Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
Our influence was during the time where a lot of countries turned democratic, even Turkey got onto a democratic path, but the countries that were under colonial governments all did not, nd quite a few of their attempts to break free were silenced with lots of blood. My point was that this suppression prevented them from even developing a sense for democracy or national unity as they were on one hand not allowed to do so and on the ther hand, their foremost concerns were not about how to govern themselves after colonial rule but how to get rid of it in the first place. And when that finally happened, the natural tendency was to accept the strongman who prevailed through all of it instead of having elections. In Europe the whole democracy thing didn't develop out of nowhere either.
You're conveniently forgetting all the East Asian Colonial Possessions that developed democratic institutions. India is a good example of this, though the long-term goal was Dominion status alongside the likes of Canada and Australia the Indians forced Britain's hand, about two decades before Britain wanted to give them self-rule.

[quote[Yes, but telling them that they have to do this or that in order to get money from you that they desperately need or bribing their leaders is hardly treating them as adults. Treating them as adults may also mean treating them as equals. Unless by treating them as adults you mean to use your power as much as possible until they fight back or succumb to it.[/quote]

You're talking about the past, I'm talking about the present and the future.

So if we crete a problem, then the result of it is their problem. If by that you mean all surrounding countries around a war zone could just not let any refugees in and watch them get slaughtered or starve at the border fences, then we can also just sink all the boats at sea and call it an act of charity as we end their suffering. I suppose this is not what you want though.
I don't think we did create this problem, I think at certain points we have exploited certain groups for either economic or political reasons but the West did not create radical Islam or the tactic of suicide bombing, or encourage the adoption of Sharia.

Again - compare India - although a lot of India is very backward, and backward looking , we saw no mass-mobilisation of maniacal groups devoted to Shiva or Karli, did we? No, the demand was for democracy and self-rule and when these were granted they mostly stuck - in India.

Now consider Muslim Pakistan - it had the same start as India but now large swarthes of it's tribal areas near Afghanistan have devolved into warlords who claim religious sanction for their rule, the same as in the Middle East.

This is a cultural problem, and one which seems to latch on to Islam as a fig leaf for brutality much as Socialism and Communism did in the rest of the World but unlike the latter these extreme Muslim schools have the backing of God and seem to therefore have more staying power.

I think the first duty of any human is to help other humans who are in need. And no, I do not give money to all the homeless people I see, but I expect my government to help where it can and make sure people stop being homeless (even a problem in Germany). I pay taxes so that the government can decide who needs the money. Of course I do not decide this alone, so I may not always like the result, such as bailouts for banks while other people have to sleep in the streets even though helping them would require only a fraction of the money spent on the banks.
well, do you want your government to help the homeless in Germany or in Syria first? Should your government be taking in 750,000 refugees when it can't feed and house all its own people?