruguay
25 France
30 Spain
32 Portugal
33 Puerto Rico
37 Malta
41 Costa Rica
67 Italy
69 Brazil
78 Greece
78 Peru
78 Colombia

CorkMan

CorkMan wrote: »

With the riots in UK ATM, people are fretting about the possibility about rubber bullets being used. Yet in Syria the government uses live ammunition on it's people and tanks without blinking an eye, with issues far more worse than the UK.

In Africa you have Mugabe, in recent history Idi Amin, Sese Mobutu, Gaddafi, etc. In Asia Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Anywhere in the American continent south of the US is pretty bad, ie Mexico, Brazil and the Honduras. Corrupt government and officials.

You might want to update your corrupt leaders index... I live in China, and I haven't seen these terrible conditions which you claim to be common. Sure, there are problems and the chinese government does indeed send in the military/police to supress the public in these areas, but china is changing rather quickly, and mostly for the better. I can't say the same for quite a number of civilised countries in Europe..

Frankly, I think you're just being rather selective in what you want to see.

Now I know there are other countries similar to us like Japan and Hong Kong, but still. Why do you the US and Western Europe is at it is, and the other countries are as they are? Kind to their citizens and non-repressant and giving them much hope, not crushing them if they want some rights. Is their a historical precedent for the government being what they are ATM.

Hong Kong is China. So I'm wondering what it is that you know. Have you been to any of these places? And America? The government with the laws it brought in after Sept 11 have as much ability to control/imprison its own citizens as any of the dodgy African countries, and hell, its legal. Wonderful.

The world is not a perfect place. And there are no perfect countries. There are downsides everywhere. And frankly this idea that Europe (Do we discount corruption in Italy, Spain, Ireland etc when we talk about Europe?) and the US are sources of positive influence is just pathetic propaganda. Both the US and individual countries in Europe have their pluses, but then so too do many other countries.

Manach

Whilst I could mention in passing the Judeo-Christian tradition of respect for human rights, this would only be a partial response. The countries that the OP mentions have at times acted with legal brutality to stifle dissent in times of war and peace. For instance in the US the crackdown on WWI veterans during their Depression era protests or in the UK in the infamous Peterloo massacre or the crackdowns during the Miner's strike.
Saying that, offhand from a recent Foreign Affairs magazine article, China has its own issues in suppressing the Muslim borderlands.

CorkMan

Deleted User wrote: »

You might want to update your corrupt leaders index... I live in China, and I haven't seen these terrible conditions which you claim to be common. Sure, there are problems and the chinese government does indeed send in the military/police to supress the public in these areas, but china is changing rather quickly, and mostly for the better. I can't say the same for quite a number of civilised countries in Europe..

Frankly, I think you're just being rather selective in what you want to see.

I did not say Mao or Pol Pot are there now, Mao died in the 1970s, and Pol Pot recently.

Hong Kong is China. So I'm wondering what it is that you know. Have you been to any of these places? And America? The government with the laws it brought in after Sept 11 have as much ability to control/imprison its own citizens as any of the dodgy African countries, and hell, its legal. Wonderful.

Hong Kong isn't on mainland China, in the 1940s and 50's Chinese people who were affected the famine fled to Hong Kong, which shows it was a separate autonomy. It is a special administrative region ATM. It was very different from mainland China in the middle of the 20th century.

The world is not a perfect place. And there are no perfect countries. There are downsides everywhere. And frankly this idea that Europe (Do we discount corruption in Italy, Spain, Ireland etc when we talk about Europe?) and the US are sources of positive influence is just pathetic propaganda. Both the US and individual countries in Europe have their pluses, but then so too do many other countries.

So you can compare countries like Syria and Saudi Arabia to the US and Western Europe? You can't, IMO. As we know cos of the last few days, the UK wouldn't sent its armies out to kill people in the masses, and the US wouldn't sent it's troops (lets use a local example) to help a Dictator put down it's own people. (Before you mention, Afghanistan and Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a dictator who gassed thousands and the Taliban were a brutal regime) Also the corruption in the countries you mentioned is very small compared to other countries, Nigeria, Colombia, Burma, etc. Some countries in middle Africa barely have what you term a government, just some very rich leader who has people on his land.


@Corsendonk: You can't help but notice to widescale poverty that exists in Latin America. In Brazil 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth.

Corsendonk

CorkMan wrote: »

So you can compare countries like Syria and Saudi Arabia to the US and Western Europe? You can't, IMO. As we know cos of the last few days, the UK wouldn't sent its armies out to kill people in the masses, and the US wouldn't sent it's troops (lets use a local example) to help a Dictator put down it's own people. (Before you mention, Afghanistan and Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a dictator who gassed thousands and the Taliban were a brutal regime) Also the corruption in the countries you mentioned is very small compared to other countries, Nigeria, Colombia, Burma, etc. Some countries in middle Africa barely have what you term a government, just some very rich leader who has people on his land.

Do not the majority of humane countries you mention not support these dictator countries with military aid and military training? Also one of the humane states the USA has exectued 1264 of its citizens since 1976.

looksee

Manach wrote: »

Whilst I could mention in passing the Judeo-Christian tradition of respect for human rights, this would only be a partial response. The countries that the OP mentions have at times acted with legal brutality to stifle dissent in times of war and peace. For instance in the US the crackdown on WWI veterans during their Depression era protests or in the UK in the infamous Peterloo massacre or the crackdowns during the Miner's strike.
Saying that, offhand from a recent Foreign Affairs magazine article, China has its own issues in suppressing the Muslim borderlands.

Bit difficult to see how you put Jew and Christian in the same sentence there, given the historical attitude of Christians to Jews. And looking back on history its a bit creative to link Christian with human rights for most of the last 2000 years.

amacachi

OP if you're genuinely asking that question then the answer lies in years and years of geopolitics with Europe and the USA pulling the strings in many resource-rich countries that had no effective system of government when The West came across their resources.

CorkMan

amacachi wrote: »

OP if you're genuinely asking that question then the answer lies in years and years of geopolitics with Europe and the USA pulling the strings in many resource-rich countries that had no effective system of government when The West came across their resources.

Can you elaborate further please.

annascott

I think New Zealand works quite well. Great standard of living etc (Wellington and most of North Island, anyway) pity about the earthquakes but as far as I know, no rioting...

maninasia

Deleted User wrote: »

You might want to update your corrupt leaders index... I live in China, and I haven't seen these terrible conditions which you claim to be common. Sure, there are problems and the chinese government does indeed send in the military/police to supress the public in these areas, but china is changing rather quickly, and mostly for the better. I can't say the same for quite a number of civilised countries in Europe..

Frankly, I think you're just being rather selective in what you want to see.



Hong Kong is China. So I'm wondering what it is that you know. Have you been to any of these places? And America? The government with the laws it brought in after Sept 11 have as much ability to control/imprison its own citizens as any of the dodgy African countries, and hell, its legal. Wonderful.

