Which country will take longer to Rebuild?

[Tajir]

MODS - PLEASE ADD A POLL.
-------------

As it stands, there are two countries in the world that are infamously broken. Two countries that stand head and shoulders below the rest. Two countries that are in total chaos and are a nightmare to walk through. These two countries are of course Afghanistan and Somalia.

Which of these two will it take longer to rebuild? In terms of institutions and infrastructure.

I think Afghanistan will be easier to rebuild, seeing as it has resources and investors and garners interest all the time, it will not take long for the country to have a healthy economy and working institutions if the political situation is cleared up and there is some sort of peace. Development in Afghanistan is relatively quick and happens in large scale often, this is in thanks to its great resources and its offering.

In contrast, Somalia has no known resources aside from agriculture and livestock. Somalia has never attracted large scale investors either. The good thing about Somalia is that it will be much easier to subdue politically (whichever side wins) due to its simple clan system and religious/ethnic homogeneity, and this will in turn start the rebuilding process earlier than in Afghanistan.

This question comes up for me a lot, and I wonder a great deal about who will recover first. Its impossible to know. Afghanistan may always be at war but its resources will always allow some large investments to happen, however Somalia's simple factionalism makes it easy to work with the system.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

Somalia had its arse handed to it on a platter in a time when we didn't take stock of fancy notions like 'guilt', whilst Afghanistan has been crippled, wanked upon and sodomised by a group of people who actually, curiously, believe that democracy works. And so the latter will be rebuilt quicker, as we're going to keep trying to rebuild it without realising our government plan is fundamentally flawed, whilst somalia will just remain as it is, as it was, and as it for ever shall be, a reminder that African colonialism only had a chance of working if it was dutch, or French.

[Farnan]

Somalia had its arse handed to it on a platter in a time when we didn't take stock of fancy notions like 'guilt', whilst Afghanistan has been crippled, wanked upon and sodomised by a group of people who actually, curiously, believe that democracy works.

The Soviet Union believed that democracy worked?

(If you think the Afghan Civil War began in 2001 where then your level of understanding is about nil).

[removeduser_487563287433]

But not when you mixed the two into Belgians, curiously.

[Dr. Croccer]

But not when you mixed the two into Belgians, curiously.

It's an unholy combination, like Jaffa cakes.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Jaffa cakes are lovely.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

The belgians' only claim to dignity of any sort is that they were the host of In Bruges

[removeduser_487563287433]

Anyway your comment was stupid. French and Dutch colonialism was brutal and the collapse of their empires involved horrific wars that scarred the stability of the regions affected to this day. Conflicts as terrible as Algeria, and Vietnam are the consequences of French colonialism and the Dutch tried bitterly hard to re-establish themselves in East Asia after World War II.

[Dr. Croccer]

Anyway your comment was stupid. French and Dutch colonialism was brutal and the collapse of their empires involved horrific wars that scarred the stability of the regions affected to this day. Conflicts as terrible as Algeria, and Vietnam are the consequences of French colonialism and the Dutch tried bitterly hard to re-establish themselves in East Asia after World War II.

Not that that was that wrong. The Indonesian Republicans were nationalist authoritarianists who had to wage brutal wars against other peoples who wanted their own independence, and eyed up New Guinea a little while later, which was fixing to become independent under Dutch leadership. They probably killed more people in 3 decades than the Dutch did in 300 years.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

there was a level of irony in what I said.. I don't think Afghanistan was actually 'wanked upon'...

Colonialism has pretty much failed everywhere in Africa, except some rare situations, like Egypt and South Africa, and Egypt's success is probably more grâce aux Egyptiens rather than any European overlords, and South Africa probably succeeded part luck and part because it was used so frequently as an important port... I suppose, as I'm a white person, the only think we're taught about colonialism is that we should be guilty for it.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Botswana is the golden child of post-colonialism in Africa. It's a tragedy the huge leaps the Botswanans have made since independence is so undermined by the AIDS epidemic. South Africa and Egypt are unique in themselves because of Nasser and Apartheid.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

Well, you've made me look like a fool in a thread I wasn't approaching with the best of academic interests in mind. So I'll leave you as the indisputed authority on post-colonial africa.

[Jingles]

mmm, let's see.

Will it have American dollars pumping into it for years to come?

Somalia [ ]

Afghanistan [x]

[Plant]

Neither, they aren't a group of land and peoples permamently united by the idea of a nation state. They are the end results of warlords, tribes and clans, each looking to further their own power. They are not broken at all in that they aren't united as a country, but rather as seperate entities. And you ignored Somaliland, which looked to be doing rather well.

[Armenum]

Probably Afghanistan as they have some basic order and governmental structure, while Somalia is still a hell hole of anarchy. Somaliland on the other hand has some potential of being more stable, so maybe if the world recognized them, and they annexed the rest of Somalia somehow, could rebuilding move forward there.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

I didn't mean at all that Afghanistan's problems started in 2001, however their latest group of oppressors do believe in Aid-holes and democracy and proselytising consumerism. Afghanistan has more chance than Somalia.

[LSJ]

If by 'rebuild', you mean rebuild into what they were, then it is Iraq that is the real challenge.

Before 1990, its cities had functional hospitals, schools, water treatment plants, sewage systems, electricity, phone lines, water mains, and profitable capitalist enterprise that fueled many factories and allowed for massive infrastructure improvements. After two brutal wars, a decade of ungodly sanctions, and a third war, it's a shell of what it was. Even in 2003 it hadn't accomplished much in the way of rebuilding. Now it's been set back about 8 years, and it's only back up to 2003 standards, except now it has rampant genocidal terrorism. But on the bright side, it isn't run by a man who partakes in the genocide.

[Col. Tartleton]

If by 'rebuild', you mean rebuild into what they were, then it is Iraq that is the real challenge.

Before 1990, its cities had functional hospitals, schools, water treatment plants, sewage systems, electricity, phone lines, water mains, and profitable capitalist enterprise that fueled many factories and allowed for massive infrastructure improvements. After two brutal wars, a decade of ungodly sanctions, and a third war, it's a shell of what it was. Even in 2003 it hadn't accomplished much in the way of rebuilding. Now it's been set back about 8 years, and it's only back up to 2003 standards, except now it has rampant genocidal terrorism. But on the bright side, it isn't run by a man who partakes in the genocide.

Afghanistan had all that before the Communists.

[Farnan]

I didn't mean at all that Afghanistan's problems started in 2001, however their latest group of oppressors do believe in Aid-holes and democracy and proselytising consumerism. Afghanistan has more chance than Somalia.

The Taliban believe in democracy and consumerism?

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

bloody communists