Spiderman
Veteran Member
Let me know where this approach is a failure.
Take a country like Mexico and arm groups that want the drug-cartels uprooted and destroyed and the corrupt government overthrown. Assist them with American military might in overthrowing the drug cartels and corrupt government that so many are seeking asylum from and set up a government that people will be less inclined to flee from.
We even offer to make Mexico the 51st state of America since so many of them want to be American so badly, but certainly only if we have the support of the Mexican people. They will of course keep their flag and not be encouraged to change their culture.
Wouldn't life in Mexico be better as part of the United States? Better healthcare, better education, better welfare, better paying jobs, money that is worth far more etc.
I'm not saying war between Mexico and America is anything to desire.
What I'm saying is American government is sly enough to stir up groups in Mexico that revolt against the corrupt government which is largely influenced and controlled by drug cartels, arm them, and help them make short work of the drug-cartels and mafias, which they could easily do with American weapons, money, Helicopters, tanks, and hopefully not airstrikes, but a little napalm on top of the drug lords and their gangsters wouldn't be too much of a tragedy.
Blood would be shed, but in the end it could cause less people to flee mexico and less suffering. I hate war and hate people inflicting violence upon other people, but if it can actually cause less suffering in the end, which certain military objectives have indeed resulted in, I'd have to support it.
After reading about how 80 million Chinese were starved, used as target practice, enslaved, raped, terrorized, butchered, humiliated, brainwashed, tortured into killing themselves in re-education camps, and other atrocities under Mao, and reading about equally terrible Communist atrocities in Russia and North Korea, and arguably worse in Cambodia per-capita, I'd say that if the free-world had eliminated communist regimes right after World War 2, even if it meant dropping nukes on Moscow, when only America had the atomic bomb and best military in the world, such a war would have cost millions of lives but been a good thing for humanity, saving far more lives and preventing far more suffering in the end.
Nuking Moscow might kill over 100,000 people but 100,000 is a very small number to the countless millions killed by the Soviet Union. Russians would know that fighting a country with a bomb that great would be pointless, would be terrified, and surrender like they did against the Golden Horde Mongol invaders. Scare and demoralize the Russians enough and they can be conquered. Their military was already quite decimated, having lost more casualties than any other nation during World wars 1 and 2.
To have Western Europe, the free-world, and America, declare war on the Soviet Union right after a war that cost Russia so much, armed with Nuclear weapons, more money, more men, better planes, and better tanks, would have been like Mike Tyson in the ring with a poodle. People that worked for Communist Russia said that the Soviet Union was scared, insecure, and always on the verge of collapse according to documentaries that I saw. They did in the end fall without firing a shot.
When wars do not ease more pain than they cause in the long run, I'm against them. However, when I see how many people are fleeing Africa to simply live in tents in Europe, it appears some people want to be European so badly that they are just begging Europe to colonize them. If Europe colonized those nations and the nation's received better healthcare, plumbing, electricity, education, and money, what would be bad about them being colonized?
I'm not saying there is a guarantee that those nation's would receive those benefits, but if that was the goal of colonizing them, and not for selfish gain, and in the end it gave running water to the countless millions dying of water scarcity and other benefits, how could you say colonizing them was really a bad thing. Sounds to me like dying of thirst is pretty painful and miserable. Were I born in one of those nations without running water, I'd welcome people coming to colonize me and introduce me to civilization more conducive to survival.
Also, in my life-time, if the amount of wars and genocide in Africa was taking place in Europe, we would call it World War 3. Millions flee to Europe to escape these regimes. Perhaps Europeans can step in, make short work of the wicked regimes, colonize them with the intent of giving them better lives, and not for selfish gain, and ease a lot of suffering. I am NOT defending past European colonization of Africa, because it was done with selfish motives. Were it done with the right motives, I could see the possibility of giving people way better lives so that so many of them aren't making deadly voyages to seek a tent in Europe when we could simply bring Europe to them.