The world is not a perfect place. And there are no perfect countries. There are downsides everywhere. And frankly this idea that Europe (Do we discount corruption in Italy, Spain, Ireland etc when we talk about Europe?) and the US are sources of positive influence is just pathetic propaganda. Both the US and individual countries in Europe have their pluses, but then so too do many other countries.

I also travel to China frequently, it is indeed changing and improving BUT there are terrible injustices and human rights infringements there that cannot be compared to Western countries in any form.
Many foreigners who live in China tend to downplay it as a reaction to unfair outside criticism but they go too far the other way.

maninasia

amacachi wrote: »

OP if you're genuinely asking that question then the answer lies in years and years of geopolitics with Europe and the USA pulling the strings in many resource-rich countries that had no effective system of government when The West came across their resources.

That's a really old and tired argument, just compare Asia to North Africa and the Middle East. Asia had just as much interference and is improving it's lot at an immense pace with fairly robust democratic regimes a majority in the region. Then look at the other two areas.

CorkMan

CorkMan wrote: »

I did not say Mao or Pol Pot are there now, Mao died in the 1970s, and Pol Pot recently.

You said recent history... although it doesn't really matter. You highlighted China. So.... what are you saying?

I'm curious.. have you lived in any of these terrible countries?

Hong Kong isn't on mainland China, in the 1940s and 50's Chinese people who were affected the famine fled to Hong Kong, which shows it was a separate autonomy. It is a special administrative region ATM. It was very different from mainland China in the middle of the 20th century.

But it is part of China now. It doesn't matter what it was like 30 or 30 years ago. What is it like now? Do you know? Whilst the Chinese government have decided to operate different in HK compared to the rest of China, the same laws apply. I have lived in HK previously, and go there a few times a year now.

can compare countries like Syria and Saudi Arabia to the US and Western Europe? You can't, IMO.

Nope. I never did. I can compare the US to Russia, China, or a dozen of developing countries with some sympathy in their developing cultures towards western ideals. I can't compare them to Syria simply because Syria is completely and utterly different. But then considering the context of your post, you don't really understand the differences in Eastern and Western cultures. You seek to compare an orange with a car.

As we know cos of the last few days, the UK wouldn't sent its armies out to kill people in the masses, and the US wouldn't sent it's troops (lets use a local example) to help a Dictator put down it's own people. (Before you mention, Afghanistan and Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a dictator who gassed thousands and the Taliban were a brutal regime)

Well, lets see. You mention the US, and Iraq/Afghanistan. The US for decades supported Saddam in maintaining his powerbase. They did the same in Afghanistan with the aim of reducing Soviet influence in the region. As for sending in troops, perhaps have a look at the "Bay of Pigs". I can name dozens of regimes (of dubious natures) which the US has supported in various ways simply to maintain a certain status quo (favorable to the US).

Also the corruption in the countries you mentioned is very small compared to other countries, Nigeria, Colombia, Burma, etc. Some countries in middle Africa barely have what you term a government, just some very rich leader who has people on his land.

You honestly think the corruption in Italy is small when it reaches through every strata of society including its government? What about Ireland with the mismanagement of the country's economy and the backhanders that friendly corporations/real estate/construction companies received throughout the boom years, and no heads have rolled... It seems we have very difference ideas of what corruption entails.

maninasia

maninasia wrote: »

I also travel to China frequently, it is indeed changing and improving BUT there are terrible injustices and human rights infringements there that cannot be compared to Western countries in any form.

Of course there are... but you can't expect China to suddenly become western immediately especially whilst they maintain their current government. There is a habit when talking about the "west" as if all western countries became enlightened at the same time... and yet, the truth is far different.

As for being unable to compare, there are difficulties because of the sheer size of China and its inherent culture. These cannot be understated. The US is probably the closest in size, but is seriously lower in population. But we can compare certain aspects of human rights considering the US's recent use of guantanamo bay, the some UK soldiers employing torture, etc etc. Hell, we can go as far back as Vietnam for many comparisons since some examples of Chinese brutality are from similar timelines.

Many foreigners who live in China tend to downplay it as a reaction to unfair outside criticism but they go too far the other way.

Actually I find the opposite. They see Chinas infrastructure developing so fast and expect China to develop in every area just as fast. I acknowledge China's behavior. Its hard to ignore work camps with such a high mortality rate or the imprisonment of just about anyone that disagrees with the government. But I also can acknowledge that western countries are not as perfect as they want to promote.

CorkMan

Deleted User wrote: »

You said recent history... although it doesn't really matter. You highlighted China. So.... what are you saying?

Well I mentioned China in along with a list of different countries, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Uganda etc. I'm saying, why don't these countries treat their people properly. A more broad term would be why don't they have democracies, but that is not the exact term I am looking for.

I'm curious.. have you lived in any of these terrible countries?

No, I have not lived in any of them. I would like to visit some of them, especially China. Though I feel as a white western tourist visiting for a month or two I wouldn't know what it's like to live there full time as an Asian Chinese citizen.

But it is part of China now. It doesn't matter what it was like 30 or 30 years ago. What is it like now? Do you know? Whilst the Chinese government have decided to operate different in HK compared to the rest of China, the same laws apply. I have lived in HK previously, and go there a few times a year now.

But Hong Kong is treated different to mainland China. "The Great Firewall Of China" is not implemented in Hong Kong, so you can have visit any website. You know that the Chinese riot police wouldn't use internationally condemned attacks in central Kowloon (in Hong Kong) in front of the international media. Hong Kong IS treated differently from mainland China.

Nope. I never did. I can compare the US to Russia, China, or a dozen of developing countries with some sympathy in their developing cultures towards western ideals. I can't compare them to Syria simply because Syria is completely and utterly different. But then considering the context of your post, you don't really understand the differences in Eastern and Western cultures. You seek to compare an orange with a car.

I made the Syria point in due to the fact you said that in a post that every other country has it's own minuses and pluses, and seeing as Syria is a country I included Syria.

Well, lets see. You mention the US, and Iraq/Afghanistan. The US for decades supported Saddam in maintaining his powerbase. They did the same in Afghanistan with the aim of reducing Soviet influence in the region. As for sending in troops, perhaps have a look at the "Bay of Pigs". I can name dozens of regimes (of dubious natures) which the US has supported in various ways simply to maintain a certain status quo (favorable to the US).

I made a reference to when the US removed Saddam Hussein for power, at that time. I made this comparison by saying the US wouldn't send its troops to help a Dictator repress it's own people. With the Bay of Pigs Fidel Castro was in power at the time, was he a dictator? You say you can name dozens of regimes that US has supported to main a certain status quo. Can you name some here please.

BTW, I do recognize that Fulgencio Batista was a dictator before hand and the US supported him.

You honestly think the corruption in Italy is small when it reaches through every strata of society including its government? What about Ireland with the mismanagement of the country's economy and the backhanders that friendly corporations/real estate/construction companies received throughout the boom years, and no heads have rolled... It seems we have very difference ideas of what corruption entails.

