[OFF TOPIC] Politics Thread

[Olympian1010 7,971]

5 minutes ago, Monzanator said:

 

I seriously doubt Africa wants humanitarian & development aid from USA. They want hard dollars which they can embezzle right away. USA trying to impose democracy - with the help of CIA contractors no doubt - is straight from Robert Ludlum line of work. You didn't solve any problems in Iraq and Afghanistan and you want to stir the African pot? For what? It's better to focus on helping Saudi Arabia and the oil rescources from the Persian Gulf.

Actually, my research found that many Africans are open to the idea of economic aid, technological development, and democratic institutions. Even in a country like Mali that has been gripped by years of conflict, but sides still yearn for a peaceful democratic state that support everyone. 
 

The U.S would definitely need to change its strategy completely to give something like this a go. Plus, we’d have to have a country where both sides want it, or at least are open to the idea. Africans don’t want to embezzle their money. Their leaders do. My plan would undercut leaders that are not supporters of democratic, economic, and societal reform. 
 

We failed in Afghanistan and Iraq because we failed to solve any of the underlying problems that led to conflict in the first place. We just ran in, guns blazing, shooting poor Muslim kids. 
 

Africa is the most resource rich market in the world. They are also in need of much development. American companies could find real opportunities there, while also raising the standard of living for Africans. 
 

Saudi Arabia is an example of a country we shouldn’t be supporting. If we were smart, we’d work to build up our green energy deposits in the next decade, so that we could slowly wane off our need for Saudi oil. 

[OlympicsFan 858]

2 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

I just a debate on this for my final grade in debate class. I was pro “the U.S. should adopt the Chinese foreign aid and development strategy.”

Not sure if that would be the best way to go, but looking at history (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) I am pretty confident to say that if the US really wanted to help foreign countries, then their way of doing it has proven to be not very successful, so it might be time for a different strategy.

[Olympian1010 7,971]

1 minute ago, OlympicsFan said:

Not sure if that would be the best way to go, but looking at history (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) I am pretty confident to say that if the US really wanted to help foreign countries, then their way of doing it has proven to be not very successful, so it might be time for a different strategy.

Yeah, which thankfully that made it very hard for the opposition team to counter my plan. 
 

There was a really tense awesome exchange between me and the other teams strongest speaker over wether or not terrorists are still people. I argued that many of them were drawn to terrorism by the problems our plan would solve, and that it might be possible to unradicalize some of them, while he argued that were, and always be, just evil demons (he actually refused to call them people, which really made a fun exchange then). 

[Monzanator 4,499]

56 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Actually, my research found that many Africans are open to the idea of economic aid, technological development, and democratic institutions. Even in a country like Mali that has been gripped by years of conflict, but sides still yearn for a peaceful democratic state that support everyone. 
 

The U.S would definitely need to change its strategy completely to give something like this a go. Plus, we’d have to have a country where both sides want it, or at least are open to the idea. Africans don’t want to embezzle their money. Their leaders do. My plan would undercut leaders that are not supporters of democratic, economic, and societal reform. 
 

We failed in Afghanistan and Iraq because we failed to solve any of the underlying problems that led to conflict in the first place. We just ran in, guns blazing, shooting poor Muslim kids. 
 

Africa is the most resource rich market in the world. They are also in need of much development. American companies could find real opportunities there, while also raising the standard of living for Africans. 
 

Saudi Arabia is an example of a country we shouldn’t be supporting. If we were smart, we’d work to build up our green energy deposits in the next decade, so that we could slowly wane off our need for Saudi oil. 

 

Nope, after the 1973 oil crisis USA has no choice but to support Saudi Arabia. You've lost the grip on Iran after the 1979 revolution and you can't risk losing grip on the most important oil country in the world. Funnily enough, United Arab Emirates have learned how to build their own empire without the obvious US support. Crude oil remains the single most-important merchandise in the world. Not even a progressive mind like you can change that

[Olympian1010 7,971]

6 minutes ago, Monzanator said:

 

Nope, after the 1973 oil crisis USA has no choice but to support Saudi Arabia. You've lost the grip on Iran after the 1979 revolution and you can't risk losing grip on the most important oil country in the world. Funnily enough, United Arab Emirates have learned how to build their own empire without the obvious US support. Crude oil remains the single most-important merchandise in the world. Not even a progressive mind like you can change that

We don’t need Saudi oil. If we were smart, we’d invest in green/renewable energy (especially in areas like my town where 50-60% of my town already runs on solar energy). We’d then use our oils reserves in the North and make deals with Canada for natural gas. We’re moving towards an age where oil won’t be the king maker it once was.

[Monzanator 4,499]

22 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

We don’t need Saudi oil. If we were smart, we’d invest in green/renewable energy (especially in areas like my town where 50-60% of my town already runs on solar energy). We’d then use our oils reserves in the North and make deals with Canada for natural gas. We’re moving towards an age where oil won’t be the king maker it once was.

 

You forgot to ask what OPEC countries think of this? Middle East oil market is just about the only thing that prevents China from becoming #1 economy in the world. This is high-stakes geopolitics we talk about. Green energy replacing crude oil will most likely lead into a global economical collapse. You replaced Saddam Hussein with ISIS which actually made matters worse IMO, imagine giving away the entire Middle East to the terrorists? If the Shah of Iran could have been ousted imagine what happens if the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia falls. These countries have nothing but sand and crude oil. The green energy juice is not worth the squeeze. The rich will have to find another way to get richer - without running OPEC out of business.

[Olympian1010 7,971]

This is how you know if your country sits in the Ring of Fire 

Ardern gives me life. She’s the best. Why can’t we all have a Jacinda?

[Monzanator 4,499]

4 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

This is how you know if your country sits in the Ring of Fire 

Ardern gives me life. She’s the best. Why can’t we all have a Jacinda?

Because New Zealand has a population of Brooklyn & Queens combined?  

[Olympian1010 7,971]

1 minute ago, Monzanator said:

Because New Zealand has a population of Brooklyn & Queens combined?  

Don’t quite see how population contributes to being a good leader, and all around decent person...

[Monzanator 4,499]

2 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Don’t quite see how population contributes to being a good leader, and all around decent person...

Smaller, isolated country like New Zealand is MUCH easier to govern than a powerhouse like USA. It's fairly obvious. Hell, being the Mayor of New York is a much tougher job than a New Zealand PM IMO.