|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,510
|
As for the US involvement in the empire building all over the world, this is by every means questionable and disastrous business, it's well chronicled for example in Oliver Stone's "Untold History of United States".
Anyway, regarding foreign aid - there is the practical view:
- if any government feels the need that they need to chip in some of their money to the third world, for whatever reason, they can. Nobody prevents them, and there are indeed major amount of funds spent on the third world, often with little results.
If any government once used government funds to bring war to certain lands, now they can use the government funds to re-build them. And i'm fine with that, as long as it's done sensibly. Common sense would say the more stability in a land, the more trade. However the more important question is HOW are these money spent. These money should be spent on investment, and not on welfare, food aid etc.
Here's an example: what will bring more future value - to build schools, infrastructure, incentivize contraception, use our engineers in order to make the lands more self sufficient - or to send in several trucks with food and medicine, spend much of the costs on administration, at least half of which will be resold on the black market, and that will only contribute to future overpopulation, more misery. more starvation, and more uncontrolled migration? All in all we're paying the price for foreign aid policies that are only making the problem worse. Well there's also the other factor, if you send Europeans to improve the industrial shape in these countries, there's the risk that you will be inevitably accused of "colonization" and it will end up in a Zimbabwe or post 1994 South Africa scenario.
Even my country, which is no Switzerland when it comes to accumulated wealth, spends about 270 million EUR a year on foreign aid. Upon these conditions I also strongly reject the decision of any institution that would like to dictate who will or will not live in the country.
However, the thesis that because of the past imperialism of several political garnitures we all, most of whom had nothing to do with any of it in the first place, now have to suffer. And that there is no right to maintain one's culture, no right to have a homeland, can not choose who lives in the country, is somewhat deranged, extremely dangerous, and very destructive to say the least.
And I can't help but note one thing when it comes to Germany. I have a great deal of respect for Germany, its industry, its culture, its people. But I can also remember the uproar in 2004 when some of the Eastern countries were accepted to the EU, there was a three year moratorium on those from these new states that actually would want to come and work in Germany, if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong.
So what has changed, all of a sudden it's a great idea to let in hundreds of thousands of, completely unvetted migrants, from an entirely different civilization that will end up on the (very generous) German welfare system? The same people that were against the influx of Eastern Europeans working in Germany all of a sudden felt that this is a great idea? Sorry but couldn't help to mention this.
Which brings us to the second - cultural view:
- let's start with the premise that anybody, who's not familiar with the doctrine and history of Islam should NEVER be allowed to make decisions that involve Islam, such as allowing it to take root and spread in his country, or entering the lands that are ruled by it.
Of course I am confident that 99 pct. of the politicians never ever got familiar with any of it. As confirmed over and over by the fact that they classify it as a "religion", which it isn't. Islam is a complete way of life, a manual on how to run a civilization. What's worse, most of those politicians are also deranged and paralyzed by political correctness up to the point that pointing at unwanted reality becomes a "hate crime".
If you're importing Islam, you're importing a civilization, not a religion. And that civilization is built on an entirely different moral and ethical grounds, completely different concepts of defining issues like freedom, rights, ethics, god, war, peace etc. This civilization has a different set of rules for those in and outside of it, based on its doctrine, it is supposed to rule over those outside of it. That is also Islam's biggest mass appeal.
If one won't get familiar with its doctrine (that is deemed "perfect, universal, final" and "nothing can contradict it"), one won't be able to understand the Islamic world, culture, thought process, history, and why it is in pretty much constant conflict (inner and with any other civilization) for the past 1 400 years.
Only after getting familiar with the doctrine, that defines Islam and shaped its history is one able to find an answer on such questions such as: What is Islam? How did Islam spread in the history? Why do the Islamic lands and societies look the way they do?
As for the role of Islam in the European history - it can be summed up into two words: war and conquest.
Even the so called "Golden Age" in Baghdad and Andalus, which is promoted anytime someone touches upon the history of Islamic conquests, upon detailed examination, was by far not that "Golden" as we're supposed to believe, but that would be for a whole other topic.
|