Might does make right, and aggression is rewarded. We are thriving examples of it, having subverted the UN multiple times to impose our will on various parts of the world and pitch our tents.
If people can't relay on the U.S. not to topple their governments, the obvious alternative is nuclear weapons.
Might does make right, and aggression is rewarded. We are thriving examples of it, having subverted the UN multiple times to impose our will on various parts of the world and pitch our tents.
If people can't relay on the U.S. not to topple their governments, the obvious alternative is nuclear weapons.
Gadaffi was clearly a fool for giving up on his nuclear program, when we helped topple and kill him anyway. I see few complaining about the terrible example that was set there.
yah this post is the exact madness thinking that got america stuck in yet another vietnam quagmire with no end in sight. No its not the US job to knock off dictators worldwide to maintain peace. sorry to notify you but no nation on earth can run the whole thing. Every empire that tried fell apart.
But that is exactly what the one world order plans. Who is to say that the one org at the pinnacle of the world order will not reward its benefactors with regional empires?
You're right. However, this time around, the human autocrats will have AI to manage all the minutia that overwhelmed them with devastating consequences. The autocrats see themselves having AI to handle the details. Finally, finally, finally, the vision is at hand, the primary argument against is obliterated. But if AI is controlling everything for unfathomable reasons... who... or what... will really be in control?
Mark — “subverted the UN multiple times to impose our will” — Um, like when we successfully defended South Korea? A rare example, given that the Evil Empire has had a UN veto since the beginning. Or are you thinking of something else.
No question, we want to encourage dictators to give up WMDs, not punish them if they do. Hilariously, some people insisted it was merely a coincidence, that Gaddafi gave up his WMDs two weeks after we captured Saddam Hussein. “20 years of negotiations,” they insisted.
Similarly it was bad policy to go after Pinochet after he resigned: we want to encourage dictators to resign, not scare them into holding on to the death.
In a world of perfect justice, of course, all dictators would be overthrown and prosecuted. In our world, practical considerations often intervene.
Might does make right, and aggression is rewarded. We are thriving examples of it, having subverted the UN multiple times to impose our will on various parts of the world and pitch our tents.
If people can't relay on the U.S. not to topple their governments, the obvious alternative is nuclear weapons.
Gadaffi was clearly a fool for giving up on his nuclear program, when we helped topple and kill him anyway. I see few complaining about the terrible example that was set there.
yah this post is the exact madness thinking that got america stuck in yet another vietnam quagmire with no end in sight. No its not the US job to knock off dictators worldwide to maintain peace. sorry to notify you but no nation on earth can run the whole thing. Every empire that tried fell apart.
But that is exactly what the one world order plans. Who is to say that the one org at the pinnacle of the world order will not reward its benefactors with regional empires?
You're right. However, this time around, the human autocrats will have AI to manage all the minutia that overwhelmed them with devastating consequences. The autocrats see themselves having AI to handle the details. Finally, finally, finally, the vision is at hand, the primary argument against is obliterated. But if AI is controlling everything for unfathomable reasons... who... or what... will really be in control?
The Iraq war certainly did extinguish what was left of our moral authority in the world.
Subverting the UN should be a national pastime. "(I)mposing our will on various parts of the world...", not so much.
Mark — “subverted the UN multiple times to impose our will” — Um, like when we successfully defended South Korea? A rare example, given that the Evil Empire has had a UN veto since the beginning. Or are you thinking of something else.
No question, we want to encourage dictators to give up WMDs, not punish them if they do. Hilariously, some people insisted it was merely a coincidence, that Gaddafi gave up his WMDs two weeks after we captured Saddam Hussein. “20 years of negotiations,” they insisted.
Similarly it was bad policy to go after Pinochet after he resigned: we want to encourage dictators to resign, not scare them into holding on to the death.
In a world of perfect justice, of course, all dictators would be overthrown and prosecuted. In our world, practical considerations often intervene.