Violence... UR doing it wrong

[Goshin]

"Violence never solves anything"... a popular quote among some.

Obviously dead wrong, at least in a literal sense. Violence solved WW2 rather effectively when no other solution would have served, for instance.


So... why have Germany and Japan caused no further trouble in over 60 years, after trying very hard (and almost succeeding!) in putting a large chunk of the world under oppressive conquest rule?

Because we did not merely beat them in war.... we beat them utterly. We beat their armies, inflicting massive casualties... we bombed their factories, devastating their production and economy... and we bombed civilian population centers, making the civilians working in support of the war (whether enthusiastically supportive or supportive-by-default) "feel the pain" and realize that the war they'd started had come home to visit like an 800 pound gorilla.

To put it colloquially, we kicked the living **** out of them so hard they still don't like to even THINK about war.

Basically, we engaged in the mass slaughter of the more aggressive among them, to such a massive degree that the more sensible among them decided that NOTHING was worth this and passed that sentiment on to the next generations.

In short, we used SUFFICIENT violence to quell the problem for generations to come.


Now, let's look forward a bit... Korea (still divided), Vietnam (the enemy took the country when we lost our will to continue), Somalia (we decided we didn't want to take casualties there and left)... and then there is Iraq and Afganistan, about whom time will tell but it isn't looking good in that there are still strong elements in each nation that are giving us trouble.

In the more recent wars, if indeed we had any business engaging in war there at all, we didn't use ENOUGH violence. In short, we didn't kill enough people to cow the rest for generations to come.

Now let me pause here and say that I'm not a hawk, I'm a dove... a heavily armed dove. I prefer to live in peace with my fellow man... but I don't trust to his benevolence and forebearance enough to disarm or not take precautions.

I think we are too quick to go to war, and sometimes for dubious reasons and often with inadequate prior planning and insufficient thought taken for how it is going to end.

I think we should be more cautious and slower to engage in war... but that IF we do go to war, we ought to make war more like we did in WW2.... to beat the other side into submission so thoroughly that they tremble at the very thought of aggressive action for the next three generations.

When the enemy says "We will fight to the last man", the only way to beat him is to SHOW him that you are willing to kill his 'last man'.

Have you ever noticed that young men, by which I mean 18-24, often posture or scuffle or fight among themselves but it is rather rare that they mess with older men, say 35+? Why is that? There seems to be an instinctive understanding this is a risky course of action... and often it is. The reason is that young men PLAY at fighting... and even when they are not playing, most often they do not fight to kill. (I'm not talking about gang battles over drug trade, but typical young-male "social violence".) Older men are done with these casual young-male-status-fights that are more posturing and about "image" and "reputation" than anything else... older men typically try to avoid fighting, but if they have to fight they are NOT PLAYING AT ALL... they will STOP their attacker in the most expedient manner available, including to kill you flat out, in the minimum amount of time and with the least effort possible.

They've learned, the hard way, that it is best to avoid violence but if you MUST fight, that you use sufficient violence to not only STOP the aggression at once, but to either strongly discourage any repetition or make it impossible by killing the attacker. Dead men don't come back for Round Two.

We need to take a similar view of war. We should avoid it like the plague as much as possible... but if we MUST fight, we should make all-out war and make it hurt until the enemy cries uncle, then bomb him some more until he's desperate to surrender and ready to take up pacifism and teach it to the next generation.

I recently watched the Hatfields and McCoys series (very good show btw). Several interesting thoughts percolated through my mind while I was watching it and afterward. One of which was, if either of the two patriarchs had been willing to LET GO of their hatred and desire for vengeance, and done what was necessary to avoid future conflicts even if that meant moving the whole family to another state, the feud could have ended. Failing that, if the feud could NOT be avoided or ended.... the problem the Hatfields had was they hadn't killed ENOUGH McCoys, and vice-versa. If either side had utterly annihilated the other, that too would have ended the feud.... no more enemies, no more feud.

We should pursue peace with all of our might, treasure it like a fragile jewel and guard it carefully... but if we MUST go to war anyway, then we should make WAR with all our might and without restraint until the enemy is either completely destroyed or so utterly demoralized to the core of their society that they will tremble at the very thought of provoking us again for three generations hence.

This is why I titled the thread "Violence, UR doing it wrong". Violence does indeed solve things, if you use enough violence... but it should only be used when there is no other feasible way.


Other viewpoints encouraged...

 

[Jredbaron96]

Goshin, this is the second thread you've made going against common peace sayings.

What are you striving for?

 

[Diogenes]

I can't see anything there to disagree with, although I'm not sure the technique will work against religious fanatics unless we kill a lot of them.

Germany, Italy and Japan were nation states with a common cultures (internally, at least), whereas the Muslim areas where the terrorism breeds are nations in name only. When the colonial empires left Africa, and when the Ottoman and the Austrian empires were dismembered after WWI, the victors didn't leave true nation-states behind - they left haphazard collections of tribes and clans, traditional enemies and/or competitors, with no sense of national identity. Yugoslavia lasted almost 80 years before it imploded, and other states (Egypt and Nigeria for example) have survived only by a brutal repression of some tribes/clans by others. Tribal tensions are a constant in places like Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, and sometimes (like Iran) the only way the leaders can hold the country together is by a constant drumbeat of propaganda against an external "enemy" like "the Great Satan" - as described in 1984.

Imo, were it not for the presence of Israel, the entire ME would disintegrate into hundreds or thousands of tribal "states," some with the population of rural US counties, constantly jockeying for position with endlessly shifting alliances. As it is, only the immense revenue from oil allows the leaders to rent a modest appearance of peace among their citizens.

Unless born into a privileged family, I suspect life might seem quite hopeless to a young man or woman growing up in such a society, and that would create fertile ground for a demagogue. Throw in the cultural sewage of fundamentalist political (not religious) Islam, with its tales of a long-ago glory unfairly stolen from them by evil westerners and the promise of paradise if they die committing violence against the infidel, and you have a toxic stew that will take truly extreme measures to clean up.

Maybe we should think of the cure as analogous to chemotherapy: you have to kill a lot of healthy cells to be sure you've killed the cancer. And that's going to take a strong stomach.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

War is not the same as violence. figuratively speaking people say that war is violent . . .but technically violence is unjust and unwarrented.

If something happens within wartime parameters it's usually justified or warrented.

Just like self protection vs assault - both can be harmful to the other but one is justified and understandable and the other is not.

 

[Goshin]

War is not the same as violence. figuratively speaking people say that war is violent . . .but technically violence is unjust and unwarrented.

If something happens within wartime parameters it's usually justified or warrented.

Just like self protection vs assault - both can be harmful to the other but one is justified and understandable and the other is not.

Auntie, I would have to disagree a bit. "Violence" is not, in the fundamental sense, a word that carries an intrinsic moral tag of wrongness.

War is violence for political purposes. Self-defense is violence for the purpose of staying alive or protecting your body or your property. They are still violence however.

The tendency to label "violence = badness" is a modern convention, but I tend to be blunt and look at things like this from a raw perspective... violence is inherent in war as in self-defense.

Another old adage is "chose your battles carefully"... I'm advocating that we choose our wars carefully, but if we're going to fight then we need to use sufficient violence that the other side NEVER wants to go to war with us again.

 

[Goshin]

Goshin, this is the second thread you've made going against common peace sayings.

What are you striving for?

Maybe all I am saying is Give War a Chance. :lamo


No no, I'm kidding... I just like to occasionally challenge the conventional wisdom about certain things, and the common themes that don't really fit reality.

 

[Sonic]

"Violence never solves anything"... a popular quote among some.

Obviously dead wrong, at least in a literal sense. Violence solved WW2 rather effectively when no other solution would have served, for instance.


So... why have Germany and Japan caused no further trouble in over 60 years, after trying very hard (and almost succeeding!) in putting a large chunk of the world under oppressive conquest rule?

Because we did not merely beat them in war.... we beat them utterly. We beat their armies, inflicting massive casualties... we bombed their factories, devastating their production and economy... and we bombed civilian population centers, making the civilians working in support of the war (whether enthusiastically supportive or supportive-by-default) "feel the pain" and realize that the war they'd started had come home to visit like an 800 pound gorilla.

To put it colloquially, we kicked the living **** out of them so hard they still don't like to even THINK about war.

Basically, we engaged in the mass slaughter of the more aggressive among them, to such a massive degree that the more sensible among them decided that NOTHING was worth this and passed that sentiment on to the next generations.

In short, we used SUFFICIENT violence to quell the problem for generations to come.


Now, let's look forward a bit... Korea (still divided), Vietnam (the enemy took the country when we lost our will to continue), Somalia (we decided we didn't want to take casualties there and left)... and then there is Iraq and Afganistan, about whom time will tell but it isn't looking good in that there are still strong elements in each nation that are giving us trouble.

In the more recent wars, if indeed we had any business engaging in war there at all, we didn't use ENOUGH violence. In short, we didn't kill enough people to cow the rest for generations to come.

Now let me pause here and say that I'm not a hawk, I'm a dove... a heavily armed dove. I prefer to live in peace with my fellow man... but I don't trust to his benevolence and forebearance enough to disarm or not take precautions.

I think we are too quick to go to war, and sometimes for dubious reasons and often with inadequate prior planning and insufficient thought taken for how it is going to end.

I think we should be more cautious and slower to engage in war... but that IF we do go to war, we ought to make war more like we did in WW2.... to beat the other side into submission so thoroughly that they tremble at the very thought of aggressive action for the next three generations.

When the enemy says "We will fight to the last man", the only way to beat him is to SHOW him that you are willing to kill his 'last man'.

Have you ever noticed that young men, by which I mean 18-24, often posture or scuffle or fight among themselves but it is rather rare that they mess with older men, say 35+? Why is that? There seems to be an instinctive understanding this is a risky course of action... and often it is. The reason is that young men PLAY at fighting... and even when they are not playing, most often they do not fight to kill. (I'm not talking about gang battles over drug trade, but typical young-male "social violence".) Older men are done with these casual young-male-status-fights that are more posturing and about "image" and "reputation" than anything else... older men typically try to avoid fighting, but if they have to fight they are NOT PLAYING AT ALL... they will STOP their attacker in the most expedient manner available, including to kill you flat out, in the minimum amount of time and with the least effort possible.

They've learned, the hard way, that it is best to avoid violence but if you MUST fight, that you use sufficient violence to not only STOP the aggression at once, but to either strongly discourage any repetition or make it impossible by killing the attacker. Dead men don't come back for Round Two.

We need to take a similar view of war. We should avoid it like the plague as much as possible... but if we MUST fight, we should make all-out war and make it hurt until the enemy cries uncle, then bomb him some more until he's desperate to surrender and ready to take up pacifism and teach it to the next generation.

I recently watched the Hatfields and McCoys series (very good show btw). Several interesting thoughts percolated through my mind while I was watching it and afterward. One of which was, if either of the two patriarchs had been willing to LET GO of their hatred and desire for vengeance, and done what was necessary to avoid future conflicts even if that meant moving the whole family to another state, the feud could have ended. Failing that, if the feud could NOT be avoided or ended.... the problem the Hatfields had was they hadn't killed ENOUGH McCoys, and vice-versa. If either side had utterly annihilated the other, that too would have ended the feud.... no more enemies, no more feud.

We should pursue peace with all of our might, treasure it like a fragile jewel and guard it carefully... but if we MUST go to war anyway, then we should make WAR with all our might and without restraint until the enemy is either completely destroyed or so utterly demoralized to the core of their society that they will tremble at the very thought of provoking us again for three generations hence.

This is why I titled the thread "Violence, UR doing it wrong". Violence does indeed solve things, if you use enough violence... but it should only be used when there is no other feasible way.


Other viewpoints encouraged...

" I'm not a hawk, I'm a dove... a heavily armed dove." One of my favorite quotes I've heard on here. I like your idea... No dilly-dallying. Just go in there, take care of business, and get out, not half-assing anything.

 

[rathi]

The problem is that you still thinking nonsense like "winning" is the goal of war. Like all political options, the useful of a war must be determined by a cost benefit analysis. Your "fight until every is dead" option will almost never actually be worth the cost. Defending South Korea from invasion proved to be worthwhile, but the cost of fighting China made taking the north unreasonable. We may not have "won" the war, but the armistice was the best option.

The Gulf War is another good example. Bush Sr. was wise enough to end the conflict after protecting our oil interests, even though it left Saddam in power. As his son showed us, the cost of invading Iraq was simply to high. If you calculate the worst case scenario in which Saddam re-invaded Kuwait every 10 years for the rest of his life, it would have cost but a fraction of the lives we lost in the occupation.

 

[Goshin]

The problem is that you still thinking nonsense like "winning" is the goal of war. Like all political options, the useful of a war must be determined by a cost benefit analysis. Your "fight until every is dead" option will almost never actually be worth the cost. Defending South Korea from invasion proved to be worthwhile, but the cost of fighting China made taking the north unreasonable. We may not have "won" the war, but the armistice was the best option.

The Gulf War is another good example. Bush Sr. was wise enough to end the conflict after protecting our oil interests, even though it left Saddam in power. As his son showed us, the cost of invading Iraq was simply to high. If you calculate the worst case scenario in which Saddam re-invaded Kuwait every 10 years for the rest of his life, it would have cost but a fraction of the lives we lost in the occupation.

WW2 cost far more in lives and money, but I doubt many would say that removing the 3rd Reich wasn't worthwhile.

I'll grant you there are, perhaps, times and cases where limited military action may be the best course... but there is a lot to be said for making things FINAL, and for having a standing reputation of utterly crushing any enemy that stands against us.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I recently read a book, America's top sniper. A great quote in it by a navy SEAL, "Despite what your mama told you violence does solve problems"

 

[rathi]

WW2 cost far more in lives and money, but I doubt many would say that removing the 3rd Reich wasn't worthwhile.

That isn't relevant to the modern world of nuclear weapons and MAD. All the great powers can obliterate each other, limited war is the only way to survive. Its no coincidence that every single war since 1945 has always been very limited.

I'll grant you there are, perhaps, times and cases where limited military action may be the best course... but there is a lot to be said for making things FINAL, and for having a standing reputation of utterly crushing any enemy that stands against us.

Only if you buy into the same adolescent mindset that you were railing against above. International relations is not about some schoolyard bull**** where you strut around with your "tough guy" reputation. Dictators who engage in wanton torture and murder inspire far more fear than we could ever hope to match and even they are easily overthrown.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Auntie, I would have to disagree a bit. "Violence" is not, in the fundamental sense, a word that carries an intrinsic moral tag of wrongness.

War is violence for political purposes. Self-defense is violence for the purpose of staying alive or protecting your body or your property. They are still violence however.

The tendency to label "violence = badness" is a modern convention, but I tend to be blunt and look at things like this from a raw perspective... violence is inherent in war as in self-defense.

Another old adage is "chose your battles carefully"... I'm advocating that we choose our wars carefully, but if we're going to fight then we need to use sufficient violence that the other side NEVER wants to go to war with us again.

Legal dictionary is what I opt for when discussing anything military-related because that's where government falls. government leans to legal definitions to define it's actions, activities and permissions.

VIOLENCE. The abuse of force. Theorie des Lois Criminelles, 32. That force which is employed against common right, against the laws, and against public liberty. Merl. h. t, 2. In cases of robbery, in order to convict the accused, it is requisite to prove that the act was done with violence; but this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, by beating, knocking down, or forcibly wresting from him on the contrary, whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life, with a view to compel the delivery of property equally falls within its limits.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

The problem isn't America. It's not our weaponry. It's not our strategies. ....it's our enemy.

The romantic days of conventional war are long gone. Gone are the days of two contrasted opponents. Both dressed in easily identifiable uniforms. Both following basic rules of engagement. Both abiding by traditional rules regarding treatment of enemy combatants.

Now...while America still abides by this romantic view of warfare, our enemy violates every single one of these points. They dress as civilians. They only fight guerrilla warfare, usually blended in with civilians, using them as shields. They happily murder captured POW's, occasionally videotaping it for posterity. And the worst part is...they have no sense of chivalry. Soldiers, civilians...men, women, children...it doesn't matter. These people wake up in the morning, and all they care about is how many "infidels" they can kill before being killed themselves.

Until the United States gives up conventional warfare, they'll NEVER beat the Islamic savages.

 

[hikari]

Lol the Marshall plan and the threat of mutually assured destruction in war between allies of the USSR and USA is what caused the violence to end promptly after WWII it has little to do with the actual violence that happened.

 

[Harshaw]

"Violence never solves anything"... a popular quote among some.

Obviously dead wrong, at least in a literal sense. Violence solved WW2 rather effectively when no other solution would have served, for instance.


So... why have Germany and Japan caused no further trouble in over 60 years, after trying very hard (and almost succeeding!) in putting a large chunk of the world under oppressive conquest rule?

Because we did not merely beat them in war.... we beat them utterly. We beat their armies, inflicting massive casualties... we bombed their factories, devastating their production and economy... and we bombed civilian population centers, making the civilians working in support of the war (whether enthusiastically supportive or supportive-by-default) "feel the pain" and realize that the war they'd started had come home to visit like an 800 pound gorilla.

To put it colloquially, we kicked the living **** out of them so hard they still don't like to even THINK about war.

Basically, we engaged in the mass slaughter of the more aggressive among them, to such a massive degree that the more sensible among them decided that NOTHING was worth this and passed that sentiment on to the next generations.

In short, we used SUFFICIENT violence to quell the problem for generations to come.


Now, let's look forward a bit... Korea (still divided), Vietnam (the enemy took the country when we lost our will to continue), Somalia (we decided we didn't want to take casualties there and left)... and then there is Iraq and Afganistan, about whom time will tell but it isn't looking good in that there are still strong elements in each nation that are giving us trouble.

In the more recent wars, if indeed we had any business engaging in war there at all, we didn't use ENOUGH violence. In short, we didn't kill enough people to cow the rest for generations to come.

Now let me pause here and say that I'm not a hawk, I'm a dove... a heavily armed dove. I prefer to live in peace with my fellow man... but I don't trust to his benevolence and forebearance enough to disarm or not take precautions.

I think we are too quick to go to war, and sometimes for dubious reasons and often with inadequate prior planning and insufficient thought taken for how it is going to end.

I think we should be more cautious and slower to engage in war... but that IF we do go to war, we ought to make war more like we did in WW2.... to beat the other side into submission so thoroughly that they tremble at the very thought of aggressive action for the next three generations.

When the enemy says "We will fight to the last man", the only way to beat him is to SHOW him that you are willing to kill his 'last man'.

Have you ever noticed that young men, by which I mean 18-24, often posture or scuffle or fight among themselves but it is rather rare that they mess with older men, say 35+? Why is that? There seems to be an instinctive understanding this is a risky course of action... and often it is. The reason is that young men PLAY at fighting... and even when they are not playing, most often they do not fight to kill. (I'm not talking about gang battles over drug trade, but typical young-male "social violence".) Older men are done with these casual young-male-status-fights that are more posturing and about "image" and "reputation" than anything else... older men typically try to avoid fighting, but if they have to fight they are NOT PLAYING AT ALL... they will STOP their attacker in the most expedient manner available, including to kill you flat out, in the minimum amount of time and with the least effort possible.

They've learned, the hard way, that it is best to avoid violence but if you MUST fight, that you use sufficient violence to not only STOP the aggression at once, but to either strongly discourage any repetition or make it impossible by killing the attacker. Dead men don't come back for Round Two.

We need to take a similar view of war. We should avoid it like the plague as much as possible... but if we MUST fight, we should make all-out war and make it hurt until the enemy cries uncle, then bomb him some more until he's desperate to surrender and ready to take up pacifism and teach it to the next generation.

I recently watched the Hatfields and McCoys series (very good show btw). Several interesting thoughts percolated through my mind while I was watching it and afterward. One of which was, if either of the two patriarchs had been willing to LET GO of their hatred and desire for vengeance, and done what was necessary to avoid future conflicts even if that meant moving the whole family to another state, the feud could have ended. Failing that, if the feud could NOT be avoided or ended.... the problem the Hatfields had was they hadn't killed ENOUGH McCoys, and vice-versa. If either side had utterly annihilated the other, that too would have ended the feud.... no more enemies, no more feud.

We should pursue peace with all of our might, treasure it like a fragile jewel and guard it carefully... but if we MUST go to war anyway, then we should make WAR with all our might and without restraint until the enemy is either completely destroyed or so utterly demoralized to the core of their society that they will tremble at the very thought of provoking us again for three generations hence.

This is why I titled the thread "Violence, UR doing it wrong". Violence does indeed solve things, if you use enough violence... but it should only be used when there is no other feasible way.


Other viewpoints encouraged...

The truth of this is so simple to grasp, yet so beyond the reach of many.

Human nature does not change. We are not "evolving," and the old truths are still the current truths.

 

[Goshin]

Legal dictionary is what I opt for when discussing anything military-related because that's where government falls. government leans to legal definitions to define it's actions, activities and permissions.

As you wish. I personally don't see it that way, and when I speak of violence I am doing so from my own viewpoint. It would be well then, to understand that when I say "violence" I do not necessarily mean "unjust, unlawful or wrongful violence"....

 

[Goshin]

That isn't relevant to the modern world of nuclear weapons and MAD. All the great powers can obliterate each other, limited war is the only way to survive. Its no coincidence that every single war since 1945 has always been very limited.



Only if you buy into the same adolescent mindset that you were railing against above. International relations is not about some schoolyard bull**** where you strut around with your "tough guy" reputation. Dictators who engage in wanton torture and murder inspire far more fear than we could ever hope to match and even they are easily overthrown.

No, I don't think you quite followed my argument.

As to nukes and MAD, that only applies between nations that have a fairly substantial stock of strategic nukes and the means to deliver them into their enemy's lap, ie ICBMs, long-range bombers, etc. A handful of nukes would not destroy the USA. It would hurt, but we'd survive and continue. There is, among experts, considerable debate about how much of the USSR's nuclear stockpile and missles are actually operational.... many believe the answer to that question is "not too many".

As to the schoolyard bull**** swaggering reputation thing, again I'm not sure you're getting my point. There is a huge difference between the sort of blustering windbag you're referring to, someone who is 90% bluster and bull****, versus someone who is KNOWN for taking decisive and drastic action when action is called for... someone who is 99% action and very little talk.

North Korea, for instance, makes outragously provocative statements from time to time... and sometimes provocative actions, like lofting missles in the general direction of Japan. But the world has learned that this is 99% attention-whoring and very unlikely to be backed up with actual war.... mostly it is NK's way of stamping its collective foot and demanding more economic aid from the West.

On the other hand, the world is a lot more likely to listen when the USA says "stop that, or we will STOP you".... because for quite some time we've been demonstrating a penchant for DOING something about it instead of just talking.

My point is that while we may very well be too prone to get involved in these little second-string wars, we are also guilty of not acting decisively enough when we DO make war... we are taken more seriously today than we were after the pullout from Somalia, which is documented to have encouraged Osama to think that the USA could be intimidated... but not as seriously as we were right after WW2.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

As you wish. I personally don't see it that way, and when I speak of violence I am doing so from my own viewpoint. It would be well then, to understand that when I say "violence" I do not necessarily mean "unjust, unlawful or wrongful violence"....

Indeed - by other means violence is any act of harm brought upon another.

 

[apdst]

War is not the same as violence. figuratively speaking people say that war is violent . . .but technically violence is unjust and unwarrented.

If something happens within wartime parameters it's usually justified or warrented.

Just like self protection vs assault - both can be harmful to the other but one is justified and understandable and the other is not.

The goal of combat units in war is to inflict maximum violence in minimum time upon the enemy.

 

[rathi]

No, I don't think you quite followed my argument.

As to nukes and MAD, that only applies between nations that have a fairly substantial stock of strategic nukes and the means to deliver them into their enemy's lap, ie ICBMs, long-range bombers, etc. A handful of nukes would not destroy the USA. It would hurt, but we'd survive and continue. There is, among experts, considerable debate about how much of the USSR's nuclear stockpile and missles are actually operational.... many believe the answer to that question is "not too many".

Russia can wipe the U.S. off the map under all circumstances. China, Israel, France and Britain can destroy the American nation as we know it. Pakistan, India and North Korea can kill millions. Nuclear war is too destructive to ever be worth the cost, it only comes into play when someone becomes literally insane and shoots first.

As to the schoolyard bull**** swaggering reputation thing, again I'm not sure you're getting my point. There is a huge difference between the sort of blustering windbag you're referring to, someone who is 90% bluster and bull****, versus someone who is KNOWN for taking decisive and drastic action when action is called for... someone who is 99% action and very little talk.

When it comes to wanton murder, nobody could ever claim the Assad family in Syria is "talk". There are tens of thousands of dead from the last few decades when the family got nasty. Despite having an extremely accurate reputation for killing, Assad is still facing an uprising as we speak. Even a complete monster was unable to suppress his populace with fear alone, its simply impossible for U.S. ethical standards.

North Korea, for instance, makes outragously provocative statements from time to time... and sometimes provocative actions, like lofting missles in the general direction of Japan. But the world has learned that this is 99% attention-whoring and very unlikely to be backed up with actual war.... mostly it is NK's way of stamping its collective foot and demanding more economic aid from the West.

North Korea can credibly threaten hundreds of thousands of lives. That isn't bluster, that is reality. They can large quantities of aid precisely because nobody really wants to figure out how much they are bluffing.

On the other hand, the world is a lot more likely to listen when the USA says "stop that, or we will STOP you".... because for quite some time we've been demonstrating a penchant for DOING something about it instead of just talking.

The U.S is taken seriously because we have the worlds most powerful military, not from nonsense about our reputation.

My point is that while we may very well be too prone to get involved in these little second-string wars, we are also guilty of not acting decisively enough when we DO make war... we are taken more seriously today than we were after the pullout from Somalia, which is documented to have encouraged Osama to think that the USA could be intimidated... but not as seriously as we were right after WW2.

The Persian Gulf War was a very limited war in scope, but demonstrated the overmatch of American military power by curb stomping Saddam in a matter of weeks. His son "decisively" invaded Iraq to "finish the job" and demonstrated how weak our military is when used in a incompetent fashion.

 

[Goshin]

Russia can wipe the U.S. off the map under all circumstances. China, Israel, France and Britain can destroy the American nation as we know it. Pakistan, India and North Korea can kill millions. Nuclear war is too destructive to ever be worth the cost, it only comes into play when someone becomes literally insane and shoots first.

Not quite correct. Russia MIGHT be able to effectively disrupt the US as a cohesive nation for a period of time... destroy us utterly, no. China, iffy... there is some question about how many long-range missles and suitable warheads they really have, that could reach CONUS. Israel, France and Britain are allies.

Nuclear war seems to the Western Rational-Materialist mind, with its tendency to measure return-on-investment in all things, to be never worth the cost.... but you need to realize that not all people all over the world think like Westerners, and that Rational Materialism is only ONE societal mindset.... some societies think VERY differently than we do and do not always act in what WE would consider a "rational" manner.

When it comes to wanton murder, nobody could ever claim the Assad family in Syria is "talk". There are tens of thousands of dead from the last few decades when the family got nasty. Despite having an extremely accurate reputation for killing, Assad is still facing an uprising as we speak. Even a complete monster was unable to suppress his populace with fear alone, its simply impossible for U.S. ethical standards.

North Korea can credibly threaten hundreds of thousands of lives. That isn't bluster, that is reality. They can large quantities of aid precisely because nobody really wants to figure out how much they are bluffing.

The U.S is taken seriously because we have the worlds most powerful military, not from nonsense about our reputation.

Again, I think you are either not getting or sidestepping the point I was making.