Rather disconcerting numbers

In many countries there's still what I am tempted to characterize as animist beliefs in the healing capacities of quack "medicine".
Just look at the persistent smuggle of rhino horns (which most of the world has united against several decades ago already) as an example, it is difficult to stop as long as there's demand and profit to be made.
But, and I am sure the Chinese government would eagerly point out if put under pressure, the evil of drugs and accompanying smuggle elsewhere is a lot worse than rhino horns and similar eccentricities. Moreover, if it's already impossible to stop the trade in something that needs to be poached and smuggled from other countries halfway across the globe, what hope is there to bring the problem with domestic exotic animals under control.

As an aside, the Philippines, for all sorts of reasons, the most important of which may well be the lack of access to proper medical care, is not a good example when it comes to combating quack "doctors" and their "herbal capsules" which supposedly heal everything from "prrrostate prrroblems" to high blood pressure, and provide you with "life extension". Those who occasionally listen to the local radio stations here will know why I put the extra rrr's lol.
In better regulated environments such advertisements (that announce the sellers as "pharmaceutical distributors" no less) would not be allowed.

 

The World has risen against great evil before - and, so far, the Free World won.

 

Then we all feel threatened by Russia (user of chemical warfare at home and abroad) and North Korea (nutters in control). Keep the US strong as, for any deficiencies people wish to point out, they are still the keepers of a Free World.

 

With all due respect, but solving serious differences through war is hopefully something of the past, especially when it concerns parties that can obliterate each other multiple times.
Rhetorical question: You wouldn't advocate the EU invade Britain to "solve" the problems between them would you?

No, we should hope the Venezuelans get rid of their problem all by themselves, like the US citizens, the Belarus citizens, the Brits, the Brazilians, The Chinese, North Koreans, etc. etc.
And yes, there's some sharks around that don't intend to play ball if they can get away with it. But even these will shy away from the mutually assured destruction scenario.

 

I know what 'rhetorical' means - however, my answer is: Not with us having so many nukes.

 

We would hope so, but has not happened yet. I also used to think the World will never allow another mass killing, as in the Holocaust, but they continue.

Countries are using MAD to crush weaker countries - as in China taking 'ownership' of anything actually belonging to weaker nations. Is that a process we can just turn a blind eye to?

 

Ah, well, I know a substantial minority of people in Britain currently think otherwise about subsidizing poorer countries (not just in Britain, I know), but fact of the matter is that Europe hasn't seen any wars among member countries of the EU since its inception, and only minor ones elsewhere in Europe (yes I know, a war is never minor if you're part of it, and atrocities have still taken place there), and I firmly believe that the lack of wars in Europe after WW2 is to a large extent thanks to a few things:
1. the Marshall Plan (thank you USA), as opposed to "making them pay" like was custom at the end of earlier wars;
2. The EEC/EU
For those familiar with European history no wars for 75 years is quite the achievement.

There's not a single reason in my view why the same recipe could not work elsewhere.
So cooperation and willingness to help, rather than "going it alone" (America first, Brexit, USA leaving the Paris accords, the WHO, the international court of justice, complaining about the UN, just to name a few examples of that inclination), are key to improving international relations, justice, the climate, economies, and many other things; sanctions can sometimes help to serve as reminders for what the world thinks about certain countries' policies, but not outright confrontation.

 

We are off topic (sorry, again, Mr R!) - but:

1. I am all for peace. That is why I married (twice)!
2. "Lack of wars in Europe since 1945"? What about the Balkans in the 1990s? Serbian aggression (and atrocities) only stopped by bombs used by stronger powers!

 

That was the minor one I referred to, I note none of Yugoslavia's component states were members of the EU at the time though.
By the way, which EU country was the only member involved in two wars of its own (not in Europe though)?
Come to think of that, might be better that they're leaving (just kidding, we'll welcome you lot back after the next elections )