Thread: Putin's increasing police state and smth about some other countries

Well the thing Crocodile, is that ultimately these things are down to what view of the world you take.
We can look at the exact same event, say for example the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, and we can give completely different descriptions of what happened.

You could give a whole bunch of factually correct information to support your version of events, and I could likewise give factually correct information to support my version.

We are unlikely to accept the other persons viewpoint unless some truly amazing information is unearthed. All we'd do would have done would be to spend a lot of time on places like Wikipedia and writing posts.

Like I said, I think John Perkins spices things up a bit in true American story-telling style. But fundamentally I do think that destabilising political activities do take place in certain countries, instigated by US agencies like the CIA, and perhaps privately funded organisations. I also believe that the loans offered by IMF and developed countries to poorer countries are often a poisoned chalice, a bit like lending money from a loan shark or prostituting yourself for cash. There could be a good reason to accept money on these conditions, but in many cases I think it's not.

I can't PROVE any of this to anyone, anymore than I can prove any religious points. But that's what I believe because it explains a lot of contemporary history. Therefore I think Perkins' book is relevant because it outlines an existing phenomenon in a very accessible fashion. I don't think it's quite as James Bond-ish as he makes out though, most of it is probably done by rather boring people between 9-5.30 Mondays to Fridays...

That said, I usually read what you say with interest since you have experience of living under two very different economical and political systems, and moving from one continent to another. No doubt you have some unique insights and experiences that makes your views particularly interesting.

Originally Posted by Hanna

You could give a whole bunch of factually correct information to support your version of events, and I could likewise give factually correct information to support my version. [...] We are unlikely to accept the other persons viewpoint unless some truly amazing information is unearthed. All we'd do would have done would be to spend a lot of time on places like Wikipedia and writing posts.

Exactly!!! You proved to me and I hope to yourself just now that just expressing each of our point of view is a total waste of time! What I was trying to attempt is a conversation about what's common between our point of views and not what's different. And if our point of views are based on anything more than just: "That's how I see it and I don't care about even defending it as I don't really remember why I started thinking this way. But now it's just too much effort to even think about it."

Originally Posted by Hanna

We can look at the exact same event, say for example the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, and we can give completely different descriptions of what happened.

Yeah, that's what I was told in the university. That helps you to live in peace with your beliefs. But, the reality is different. Because, if that would be completely true, the Historical Science would never come to existence. It's more or less the same logic that's behind the saying: "Each person is unique." That's a comfort resort from the reality. If that would be 100% true, the Sociology would never exist. Think about it.

Originally Posted by Hanna

But fundamentally I do think that destabilising political activities do take place in certain countries, instigated by US agencies like the CIA, and perhaps privately funded organisations. I also believe that the loans offered by IMF and developed countries to poorer countries are often a poisoned chalice, a bit like lending money from a loan shark or prostituting yourself for cash.

Let's say you're right. So, how would your point of view explains what happens in Zimbabwe? Why to outsource the entire resource-exploiting industry to the foreign corporations rather than doing it themselves: taking a loan from the IMF, hire specialists from all over the globe, purchase modern equipment, start educating your own population so they would be able to replace those foreign specialists in the future, pay off the IMF loan in 30 years and become one of the most prosperous countries in the world? In other words, why not to (using your terminology) prostitute yourself for cash now to gain the university degree and start making some big cash in the future? Why to prefer living on the street and clean the dishes for the rest of your life and deprive your children and grandchildren from a better future than living on the street, begging for change and look up at the rest of the world with constant hatred? Why is Zimbabwe which "sits on gold reserves worth trillions" is so poor? Because of the IMF constantly looking for whom it can impoverish it hadn't yet and the CIA dreaming of placing some brand-new military bases in Zimbabwe?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Why is Zimbabwe which "sits on gold reserves worth trillions" is so poor? Because of the IMF constantly looking for whom it can impoverish it hadn't yet and the CIA dreaming of placing some brand-new military bases in Zimbabwe?

Because it is suffering in general from the legacy of colonialism, because the leadership is incompetent and it lost some of the foreign aid and support it used to recieve in the past. It also doesn't have enough educated people, and there is corruption throughout the country.

