|
Edited on Sun Jul-29-07 10:18 AM by Boojatta
Instead of choosing to have an adventure in Iraq, shouldn't the Bush administration have started a program of focused peaceful assistance for a small number of countries where significant improvements in the near future are feasible?
There are many places where the cost of living is low. If conditions in those countries were appropriate, then increasing numbers of retired Americans might choose to emigrated to some of those countries. Economic theory suggests that people in those countries would tend to have more employment opportunities as a result. Retired people spend, but don't compete much in labor markets.
For example, some governments could be persuaded to actually accept all parts of international law rather than merely paying lip service to some aspects of (or to the general idea of) international law. For example, they could refrain from persecuting their own citizens based on the religious, political, or philosophical beliefs of those citizens.
Corruption in their government agencies could be reduced. Also, law enforcement, health care systems, and immigration law in those countries could be modified and improved.
Should we believe propaganda from the 1960s and 1970s that suggested that the whole world outside of the United States is starving simply because of a scarcity of tools, land, and other resources or because the total world population is too high?
Aren't rule of law and employment opportunities a more important part of the solution to world poverty than increasing America's federal debt to finance cash aid to corrupt governments?
|