The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have decided to begin this thread so that we can all predict the future in our own little way. Basically we will all pick a topic/subject etc and predict how long it will take to happen and why/how it will come about. I'll get the ball rolling -
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
Page:
Light wrote:
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> There never will be world peace.
>
>
> God, all this "Never" stuff...
>
> "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; look upon my works ye
> mighty and despair."
>
> Anyone who knows what I'm talking about might understand just why my
> blood boils whenever I read or hear someone say "We will never
> do X".
>
> HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?!?! What you MEAN to say is "We will
> never do this if the world remains as it is". But it never does
> stay the same, does it?
Jeremiah 10:23 makes the point that humankind can't hack ruling themselves and living peacefully.
I don't believe that we as humans will ever be able to attain world peace. You may disagree, but that's my belief and I don't see any evidence to suggest otherwise.
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> There never will be world peace.
>
>
> God, all this "Never" stuff...
>
> "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; look upon my works ye
> mighty and despair."
>
> Anyone who knows what I'm talking about might understand just why my
> blood boils whenever I read or hear someone say "We will never
> do X".
>
> HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?!?! What you MEAN to say is "We will
> never do this if the world remains as it is". But it never does
> stay the same, does it?
Jeremiah 10:23 makes the point that humankind can't hack ruling themselves and living peacefully.
I don't believe that we as humans will ever be able to attain world peace. You may disagree, but that's my belief and I don't see any evidence to suggest otherwise.
Belldandy wrote:
> That's just two ways, however you'd both do well to look up
> dependency theory which is a MASSIVE body of work, largely from
> academics in former colonies, which addresses this issue.
I agree with most of what you have written but this last bit comes across as a little bit arrogant. I studied dependency theory at university; not in huge detail, but enough to know what I'm talking about. Light (while not waving his willy about on stage) may well have written a book on dependency theory but, in the context of his original post, didn't feel compelled to mention it. The point is that you have no idea how much people know about dependency theory because only now, after you have changed your definition of independence, has it become relevant. So telling people to run off and look up the subject makes you sound like a snooty (and possibly fraudulent) professor sneering at a bunch of slack-jawed peasants not fit to argue on his same intellectual plane.
Anyway, the interesting thing is that on this subject you seem (I may have got this wrong) to be siding with the ex-colonial countries and to be criticising or condemning the international organisations and economic markets that restrict their independence. So I have two serious and not sneering questions:
Given that America is the dominant power in the WTO etc, are you including Bush and the US in your criticisms?
And would poor countries be justified in taking violent action to get rid of neo-colonialism, since this is (apparently) the only effective route to change?
> That's just two ways, however you'd both do well to look up
> dependency theory which is a MASSIVE body of work, largely from
> academics in former colonies, which addresses this issue.
I agree with most of what you have written but this last bit comes across as a little bit arrogant. I studied dependency theory at university; not in huge detail, but enough to know what I'm talking about. Light (while not waving his willy about on stage) may well have written a book on dependency theory but, in the context of his original post, didn't feel compelled to mention it. The point is that you have no idea how much people know about dependency theory because only now, after you have changed your definition of independence, has it become relevant. So telling people to run off and look up the subject makes you sound like a snooty (and possibly fraudulent) professor sneering at a bunch of slack-jawed peasants not fit to argue on his same intellectual plane.
Anyway, the interesting thing is that on this subject you seem (I may have got this wrong) to be siding with the ex-colonial countries and to be criticising or condemning the international organisations and economic markets that restrict their independence. So I have two serious and not sneering questions:
Given that America is the dominant power in the WTO etc, are you including Bush and the US in your criticisms?
And would poor countries be justified in taking violent action to get rid of neo-colonialism, since this is (apparently) the only effective route to change?
Light wrote:
> Emperor Xerxes wrote:
>
> Indeed. But who would be in a position to run that court?
>
> The UN? After all, Slobodan Milosovic is being tried now...
*laughs* And what a good job they're making of it to... so how long has he dragged the trial on for ? And just how many times has he done all he could to purposely hinder the trail ?
Sadly you would be unable to charge Bush with a war crime under the current definition, again unless you have evidence the rest of the world does not. the UN definition under international law is:
"Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
Not that a protected person is not a terrorist. Note that the suffering caused must be wilful, not just any old suffering, but wilful, as in you'd have to prove that Bush ordered the targetting of civilians - which he did not do. Nor is the action unlawful as the UN resolutions gave the authority once they were breached, which they were, numerous times.
