Europe vs. US

[Atlas14]

Actually, it would probably end up being a stalemate. Neither would be able to successfully conquer the other even if successful invasions occurred. Everyone knows the Europeans and Americans would resort to the same tactics insurgents in Iraq are employing, which as we can see are difficult to counter if rules of war are being followed.

 

[Mirc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world

Spoiler :

Guess which colours are which. And prove the common statistics wrong by identifying Iraq on the map

That's very, very clearly wrong. Turkey is richer/more advanced than Poland??? And Hungary is as bad as China??

 

[Mise]

That's very, very clearly wrong. Turkey is richer/more advanced than Poland??? And Hungary is as bad as China??

1st World = Western nations.
2nd World = Communist nations.
3rd World = Other.

It does NOT mean 1st World = developed, 2nd World = not quite as developed, 3rd World = developing...

@ArneHD: Yes because that's THE definition.

 

[Mirc]

1st World = Western nations.
2nd World = Communist nations.
3rd World = Other.

It does NOT mean 1st World = developed, 2nd World = not quite as developed, 3rd World = developing...

@ArneHD: Yes because that's THE definition.

Ah, so communist nation are a different world, now I get it.

Spoiler :

I thought it was like "1st World = developed, 2nd World = not quite as developed, 3rd World = developing".

I misunderstood.

 

[MobBoss]

Guess which colours are which. And prove the common statistics wrong by identifying Iraq on the map

To quote your own wiki article:

Countries that have more advanced economies than developing nations but have not yet attained the level of those in the First World are grouped under the term Newly Industrialized Countries or NICs. These countries are: China, India, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and the GCC states.

Please compare the GCC states with pre-war Iraq. Again, if you are going to regard states like Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as not third world, then why not Iraq?

 

[MobBoss]

1st World = Western nations.
2nd World = Communist nations.
3rd World = Other.

It does NOT mean 1st World = developed, 2nd World = not quite as developed, 3rd World = developing...

@ArneHD: Yes because that's THE definition.

And yet, the article you linked says it is according to developing status:

Today, however, the term is synonymous with countries in the developing world, independent of their political status.

So which is it? Again, if you look at the list of countries that are developed but not yet 'first world' then pre-war Iraq is very comparable to them, if not ahead of them.

 

[Mise]

To quote your own wiki article:



Please compare the GCC states with pre-war Iraq. Again, if you are going to regard states like Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as not third world, then why not Iraq?

Those countries are still Third World.

Had you made reference to NICs, rather than First World and Third World, I wouldn't have been so confused. Unfortunately, you made no reference to NICs, and are simply backtracking.

 

[Mise]

And yet, the article you linked says it is according to developing status:



So which is it? Again, if you look at the list of countries that are developed but not yet 'first world' then pre-war Iraq is very comparable to them, if not ahead of them.

That the term is now used incorrectly does not make your usage any more correct.

 

[MobBoss]

Those countries are still Third World.

Thats not what your article says.

 

[Mise]

Thats not what your article says.

Yes it does

 

[MobBoss]

Yes it does

So you think China, Mexico, South Africa, etc. are third world countries? Again, I dont, irregardless of what a decades old definition used to split the world along political lines says.

 

[Che Guava]

So you think China, Mexico, South Africa, etc. are third world countries? Again, I dont, irregardless of what a decades old definition used to split the world along political lines says.

THe old 1st/2nd/3rd system is out of date. The newer U.N. H.D. index is more realistic, and puts those countries above in more of a second, rather than third, class class when it comes to development.

 

[MobBoss]

THe old 1st/2nd/3rd system is out of date. The newer U.N. H.D. index is more realistic, and puts those countries above in more of a second, rather than third, class class when it comes to development.

Which is my entire point. Thanks.

 

[Mise]

So you think China, Mexico, South Africa, etc. are third world countries? Again, I dont, irregardless of what a decades old definition used to split the world along political lines says.

China is Second World, Mexico is Third World, and South Africa is First World.

Which is my entire point.

So why did you mention "Third World" and "First World" at all? Again, you're back-tracking. It's probably best if you don't refer to Iraq as any kind of "world" if you don't mean anything of the sort

 

[Che Guava]

China is Second World,

True

Mexico is Third World,

debatable, but still arguable

and South Africa is First World.

Not even close. The poverty and devastation that the AIDS epidemic has wrought on the country ensures that it is nowhere near first world. It doesn't even make the top 3 on the HDI in africa. (link)

So why did you mention "Third World" and "First World" at all? Again, you're back-tracking. It's probably best if you don't refer to Iraq as any kind of "world" if you don't mean anything of the sort

All MobBoss is trying to get across is the relative level of affluence in Iraq at differnt periods in its modern history. And for a lot of that history, Iraq has been a relatively prosperous country with developed social services and a top-notch education system.

 

[Mise]

True



debatable, but still arguable



Not even close. The poverty and devastation that the AIDS epidemic has wrought on the country ensures that it is nowhere near first world. It doesn't even make the top 3 on the HDI in africa. (link)

If we define "1st world" as a certain set of development criteria, and then compare other countries with that criteria, then SA isn't 1st world. But "1st world" isn't defined like that. South Africa is by definition First World. I agree that the terminology is out-dated (and, in the case of SA, somewhat useless), but if we're going to use those words then we have to be clear: First World has only a coincidental link with human or economic development, and is not contingent on such.

All MobBoss is trying to get across is the relative level of affluence in Iraq at differnt periods in its modern history. And for a lot of that history, Iraq has been a relatively prosperous country with developed social services and a top-notch education system.

That's fair enough, and FWIW, I agree to a certain extent with the premise, if not with the conclusion. But Iraq IS a Third World country; insisting that it's not is just plain wrong.

 

[Theige]

But Iraq IS a Third World country; insisting that it's not is just plain wrong.

But it WASN'T in 1990, when we kicked their ass the first time.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

But it WASN'T in 1990, when we kicked their ass the first time.

They did not have the industrial capacity to maintain a war by themselves (they could not produce weapons and were dependent on imports of all kinds). As soon as they invaded Kuwait, everyone cut the lifelines. Europe can. The argument that Iraq was reasonably well developed is completely asinine.

 

[Mise]

But it WASN'T in 1990, when we kicked their ass the first time.

It was Third World in 1990.

 

[Theige]

It was Third World in 1990.

Using the cold war definition yes. But that is not appropriate for our discussion.