ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the short answer that used to be agreed upon was "whoever can develop those resources"
Trump Betrays MAGA Over Venezuela
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
the short answer that used to be agreed upon was "whoever can develop those resources"
it is often asked of those who support the concept of "Make America Great Again" - when was America great before?
the answer can be found in your article:
We take over these places (third world countries with resources we want to control), kill the bad people and pay for it all by stealing their natural resources, in this case oil.
we were great in the past when that was recognized as an acceptable way of projecting national power
Arent you sweet.
Oh my, you expect rational thought. Very brave of you.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You are missing what happened in WWII and afterwards. Have you never read anything about that war and the Marshall Plan which followed the war?
Or do you think that the world would be a better place today if Hitler won the war?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
what specifically?
of course, but not as extensively as the pre-revolutionary war / colonial period and the period before ww1 and leading up and including ww2, the two periods that most interest me, historically
i can't imagine what i've posted that would lead you to that conclusion
but, as a good historian should, let's look at the premise - what would the world look like today if hitler had won the war?
the primary difference, to me, would have been the collapse of the soviet union and the end to soviet communism - as a result of that you wouldn't have had the cold war, the korean war, the vietnam war, the soviet atrocities - there's a lot of history that wouldn't have occurred
musterion
Well-known member
nah
drbrumley
Well-known member
drbrumley
Well-known member
Not exactly accurate. If Russia could develop something here, doesn't mean its thiers
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Russia can also develop those resources. That seems to be what they're angling for.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the argument used to be that if somebody had the ability, the tech, the resources, to develop a newly discovered natural resource, they had some entitlement to do so - taking into consideration the existing peoples that would be affected by the development - there were books written on it, discussing responsibilities, rights, moralities, cost/benefits analyses ...
usually they assumed a backward, sparse population, often nomadic (think middle eastern or northern canada - especially wrt the development of the huge hydro projects in quebec)
that's why i said "the short answer"
the long answer is very long indeed :chuckle:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
yes, they have a stronger/better relationship with the governments of Venezuela than we do
worth noting that a lot of V's reserves are oil/tar sands, similar to Alberta, more easily exploited
but still very dirty