I do agree, corruption is present in the countries you mentioned. But corruptions in the countries I mentioned in the OP I leaders not winning elections but still getting in power and maybe their opponent killed. People not getting food. (ie Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines) I do agree that there is corruption in Western Society, but not compared to the corruption of other countries. No one in Ireland or Italy will starve to death.

maninasia

I think for the majority in China things are going pretty well at least compared to before. It's being in the minority that is the problem, whether that minority is an ethnic minority or a political party or a religious grouping, they are just not given freedom.
Western countries treat their minorities better and respect differences of religion and political persuasion (to various degrees).

As Klaz said, we can't make direct comparisons between different countries without understanding their size and level of economic development along with the history and complexity of the races and groups living there. I mean one could say that India is a vibrant democracy that respects individual freedoms. Yes in general that is true but they also operate the world's biggest class system and poverty often ends up limiting people's freedoms and life choices as much as any authoritarian government. Interestingly the democratic Indian government blocked economic development for decades under their own version of a socialist system and there are probably more dedicated communists in India today than China! The % of illiterate people in India is something like 5X that of China!

China on the other hand gives relatively equal (good and bad) treatment to it's citizens (although one might say being an unregistered migrant and from the countryside is another class system).

Basically it's not black and white and you need to visit and live in these countries and study their history to even start to get an idea about them.

Overall like Klaz I'm hopeful that many non Western countries will have more respect for human rights, that's the broad trend.

charlemont

A good grasp of history from the last few hundred years should show you why the world is the way it is. Its not a race thing as look at Japan. Its a lot to do with colonisation and the sweeping aside of local cultures and their ways of life that benefited themselves to be replaced with economic systems that benefited their masters.

Poorer places will always be harsher places to live. They need to be harsher to keep people in their place to prevent a breakdown of society.

CorkMan

CorkMan wrote: »

Well I mentioned China in along with a list of different countries, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Uganda etc. I'm saying, why don't these countries treat their people properly. A more broad term would be why don't they have democracies, but that is not the exact term I am looking for.

You suggested that it was impossible to lump the US in with many less tolerant countries and here you are doing the same with China. Most Chinese people lead very good lives far removed from the actions of their government. It is only a minority that ends up being mistreated. Although I suppose the numbers involved are quite high if you compare with a western nation, but then China's population is huge.

As for democracy... its not really that effective as a form of freedom. After living in China for two years I can't really see how my voting (for whatever party in Ireland) gave me more involvement in the running of my country than the Chinese people who have no say whatsoever.

No, I have not lived in any of them. I would like to visit some of them, especially China. Though I feel as a white western tourist visiting for a month or two I wouldn't know what it's like to live there full time as an Asian Chinese citizen.

Bingo. I'm entering my third year living in China, and I'm still very much on the outside of things. Still its interesting what people will say to a foreigner.

But Hong Kong is treated different to mainland China. "The Great Firewall Of China" is not implemented in Hong Kong, so you can have visit any website. You know that the Chinese riot police wouldn't use internationally condemned attacks in central Kowloon (in Hong Kong) in front of the international media. Hong Kong IS treated differently from mainland China.

The firewall of China isn't that much of a problem unless you use internet cafes. Most foreigners get a VPN (I think thats it) and have unrestricted access. I haven't bothered since I use the internet cafes. The only issue is being unable to see facebook. Which isn't much of a loss tbh.

HK will be treated by the Chinese government as it sees fit to do. If the Chinese government decide an example is needed they'll go ahead and do so.

Let me put it this way. I live in Xi'an, a city of 8-10 mill people and a growing hub for international business/industry. I have never seen any of these "internationally condemned attacks" you seem to believe so common.

I made the Syria point in due to the fact you said that in a post that every other country has it's own minuses and pluses, and seeing as Syria is a country I included Syria.

Except that Syria has a culture, religion and history far removed from the country being compared to it. When talking about this subject perhaps compare relevant cultures?

I made a reference to when the US removed Saddam Hussein for power, at that time. I made this comparison by saying the US wouldn't send its troops to help a Dictator repress it's own people. With the Bay of Pigs Fidel Castro was in power at the time, was he a dictator? You say you can name dozens of regimes that US has supported to main a certain status quo. Can you name some here please.

I don't really need to. Lets stick with Cuba. The Bay of Pigs intended to replace the government (Castro) with one that was pro-US/pro-western. While Castro was a dictator... he held a vast amount of support from the population of Cuba. Whereas the people the US wanted to bring in were from the old days where the common person was abused.

That is a prime example of putting US interests above the wishes of the general population of the target country.

BTW, I do recognize that Fulgencio Batista was a dictator before hand and the US supported him.

You recognize it and shrug it off.... Castro held the support of the people and continued to do so for many many years. The previous government held only the support of the business people, induustrialists etc.

I do agree, corruption is present in the countries you mentioned. But corruptions in the countries I mentioned in the OP I leaders not winning elections but still getting in power and maybe their opponent killed. People not getting food. (ie Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines) I do agree that there is corruption in Western Society, but not compared to the corruption of other countries.

TBH i think you're arguing semantics. Corruption is corruption. In Italy the mafia blackmails or bribes politicians into operating certain ways.. what happens if a politician refuses? Perhaps you should do some google searches on the Italian mafia and what they have done to police & journalists that refused to not investigate them...

Lastly, the sheer amount of money wasted br successive Irish governments in looking after their "friends" could have been better spent to either improve the lot of poorer people, or prevent more terminal situations.

I really do think you're being highly selective in applying standards depending on whether they're "western" or not.

No one in Ireland or Italy will starve to death.

Err, you are completely and utterly wrong there. People continue to do so.

CorkMan

Deleted User wrote: »

You suggested that it was impossible to lump the US in with many less tolerant countries and here you are doing the same with China. Most Chinese people lead very good lives far removed from the actions of their government. It is only a minority that ends up being mistreated. Although I suppose the numbers involved are quite high if you compare with a western nation, but then China's population is huge.

I'm going by what I read in the media. About when revolutions were taking part in the middle east earlier in the year and about how the Chinese government mobilized units. I don't know how big or bad the situations is exactly, because I have not been there. But what I have read about is the type of stuff you don't see in the USA/Western Europe.

As for democracy... its not really that effective as a form of freedom. After living in China for two years I can't really see how my voting (for whatever party in Ireland) gave me more involvement in the running of my country than the Chinese people who have no say whatsoever.

While I agree with you that the situation in Ireland is messed up, the standards of living are still very high. Unlike most others parts of the world, everyone has electricity, clean water, a constant supply of food, all these essential amenities all the time. The government made a huge **** up, but people leaving the country to work want more than what they currently have. But Ireland still is very good in providing basic amenities.

Bingo. I'm entering my third year living in China, and I'm still very much on the outside of things. Still its interesting what people will say to a foreigner.

