BF2S Forums The correct way to fight a proxy war

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

Agreed.  I'm pointing out a difference in size though.  Do you see the AQ in Yemen large enough to have a civil war?

No, but AQ has never been big. When we invaded Afghanistan we weren't fighting AQ, we were fighting the Taliban.

We were actually fighting both. Mostly Taliban, but there were discrete AQ targets (training camps and such) as well.

ruisleipa wrote:

you guys realise AQ is just a loose collection of splinter groups right? At least it was until the US managed to crystallise their support.

This is actually quite wrong. AQ - the main part of it - is a very well funded and very well organised group. There are various groups called al Qaeda in whatever country - but they are not AQ itself.

ruisleipa wrote:

Not to turn into lowing or anything, but can you provide a link to evidence of this as I'd always thought that what I first said was the case. Where is this 'main part' of AQ? Even if they are organised and funded now they surely haven't been for ever.

As in not al-Qaeda in xxxxxxxx country, but just al-Qaeda. The organization controlled by bin Laden/Zawahiri etc.

They've been organized and funded for at least a decade, as the embassy bombings showed. They're awash in cash - the one big thing al Qaeda has going for it is that bin Laden is a rich fucker and would have poured his money into somewhere we can't reach long ago.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

As much as anyone in our system has earned their money. I mean I am saying if there is no public healthcare and along those same lines reduced welfare and such then all money is earned. Social programs reduce the value of money as a whole, but each dollar is still worth just as much as every other dollar.

Well, I think there's a logical problem with that.  In a literal sense, you are correct, but I think this is one of those "sum is bigger than the whole of the parts" things.

When lives hang in the balance, I think you have to make the distribution of services based on more than just a paycheck.  Perhaps, you see this as me using a sanctity of life argument, but I see it as practical for maintaining order.

Being bullied around is no way to live life. You would pay someone off, I would use the money to go buy a gun. I would rather spend an equal amount of money for police and state militias to keep the peace rather than spend it on welfare.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I would argue that typically people don't have success period. The 90% that fail using poor means doesn't discredit the 10% that succeed with poor means.

That's kind of a pessimistic assumption (yeah, I know, that sounded hypocritical on my part), but when it comes to running a small business, that ratio of failure is probably accurate.

And yeah, I agree that you can still succeed with really shady means...  it's just that failure is usually much messier with them.

I don't have a problem with that, particularly because you may have forgotten but the point was shady* means may get yourself a house of cards. If the decision is glasnost and status quo or undisclosed future ambitions I'm going to pick the latter every time.

Princes have to play poker - they may have the cards they may not. That doesn't necessarily affect how they bet.

*Shady has an awfully strong criminal connotation. I am talking about playing it close to the vest, dirty and underhanded at worst, but not criminal.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Being bullied around is no way to live life. You would pay someone off, I would use the money to go buy a gun. I would rather spend an equal amount of money for police and state militias to keep the peace rather than spend it on welfare.

Well..  the Third World mostly follows that example.

Right, the sign of civilization is to be run by the mafia. Because hey, so long as you can pay there is no violence.

Third world countries are in poverty because they have no industry. The nation as a whole doesn't have the gross income to feed its people, not the same situation at all in the U.S. Even without welfare of any sort whatsoever the vast majority of the U.S. could do a lot better than just surviving, not even including the massive economic advantage both to those currently paying for healthcare and for those currently benefiting from it.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't have a problem with that, particularly because you may have forgotten but the point was shady* means may get yourself a house of cards. If the decision is glasnost and status quo or undisclosed future ambitions I'm going to pick the latter every time.

Princes have to play poker - they may have the cards they may not. That doesn't necessarily affect how they bet.

Machiavelli has great advice if you are already somewhat wealthy or powerful.  For the average working stiff, you have to play nice more often.

Maybe the average working stiff is an average working stiff because they play nice more often.

Machiavelli's wisdom pertains to anyone, the only difference is the size of the realm.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

*Shady has an awfully strong criminal connotation. I am talking about playing it close to the vest, dirty and underhanded at worst, but not criminal.

The rich and powerful decide what is criminal and what isn't.  Usually, this is just a matter of making blatantly unethical behavior illegal and keeping subtler, but often equally despicable means legal.

Doesn't make much difference, so long as the playing field is level. Everything could be legal or nothing could be legal, so long as you understand what is and is not legal and the laws are enforced equally then you know what you can expect.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Right, the sign of civilization is to be run by the mafia. Because hey, so long as you can pay there is no violence.

Actually, organized crime is more prevalent in countries with less of a social safety net.

America? Japan?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Third world countries are in poverty because they have no industry. The nation as a whole doesn't have the gross income to feed its people, not the same situation at all in the U.S. Even without welfare of any sort whatsoever the vast majority of the U.S. could do a lot better than just surviving, not even including the massive economic advantage both to those currently paying for healthcare and for those currently benefiting from it.

With no social safety net, you'd see us devolve into a Third World country.  Capital accumulates at the top.

Want to step me through how the latter gets you to the former?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Maybe the average working stiff is an average working stiff because they play nice more often.

Machiavelli's wisdom pertains to anyone, the only difference is the size of the realm.

