objectively speaking
b doesnt like c and vis versa. b kills, rapes, maims, captures c's people and c likewise does the same intermittently using b's children to kill, maim, etc...
d walks in and takes a look around. he does not belong to side b or c, he is d, an independent, there out of his own needs and desires to further himself in the land of d. the conflict of b and c is not important to him. he is there to fulfill his own needs and this is not his fight. is d a bad man, an unconscionable being, heartless, or is d simply an innocent, a bystander, looking beyond the war to opportunity and supplying his world's demand?
can b or c blame d for being there? their land has what his needs and neither of them are capitalising on its full potential. he is a willing buyer and they, willing sellers. why is he to blame for their conflict, why is it his duty to fix their problems, why should he get involved?
when r b or c going to look around and ask what are we doing to each other rather than why is d here?
Labels: africa, america, asia, capitalism, conflict, europe, g8, global warming, globalisation, poverty