OK, but I am going by what the I read in the media. I doubt very much the media will make these things up.

The firewall of China isn't that much of a problem unless you use internet cafes. Most foreigners get a VPN (I think thats it) and have unrestricted access. I haven't bothered since I use the internet cafes. The only issue is being unable to see facebook. Which isn't much of a loss tbh.

HK will be treated by the Chinese government as it sees fit to do. If the Chinese government decide an example is needed they'll go ahead and do so.

Let me put it this way. I live in Xi'an, a city of 8-10 mill people and a growing hub for international business/industry. I have never seen any of these "internationally condemned attacks" you seem to believe so common.

I just used the Firewall as an example of the way the government of The People's Republic of China is getting involved in Hong Kong matters, in the way the firewall is not limited as much as mainland China. Obviously the internet is a luxury, and is not a basic human right. But what do you mean in your bolded/italic letters "as it sees fit to do"? Do you mean they can beat up people at a faint criticism of the government? Or send people to labour camps as they see fit?

BTW, I did not say the attacks were common, I just said that they occur.

Except that Syria has a culture, religion and history far removed from the country being compared to it. When talking about this subject perhaps compare relevant cultures?

What do you mean Syria has a culture, religion and history far removed from the country being compared to it? The government is not representative of the history of Syria as a whole??

I don't really need to. Lets stick with Cuba. The Bay of Pigs intended to replace the government (Castro) with one that was pro-US/pro-western. While Castro was a dictator... he held a vast amount of support from the population of Cuba. Whereas the people the US wanted to bring in were from the old days where the common person was abused.

Well JFK was in charge of the US at the time, i'm sure he wouldn't want people to be killed and tortured. Are you sure JFK would have knows what Batista did?

That is a prime example of putting US interests above the wishes of the general population of the target country.

How do you know the US would have supported a dictator killing loads of people?

You recognize it and shrug it off.... Castro held the support of the people and continued to do so for many many years. The previous government held only the support of the business people, induustrialists etc.

I suppose that is the way Batista built it.

TBH i think you're arguing semantics. Corruption is corruption. In Italy the mafia blackmails or bribes politicians into operating certain ways.. what happens if a politician refuses? Perhaps you should do some google searches on the Italian mafia and what they have done to police & journalists that refused to not investigate them...

Lastly, the sheer amount of money wasted br successive Irish governments in looking after their "friends" could have been better spent to either improve the lot of poorer people, or prevent more terminal situations.

I really do think you're being highly selective in applying standards depending on whether they're "western" or not.

No i'm not, people aren't being shot dead for speaking a word against their government, they are giving a trial if they commit a crime, and the vast majority get to eat often.

Err, you are completely and utterly wrong there. People continue to do so.

I know some people are starving because they are struggling to pay of their mortgages (even though the dole here would easily pay for your food, mortgage is surplus to basic rights) but do you have any links of people dying from starvation in Ireland or Italy?

maninasia

charlemont wrote: »

A good grasp of history from the last few hundred years should show you why the world is the way it is. Its not a race thing as look at Japan. Its a lot to do with colonisation and the sweeping aside of local cultures and their ways of life that benefited themselves to be replaced with economic systems that benefited their masters.

Poorer places will always be harsher places to live. They need to be harsher to keep people in their place to prevent a breakdown of society.

Get off the 'colonisation' argument already. I've already showed how Asian countries left that behind a long time ago.
There are massive gaps in this argument. For instance China self destructed in the 19th and 20th century as it refused to move with the times. It's interesting that the biggest colonizer of China was JAPAN not any Western country, Japan saw a chance to expand it's territory and took it, pretty simple really. As an interesting aside Taiwan and Korea were also colonized by Japan, they both benefited tremendously from Japanese development policies (brutal as the Japanese were) and when they became independent after WWII and various civil war issues they grew to be the great successes they are today. Colonisation was no hindrance to them and possibly a help in certain ways.

India was left with a great infrastructure and functioning civil system by the British..but they turned towards a disastrous socialist system that even stopped their own citizens doing business with the outside world for decades.
Japan succeeded not because they were in Japan or that they were never occupied (and they WERE occupied by the Americans remember?), but because the Japanese people have a mentality that leads to success.

As for being harsher, I'm not sure I really buy that argument, only in the sense that they are very corrupt and lack of civil systems and education means elections can be easily rigged so sometimes a 'benign dictatorship' can be the best of the bad options.

CorkMan

Had a longer reply but lost it. Shorter version.

CorkMan wrote: »

I'm going by what I read in the media. About when revolutions were taking part in the middle east earlier in the year and about how the Chinese government mobilized units. I don't know how big or bad the situations is exactly, because I have not been there. But what I have read about is the type of stuff you don't see in the USA/Western Europe.

Well, the media isn't exactly impartial. They look to make money as much as anyone else and choose what to highlight and what to ignore. Considering the focus on democracy in the middle east, it was natural to place scrutiny on China. Since the Chinese government restricted the movements of the Media in BJ, they haven't exactly painted a favorable light on the situation.

But I can honestly say that I have not seen any military units or heavy duty police units in the whole time I have been coming to China (2 years living and another 3 years travelling) except on parade days.

While I agree with you that the situation in Ireland is messed up, the standards of living are still very high. Unlike most others parts of the world, everyone has electricity, clean water, a constant supply of food, all these essential amenities all the time. The government made a huge **** up, but people leaving the country to work want more than what they currently have. But Ireland still is very good in providing basic amenities.

You talk as if these things cant be found in other countries. Funnily enough China provides a better basic coverage than Ireland despite the massive population of the country. And lets be honest here... in Ireland you still have to pay. If you cant pay, you don't get electricity, water etc.

OK, but I am going by what the I read in the media. I doubt very much the media will make these things up.

Nope. I agree not make things up but put their own spin on things? Hell yes. The foundation of marketing. Highlighting the areas that gathers the most of an audience.

I just used the Firewall as an example of the way the government of The People's Republic of China is getting involved in Hong Kong matters, in the way the firewall is not limited as much as mainland China. Obviously the internet is a luxury, and is not a basic human right. But what do you mean in your bolded/italic letters "as it sees fit to do"? Do you mean they can beat up people at a faint criticism of the government? Or send people to labour camps as they see fit?

Of course they will. Who can stop them? After all they learned an important lesson with Guantanamo Bay... if the leader of the free world can kidnap, imprison, and torture people then so too can they. Might is right.

BTW, I did not say the attacks were common, I just said that they occur.

I could point out that attacks "happen" in many countries... but lets just ask which attacks are you referring to?

What do you mean Syria has a culture, religion and history far removed from the country being compared to it? The government is not representative of the history of Syria as a whole??

Do you really believe that you can compare a western nation with an eastern nation (as long as culture and religion are part of the equation)?

Well JFK was in charge of the US at the time, i'm sure he wouldn't want people to be killed and tortured. Are you sure JFK would have knows what Batista did?

