> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
[snip]
> the future. They live in a democracy. They live in a free society. They
> know that things can get better. Nigeria is poor - did Nigerians blowi up
> buildings in NYC? Saudi Arabia is _not_ poor. But it was Saudis who did
> it. Your correlation doesn't work. Poor people aren't terrorists. And
> terrorists aren't poor.
Although true to the extent that conflicts are almost always led by people
with some degree of wealth, I don't think this erases the link between
poverty and violence. A rich man can look at his neighbors' poverty and
become enraged enough to lead them or fight on their behalf. Sometimes we
call that behavior noble, sometimes we call it hypocrisy. I don't think it
is even relevant to any moral judgment.
> The people who are able to fight, fight. The poor are less able to
> fight, the wealthy are more able.
Not quite. The wealthy can give the poor the resources to do the fighting.
In fact, that's often how it is, isn't it?
> Erik, if you know how to develop Pakistan, there's a fairly prestigious
> award handed out in Sweden waiting for you. Good luck. Giving
> money to bad
> governments tends to strengthen the bad government. I don't want to do
> that.
Erik, were you suggesting that? I would hope that all of us can see that
fighting poverty doesn't necessarily mean giving money. In fact, that
hardly ever seems to work. In a world that has the resources to end
poverty, the reasons it continues are ignorance and corruption. The latter
is a good reason not to use money as the solution, as long as it must pass
through the hands of those in power.
I'm not arguing against the need for military action, but it sometimes
sounds like you reject all other solutions. You're not saying that our only
choices in Pakistan are to unconditionally support the existing government
or use force to disarm the country, are you?
Nick
