World Affairs

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A lot of the stuff in American Politics is really world scope things that the US happens to be involved with.  I think it deserves to be separated from actual political affairs in the U.S.A. because the subject matter is broader than even continental political stuff.

There has been a lot of discussion of the Afghanistan affair, often to the detriment of the original topic.  I would like all that to be here now.  This is also a good place to talk about things such as the proposal to the G20 banking group, and the IATAs stance on dust in the atmosphere.  This should be a good collection point for all such discussions, and a branch out can be made if the topic warrants it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

OK, let's give it a kick start.

Today the G20 finance ministers were talking about forcing banks to create a contingency fund by taxing them.  This is silly and Canada won't go for it.  Our banks are regulated by the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank of Canada which controls the overnight lending rate and the percentage of their assest the Schedule A banks have to have on deposit with with the Bank of Canada.  There are a few other controls, and they've been successful since 1036.  I don't think a tax is the answer.

Somalia:  A full scale military invasion and take over by an international force is not unthinkable.  Bombing them out of existence is unthinkable.  A military occupation similar to the one in 1945 Japan is probably what they need.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I'm not sure interfering in the politics/governments of other countries is a real good idea.

the effects of European colonialism are still being felt today.

The US playing at revolutions, one side against the other, can anyone name a country  were we interfered that didn't come back to bite us in the ass 15 -20 years later?

[hamsterTK 93]

I dunno, didn't we support something much like a proxy war in Angola and get away with it in the 1980s?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, the big hotel that was attacked in Mumbai (Bombay) has reopened with great fanfare after 18 months of repair and refit.  They say that they have beefed up their security to the point where each employee is a security officer.

What do we all have to say about vicarious attacks on counties by outside or outside inspired forces?  There are lots of incidents of this kind of anarchism conducted by criminal murderers who claim to be doing good.  In addition to 9/11 there have been atrocities in Britain, Spain, and several middle-east countries, and some in the far east. 

Discuss.

[jigsaw 227]

oooh, where to begin..................

[-Lexus- 2]

It is necessary  that we deal with somalia once and for all. Their lawlessness has made it a perfect breeding and training ground for terrorists. Thats also what we are currently seeing, a group of fundamentalist Muslims are trying to take over. They have been known for supporting Al Qaida. Terrorists seem to be coming more often from the Somalia area. If we dont act we might have pacified Afghanistan but Al Qaida simply moved to Somalia and we can start all over.

And if we do it, we should be ready to take casualties and perhaps act with more aggression then usual since that place is a hornets nest. You aint going to win that without fighting hard for it. A surge will be required.

As for dealing with the banks. Yes, that must be done. And taxing them and using that money to generate money for a possible bail out seems like a common sense idea. Besides that, putting more regulations in the banking industry are not a bad idea. We cannot allow that those banks screw up like that again and let the tax payer pay for it. 

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Somalia: A full scale military invasion and take over by an international force is not unthinkable. Bombing them out of existence is unthinkable. A military occupation similar to the one in 1945 Japan is probably what they need.

quote>

Ever since the US and UN forces hightailed it out of Somalia in the nineties an invasion has been unthinkable. I can think of exactly zero countries that are chomping at the bit to try and occupy another stretch of desert roughly the size of France. Providing entertainment for the world's navies by letting them chase around pirates off the Somali coast, and supporting nasty little proxy wars (mainly via Ethiopia) is as far as anyone has the stomach to go.

Foreign involvement in the shape of an occupation would be a mistake that would accomplish nothing except bring about another Afghanistan-style conflict, fighting Al-Shabaab instead of the Taliban.