Do you know for a fact that JFK never authorised the killings of people while president? What makes JFK better than other presidents?

How do you know the US would have supported a dictator killing loads of people?

I could point out they supported Stalin during WW2... but lets just stick with what I actually said... i.e. that the US puts its own interest above those of the population of the target country.

Seriously. Read up on the conditions of the local population prior to Castro siezing power...

I suppose that is the way Batista built it.

No. It was a traditional government. Castro just changed a system in use for centuries.

No i'm not, people aren't being shot dead for speaking a word against their government, they are giving a trial if they commit a crime, and the vast majority get to eat often.

Where are you getting your info from? Articles from the 70's?

I'm a University lecturer in a University in Xi'an. There are roughly 60 universities here, with a total of about 2.5mill students. I regularly hold debates which involve the other universities. They send students, teachers and government officials. Many of the debates end up criticising the government directly... and nobody has been shot or made to disappear.

Some people have been arrested as a result of opposition of the government.. thats obvious. But then China is not a democracy with freedom of speech. Everyone knows what will happen if you don't play ball. And the vast majority of the population have no interest in rocking the boat as long as their lives are not changed negatively. In fact, its amazing the scorn that the people arrested receive from common people. Know why? Because they seek change against the wishes of the majority...

AS for Trial, there is a Peoples court where anyone arrested and processed will have a trial. Whether its fair or not, I don't know.

Lastly.. when you have a country with a population of 5 million its relatively easy to ensure people can eat... when you have a massive territory with 1.3 Billion it gets more complicated. (Its interesting that traditionally China had regular famines every decade or so.. they haven't had one in quite some time. The Government has invested billions in building a dam to prevent flooding, and ensures a better distribution of food throughout the country. But thats not really news..)

I know some people are starving because they are struggling to pay of their mortgages (even though the dole here would easily pay for your food, mortgage is surplus to basic rights) but do you have any links of people dying from starvation in Ireland or Italy?

Have you ever had a look at the homeless situation in Ireland? I'm not going to go looking for links for you because you do need to start doing some decent research before posting here. Try looking at something other than just RTE.

maninasia

maninasia wrote: »

As for being harsher, I'm not sure I really buy that argument, only in the sense that they are very corrupt and lack of civil systems and education means elections can be easily rigged so sometimes a 'benign dictatorship' can be the best of the bad options.

I would point out that China has essentially had to rebuild itself since WW2. The Civil war, the invasion by Japan, and subsequently mismanagement by communist governments ensured that many older cultures (corruption, bad planning etc) were retained. TBH I'm amazed at how quickly China has changed in the last 20 years. Consider that only two decades ago people could only wear clothes with approved colors, to look on China now boggles the mind.

I do part time business work with a legal compliance firm bringing in regulation of companies, and its interesting how quickly things have changed in two years. Give China another 10 years and it'll be completely different. Will it be a democracy though? I seriously doubt it. Most Chinese I know don't want one. But having personal freedoms... they've already received many and will get many more in the near future.

maninasia

I think we need to balance out the image of China that they present in public. I have visited China numerous times and at certain sensitive periods the whole place just locks down. The authorities allow some criticism but if they think you are influential or organised they will try to crush you. This is something the Chinese need to fix themselves, there are many educated smart people there but what use is that if you can't speak your mind or follow your own religion beliefs etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/world/asia/13artist.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo

maninasia

Klaz...you have some errors in your perception of China. There is almost no social welfare system in China, if you can't pay for water/electricity you are certainly not guaranteed it. Who gets cut off in Ireland, you can just apply to social welfare if you can't pay. There is no proper public health system there either, if you get sick and can't pay for drugs or surgery you are in really big trouble. As for public pension, it doesn't really exist, care for the family is by the family. There's no comparison between Ireland and China.

They don't have famines anymore and things have improved greatly but there are still 100s of millions below the povety line in the countryside there that get almost no help from the government.

charlemont

maninasia wrote: »

Get off the 'colonisation' argument already. I've already showed how Asian countries left that behind a long time ago.
There are massive gaps in this argument. For instance China self destructed in the 19th and 20th century as it refused to move with the times. It's interesting that the biggest colonizer of China was JAPAN not any Western ,country, Japan saw a chance to expand it's territory and took it, pretty simple really. As an interesting aside Taiwan and Korea were also colonized by Japan, they both benefited tremendously from Japanese development policies (brutal as the Japanese were) and when they became independent after WWII and various civil war issues they grew to be the great successes they are today. Colonisation was no hindrance to them and possibly a help in certain ways.

India was left with a great infrastructure and functioning civil system by the British..but they turned towards a disastrous socialist system that even stopped their own citizens doing business with the outside world for decades.
Japan succeeded not because they were in Japan or that they were never occupied (and they WERE occupied by the Americans remember?), but because the Japanese people have a mentality that leads to success.

As for being harsher, I'm not sure I really buy that argument, only in the sense that they are very corrupt and lack of civil systems and education means elections can be easily rigged so sometimes a 'benign dictatorship' can be the best of the bad options.

Yea I was rambling a bit with that post, I agree with what your saying. I know China wasn't colonised by the west but I wonder do outlining areas of China feel colonised by the Han ? Im sure some do as in Xinjiang and Im aware of the Tibetan issues but I reckon if China had democracy like in Ireland the political parties could line up on race etc and it could end up like yugoslavia.

maninasia

It's my impression that Xinjiang and Tibet do feel colonised although I'll admit I've never visited those places, the amount of migration there has been very substantial. It's more a problem of not allowing enough autonomy, if the authorities would allow them some leeway to govern their own affairs that would be a lot better.

I think the CCP is not only afraid of them trying to split off, rather they are afraid that a local government/political party would show them up and that this spirit of independence would rub off on the citizens and provinces at large.

I don't see a Yugoslavia type situation developing there, Yugoslavia was a country with no real cultural or historical gel.

maninasia

maninasia wrote: »

I think we need to balance out the image of China that they present in public. I have visited China numerous times and at certain sensitive periods the whole place just locks down. The authorities allow some criticism but if they think you are influential or organised they will try to crush you. This is something the Chinese need to fix themselves, there are many educated smart people there but what use is that if you can't speak your mind or follow your own religion beliefs etc.

There is speaking your mind and there is disturbing a balance. As I said previously, China is not a democracy and there is no hint of it becoming one any time in the near future. And frankly from those Chinese I know, they don't want to be one. Their culture and mindset is that they don't need it.

As for speaking their own minds, you're not talking about being able to speak their minds in a normal fashion. You're talking about extreme criticism of the government, or essentially talking against the existing situation. And TBH I haven't yet met a chinese person who wanted to do that.

The funny thing about freedom of speech is that it should be something that the majority wants. And yet, here its a minority that is demanding it, along with foreign nationals.

