Nice Guy Syndrome implications for the Big World

[ArcBound]

Exactly. We should be harder on that Kim Dong Ill. If we would step down, he will attack the South or Japan or put even more people in labor camps or starve them to death. You know what I mean. So what do you want? On one hand you want him out and on another you don't want to pay the price for taking him out. I understand the price can be high so I don't blame anyone for not acting harder.

The South Koreans want him out too but they can't just do that. For example, South Korea's most populated, most industrious and economic powerhouse of a city: Seoul is within range of fortified artillery from the North. Even if we could wage a war against the North, South Korea's livelihood would be obliterated. Considering we are at the demilitarized zone for the purpose of protecting South Korea, an outcome with the destruction of their capital city and complete industrial center is not good. Not like we can nuke/bomb North Korea either, cause I'm sure China won't take kindly to that.


Yep. There is a chance that the guns eventually end up in the hands of extremists in the end.

The guns didn't simply end up in the hands of extremists. The people we gave the guns to became the very extremists we are fighting now.

At least we tried. North Africa is more enlightened than Afganistan and the culture is different, so there is smaller chance of that.
If we did nothing in Afghanistan, Russians would fvck up Pakistan, India

Proof of this? Even the British Empire when it had a lot of power couldn't control India. Plus the Soviet Union was already on the way to collapse due to economic reasons, Afghanistan merely sped up the process.

as they did in Africa in Angola etc. And the Russians were not interested in human rights not a zinch.


Clearly because it was done like half azz way. Assassinating a dictator is never easy and is more for political gain, because the vacuum gets filled quickly if you don't follow with other means.



I absolutely agree with that. Europeans should put their shyt together. It is on their turf after all.

The link I posted was not aimed solely at the Europeans, most of these conflicts are in Africa and Asia. We can't baby the Middle East and other nations forever.

But it is laziness....you have to work harder to compensate the costs or cut on luxury like welfare etc.

Even cuts on welfare wouldn't allow us to continually fund ending the war on conflicts. And how exactly should we compensate costs? Borrow trillions of dollars from China like we are already doing? There is no realistic way to do it without running a MASSIVE deficit (which we already have).

And it is fear of disapproval for obvious reasons.


China and Russia should realize that they should cooperate and stop that hating. Oh, they can't. They have their own agenda...'We against them' so our slaves won't hang us on a tree.

They have their own agenda like America has its own agenda. America with its feud with Russia caused many of the conflicts today including the split between the Koreas leading all the way back to the end of WW2.

Great debate. Do you enjoy it like I do?

It's an exercise of the mind. I understand your intentions because passivity is what causes evil to prevail. However if America is the only one enforcing justice it will not matter how hard America tries. There will never be enough money, manpower, reason to suppress the countless conflicts that are in existence. If we try to hard to control the world according to our mold, like many other nations and empires, eventually we will fall.

 

[Rogue]

StateOfMind:
Not sure about politics but from a social viewpoint, being nice to everyone is smart. To be successful you have to learn to get along with anyone your with. You can't be confrontational even in the most heated situations, learn to please others and you will get what you want.

DanelMadr:
Oh shyt.
First you will go very frustrated over time.
Second some people don't play this fair play game...you end up murdered or enslaved.

I think what StateOfMind may have been trying to say, but did not say in the best wording, is to always be polite and diplomatic. Even in times of heated situations and disagreements, it's best to remain calm and cool as a cucumber. In fact, remaining calm in heated situations is powerful in itself because your opponents cast themselves as out of control and they lose credibility. The best reaction is often no reaction.

 

[FairShake]

I understand that. However when you are ready for war, most of the times it is sufficient for your adversaries to give up or at least play good for a while.

Take the present situation. Should we or should we not help the Libyan rebellion? 'We don't have money, we like our peace, another conflict is too much, what will come from that, they won't appreciate it.....' I understand these concerns but....

See, typical indecisive Nice guy. We know what is the right action and we should act upon it. And maybe we will find better ways to help than full blown invasion. But this waiting is helping nobody except that pr1ck.

I'm just trying to say that we should research our motives. Is it laziness/fear/approval seeking or rational pro-acting ?

Recent history has shown that just us being "ready for war" has not been enough to beat a bunch of guerilla fighters on their home turf twice in a row. We are the biggest spending military in the world, of all time, and we have a helluva a time controlling teenagers with homemade bombs. History shows that colonial powers end up tapping out by extending themselves too far. All this "White Man's Burden" stuff you are talking about has destroyed other empires and it probably will hurt the US too if we aren't smart about it.

Acting without considering the consequences may be the nice guy way to go but it's also the smart guy way to go.

 

[DanelMadr]

@ArcBound

The South Koreans want him out too but they can't just do that. For example, South Korea's most populated, most industrious and economic powerhouse of a city: Seoul is within range of fortified artillery from the North. Even if we could wage a war against the North, South Korea's livelihood would be obliterated. Considering we are at the demilitarized zone for the purpose of protecting South Korea, an outcome with the destruction of their capital city and complete industrial center is not good. Not like we can nuke/bomb North Korea either, cause I'm sure China won't take kindly to that.

I agree with that. No dispute. Odds are against us/poor N. Koreans.

The guns didn't simply end up in the hands of extremists. The people we gave the guns to became the very extremists we are fighting now.

Not really. The Northern Alliance was against Taliban. It was fighting bigger evil at that time. The real deal weapons were not provided by us...like tanks, helicopters etc.

Proof of this? Even the British Empire when it had a lot of power couldn't control India. Plus the Soviet Union was already on the way to collapse due to economic reasons, Afghanistan merely sped up the process.