[morriswalters 16]

IMHO the flaw in this discussion is the belief that you can fix Somalia or any other country.  You may be able to contain them, you could certainly exterminate them, or you can ignore them,  but they have to fix themselves. We can't.  The underlying problems are only going to get worse.  Just the mechanical problems are overwhelming.  Lack of potable water,arable land, sanitation, and money.  Add to that the political and religious problems and I'm not sure that there is any hope.  The fact that fundamentalists are in charge in and of itself is not a problem, but trust is.   But any government that works is better than no government at all no matter how hard that is for us to accept.  If military intervention is proposed that I say let the Europeans do it, not the US.  We should do nothing more than to protect our own.  We are going broke trying to export Democracy and I would just as soon not.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

IMHO the flaw in this discussion is the belief that you can fix Somalia or any other country.  You may be able to contain them, you could certainly exterminate them, or you can ignore them,  but they have to fix themselves. We can't.  The underlying problems are only going to get worse.  Just the mechanical problems are overwhelming.  Lack of potable water,arable land, sanitation, and money.  Add to that the political and religious problems and I'm not sure that there is any hope.  The fact that fundamentalists are in charge in and of itself is not a problem, but trust is.   But any government that works is better than no government at all no matter how hard that is for us to accept.  If military intervention is proposed that I say let the Europeans do it, not the US.  We should do nothing more than to protect our own.  We are going broke trying to export Democracy and I would just as soon not.

quote>

who mentioned democracy? Certainly not me. It would never work in that area as long as most African countries are like what they are today. No, if youre going to put order in place, you shouldnt want to put a democracy in place. Instead, you establish an American military government. Or a European military government. Doesnt matter what. But they cannot be trusted to rule themselves as they have already clearly shown. 

Besides the fact that it might be devoid of a lot of natural resources, Somalia has a strategic position. Piracy would never have been so effective there if it wasnt for their close position to one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. 

Also, if you manage to stabilize the place you can start educating the people there, improve infrastructure, improve the health etc and you might actually make it a useful place. 

We cannot trust them to do it themselves because they are simply incapable of self governance. 

As for what was said in the other thread. No, trying to scare them with bombs is pointless. It wont make much of a impression to just drop some bombs and hit nothing and it wont make much of a impression if you actually hit a bunch of cities. It would only work in the hand of the local radical Islamic groups. No, military intervention in that area should be total, not half. 

[fukuda 351]

The Empire should manage to solve their actual conflicts before opening another frontline, we ain't got lots of money to throw lately and wars are extremely expensive. Especially modern warfare where you have to spend 5000000USD to kill 2 talibans..

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

IMHO the flaw in this discussion is the belief that you can fix Somalia or any other country.  You may be able to contain them, you could certainly exterminate them, or you can ignore them,  but they have to fix themselves. We can't.  The underlying problems are only going to get worse.  Just the mechanical problems are overwhelming.  Lack of potable water,arable land, sanitation, and money.  Add to that the political and religious problems and I'm not sure that there is any hope.  The fact that fundamentalists are in charge in and of itself is not a problem, but trust is.   But any government that works is better than no government at all no matter how hard that is for us to accept.  If military intervention is proposed that I say let the Europeans do it, not the US.  We should do nothing more than to protect our own.  We are going broke trying to export Democracy and I would just as soon not.quote>

the best idea may be to let it fall into anarchy.

The fundimentalistd being in charge is the  worst of the problems, eventualy  and hopefully the more conservative

elements of Islam will rise to power.

Eventualy the average muslim is going tire of sending thier sons and daughters

to a useless death,bombing some cafe to kill a couple infidels and usually  thier own people as well.

[raja_indy14 8]

What do we all have to say about vicarious attacks on counties by outside or outside inspired forces? There are lots of incidents of this kind of anarchism conducted by criminal murderers who claim to be doing good. In addition to 9/11 there have been atrocities in Britain, Spain, and several middle-east countries, and some in the far east. quote>

Political violence is nothing new, the 9/11 attacks were a very dramatic example of terrorism, but I don't think there is anything fundamentally revolutionary about it. Anarchists and Communists did the exact same thing, admittedly without the assistance of modern technology, at the turn of the last century. There will likely always be those who believe that a new political or social order can be achieved through violence, and it is when they are loosely organized and not state-based that they pose the least threat to the existing order. The inter-state conflicts of the Second World War and Cold War fought in the name of capitalism versus socialism were far more deadly and destructive than all the anarchist and communist terrorism of the preceding half century combined. It should always be remembered that while such attacks are disruptive, and the loss of life regrettable, they do their greatest damage by compelling our societies to restrict liberties in the name of repressing terrorism. The surveillance state in England, and particularly London, came about in part as a response to the IRA terror attacks of the early 1990s.