I too have been in China through sensitive periods. Beijing shuts itself down but the rest of the country continues on as before. Or Shanghai is shut down and the rest continues as before.

The simple fact is that China will neither change its government, or the manner in which it reacts to trouble/criticism until enough chinese people want such a change. And they don't.

maninasia

maninasia wrote: »

Klaz...you have some errors in your perception of China. There is almost no social welfare system in China, if you can't pay for water/electricity you are certainly not guaranteed it. Who gets cut off in Ireland, you can just apply to social welfare if you can't pay. There is no proper public health system there either, if you get sick and can't pay for drugs or surgery you are in really big trouble. As for public pension, it doesn't really exist, care for the family is by the family.

You need to look below the more obvious forms of social welfare. If you work for the government you will receive benefits regarding housing, food, bills, etc and frankly, working for the government includes a vast coverage of employment across all sectors.

There are constant employment initiatives for those people who can work to provide a basic form of income for survival. Is it perfect? nope. But China is not Europe. It doesn't have the money to do what Europe considers necessary and frankly all we need to do is look at Irelands economic situation to see that demanding such a level destroys a country's chance to grow.

It is Impossible for china to provide complete or even half the coverage of social welfare that we expect from a developed country. 1.3 Billion people. A large percentage of which are from poorer or uneducated backgrounds. Providing a satisfactory level would begger the country. Its unrealistic and somewhat naive to expect otherwise.

Lastly, Family is everything here. And its one of the things I admire so much about China. The provide and look after each other. And its not just family, but community. Its something I find has been lost in the west where the state is expected to provide everything.

Is China perfect? Nope. Not a chance. Is China improving? hell yes. Consider that it has only been really seeking to improve itself for roughly 20 years, then its amazing the changes that have taken place.

There's no comparison between Ireland and China.

Naturally (although they are going to happen regardless since many posters here have very little experience beyond Ireland.). Which is why I keep highlighting the difference in population and territory size.

They don't have famines anymore and things have improved greatly but there are still 100s of millions below the povety line in the countryside there that get almost no help from the government.

The only country you could possibly compare China to regarding poverty line and population is India, and well.... they have the very same problems except that China's population is a bit more spread out.

SuperInfinity

CorkMan, obviously you are not an educated man. You know nothing about the world. The fact that you've bought into this western-superiority complex so much is ridiculous.

You say Mexico and Brazil "anywhere in the Americas", are you out of your mind?

Syria and Iran are fairly unstable regions, many would say as a result of US meddling. The UK is less unstable at the moment. The western media totally blow up all issues. You hear some more about the story and you find that the "protestors" were armed militants or were attempting to storm a government building.

Japan isn't a "humane" country? Why don't you just go back to digging in the bog and forget about the rest of us for good.

Seriously, you haven't got a clue about the world. Brazil is a "bad nation", god knows what them funny-looking individuals who speak the foreign tongue might be up to, drugs or something. Not like your lovely, nice, uncorrupt Ireland and UK who would NEVER have leaders that stoop to corruption, like that nice man Haughey that had teh grand Irish accent.

I don't mind people having views like that about some places in the Middle East or China for instance, but saying all other countries are like that is just crackpot insane nosense, flies directly in the face of all known facts, and really, I just don't know how you came up with that one.

You're giving your opinions on what you think these countries are like... GUESS WHAT: YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THEM. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM. A total joke, and probably an intentional troll.

Here are some clips that might edurmicate you a bit on the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlFL0iGq-y4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A5jfK2U1Lg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LPyZhvGNg

Max Powers

CorkMan wrote: »

With the riots in UK ATM, people are fretting about the possibility about rubber bullets being used. Yet in Syria the government uses live ammunition on it's people and tanks without blinking an eye, with issues far more worse than the UK.

In Africa you have Mugabe, in recent history Idi Amin, Sese Mobutu, Gaddafi, etc. In Asia Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Anywhere in the American continent south of the US is pretty bad, ie Mexico, Brazil and the Honduras. Corrupt government and officials.

Now I know there are other countries similar to us like Japan and Hong Kong, but still. Why do you the US and Western Europe is at it is, and the other countries are as they are? Kind to their citizens and non-repressant and giving them much hope, not crushing them if they want some rights. Is their a historical precedent for the government being what they are ATM.

Well I suppose the main reason is we have democracy and a lot of them dont so that is in general why places like those african countries, vietnam, militray juntas in south america, USSR, etc have nutcase leaders who can do what they like to the people.
I think the liberal media in our democratic countries always start whinning if the police get tough, even on rioters. I would have loved to see the UK police use a bit of force on those rioting scum but they were too afraid of upsetting the media and Cameron to deal with the rioters.

SuperInfinity

The USSR, sweet mother of god don't make me laugh. Are you 10 years old or something? The USSR is past history. If you're going to go there then you have to talk about Hitler and Mussoulini and Leopold II also, which were all members of the "west". How the hell can you talk about "have nutcase leaders" when you don't have the slightest absolute clue out of thin air what you're talking about?? Who is the leader of the USSR? What an idiot.

Iran and Syria are democracies. For many countries it's unrealistic to set up a democracy because of their poverty and because of lack of records... having a democratic election is a very difficult thing to set up properly. This is why monarchy ruled for so long... it wasn't so much that people were "enlightened" later on at all, it was because ways were found to have proper elections, probably a large part of it was due to records being kept for tax collecting. Then the US will say something like a country isn't "a true democracy", while if they said something about the US the narrow-minded people would say "omg they are crazy, hur hur, who would believe them".

The word "democracy" is really something used by the US to beat over the head of less well developed nations. You don't have to have formal elections to have a leader the people of the country want and support, formal elections can be a bit of a joke when you analyze them properly. Nobody would argue that a country should be controlled by people that the people of the country don't want.

This is one of the worst topics I have ever seen on boards.ie... which is saying a lot.

Max Powers

Max Powers wrote: »

Well I suppose the main reason is we have democracy and a lot of them dont so that is in general why places like those african countries, vietnam, militray juntas in south america, USSR, etc have nutcase leaders who can do what they like to the people.

A Democracy in itself doesn't really constitute freedom or equality. Its the constitution that controls the powers of the government and reduces the change of mismanagement of power.

A democracy doesn't ensure that the people will have control over their country. While I lived in Ireland I voted in various governments and frankly they did whatever they wanted once the votes were counted. Hardly a firm guarantee that we have control.

Thankfully a constitution is in place and can limit what they can do. TBH thats the only real benefit of a democracy in my eyes.

I think the liberal media in our democratic countries always start whinning if the police get tough, even on rioters. I would have loved to see the UK police use a bit of force on those rioting scum but they were too afraid of upsetting the media and Cameron to deal with the rioters.

I must admit I find your stance somewhat confusing. On one hand you laud a limited aspect of a democracy and then throw in something like this. Once you allow the police or military free rein to respond to the general public, then you're one step closer to losing control. Unless you have a confident and influential government, which lets face it, is somewhat rare in western politics considering they're moved out after 4 years.