Take a country like Mexico and arm groups that want the drug-cartels uprooted and destroyed and the corrupt government overthrown. Assist them with American military might in overthrowing the drug cartels and corrupt government that so many are seeking asylum from and set up a government that people will be less inclined to flee from.
We even offer to make Mexico the 51st state of America since so many of them want to be American so badly, but certainly only if we have the support of the Mexican people. They will of course keep their flag and not be encouraged to change their culture.
Wouldn't life in Mexico be better as part of the United States? Better healthcare, better education, better welfare, better paying jobs, money that is worth far more etc.
I'm not saying war between Mexico and America is anything to desire.
What I'm saying is American government is sly enough to stir up groups in Mexico that revolt against the corrupt government which is largely influenced and controlled by drug cartels, arm them, and help them make short work of the drug-cartels and mafias, which they could easily do with American weapons, money, Helicopters, tanks, and hopefully not airstrikes, but a little napalm on top of the drug lords and their gangsters wouldn't be too much of a tragedy.
Blood would be shed, but in the end it could cause less people to flee mexico and less suffering. I hate war and hate people inflicting violence upon other people, but if it can actually cause less suffering in the end, which certain military objectives have indeed resulted in, I'd have to support it.
After reading about how 80 million Chinese were starved, used as target practice, enslaved, raped, terrorized, butchered, humiliated, brainwashed, tortured into killing themselves in re-education camps, and other atrocities under Mao, and reading about equally terrible Communist atrocities in Russia and North Korea, and arguably worse in Cambodia per-capita, I'd say that if the free-world had eliminated communist regimes right after World War 2, even if it meant dropping nukes on Moscow, when only America had the atomic bomb and best military in the world, such a war would have cost millions of lives but been a good thing for humanity, saving far more lives and preventing far more suffering in the end.
Nuking Moscow might kill over 100,000 people but 100,000 is a very small number to the countless millions killed by the Soviet Union. Russians would know that fighting a country with a bomb that great would be pointless, would be terrified, and surrender like they did against the Golden Horde Mongol invaders. Scare and demoralize the Russians enough and they can be conquered. Their military was already quite decimated, having lost more casualties than any other nation during World wars 1 and 2.
To have Western Europe, the free-world, and America, declare war on the Soviet Union right after a war that cost Russia so much, armed with Nuclear weapons, more money, more men, better planes, and better tanks, would have been like Mike Tyson in the ring with a poodle. People that worked for Communist Russia said that the Soviet Union was scared, insecure, and always on the verge of collapse according to documentaries that I saw. They did in the end fall without firing a shot.
When wars do not ease more pain than they cause in the long run, I'm against them. However, when I see how many people are fleeing Africa to simply live in tents in Europe, it appears some people want to be European so badly that they are just begging Europe to colonize them. If Europe colonized those nations and the nation's received better healthcare, plumbing, electricity, education, and money, what would be bad about them being colonized?
I'm not saying there is a guarantee that those nation's would receive those benefits, but if that was the goal of colonizing them, and not for selfish gain, and in the end it gave running water to the countless millions dying of water scarcity and other benefits, how could you say colonizing them was really a bad thing. Sounds to me like dying of thirst is pretty painful and miserable. Were I born in one of those nations without running water, I'd welcome people coming to colonize me and introduce me to civilization more conducive to survival.
Also, in my life-time, if the amount of wars and genocide in Africa was taking place in Europe, we would call it World War 3. Millions flee to Europe to escape these regimes. Perhaps Europeans can step in, make short work of the wicked regimes, colonize them with the intent of giving them better lives, and not for selfish gain, and ease a lot of suffering. I am NOT defending past European colonization of Africa, because it was done with selfish motives. Were it done with the right motives, I could see the possibility of giving people way better lives so that so many of them aren't making deadly voyages to seek a tent in Europe when we could simply bring Europe to them.