Only to a limited degree...  Machiavelli is most accurate when it comes to covering your own ass.  Beyond that, being treacherous is great way to make enemies.

The average working stiff is average not because he's nice but because he might either be less perceptive or less fortunate in who he knows and is connected to.

You have to make your own connections. Part of being stupid is not knowing how to play the game to become influential. Not being born with a silver spoon in your mouth is no excuse to whine about how you can't get ahead because you don't know the right people.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Doesn't make much difference, so long as the playing field is level. Everything could be legal or nothing could be legal, so long as you understand what is and is not legal and the laws are enforced equally then you know what you can expect.

Well, laws usually aren't enforced evenly if you are wealthy and powerful enough to grease the right palms.  This is why white collar crime usually lands you in a nicer prison than property crimes that often inflict less monetary damage.

Which is a mockery of our justice system.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Actually, organized crime is more prevalent in countries with less of a social safety net.

America? Japan?

Compare America to Mexico.  We have more of a social safety net and less organized crime.

Dude come on, correlation does not imply causation. We have a lot of things Mexico doesn't.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Want to step me through how the latter gets you to the former?

Well, if you're asking how wealth disparity worsens with no social safety net, observe the progression of our society from the Gilded Age up to the Great Depression.  I think you'll find that we established a social safety net precisely because of how vulnerable a society is to crashes without one.

How did the Great Depression have anything to do with a social safety net? How would a social safety net have stopped anything? Instead of the people going broke our government would have gone broke...just like the situation we're in now.

There was a lot of idiotic speculation (borrowing money on the margin, what the hell) and people lost a lot of money. That economic fuck-up isn't reduced in any way with social programs, the debt is just shifted.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have to make your own connections. Part of being stupid is not knowing how to play the game to become influential. Not being born with a silver spoon in your mouth is no excuse to whine about how you can't get ahead because you don't know the right people.

Making connections is one thing.  Being a backstabbing bastard is another.

If that gets you what you want, it's the same thing. I doubt it is, as trust is vital to success and hard to come by, but if that's how you want to play it go ahead. People have to understand who to trust as much as you have to understand what you have to do to get ahead.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How did the Great Depression have anything to do with a social safety net? How would a social safety net have stopped anything? Instead of the people going broke our government would have gone broke...just like the situation we're in now.

There was a lot of idiotic speculation (borrowing money on the margin, what the hell) and people lost a lot of money. That economic fuck-up isn't reduced in any way with social programs, the debt is just shifted.

That 'safety net' also encourages stupidity. How many people are living on their credit cards now because they think the government is going to take care of them when they retire?

I think every culture its different and in America... Lazyness breeds like a yeast infection. Theres a strong social stigma against not working in many other nations (Especially in Asia... well you all know the stereotypes).

Seems like in American culture people want to do everything the easiest way.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Dude come on, correlation does not imply causation. We have a lot of things Mexico doesn't.

Yep, and part of that is the result of socialization.

Along with ethnic diversity, domestic security, and an industrious spirit.

Pointing to any one cause for economic disparity between nations is a pointless exercise.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How did the Great Depression have anything to do with a social safety net? How would a social safety net have stopped anything? Instead of the people going broke our government would have gone broke...just like the situation we're in now.

There was a lot of idiotic speculation (borrowing money on the margin, what the hell) and people lost a lot of money. That economic fuck-up isn't reduced in any way with social programs, the debt is just shifted.

I didn't say it prevented crashes, it just helps a society survive them better.

For a couple of decades anyways, until the government has to pay the piper. SEe how many people like the social programs that got them through this recession in the next decade when social security goes bankrupt.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Along with ethnic diversity, domestic security, and an industrious spirit.

Pointing to any one cause for economic disparity between nations is a pointless exercise.

...so is ignoring one that is relevant...

Ignoring one that is relevant? I'm not even breaking out the argument that social systems are more than irrelevant, they're detrimental to America's success compared to Mexico's.

Frosting doesn't make a cake.

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

That 'safety net' also encourages stupidity. How many people are living on their credit cards now because they think the government is going to take care of them when they retire?

I think every culture its different and in America... Lazyness breeds like a yeast infection. Theres a strong social stigma against not working in many other nations (Especially in Asia... well you all know the stereotypes).

Seems like in American culture people want to do everything the easiest way.

There is a strong social stigma against not working among a certain portion of our populace...typically referred to as "right wingers" by many here.

Its not exactly a sentiment unique to "right wingers"

FEOS wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There is a strong social stigma against not working among a certain portion of our populace...typically referred to as "right wingers" by many here.

Its not exactly a sentiment unique to "right wingers"

Not unique, no. But "republicans" or "conservatives" are the ones who are told they are "heartless" for feeling that way.

Pretty fucking stupid... I would kill myself before I become a social leech.

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

I think every culture its different and in America... Lazyness breeds like a yeast infection. Theres a strong social stigma against not working in many other nations (Especially in Asia... well you all know the stereotypes).

Seems like in American culture people want to do everything the easiest way.

There is a strong social stigma against not working among a certain portion of our populace...typically referred to as "right wingers" by many here.

Certain portion? In this country, the overwhelming majority. "Dole bludgers" is not exactly an endearing term but it's rather mild considering what else I've heard....

Here they laugh and give you a sly look like they're getting away with something.