CorkMan

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The USSR, sweet mother of god don't make me laugh. Are you 10 years old or something? The USSR is past history. If you're going to go there then you have to talk about Hitler and Mussoulini and Leopold II also, which were all members of the "west". How the hell can you talk about "have nutcase leaders" when you don't have the slightest absolute clue out of thin air what you're talking about?? Who is the leader of the USSR? What an idiot.

Iran and Syria are democracies. For many countries it's unrealistic to set up a democracy because of their poverty and because of lack of records... having a democratic election is a very difficult thing to set up properly. This is why monarchy ruled for so long... it wasn't so much that people were "enlightened" later on at all, it was because ways were found to have proper elections, probably a large part of it was due to records being kept for tax collecting. Then the US will say something like a country isn't "a true democracy", while if they said something about the US the narrow-minded people would say "omg they are crazy, hur hur, who would believe them".

The word "democracy" is really something used by the US to beat over the head of less well developed nations. You don't have to have formal elections to have a leader the people of the country want and support, formal elections can be a bit of a joke when you analyze them properly. Nobody would argue that a country should be controlled by people that the people of the country don't want.

This is one of the worst topics I have ever seen on boards.ie... which is saying a lot.

I said recent history. RECENT

Why did the USSR kill 60 million of it's own people, plus starving three quarters of the Ukraine population. Meanwhile in the US Eisenhower, JFK, etc were elected by the people to represent them, and that is what they did. And the presidents stood down at the end of term.

If you ever want to post in a topic of mine, read the post first. It is not the small print, it is the post in front of you.

SuperInfinity

CorkMan wrote: »

I said recent history. RECENT

Why did the USSR kill 60 million of it's own people, plus starving three quarters of the Ukraine population. Meanwhile in the US Eisenhower, JFK, etc were elected by the people to represent them, and that is what they did. And the presidents stood down at the end of term.

If you ever want to post in a topic of mine, read the post first. It is not the small print, it is the post in front of you.

I was quoting Max Powers' post, who does/did indeed appear to believe the USSR is still there.

Please explain where you are getting those numbers from. Numbers like that could only be also counting the Stalin era, ie. before 1953, not recent history at all. Even in the Stalin era from wikipedia page on Stalin: "p. 234: "My own many years and experience in the rehabilitation of victims of political terror allow me to assert that the number of people in the USSR who were killed for political motives or who died in prisons and camps during the entire period of Soviet power totaled 20 to 25 million. And unquestionably one must add those who died of famine – more than 5.5 million during the civil war and more than 5 million during the 1930s."."

So, not even anywhere close to 60 million and that's from someone who is trying to emphasize what Stalin did. I have no idea where you're getting 60 million from.

Where was Brazil during all this? Or Peru? I don't think they had any major wars or steady militancy. Are we to take it that Brazil are much more humane than Germany? The Republic of Ireland are much more humane than Northern Ireland? That's incredibly ridiculous. You can't judge a country's "humanity" from that. And the reason I said you were a troll is because not only is the topic asking IF they are the only humane countries, it's taken as a FACT that they are and we're asked why. This is total and utter bull, and your latest arguments are as pathetic as ever...

The starvation of the Ukraine was also before Hitler and Mussolini. BEFORE http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

The US is an imperialist nation who at best kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to put pressure on their governments and made terrible mistakes during the Iraq war, at worst are a murder machine interested only in their economic affairs and holding onto power as much as possible

The US are at war all the time. The US kill their own civilians all the time, the police do it. Even the UK police shoot and kill... the riots started in the UK recently were over a respected member of a community, though having dealings with drugs he was respected and known as a fair and decent guy in their community, being shot dead by police.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CorkMan

CorkMan wrote: »

I said recent history. RECENT

Why did the USSR kill 60 million of it's own people, plus starving three quarters of the Ukraine population.

Various reasons, especially if we're talking after Stalin died. Communism as the Russians applied it was notoriously inefficient which resulted in famine in many areas and surplus in others. With the huge investment in the military, the country neither had the infrastructure nor the capital reserves needed to redistribute food/medicine/etc to those needed. And consider that during the time of the USSR, the common person supported their governments focus on the military, we actually have a population that believed in the "cause" (many still remember the glory days of communism... and these being the common person rather than the richer segments)

But then we also have to factor in the Russian attitude to life and death. Simply put they could shrug off millions dying.

Meanwhile in the US Eisenhower, JFK, etc were elected by the people to represent them, and that is what they did. And the presidents stood down at the end of term.

You have a rather selective attitude as to what representing the people means... Lets avoid Eisenhower since thats hardly recent history... but subseqent presidents and polticial parties had their own fair share of political scandals often with the common person bearing the pain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

Then we could talk about the fact that the US has been involved in more conflicts, wars, skirmishes etc than any other nation over the last 60 years. Considering its the people that have to serve in the military and get themselves blown to bits on foreign soil, I wonder at this perfect respresentation of the people.

And then we could look at the US domestic control which takes away huge amounts of possible investment on education, housing, welfare, etc etc etc and puts it in the military. Instead of fixing the problems at home, the US tends to look outwards and let loose a propoganda machine about how perfect America is. But then all we have to do it look at the areas that were hit by Hurricane Katrina, and notice that very little reconstruction has occured, and many people never received any reasonable compensation. Hell, Iraq and Afghanistan has seen more reconstruction that the Katrina victims.

I could go on... and on.... and on.... Take off your rosey western glasses and perhaps try looking at the world as it really is. In recent times.

CorkMan

With regards comparing China to the US/Western Europe, my basis was the lack of free press and democracy in China. IMO those are very 2 important things in a free society, but according to you a democracy isn't wanted by the people. But IMO a single party government is a bad idea, there has to be opposition IMO. From an Irish perspective, and I do realize the vast difference in population sizes between the Republic of Ireland and the People's Republic of China, but imagine Fianna Fáíl being the only country in Ireland? I wouldn't have it.

I admit the topic title is a bit over the top, I did not intent to label the people of other peoples savages or animals. I realise from my idea it was me labeling the leaders who killed many people savages, but the topic title came across as labeling the common people savages, or inhuman. I did not realize that whilst creating the topic.

When I said recent history, i'm talking about roughly the past 100 years, I meant times that still rigidly lingers in a nations memory. I felt that Stalin's vile reign is still buried in Russia's memory, or the former citizens of the former USSR who are still alive at this day and age.

Regards the USA, I think it's nasty foreign policy is a result of "the powerful rule over the weak". The USA have so much money, power, they feel the need to push itself into other countries matters, because it feels it can. I also agree that certain sections of US society, ie African-American people, are fed hard justice by the government. Today black males aren't even supposed to live until 30 in some areas. But coming back to the topic, I mentioned most of Africa too. Past dictators like Idi Amin, Mobutu, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, they lived a highly lavish life while their people starved, and the shot their people. I questioned why all this happened in (most of) Africa, while not in the US, or Western Europe. Or maybe I might use the tern 1st world countries. (if that is apt)

CorkMan

CorkMan wrote: »

With regards comparing China to the US/Western Europe, my basis was the lack of free press and democracy in China.