For weak states, yes, terrorism can pose a threat to the established order, but in strong states I think it would take a quite extraordinary terrorist attack to do significant damage to the polity as a whole (such as the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major population centre, although even then I don't know how this would achieve the terrorist's ends). I don't believe that terrorism poses a great threat to the global capitalist order, a far greater threat was met in the middle part of the twentieth century and overcome, and some peripheral terrorist attacks are not going to greatly hinder it much today. What is probably of greater concern is the global spread of Saudi-funded madrassas that preach a fundamentalist Wahhabist form of Islam and the ongoing failure of many Islamic states to modernize. Religious conservatism is a powerful force, and even in countries like Indonesia the collapse of the Suharto regime and the end of rapid economic growth as the largest casualty of the East Asia Financial Crisis has encouraged a disillusionment with secular capitalism and a greater embrace of conservative religious values.

As for Somalia, I don't think anyone will be able to find the political capital to invade that country any time soon barring the Somalians being implicated in something truly horrendous and disruptive, which seems unlikely.

But they cannot be trusted to rule themselves as they have already clearly shown.quote>

This is the excuse that is usually thrown up when a government wants to intervene militarily, but it seems a rather vague concept. At what point can a people or a state not be trusted to rule itself? Is it when they are unable to enforce the rule of law or generally exercise sovereignty over the territory they claim to rule? What makes it likely that a foreign invasion force will have much greater success at implementing the rule of law over the entire country? Has Afghanistan suddenly become a peaceful state ruled by law? Military occupation doesn't seem to be terribly successful, historically, at imposing the rule of law (or even just that of force, and if that is all the intervention is bringing then it doesn't seem much of an improvement). I don't see why a western military invasion would contribute anything more to the situation than to add yet another militant faction vying for political control of some slice of Somalia.

We cannot trust them to do it themselves because they are simply incapable of self governance.quote>

And yet Somalia is doing comparatively better, economically and in terms of literacy and HIV infection rates, than many other African countries that are self-governing. Why are there no calls to militarily invade these countries? The Somalian economy continues to see some growth despite the political turmoil, and Somalian Universities are listed among the best in Africa. The UN estimates that less than 1% of the Somalian population is infected with HIV, which is much better than most other African countries. The growth of piracy since 2004 is partly attributable to the destruction of the Somali fishing fleets that occurred as a result of the Boxing Day Tsunami, and it really poses a less-than-dire risk to international trade and gives navies something to do.

Yes, the internationally recognized government of Somalia does not extend its sovereignty to the (artificially created) borders of the country, and there is some amount of internal turmoil, but I hardly think the situation requires massive (and expensive) western military involvement. I suppose a cost-benefit analysis would calculate the likely cost to international commerce in the next decade that might occur if piracy was mitigated through non-military means, compared with the likely costs of a decade-long military occupation of Somalia that may or may not be successful in creating a stable political environment with an economy strong enough to pose a major disincentive to piracy.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

We cannot trust them to do it themselves because they are simply incapable of self governance.

quote>

Ahaha, yes it is our white man's burden to govern for the poor ignorant savages. XD

:edit: In this thread, we find exciting new uses for the 19th century spirit of imperialism.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Somalia:  People get the government they deserve.  The Bight of Benin has always been rife with pirates, and always will be so long as principal shipping routes pass by.  So beef up the naval patrols and otherwise let them stew in their own juice.  To pay for the naval patrols, we need to find a way to tax cargoes going through the protected area.  Since all the ships are registered, it shouldn't be too hard to collect a protection fee.  Ships that don't pay should be sanctioned in some way.  This is inflationary and will increase the price of goods shipped via those waters, but what can we really otherwise do.  All we really have is money.

