This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: World Politics and America  (Read 2913 times)

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
World Politics and America
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2007, 11:13:32 PM »
Yes well, again, the author was literally arguing in favour of the idea of american hegemony.

That, and claiming that the French are the secret masterminds of the axis of evil, so that should tell you something about his mental state...


RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

Werekoala

  • I\'m Toxic and I know It
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4375
World Politics and America
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2007, 11:43:15 PM »
Quote from: RPGPundit
Really? And just what kind of "victory" was possible? The only one I can imagine is the kind of victory that the US had in latinamerica, creating and propping up brutal dictatorships that slaughtered thousands of people and repressed millions.  What kind of "victory" is that?

Is that what kind of government South Vietnam had when we left? Or the kind that North Vietnam had and then imposed on South Vietnam?

Was the free government of South Vietnam preferable to the Communist North's government or not?

And "victory" has the same meaning it always had - the absolute defeat of your enemy. That's why Iraq sucks so hard - some folks have forgotten what it means to WIN a war instead of just micro-manage and spin control one.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Again, its an illusion to suggest that the US, if allowed to "win" would somehow be able to create wonderful first world democracies throughout the world, or that indeed that would be their real goal (democracies being notoriously hard to control if they're real).

Its not an illusion. Worked very well in Japan and Germany. Not so much luck since then (aside from South Korea). The PROBLEM is that many times, we're content for "regeime change" without being willing to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure a basic change in the  thinking of the people in the countries we're engaged in. So when we get done, it falls apart. Or we have to leave without "finishing" the job and it reverts to whatever it was before, or worse.

Winning hearts and minds dosn't seem to work too well, now does it? If it did, the UN would control the world. Get back to me when that's finalized, will ya?
Lan Astaslem


"It's rpg.net The population there would call the Second Coming of Jesus Christ a hate crime." - thedungeondelver

Serious Paul

  • Expectation Manager.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • http://bulldrek.freespeech-alpha.com/index.php
World Politics and America
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2007, 12:05:47 AM »
Quote from: RPGPundit
There isn't any, at least none that uses military force.  Canada's "peacekeeping" concept as originally envisioned was something pretty close, but that and other UN-style projects are famously incompetent and ineffective in practice.


I'm curious as to why you seem (And I can only use your post to make this sort of assertion, and obviously what little we commit to "paper", so to speak, is not the entirety  of who we are, so please feel free to tell me if I am missing something here.) so vehemently against the concept of proactive use of force.

I work in Law Enforcement. I deal with use of force issues on a very regular basis, and I have come to believe that force is a tool, like any other. Subject to the same sorts of abuse in its use.

While I don't think we should look to use of force as our first option, all of the time-I do think we shouldn't discount using the proper tool for the proper problem. (If that makes sense.)

This is not to be taken as a justification of any action of any government, but rather an explanation of my own views. (In broad strokes.)

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
World Politics and America
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2007, 12:09:09 AM »
Quote from: Werekoala
Is that what kind of government South Vietnam had when we left? Or the kind that North Vietnam had and then imposed on South Vietnam?

Was the free government of South Vietnam preferable to the Communist North's government or not?


Um.. honestly? I'd say not. They were a despicable totalitarian military regime, and corrupt to boot.  There was nothing about them that made them the more "preferable" choice, unless you count their willingness to be a puppet of the United States instead of the Soviets.

Quote

And "victory" has the same meaning it always had - the absolute defeat of your enemy. That's why Iraq sucks so hard - some folks have forgotten what it means to WIN a war instead of just micro-manage and spin control one.


Well, if you're talking about a normal "war", winning means beating the other guy's army.  You guys did that in Iraq in a question of weeks.
But if you're talking about "victory" against popular uprising, then "victory" means slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, most of them innocent civilians, and imposing brutal repression to force your ideology on a populace that ends up hating you.


Quote

Its not an illusion. Worked very well in Japan and Germany. Not so much luck since then (aside from South Korea). The PROBLEM is that many times, we're content for "regeime change" without being willing to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure a basic change in the  thinking of the people in the countries we're engaged in.


The difference is that at that moment you had a populace that was desperately interested in a fundamental change in their system. Also, in that war, the Allies were acting as a group (it wasn't the US who "changed" germany and Japan, it was all of the Western Powers and the nascent UN back when it was actually able to do stuff).  Both the Nazi regime and the Japanese military authority and everything they represented were rejected and despised by the populace themselves, because of the horrors of the former and the shameful defeat of the latter.

