100 years? It was basically a first-world country 50 years ago. The decline in living standards in Lebanon is one of the largest ever (Argentina probably the biggest, Venezuela is the other big one, Lebanon is somewhere around Venezuela).
Countries can come back (the country that was Austro-Hungary, Slovakia has a city with one of the highest GDP per capita in Europe after massive repeated collapses), but there is (at least in the West) a very concerted effort not to call this situation like it is. It is obvious what happened, and now people say it is unsolvable when it has clearly been engineered to happen this way (blaming colonialism, too much diversity, anything but what it is).
Vague insinuations such as this one always harm the discussion. Why not just communicate clearly?
> the country that was Austro-Hungary, Slovakia
No, Slovakia wasn't Austria-Hungary, rather it was just a small part of Austria-Hungary (of Hungary, to be more precise). Wasn't even a successor de jure of Austria-Hungary.
I was referring to Bratislava...I said Slovakia. Pressburg was in Austro-Hungary I believe. Either way, it is irrelevant because that whole area did collapse economically multiple times, Austro-Hungary is one of the only stock markets that went literally to zero. The same story to the Middle East in many ways (war, repeatedly).
Yeah, I assume the city they're referring to is Vienna? Just guessing because of its well known high GDP.
However, the point stands. Many cities were bombed to rubble in WWII and they came back. The same could happen in Beirut if a stable political situation were to emerge. Though there are numerous reasons that will be very difficult.
Let's not forget a hefty investment was made by the West to rebuild those cities that were bombed to rubble that Beirut is not getting. So Beirut may need more than a stable political situation.
Getting quite off-topic, but Vienna is the capital of Austria; while Bratislava and Košice are the only two Slovakian cities with a population greater than 100000, so presumably it's one of those.
Greed existed before 1975. Are you saying Americans aren't greedy? And that is why they are so rich?
To be more specific: Lebanon was a country that had avoided the stuff going on elsewhere in the Middle East. The PLO gets involved, and the country implodes.
1) The cause of all human suffering is desire. The Buddhists have been pointing that out for millennia.
2) Greed is pretty much constant, people have been extremely greedy forever. The cause is the thing that changed to allow that greed to be channelled negatively. We've figured out how to channel greed for positive ends - in the process called a 'modern economy'. Greed is just a fuel, the issue is whether it is burning in an engine or burning uncontrolled.
It is getting into the weeds of philosophy, but they are separate concepts. Entities can be greedy without desire (eg, corporations are extremely greedy, but have no desire) and vice versa (eg, imagine an extreme desire for fresh air - it is hard to call that greed).
But to say greed causes suffering is untrue. The thing to underline in the last 200-300 years is that humans harnessed greed to deliver great results - the successive Asian economic miricles of the last century are not being caused by charity and goodwill! And the techniques that they are using were forged in some of the crucibles of most concentrated greed in human history. And while there was suffering, this was also where progress, peace and comfort came from.
The greed isn't the problem here, it is part of the solution. It just needs to be separated out from the other things going on and properly focused.
Ignorance of what though? How airfoils work? Or how to speak french? Ignorance of how acting on your urge to be greedy results in suffering? Sure. But I think the greed is still the thing causing the bad here.
When someone tells you they're a fan of a culture because of the immigrants and expats they've met from that culture, it's not OK to explain to them why they're wrong by implying that the rest of the culture is unlike them.
Well, I guess those Christian and Persian refugees missed out on all the great things that happened that the majority of the population wanted to have happen. I am sure they are wishing they could have been there for those changes.
Countries can come back (the country that was Austro-Hungary, Slovakia has a city with one of the highest GDP per capita in Europe after massive repeated collapses), but there is (at least in the West) a very concerted effort not to call this situation like it is. It is obvious what happened, and now people say it is unsolvable when it has clearly been engineered to happen this way (blaming colonialism, too much diversity, anything but what it is).