Banking:  In no way should the IMF think it can levy a global tax.  They haven't the teeth to enforce it, and it is stupid in any case.  Internal regulation of banks by their country of domicile is the best answer.  I suggest the Bank of Canada model which has been working just fine, thank you, since 1936.  The U.S. Federal Reserve obviously either needs a clean out, or a revamp.  It is not the problem of the international community to rescue the smart-ass Wall Street mavins from their folly.  I didn't notice any of the big international banks (e.g. the Honk Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation a,k.a. HSBC) having a problem, probably because they are based on the old British banking system.  Quit sniveling, America, just solve your problem.

Thailand:  Will the red shirts get their way?  There always seems to be a problem in that part of the world.  Civil wars seem to be the fashion.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

this is is the excuse that is usually thrown up when a government wants to intervene militarily, but it seems a rather vague concept. At what point can a people or a state not be trusted to rule itself? Is it when they are unable to enforce the rule of law or generally exercise sovereignty over the territory they claim to rule? What makes it likely that a foreign invasion force will have much greater success at implementing the rule of law over the entire country? Has Afghanistan suddenly become a peaceful state ruled by law? Military occupation doesn't seem to be terribly successful, historically, at imposing the rule of law (or even just that of force, and if that is all the intervention is bringing then it doesn't seem much of an improvement). I don't see why a western military invasion would contribute anything more to the situation than to add yet another militant faction vying for political control of some slice of Somalia.

And yet Somalia is doing comparatively better, economically and in terms of literacy and HIV infection rates, than many other African countries that are self-governing. Why are there no calls to militarily invade these countries? The Somalian economy continues to see some growth despite the political turmoil, and Somalian Universities are listed among the best in Africa. The UN estimates that less than 1% of the Somalian population is infected with HIV, which is much better than most other African countries. The growth of piracy since 2004 is partly attributable to the destruction of the Somali fishing fleets that occurred as a result of the Boxing Day Tsunami, and it really poses a less-than-dire risk to international trade and gives navies something to do.

Yes, the internationally recognized government of Somalia does not extend its sovereignty to the (artificially created) borders of the country, and there is some amount of internal turmoil, but I hardly think the situation requires massive (and expensive) western military involvement. I suppose a cost-benefit analysis would calculate the likely cost to international commerce in the next decade that might occur if piracy was mitigated through non-military means, compared with the likely costs of a decade-long military occupation of Somalia that may or may not be successful in creating a stable political environment with an economy strong enough to pose a major disincentive to piracy.quote>

Id say any country that has been in open civil war for the past 2 decades counts as being incapable of dealing with itself. Yeah Aids might not be a big problem as they are to busy killing each other. And Id be surprised if they still have the best university in a country that has been fighting a civil war for years now. 

As for foreign invasion powers. Yeah they dont make Afghanistan a peaceful place because they arent the rulers there. Its mr Karzai that rules that place, and he isnt doing a terribly good job if you would ask me. And a western military force has the power to beat all other parties in Somalia in any power struggle if they want too. It remain people armed with RPG's and AK 47's. Of course you need the will to win such a conflict. 

[fukuda 351]

Somalia: People get the government they deserve. The Bight of Benin has always been rife with pirates, and always will be so long as principal shipping routes pass by. So beef up the naval patrols and otherwise let them stew in their own juice. To pay for the naval patrols, we need to find a way to tax cargoes going through the protected area. Since all the ships are registered, it shouldn't be too hard to collect a protection fee. Ships that don't pay should be sanctioned in some way. This is inflationary and will increase the price of goods shipped via those waters, but what can we really otherwise do. All we really have is money. quote>

Ehm, wrong bight and wrong ocean, Somalia is on the horn of Africa (indian ocean), Benin is on the atlantic ocean. Most cargo ships are already crossing the Panama strait or just passing in front of South Africa to avoid going through the Aden Gulf, taxing them is just going to definitely remove them...