Bin Laden on the other hand, no problem, though I suspect he will go down fighting as Saddam's sons did.
Of course instead of accusing world leaders of things they are not guilty of some enthusiasm could be directed against those true war criminals still on the run or wanted, but hey, let's not eh ?
> Oh, and Bell; it might help if I'd spelt independent correctly...
No problem, attacking people's spelling/typing is reserved for annoying people only.
> Emperor Xerxes wrote:
>
> Indeed. But who would be in a position to run that court?
>
> The UN? After all, Slobodan Milosovic is being tried now...
*laughs* And what a good job they're making of it to... so how long has he dragged the trial on for ? And just how many times has he done all he could to purposely hinder the trail ?
Sadly you would be unable to charge Bush with a war crime under the current definition, again unless you have evidence the rest of the world does not. the UN definition under international law is:
"Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
Not that a protected person is not a terrorist. Note that the suffering caused must be wilful, not just any old suffering, but wilful, as in you'd have to prove that Bush ordered the targetting of civilians - which he did not do. Nor is the action unlawful as the UN resolutions gave the authority once they were breached, which they were, numerous times.
Bin Laden on the other hand, no problem, though I suspect he will go down fighting as Saddam's sons did.
Of course instead of accusing world leaders of things they are not guilty of some enthusiasm could be directed against those true war criminals still on the run or wanted, but hey, let's not eh ?
> Oh, and Bell; it might help if I'd spelt independent correctly...
No problem, attacking people's spelling/typing is reserved for annoying people only.
Light wrote:
> Erm...so tell me Bell; tell me how you know about how we'd get
> laughed out of a University?! The nations involved were INDEPENDANT
> of British rule. Yes, they were ruled over by someone else equally as
> bad, but the were INDEPENDANT of the Brits. I feel the need to
> highlight that word as I'm intrigued as to what your definition of
> independant actually is. I'm taking it as "A nation independant
> of the Empire". What are you thinking of
They weren't independent though.
Under British rule numerous institutions were set up to govern the colonial territories, and these were modelled on those back in England., but under the ultimate command of a colonial administrator For the most part, the people that were being colonised provided the basic staff for these institutions. When the Brits left these institutions remained and for the most part, remain today, especially in India and the parts of Africa ruled by the British. The same people worked in them, and the person who filled the job of being in charge was most likely to be wealthy/powerful - and to have been complicit in the initial colonisation anyway. They knew their jobs, and lives, depended on keeping things running smoothly. Which leads to the next problem...
The colonies had generated wealth largely by sending goods back to the UK, raw materials were pretty much useless to them as there was not the modern industry to use it, nor was there any prospect of immediately creating such industry because the technology was British. To survive the newly independent colonies needed to trade, and all they had to trade was what the British had had them trading before independence - hence the trade in goods to the UK continued as it always had. But under the British the colonies were badly treated and not really invested in any more than was absolute necessary, strangely the trade to the UK was not providing anywhere near like the wealth needed for further development, hence the new colonies looked for overseas business to invest, and hey presto, the Brits were there, and soon had new industry in place which provided jobs and extra wealth, more importantly it kept those in charge safe.
That's just two ways, however you'd both do well to look up dependency theory which is a MASSIVE body of work, largely from academics in former colonies, which addresses this issue.
There are many debates about it but all generally agree on the central point that the former colonies were kept initially dependent on the Western powers after independence and that this largely carries on to today for the most part. It ties into the Cold War because certain nations chose to break ties with the West - Grenada, Chile are just two - which led to other events. As you undoubtedly know, in Grenada it led to a coup which in turn led to Urgent Fury, and in Chile it led to another coup. A common argument is that those who broke ties with the West replaced one colonial master for another. namely Russia, and in Grenada that was largely the case.
> Erm...so tell me Bell; tell me how you know about how we'd get
> laughed out of a University?! The nations involved were INDEPENDANT
> of British rule. Yes, they were ruled over by someone else equally as
> bad, but the were INDEPENDANT of the Brits. I feel the need to
> highlight that word as I'm intrigued as to what your definition of
> independant actually is. I'm taking it as "A nation independant
> of the Empire". What are you thinking of
They weren't independent though.
Under British rule numerous institutions were set up to govern the colonial territories, and these were modelled on those back in England., but under the ultimate command of a colonial administrator For the most part, the people that were being colonised provided the basic staff for these institutions. When the Brits left these institutions remained and for the most part, remain today, especially in India and the parts of Africa ruled by the British. The same people worked in them, and the person who filled the job of being in charge was most likely to be wealthy/powerful - and to have been complicit in the initial colonisation anyway. They knew their jobs, and lives, depended on keeping things running smoothly. Which leads to the next problem...