Well, lets consider what free press actually entails whilst leaving out the hollywood version of events. So firstly, depending on the nature of a story, the government (or any legal process) can block the publishing of stories. Although this is dependent on the country in question. Secondly, the US and other "western" nations have repeatedly blocked access to the free press of military events or such. Thirdly, we have in the US the personal privacy of people trampled in the name of free press. So, if you're in the US, someone can take a picture of you taking a ****, and its perfectly ok to do so. God bless freedom. :rolleyes:

What is the media anyway? A large degree of the stories/feeds that TV shows comes from independent contractors often with their own personal agenda's. You've already mentioned that you take the majority of your information from the media... and yet, in modern times, a shift has occured whereby people head to the internet for information. You've tried to make a big deal about the Great Firewall, but honestly very few news stations are blocked. You can just go to reuters instead.

As for democracy you have yet to state why its so important.

IMO those are very 2 important things in a free society, but according to you a democracy isn't wanted by the people.

Well, its not by the majority... but i guess you know better since you have asked Chinese people that are actually living in China....?

Actually, just do some research on the net and you will find plenty of discussions on Chinese websites discussing the merits/diadvantages of a democracy and why it wouldn't work for modern day China.

But IMO a single party government is a bad idea, there has to be opposition IMO. From an Irish perspective, and I do realize the vast difference in population sizes between the Republic of Ireland and the People's Republic of China, but imagine Fianna Fáíl being the only country in Ireland? I wouldn't have it.

Fianna Fail remained in power how long in Ireland? And consider the alternatives. After 60 years there is very little differences in the various political parties. Oh they make different promises, but ultimately when they get into power they essentially follow their own song. And where was the opposition all during the good times? Shouting for ever more spending on just about everything. An opposition should be there to seek to limit a government not to encourage it towards disaster. Alas, Politics in Ireland has turned into something of a game. Just like most western countries.

I admit the topic title is a bit over the top, I did not intent to label the people of other peoples savages or animals. I realise from my idea it was me labeling the leaders who killed many people savages, but the topic title came across as labeling the common people savages, or inhuman. I did not realize that whilst creating the topic.

TBH I'm not taking that from the title. I'm taking it from the nature of your posts during this thread.

When I said recent history, i'm talking about roughly the past 100 years, I meant times that still rigidly lingers in a nations memory. I felt that Stalin's vile reign is still buried in Russia's memory, or the former citizens of the former USSR who are still alive at this day and age.

How very convenient... so if it supports your argument it still has power in modern times, but if not, its relegated to the ether. You can't have it both ways. Intelligent conversations don't work that way.

Regards the USA, I think it's nasty foreign policy is a result of "the powerful rule over the weak". The USA have so much money, power, they feel the need to push itself into other countries matters, because it feels it can. I also agree that certain sections of US society, ie African-American people, are fed hard justice by the government. Today black males aren't even supposed to live until 30 in some areas.

Very interesting but you have failed to directly address any of the points i made to you. A faily common occurance I've noticed in this thread. Point is... you made your stance, I replied and you have yet to adequately defend your arguments. (rather than just repeating them with new words)

ing back to the topic, I mentioned most of Africa too. Past dictators like Idi Amin, Mobutu, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, they lived a highly lavish life while their people starved, and the shot their people. I questioned why all this happened in (most of) Africa, while not in the US, or Western Europe. Or maybe I might use the tern 1st world countries. (if that is apt)

Of course it happens in Europe... Take your milestone of 100 years and you could include most centers of power having taken advantage of the poor. But the biggest problem i find with your arguments is that you continually fail to recognise the importance of history and how different countries react over time. Its like you have this country mold/cast, created a number of countries, and now expect them to react the same way. It doesn't work that way. [Ever play Black & White a pc game? try it for a while, and notice all the things your creature learns on his own... then consider the billions of factors involved in the evolution of a nation)

Ireland is a far different country than Holland despite being similar in size. The history and culture of both countries are vastly different. Our approach and attitude to the outside world is also massively different. You cannot remove the history of a country. While the Ireland of today is quite modern, the history of British occupation is still part of our culture and most people have some feelings about it. Which in turns affects how we perceive the world, and how we react to it.

You seem to want to look at reality in a black and white mandate. It doesn't and shouldn't work that way.

Fromthetrees

Corsendonk wrote: »

I would be pretty insulted by your post if I came from Central or South America. Most of those corrupt governments were created by the US during the Cold War. While some are still corrupt other South America countries have made great improvements.


Corruption Perceptions Index

Selection of World Corruption Index Rankings
14 Ireland
20 UK
21 Chile
22 Belgium
22 USA
24 Uruguay
25 France
30 Spain
32 Portugal
33 Puerto Rico
37 Malta
41 Costa Rica
67 Italy
69 Brazil
78 Greece
78 Peru
78 Colombia

I know your post was a long time ago and I truly agree with your sentiment but you do know that the poll you showed that corruption perceptions are the 14th least in Ireland in the world, that's pretty fecking good and contradicts your point, sorry like, what you wrote before it I actually agree with.

SuperInfinity

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I know your post was a long time ago and I truly agree with your sentiment but you do know that the poll you showed that corruption perceptions are the 14th least in Ireland in the world, that's pretty fecking good and contradicts your point, sorry like, what you wrote before it I actually agree with.

Those rankings are worth next to nothing. I mainly agree with his sentiment but those rankings are so open to bias that they aren't credible. Many would argue the US and Ireland are among the most corrupt nations in the world, particularly after the banking scandal.

Fromthetrees

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I know your post was a long time ago and I truly agree with your sentiment but you do know that the poll you showed that corruption perceptions are the 14th least in Ireland in the world, that's pretty fecking good and contradicts your point, sorry like, what you wrote before it I actually agree with.

The problem with these stats is where the actual calculations come from. Many nations, including western nations don't release accurate statistics of crime, corruption etc. In some cases, they're seen as being too sensitive or might hurt the reputation of the country in question. Or in other cases, everyone knows the crime rates are high so they don't really acknowledge the impact of similar crimes on overall rates.

Lets stick with Ireland for example. We have tribunals to determine the guilt/innocence of politicians, business men, etc but how many of those shown to be corrupt were prosecuted by the state? I'm pretty sure the number is zero. So were those people included in the list above for Ireland? I seriously doubt it. And thats just talking about those covered by tribunals. We all know local town and country council officials who have been corrupt for decades, and nothing has ever been done about them... Its just considered the way that things are.

So, you can look at a list above and just sit back glorifying in the low ranking of Ireland, or you can realise that these kind of results are extremely limited in scope. Besides... what does a result like the above actually achieve?