Proof? Well, Taliban is too extreme for Lybia, come on. I'm not saying there is no chance extremists will take power but I think it is worth the risk to give him a chance to choose.

The link I posted was not aimed solely at the Europeans, most of these conflicts are in Africa and Asia. We can't baby the Middle East and other nations forever.

Even better. I agree. When UN stops being a debating club for dictators the world will get better.

Even cuts on welfare wouldn't allow us to continually fund ending the war on conflicts. And how exactly should we compensate costs? Borrow trillions of dollars from China like we are already doing? There is no realistic way to do it without running a MASSIVE deficit (which we already have).

I do agree. But I am not proposing an invasion. No flight zone and a few crates of AKs should be sufficient to topple the regime.

They have their own agenda like America has its own agenda. America with its feud with Russia caused many of the conflicts today including the split between the Koreas leading all the way back to the end of WW2.

Their agenda is fvcked up. The reason for that might be that Russia is questionable democracy and China not even trying. Why can US and Europe more cooperate than compete? Because variety of people/voters makes them more balanced, meanwhile in autocracies it is more egoistic approach.
This debate is the proof of it. Different views clash and settle on common ground. The cons are...it takes far too long, meanwhile Libyans are dying and can loose.

It's an exercise of the mind. I understand your intentions because passivity is what causes evil to prevail. However if America is the only one enforcing justice it will not matter how hard America tries. There will never be enough money, manpower, reason to suppress the countless conflicts that are in existence. If we try to hard to control the world according to our mold, like many other nations and empires, eventually we will fall.

Again I do agree. We have to be smart about it. And that is what I am proposing here...no flight zone and a few guns.

@Rogue

I think what StateOfMind may have been trying to say, but did not say in the best wording, is to always be polite and diplomatic. Even in times of heated situations and disagreements, it's best to remain calm and cool as a cucumber. In fact, remaining calm in heated situations is powerful in itself because your opponents cast themselves as out of control and they lose credibility. The best reaction is often no reaction.

Yes but the opponent must know and feel that you can crush him once he crosses the line. World is not an university debate club. There are some scary creatures, believe me.

@ FairShake

Recent history has shown that just us being "ready for war" has not been enough to beat a bunch of guerilla fighters on their home turf twice in a row. We are the biggest spending military in the world, of all time, and we have a helluva a time controlling teenagers with homemade bombs. History shows that colonial powers end up tapping out by extending themselves too far. All this "White Man's Burden" stuff you are talking about has destroyed other empires and it probably will hurt the US too if we aren't smart about it.

Acting without considering the consequences may be the nice guy way to go but it's also the smart guy way to go.

Good point. But I am not proposing an invasion. I'm proposing mere help in guns and sky shelter.
I am not sure what you mean by White Man's Burden. We can't compare ourselves to colonial powers. Let not forget that when they took the colonies and sometimes enslaved it's people they were ruled by Kings. And we were enslaved to some extent as well. And you can't compare the circumstances .

But the idea of occupying Libya crossed my mind. I am a big white man after all and I do like to sip a martini on Mediterranean beach...muhehehehe.

 

[FairShake]

I am not sure what you mean by White Man's Burden. We can't compare ourselves to colonial powers. Let not forget that when they took the colonies and sometimes enslaved it's people they were ruled by Kings. And we were enslaved to some extent as well. And you can't compare the circumstances .

We're not enslaving people, but we are forcing them to live in a way that betters our economic interests. Well, not mine and maybe not your's, but the very rich. And that is imperialism as it has been since the dawn of time.

White Man's Burden is referring to the Kipling poem, that may or may not be satire, extolling the virtues of invading, colonizing, and ultimately civilizing third worlders. There is a school of thought known as neoconservatism that proposed the same thing in the Middle East in the years prior to the Iraqi War. As if it is our duty to "free them" and as if they want us to "free them." Strangely or not so much, most of the dictators and freedom haters advocated against did not follow American business or cultural interests, while freedom loving dictators who did were defended.

I am not a fan of fighting for other peoples' interests be they womanly or worldly.

 

[BigJimbo]

Only Americans think their government is too nice.

Bingo! Just view this forum. These boys all think that the entire world is like Kansas . Seriously, we have guys comparing Ukraine to their suburban neighborhood.

 

[DanelMadr]

We're not enslaving people, but we are forcing them to live in a way that betters our economic interests. Well, not mine and maybe not your's, but the very rich. And that is imperialism as it has been since the dawn of time.

White Man's Burden is referring to the Kipling poem, that may or may not be satire, extolling the virtues of invading, colonizing, and ultimately civilizing third worlders. There is a school of thought known as neoconservatism that proposed the same thing in the Middle East in the years prior to the Iraqi War. As if it is our duty to "free them" and as if they want us to "free them." Strangely or not so much, most of the dictators and freedom haters advocated against did not follow American business or cultural interests, while freedom loving dictators who did were defended.

I am not a fan of fighting for other peoples' interests be they womanly or worldly.

I'm responding a little too late, sorry.
Forcing Freedom is kinda weird combination.
Yes, we are protecting our interests, mainly. Trade routes and resources but at the same time kicking bad guys-making a chance for freedom loving people in that countries. However democrats tend to do poorly in 3rd world, that's true.
Should we give up on them and let dictators grow?

Dictators who do not follow American 'let's do business' interests , do follow only their own interest +family + regime elite and to bribe their repressive forces. How many people would vote for Saddam in free elections after 5 years of his rule? 14% at best.

 

[Jitterbug]

Yes, we are protecting our interests, mainly. Trade routes and resources but at the same time kicking bad guys-making a chance for freedom loving people in that countries.

Sounds infinitely better than robbing the poor to feed the rich.