Why not prostitute yourself for cash? Well I have personally recieved such offers when I was well and truly broke, while at university. I declined because I did not want to live the rest of my life knowing I'd done such a thing. I am not sure a man can understand that. Perhaps if I'd been actually starving I would have done it, but it should be the absolute last resort for a decent women.

Perhaps a country where people are starving have a responsibility to do whatever they can, including IMF loans. But that is not the case anywhere in Europe or the Middle East.

But why not ask yourself this instead Croc; with all the rhetoric against a perfectly decent country like Belarus, and others like Syria, Iran etc.... Why is there no interest in Zimbabwe? In England, the only interest is in the "white farmers" whose property is confiscated by the government.

Zimbabwe is in the backwaters of Africa, there are no real potential future consumers and ultimately gold is not that unusual as a natural reserve. Lots of countries have plenty. There is no shortage of gold per se.

But if the USA and others MUST go and meddle in other countries, then Zimbabwe is exactly where I think tit though. I believe China is investing there though - infrastructure for natural resources, and the agenda is fairly open, they do not bother talking about democracy, human rights etc.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Why not prostitute yourself for cash?

Ok, let's not get dragged down that path. I also don't support prostitution for cash. I was just using your analogy.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I believe China is investing there though - infrastructure for natural resources, and the agenda is fairly open, they do not bother talking about democracy, human rights etc.

Ok, so you're saying China is not like the bunch of G8 gang of pimps, but rather a respectful married man who 'supports' a young beautiful black girl. Sometimes it's cash, sometimes it's diamonds, sometimes a casual voyage to a resort. Is that ok for a decent woman?

But let's assume another way around, this time without any loans. Why not to outsource only, say, 50% of the resources and with that cash start exploiting the other half themselves? This time it would only be the escourt service, no sex involved. Why is that not happening?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Because it is suffering in general from the legacy of colonialism

That explanation was good some time back, but I don't think that is adequate anymore. Zimbabwe is not a colony for some good 30 years. The US was a buch of colonies once and the economic situation some 30 years after they won their independence wasn't nearly as bad. And Canada is still a colony.

Originally Posted by Hanna

because the leadership is incompetent

I respectfully disagree. I think they are rather competent in what they are doing having in mind that Mugabe is in power for so long. I think the prosperity of Zimbabwe is not in their agenda, that's all. Why would they be interested in that? How would that benefit Zimbabwe government?

Originally Posted by Hanna

and it lost some of the foreign aid and support it used to receive in the past.

Hey, you said earlier it wasn't the foreign aid but rather the 'economic hit', right? That's not fair to use the same thing twice for the opposite purposes.

Originally Posted by Hanna

It also doesn't have enough educated people

How much education you really need to start digging out gold? It's no rocket science.

Originally Posted by Hanna

and there is corruption throughout the country.

Now, you're talking. We have an agreement here. Yay! So, if our opposite point of views have something in common, that is probably the only objectively true thing, agree?

Originally Posted by Hanna

But why not ask yourself this instead Croc; with all the rhetoric against a perfectly decent country like Belarus, and others like Syria, Iran etc.... Why is there no interest in Zimbabwe?

If you thought I'm going to evade your question, then SURPRIZE!! I think there's no interest in 'democratic' Zimbabwe (and other African countries for that matter) mainly because it's going to be way way worse than in Vietnam. It took so much effort to get out of there, that NATO would not even contemplate going back there. Iraq was supposed to be a piece of cake: it was already solidified under the central government, it had a strong opposition, and was previously run by just one of the ethnic minorities (no just ethnic representation). Look how hard it is to get out. There's lots of experience with Africa, it's just not working. The last and best attempt was done in South Africa. That was supposed to be a total success: a country with previous democratic (although apartheid) tradition, relatively educated population (the best in Africa), the capitalist economy, the history of long-lasting international support for the cause of black majority, and so on. In other words, just plug-and-play! So, what's now? The highest crime rate in the world, bad economics, serious brain drain, poverty, the highest documented child rape statistics (Rape Statistics - South Africa & Worldwide 2010). It's just not working in Africa (yet) and it's not worth to try. Very sad.