The colonies had generated wealth largely by sending goods back to the UK, raw materials were pretty much useless to them as there was not the modern industry to use it, nor was there any prospect of immediately creating such industry because the technology was British. To survive the newly independent colonies needed to trade, and all they had to trade was what the British had had them trading before independence - hence the trade in goods to the UK continued as it always had. But under the British the colonies were badly treated and not really invested in any more than was absolute necessary, strangely the trade to the UK was not providing anywhere near like the wealth needed for further development, hence the new colonies looked for overseas business to invest, and hey presto, the Brits were there, and soon had new industry in place which provided jobs and extra wealth, more importantly it kept those in charge safe.
That's just two ways, however you'd both do well to look up dependency theory which is a MASSIVE body of work, largely from academics in former colonies, which addresses this issue.
There are many debates about it but all generally agree on the central point that the former colonies were kept initially dependent on the Western powers after independence and that this largely carries on to today for the most part. It ties into the Cold War because certain nations chose to break ties with the West - Grenada, Chile are just two - which led to other events. As you undoubtedly know, in Grenada it led to a coup which in turn led to Urgent Fury, and in Chile it led to another coup. A common argument is that those who broke ties with the West replaced one colonial master for another. namely Russia, and in Grenada that was largely the case.
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> Indeed. But who would be in a position to run that court?
The UN? After all, Slobodan Milosovic is being tried now...
Oh, and Bell; it might help if I'd spelt independent correctly...
> Indeed. But who would be in a position to run that court?
The UN? After all, Slobodan Milosovic is being tried now...
Oh, and Bell; it might help if I'd spelt independent correctly...
Never seen the scroll thingy so small on SR.!
Bane wrote:
> That post scored a 24 on my "mouse-scroll" meter.
>
> IMpressive.
Heh. Thank you.
~takes a bow~
If it's any help, my fingers are now hurting from speed-typing...
> That post scored a 24 on my "mouse-scroll" meter.
>
> IMpressive.
Heh. Thank you.
~takes a bow~
If it's any help, my fingers are now hurting from speed-typing...
Light wrote:
> For the record, the actions of BOTH men are utterly reprehensible.
> Frankly, I'd be glad to see both of them in front of a criminal
> court.
Indeed. But who would be in a position to run that court?
> For the record, the actions of BOTH men are utterly reprehensible.
> Frankly, I'd be glad to see both of them in front of a criminal
> court.
Indeed. But who would be in a position to run that court?
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Whatever you think, but even Light point to the relative ease with
> which most gained independence - because no one fought back in most
> cases. What would get both you and Light laughed out of a university
> would be your apparent idea that the independence was true
> independence. It wasn't, they swopped one form of rule for another
> and the people in charge were stil lthe colonial powers but in
> different ways.
Erm...so tell me Bell; tell me how you know about how we'd get laughed out of a University?! The nations involved were INDEPENDANT of British rule. Yes, they were ruled over by someone else equally as bad, but the were INDEPENDANT of the Brits. I feel the need to highlight that word as I'm intrigued as to what your definition of independant actually is. I'm taking it as "A nation independant of the Empire". What are you thinking of
>
> Whatever you think, that's not my problem.
And you think you'll convince someone of the truth of what you're saying by your dismissive arrogance? Man...no wonder you haven't got many friends here.
>
> Whatever you think, but even Light point to the relative ease with
> which most gained independence - because no one fought back in most
> cases. What would get both you and Light laughed out of a university
> would be your apparent idea that the independence was true
> independence. It wasn't, they swopped one form of rule for another
> and the people in charge were stil lthe colonial powers but in
> different ways.
Erm...so tell me Bell; tell me how you know about how we'd get laughed out of a University?! The nations involved were INDEPENDANT of British rule. Yes, they were ruled over by someone else equally as bad, but the were INDEPENDANT of the Brits. I feel the need to highlight that word as I'm intrigued as to what your definition of independant actually is. I'm taking it as "A nation independant of the Empire". What are you thinking of
>
> Whatever you think, that's not my problem.
And you think you'll convince someone of the truth of what you're saying by your dismissive arrogance? Man...no wonder you haven't got many friends here.
this whole topic is enough no make you finger burn
Page: