|
I like the idea behind behind what you're saying but I think that you're at least a couple years too late. The age of D&Ders making serious posts or conducting extended debates is mostly a thing of the past.
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:How well did it work for the Romans? When they killed the trouble making leadership of their Jewish (and later Christian) problems? If you kill Paul, what does that do to Paul's ideas. If you kill Justin, what does that do to Justin's ideas. Short term the Romans had stability. Long term they lost the ideological fight. Conceptually, MIGF 's approach to foreign policy is to pretend that the USA is playing one of those old 4X computer games like Civilization or Master of Orion. Rhetorically his strategy seems to be predicated on the hope that people will be so caught up in how morally repugnant his ideas are that their brains will freeze up with outrage before they have time to realize how patently ridiculous he is being. He wants you to debate the ethics of genocide rather than thinking too hard about how logistically impossible and strategically stupid it would be to actually follow through on such a ridiculous proposition. BrandorKP posted:There are plenty of historical antecedents for the effectiveness of what he's suggesting. The "kill everybody who doesn't quit with the bullshit" route, is a pretty common solution historically. I think it's more viable to argue that to choose it is to be on the wrong side of history (the side of force and power.) There are numerous reasons that the Geostrategic calculations that drove the foreign policies of the ancient Assyrians or Romans would not be viable today but "force" or "power" being on the "wrong side of history" are not among them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 21:27
|
|