In all subsequent cases, the US has not been the "good guys"; they've been, at best, the "utterly self interested guys".  To the point that in Latinamerica they actually destroyed every democracy they could find, the fucking US, who are supposed to be the guiding light of democracy in the world, they wiped out every democracy in latinamerica because they cared more about controlling the region.

And you know, people aren't stupid. Its really easy to tell when you're sincerely doing things "to help out" vs. when you're doing things that are actually best for YOU, and not for them.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

Serious Paul

  • Expectation Manager.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • http://bulldrek.freespeech-alpha.com/index.php
World Politics and America
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2007, 12:09:53 AM »
Quote from: Werekoala
And "victory" has the same meaning it always had - the absolute defeat of your enemy.


I think that is a problem, that point of view. In World War II this was certainly a prevalent military theory, and given the tools and tactics of the time who can fault them?

But have we not advanced at all? And even if we haven't, shouldn't we strive to do so? I'm not saying we discard the concept of total war, just that we realize it is our tool, one of many and that it should be used when needed. Not because we like it.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
World Politics and America
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2007, 12:13:12 AM »
Quote from: Serious Paul
I'm curious as to why you seem (And I can only use your post to make this sort of assertion, and obviously what little we commit to "paper", so to speak, is not the entirety  of who we are, so please feel free to tell me if I am missing something here.) so vehemently against the concept of proactive use of force.

I work in Law Enforcement. I deal with use of force issues on a very regular basis, and I have come to believe that force is a tool, like any other. Subject to the same sorts of abuse in its use.

While I don't think we should look to use of force as our first option, all of the time-I do think we shouldn't discount using the proper tool for the proper problem. (If that makes sense.)

This is not to be taken as a justification of any action of any government, but rather an explanation of my own views. (In broad strokes.)


Because more often than not, when you're talking about countries, the use of force ends up looking like Iraq does now. And more often than not, its done for those kinds of motives too.

There are cases, however, when I can see myself supporting the use of force. WWII was a good example.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

Serious Paul

  • Expectation Manager.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • http://bulldrek.freespeech-alpha.com/index.php
World Politics and America
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2007, 12:14:33 AM »
I will whole heartedly agree we often see abuse of our tools, as nation states. A shame too.

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
World Politics and America
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2007, 10:43:26 AM »
Quote from: RPGPundit


The difference is that at that moment you had a populace that was desperately interested in a fundamental change in their system. Also, in that war, the Allies were acting as a group (it wasn't the US who "changed" germany and Japan, it was all of the Western Powers and the nascent UN back when it was actually able to do stuff).  Both the Nazi regime and the Japanese military authority and everything they represented were rejected and despised by the populace themselves, because of the horrors of the former and the shameful defeat of the latter.

In all subsequent cases, the US has not been the "good guys"; they've been, at best, the "utterly self interested guys".  To the point that in Latinamerica they actually destroyed every democracy they could find, the fucking US, who are supposed to be the guiding light of democracy in the world, they wiped out every democracy in latinamerica because they cared more about controlling the region.


RPGPundit



The first paragraph has an incorrect assumption: that the people of germany and Japan wanted the US to tear down their governments and assemble new, and in the case of Japan, radically different, governments in their place. They accepted this because they were throughly demoralized and devestated by a brutal war and the iron boots of the righteous conquerers who had shattered their nations and their will to fight.  Most assuredly you did NOT have cheering germans and Japanese civilians lining the roads to cheer on the American Soldiers and sell them candy and war trophies is you very much did have in Iraq.  

Yes, the US mucked up South America pretty good, not without a lot of help from the locals. Yes, they did it out of self interest. We can even say malevolent self interest.  Find me a nation of altruists without any self interest and I will show you the shortest lived nation of all time.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

Werekoala

  • I\'m Toxic and I know It
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4375
World Politics and America
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2007, 11:04:25 AM »
Quote from: Spike
Yes, the US mucked up South America pretty good, not without a lot of help from the locals. Yes, they did it out of self interest. We can even say malevolent self interest.  Find me a nation of altruists without any self interest and I will show you the shortest lived nation of all time.

For that matter, show me just about any human endeavor at any point in history that wasn't led by "utterly self-interested guys". I'd wager 99%+ of anything done by any human being is done out of self-interest... enlightened or otherwise, even if that self-interest was something as basic as personal survival.
Lan Astaslem


"It's rpg.net The population there would call the Second Coming of Jesus Christ a hate crime." - thedungeondelver

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
World Politics and America
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2007, 11:20:32 AM »
Quote from: Werekoala
For that matter, show me just about any human endeavor at any point in history that wasn't led by "utterly self-interested guys". I'd wager 99%+ of anything done by any human being is done out of self-interest... enlightened or otherwise, even if that self-interest was something as basic as personal survival.



Very true, and it irritates me that we toss the term around as if it were a dirty word or vile insult.  It's a 'my shit don't stink' attitude.  

If the leaders of... say Uraguay... saw a chance to assassinate the president of the US and put a new US president in power that supported Uraguayan intrests they would do it.  It is the fact that US was in a position to do it that frustrates others. The fact that we did so under the flimsiest of excuses, with the most short sighted goals in mind that makes our actions deplorable, not the fact we did so.  In our own short sighted 'self interest' we did more harm than good in the long run... to our own 'self interest'.


I just find it funny that every time I read the Pundit in this thread I keep seeing


Swine=France....
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

Werekoala

  • I\'m Toxic and I know It
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4375
World Politics and America
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2007, 11:35:30 AM »
Quote from: Spike
Very true, and it irritates me that we toss the term around as if it were a dirty word or vile insult.  It's a 'my shit don't stink' attitude.  

If the leaders of... say Uraguay... saw a chance to assassinate the president of the US and put a new US president in power that supported Uraguayan intrests they would do it.  

... as long as they were certain that it wouldn't end up in their death or the destruction of their country.

That's the important part of the equation, and the biggest reason why people fear or envy the US - because we can, basically, do just about ANYTHING we want and be relatively certain it won't result in a) the death of the people ordering it or b) destruction of our country. We're powerful enough we CAN do about anything we want. The fact that, for the most part, we don't TRY to take over the world speaks larger volumes (to me at least) than the ocassional Iraq.

In world history, any nation with that kind of power has turned into a conquering Empire, and that's what everyone's afraid of - or fearfully jealous of. That's why they want to shackle us to the ICC or UN or (insert multinational organization here) - that's why they always oppose any US military effort (the "global consensus on Afghanistan", for example, lasted about 45 minutes into the campaign - we had to SHAME NATO into coming in once the worst of the battle was over - and years later, I might add) - to try to restrict the power they fear.

That's also why you don't see anyone doing anything about places like Darfur or Zimbabwe - if there were any of Pundit's altruistic nations out there, they'd be trying their damndest to put an end to those genocides.

Line forms to the left. . .
Lan Astaslem


"It's rpg.net The population there would call the Second Coming of Jesus Christ a hate crime." - thedungeondelver

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
World Politics and America
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2007, 12:27:58 PM »
Quote from: Spike
Very true, and it irritates me that we toss the term around as if it were a dirty word or vile insult.  It's a 'my shit don't stink' attitude.  

If the leaders of... say Uraguay... saw a chance to assassinate the president of the US and put a new US president in power that supported Uraguayan intrests they would do it.  It is the fact that US was in a position to do it that frustrates others. The fact that we did so under the flimsiest of excuses, with the most short sighted goals in mind that makes our actions deplorable, not the fact we did so.  In our own short sighted 'self interest' we did more harm than good in the long run... to our own 'self interest'.


Oh I agree, but that's the point there, isn't it? That the real reason that American dreams of Hegemony are seen as bad is not because of some spineless socialists creating a fairy tale, but because everyone has seen real living evidence of the US fucking up time and time again, with bad motives to begin with, and bad results in the end.  To the point that even a sizeable population of the US are against the "Project for a New American Century" mentality, not because they're secretly terrorists or French spies or whatever the fuck this guy imagines, but because they want what's best for America, and realize that the number 1 produce of Anti-american terrorists and fanatics who want to kill Americans, as well as people from other nations coming to just generally despise America, has been George W. Bush, via his actions.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
World Politics and America
« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2007, 12:36:49 PM »
Quote from: Werekoala
... as long as they were certain that it wouldn't end up in their death or the destruction of their country.

That's the important part of the equation, and the biggest reason why people fear or envy the US - because we can, basically, do just about ANYTHING we want and be relatively certain it won't result in a) the death of the people ordering it or b) destruction of our country. We're powerful enough we CAN do about anything we want. The fact that, for the most part, we don't TRY to take over the world speaks larger volumes (to me at least) than the ocassional Iraq.


Two things:

1. The fact that you can't even "take over" a pissant third world country in the middle east doesn't exactly prop up the bets on the chances that you could take over the entire world.  You have enough nukes to DESTROY the entire world if you wanted to, sure, but I really don't see the US being able to "take over" it the way, say, the British Empire did.

2. You are right, however, in saying that there's nothing that you fear, or really need to fear. No outside opponent, no army, no terrorist, can destroy the United States. You can only destroy yourselves by suicide.  Lafayette said that about you, and its a lesson I wish you'd listen to now, because you have clearly forgotten it, and Franklin's more famous statements about liberty and security (especially the second part, that he who chooses security over liberty will soon lose both).
Only you can destroy yourselves, by letting your pettiness and your intellectual poverty and your fear and your baser emotions lead you to cheerfully surrender everything the Founding Fathers fought to create.

Quote

That's also why you don't see anyone doing anything about places like Darfur or Zimbabwe - if there were any of Pundit's altruistic nations out there, they'd be trying their damndest to put an end to those genocides.

Line forms to the left. . .


I think you'll note that I already stated that those "altruistic nations" do not exist.

But you will notice that the US has done fuck all about Darfur or Zimbabwe either.  So much for the lie that you give a fuck about the "Freedom" of Iraqis, you don't even give a fuck about the lives of the Sudanese, at least not enough to send troops in to save them, so you certainly didn't send troops into Iraq because you give a flying fuck about the poor little Iraqi's freedoms.  And that's why people hate you: you lie, boldfacedly, about your motives.  You claim that you want to spread democracy to the world, but you actually just want to control it.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

JongWK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
World Politics and America
« Reply #28 on: January 06, 2007, 01:19:44 PM »
Quote from: Spike

If the leaders of... say Uraguay... saw a chance to assassinate the president of the US and put a new US president in power that supported Uraguayan intrests they would do it.


Shit, we've been ratted out! ;)
"I give the gift of endless imagination."
~~Gary Gygax (1938 - 2008)


Sigmund

  • a Toxic Sociopath
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
World Politics and America
« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2007, 01:35:35 PM »
Quote from: RPGPundit
Two things:

1. The fact that you can't even "take over" a pissant third world country in the middle east doesn't exactly prop up the bets on the chances that you could take over the entire world.  You have enough nukes to DESTROY the entire world if you wanted to, sure, but I really don't see the US being able to "take over" it the way, say, the British Empire did.

2. You are right, however, in saying that there's nothing that you fear, or really need to fear. No outside opponent, no army, no terrorist, can destroy the United States. You can only destroy yourselves by suicide.  Lafayette said that about you, and its a lesson I wish you'd listen to now, because you have clearly forgotten it, and Franklin's more famous statements about liberty and security (especially the second part, that he who chooses security over liberty will soon lose both).
Only you can destroy yourselves, by letting your pettiness and your intellectual poverty and your fear and your baser emotions lead you to cheerfully surrender everything the Founding Fathers fought to create.



I think you'll note that I already stated that those "altruistic nations" do not exist.

But you will notice that the US has done fuck all about Darfur or Zimbabwe either.  So much for the lie that you give a fuck about the "Freedom" of Iraqis, you don't even give a fuck about the lives of the Sudanese, at least not enough to send troops in to save them, so you certainly didn't send troops into Iraq because you give a flying fuck about the poor little Iraqi's freedoms.  And that's why people hate you: you lie, boldfacedly, about your motives.  You claim that you want to spread democracy to the world, but you actually just want to control it.

RPGPundit


Once again, how about some other nation not busy elsewhere pick up that ball and run with it? If the US is "self-interested" and dishonest than what does that make all the rest of the free world who sit around doing nothing but criticizing us for what action, right or wrong, we do take? What nation doesn't use lies, misdirection, and/or manipulation in their foreign policy? Do you rail against your own government for it's lack of action in Darfur as much as you do the US's? Why, just because we take action in Iraq, does the rest of the world seem to think it automatically becomes our sole responsibility to also act in Africa? How about some country that actually does have a more vested interest in intervening take that responsiblity. So, we're not perfect... neither is anyone else, but they sure are quick to throw stones and demand we act while they sit on their collective asses and do nothing themselves.

BTW, the only reason we're having such a hard time in Iraq is because we do care about the welfare of the innocents and non-combatants... about trying to preserve the nation itself. Were we to collectively get it in our heads that we wanted victory at any cost, we'd leave the country a smoking ruin, and probably still control the oil.
- Chris Sigmund

Old Loser

"I'd rather be a killer than a victim."

Quote from: John Morrow;418271
I role-play for the ride, not the destination.