Neglify said:

Trident said:

Neglify said:

^ Give specific examples of countries you think it would be better to see them fail than helped.

I'm not an expert

Ok I get what you're getting at, but your concept of "letting that country fail" is bullshit. I'm all for not "upsetting the local businesses" and culture, but what you were saying seemed to imply that every country should now take the viewpoint "Me me me me me I don't care about you go die peacefully" which is pretty childish and selfish.

I can see where you get that from because I am not really that good at explaining things, but what I mean is that rather than propping up a country that clearly can't find its way forward it should be allowed to get eaten up by its neighbors. It means external warfare instead of internal and it means more survival of the fittest stuff, but in the end we get stronger countries rather than ones that keep tripping over their own feet.

I am thinking that the threat that such a thing could happen must serve to unite the country rather than divide it. I think that giving the people in that country a common cause will get them focussed on their own survival.

What I am not saying is ignore people who have just suffered a big disaster. That stuff we need to come out and help, but what we are doing with some countries right now is like us all watching a guy who has bought a house too big for him to pay for. We can either all keep contributing to help the guy pay for it or we can watch him slowly go bankrupt, watch the house get repossessed by the bank, and then see him later on living in a much smaller house that he can better take care of.

Its the difference between false economy and real economy.