And a western military force has the power to beat all other parties in Somalia in any power struggle if they want too. It remain people armed with RPG's and AK 47's.quote>

I wish you good luck. These people won't be waiting for you to attack them in the open, neither will show up when you expect them. They'll hide inbetween civilians (well, most of them are civilians anyway). AK-47s are way cheaper and in some cases superior than modern assault guns aswell and, unlike our troops, they won't have to spend bazillions of dollars deploying and sending their troops (and materials!) from faaaar away. They also have better knowledge of their own territory than you would ever hope to, and first and foremost, a real reason to fight until death because, unlike us, they're not fighting far away from home in a country they never cared about.

All the previous experiences of "western powers" against this kind of enemy were rather.... problematic at best, usually plain defeats (Decolonization wars, Algerian war, Vietnam, Afghan war(first one) and so on..).

Now, I'm not saying that winning such wars is impossible but it requires an incredible amount of money, time, willpower and a good popular opinion. Do we have all of these right now?.. Or even any of these?

Is it really the time to be playing world police?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

if youre going to put order in place, you shouldnt want to put a democracy in place. Instead, you establish an American military government. Or a European military government.quote>

Indeed. Just look at how well the Shah is working for us in Iran.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

As for foreign invasion powers. Yeah they don't make Afghanistan a peaceful place because they aren't the rulers there. Its Mr Karzai that rules that place, and he isn't doing a terribly good job if you would ask me. And a western military force has the power to beat all other parties in Somalia in any power struggle if they want too. It remain people armed with RPG's and AK 47's. Of course you need the will to win such a conflict. quote>

people have been fighting over the area Afghanistan is in  since before Alexander The Greats time.This current continuos conflict goes back to the 1970's. 40 years is a long time to have an unstable government

and it probably wont be in our lifetimes before it calms.

[raja_indy14 8]

Id say any country that has been in open civil war for the past 2 decades counts as being incapable of dealing with itself.quote>

Well, lots of countries are or have been in a similar position, western governments can hardly be expected to intervene every time a regime fails and precipitates political instability.

As for foreign invasion powers. Yeah they dont make Afghanistan a peaceful place because they arent the rulers there. Its mr Karzai that rules that place, and he isnt doing a terribly good job if you would ask me. And a western military force has the power to beat all other parties in Somalia in any power struggle if they want too. It remain people armed with RPG's and AK 47's. Of course you need the will to win such a conflict. quote>

I'm sure simply installing a white ruler will teach those savages the value of civilization and pacifism. And of course western militaries and governments have a massively successful track record against third world guerrilla forces.

[jigsaw 227]

Present day USA is completely different from USA before 1945. the government is different, the culture and attitudes are different, the citizens are different. what i find is that the 'projected' or 'transmitted' US ideology has not changed.

I also think that maybe some self-reflection, and self-assessment is desperately needed. "before you can preach to the masses, make sure you are in fact using the same product you are trying to sell".

to me it seems that the mindset is that the US saved the world and won in 1945, (which i think is true to a point), and every war/conflict since then (that the US has been involved in) is modelled on the same ideals and morales... as if they are off to war to remove another Hitler from power, and that the world would fall apart and die as we know it if the Americans dont go running in and conquer all.

from what i see, based on history is that that since WW2 the US superpower has had a very grey track record. i think some world cultures might be starting to assess if the product is worth the cost, and to what benefits they are reaping from it.

and for the record: im thankful to the US for what they did to help other countries in WW2, i think they saved australia's butt. i am not anti-american, and i am not trying to raise anarchy. i am just replying to the topic at hand, in my views.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: fukuda

I wish you good luck. These people won't be waiting for you to attack them in the open, neither will show up when you expect them. They'll hide inbetween civilians (well, most of them are civilians anyway). AK-47s are way cheaper and in some cases superior than modern assault guns aswell and, unlike our troops, they won't have to spend bazillions of dollars deploying and sending their troops (and materials!) from faaaar away. They also have better knowledge of their own territory than you would ever hope to, and first and foremost, a real reason to fight until death because, unlike us, they're not fighting far away from home in a country they never cared about.

All the previous experiences of "western powers" against this kind of enemy were rather.... problematic at best, usually plain defeats (Decolonization wars, Algerian war, Vietnam, Afghan war(first one) and so on..).

Now, I'm not saying that winning such wars is impossible but it requires an incredible amount of money, time, willpower and a good popular opinion. Do we have all of these right now?.. Or even any of these?

Is it really the time to be playing world police?

quote>

Even though the Battle of Mogadishu was a failure, take a look at the casualties sustained at each side. UN forces lost about 20 man, the Somali's lost between 133 and 1500 depending on who you ask. And the US forces where incredibly under equipped as well. Humvees arent bullet proof at all, and helicopters flying low over a city are easy targets as well. 

I wont say its going to be easy and yes it requires massive investments and a strong political will to continue this. But it is the quickest way to peace and the easiest way to ensure that those Jihadists wont get a foothold in Africa, as well as access to loads of guns and people crazy enough to do suicide bombings. Anyways, thats just my take on the Somalia issue. 

[fukuda 351]

I wont say its going to be easy and yes it requires massive investments and a strong political will to continue this. But it is the quickest way to peace and the easiest way to ensure that those Jihadists wont get a foothold in Africa, as well as access to loads of guns and people crazy enough to do suicide bombings. Anyways, thats just my take on the Somalia issue. quote>

? Jihadists have been in Africa since long ago. They already have a good foothold in Africa, access to lots of guns amd indeed do suicide bombings.

Jihadists are all over northern Africa right now, capturing people and asking ransom, putting bombs in Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, trying to overthrow the government in Tchad, attacking cities and oil wells in Nigeria.. They're the main reason why the Paris-Dakar rally is no longer held in Africa too. And yes, most operate under the "Al Qaeda" franchise.

(1 year ago):

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Oops, sorry.  I was thinking of that other trouble spot, and got myself crossed up.  I guess I had Nigeria and its neighbours on my mind for some reason.  Chalk it up to a senion moment.  Anyway, what I said with respect to Somalia still goes.  I still believe that they will sort out something, or the country willl split up into several warring cantons.  Meanwhile, the exit from the Red Sea will still need guarding by naval forces.  Did anyone besides me see the note that some pirates can't tell a warship from a freighter?  Seems a navy ship has been attacked twice.  Reminds me of Q-boats during the U-Boat war in the Atlantic.

Some of the adventures of our super secret commando force, JTF2, are now coming to light.  Why now, I have no idea, but I suspect an enterprising reporter on the Toronto Star.  As I recall, a K-Bar is a U.S. Marines fighting knife designed to do the most damage in hand-to-hand.  Afghanistan has been difficult, if not impossible, since the time of Alexander the Great.  It would be nice to find a good exit strategy for the west, but I think that is a pipe-dream.  Karzai runs the show only with the consent of the mountain war-lords.  Afghanistan is a hot-bed of warring tribes and is likely to remain so.  The Taliban are opportunistic guerrillas who saw a chance to take over a whole country, but I doubt they really could have held it for very long.  Once you get through the Khyber Pass (if you do), all bets are off.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Let us talk about the Greeks.  They seem to be in a lot of hot water.

Any Greeks I've known have been rather devil-may-care.  Do you suppose this attitude is now coming home to roost?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Let us talk about the Greeks.  They seem to be in a lot of hot water.

Any Greeks I've known have been rather devil-may-care.  Do you suppose this attitude is now coming home to roost?

quote>

Interesting ,we bail out countrys now?

Does Greece produce anything?

this may be the problem with the whole wolrd wide economy. Not enough consumers.

companies that produce goods have to reach market saturation of dodads at somepoint and the rest of the world canot afford the products anyway. how many TV's do you need?

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Let us talk about the Greeks.  They seem to be in a lot of hot water.

Any Greeks I've known have been rather devil-may-care.  Do you suppose this attitude is now coming home to roost?

quote>

Interesting ,we bail out countrys now?

Does Greece produce anything?

this may be the problem with the whole wolrd wide economy. Not enough consumers.

companies that produce goods have to reach market saturation of dodads at somepoint and the rest of the world canot afford the products anyway. how many TV's do you need?

quote>

Once again, thank you Capitalist America. You guys did a great job at covering that up while making lots of money of it. 

Now we can bail those *****s out and pay for their ridiculous pensions and stuff. I mean seriously, in The Netherlands and Germany people are allowed into pension after they turn 67, in Greece it used to be 60 and now they upped it to 63. So we can pay for their early pensions.

And if we dont, the stability of the Euro will collapse and then the entire Eurozone is screwed. Gee, great. Once more, the honest hard working people are the victims of a bunch of *****s. 

And its not just Greece. Its every southern Euro country. Italy, Spain and Portugal are in trouble as well. They can collapse any moment as well, and we can bail them out as well. 

Also, it has nothing to do with their production capabilities. It has to do with their government spending and taking on lots of loans they now cant seem to pay back. They need to make huge cuts in the budget and get money from the EU in order to prevent them from going bankrupt. They shouldnt have been allowed in the Eurozone to begin with. 

[TekindusT 3,809]

And its not just Greece. Its every southern Euro country. Italy, Spain and Portugal are in trouble as well. They can collapse any moment as well, and we can bail them out as well. 

Also, it has nothing to do with their production capabilities. It has to do with their government spending and taking on lots of loans they now cant seem to pay back. They need to make huge cuts in the budget and get money from the EU in order to prevent them from going bankrupt. They shouldnt have been allowed in the Eurozone to begin with. 

quote>

Overpaid high-level civil workers, unefficient politicians who are only looking to the next election, 350 congressmen/women + 208 senators only on the Spanish central parliament, everyone with its (obviously high) wage and money for expenditures. Too many goverment departments, overridden responsabilities, absurd expenditures like buying high-end German cars to use them as official cars, keeping an army only used on humanitary missions and a royal family whose expenditures aren't declared... and so on.

The situation in Spain is bad with an unemployment rate of 20.05%, so I just can't imagine how the Greeks are doing...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: TekindusT

And its not just Greece. Its every southern Euro country. Italy, Spain and Portugal are in trouble as well. They can collapse any moment as well, and we can bail them out as well. 

Also, it has nothing to do with their production capabilities. It has to do with their government spending and taking on lots of loans they now cant seem to pay back. They need to make huge cuts in the budget and get money from the EU in order to prevent them from going bankrupt. They shouldnt have been allowed in the Eurozone to begin with. 

quote>

Overpaid high-level civil workers, unefficient politicians who are only looking to the next election, 350 congressmen/women + 208 senators only on the Spanish central parliament, everyone with its (obviously high) wage and money for expenditures. Too many goverment departments, overridden responsabilities, absurd expenditures like buying high-end German cars to use them as official cars, keeping an army only used on humanitary missions and a royal family whose expenditures aren't declared... and so on.

The situation in Spain is bad with an unemployment rate of 20.05%, so I just can't imagine how the Greeks are doing...

quote>

Well, it seems that things are top-heavy everywhere.  Maybe a little streamlining is needed.  There are obviously too many electoral districts in Spain, which means that a representative "democracy" doesn't work for them.  Maybe they need more power vested in the crown.  After all, what was the point of restoring the monarchy if not to help rule?  Spain needs to do more than pop out heirs and princesses to wed other royals, especially now that the Brits are not interested in foreign royals as consorts.

I really can't imaging how they have so many legislators for such a small country.  Canada's parliament is much smaller and we have the second largest land mass in the world.  If Spain is so crowded that they need all this government, maybe some population control legislation would be good.  And if that unemployment rate is correct, their economy is broken.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa