The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Insurgent Dogs [chat]
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
I wonder how resource-rich a hypothetical south vietnam would have been
We could have let it rot under a local sphere of influence (Nasser then Saudi Arabia for North Yemen) or been the big dicks on campus and hoped they came to heel (South Korea)
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
An even more classless show than COPS is blaring in the waiting room of the car service center right now. I've tried turning it down or off but the remote doesn't work. This is officially a loose working definiton of hell.
this is like objecting to giving a guy food stamps because what we really need to do is improve social mobility and opportunity and create a solid basis for sustainable economic security across the broad socio-economic spectrum
which is great
but meanwhile
that dude needs to eat
That's what I mean though, that's why you don't pull out. We'll never "defeat terror", if we pull out we've left a weakened state with a huge power vacuum and enemies more than willing to come right back and fill it and return things to how bad they use to be. Same thing that happened in the 80's with the Soviets and Afghanistan basically. So you stay, and fight the "war on terror", but what you're really doing is giving people the chance to rebuild. You take the lumps and get called invaders, but the end result is a country that can finally protect itself, and then you can leave.
a country that can protect itself is hideously expensive, and the degree of bloodshed needed for a central government to exert authority is no longer consistent with the degree of external support needed
unless you do the Hong Kong thing and barricade yourself into a coastal area, abandoning the rest of the country. then your population gets over-represented by the Western-sympathetic minority
ronya on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
this is like objecting to giving a guy food stamps because what we really need to do is improve social mobility and opportunity and create a solid basis for sustainable economic security across the broad socio-economic spectrum
which is great
but meanwhile
that dude needs to eat
That's what I mean though, that's why you don't pull out. We'll never "defeat terror", if we pull out we've left a weakened state with a huge power vacuum and enemies more than willing to come right back and fill it and return things to how bad they use to be. Same thing that happened in the 80's with the Soviets and Afghanistan basically. So you stay, and fight the "war on terror", but what you're really doing is giving people the chance to rebuild. You take the lumps and get called invaders, but the end result is a country that can finally protect itself, and then you can leave.
Kind of like Iraq...
What, you say there has been even more bombings recently? How odd.
Granted, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you as far as potentially helping nations rebuild. But we've been doing way too much of that, in all the wrong ways, and for all the wrong reasons.
this is like objecting to giving a guy food stamps because what we really need to do is improve social mobility and opportunity and create a solid basis for sustainable economic security across the broad socio-economic spectrum
which is great
but meanwhile
that dude needs to eat
That's what I mean though, that's why you don't pull out. We'll never "defeat terror", if we pull out we've left a weakened state with a huge power vacuum and enemies more than willing to come right back and fill it and return things to how bad they use to be. Same thing that happened in the 80's with the Soviets and Afghanistan basically. So you stay, and fight the "war on terror", but what you're really doing is giving people the chance to rebuild. You take the lumps and get called invaders, but the end result is a country that can finally protect itself, and then you can leave.
Kind of like Iraq...
What, you say there has been even more bombings recently? How odd.
Granted, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you as far as potentially helping nations rebuild. But we've been doing way too much of that, in all the wrong ways, and for all the wrong reasons.
We don't need to rebuild necessarily, we need to be the fence to keep the wolves away while the sheep figure things out. But "our troops are dying protecting the Iraqi population and we're getting nothing for it" doesn't make a good talking point.
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
this is like objecting to giving a guy food stamps because what we really need to do is improve social mobility and opportunity and create a solid basis for sustainable economic security across the broad socio-economic spectrum
which is great
but meanwhile
that dude needs to eat
That's what I mean though, that's why you don't pull out. We'll never "defeat terror", if we pull out we've left a weakened state with a huge power vacuum and enemies more than willing to come right back and fill it and return things to how bad they use to be. Same thing that happened in the 80's with the Soviets and Afghanistan basically. So you stay, and fight the "war on terror", but what you're really doing is giving people the chance to rebuild. You take the lumps and get called invaders, but the end result is a country that can finally protect itself, and then you can leave.
Kind of like Iraq...
What, you say there has been even more bombings recently? How odd.
Granted, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you as far as potentially helping nations rebuild. But we've been doing way too much of that, in all the wrong ways, and for all the wrong reasons.
south korea worked out all right, and it's not a terrible terrible analog for long-term nationbuilding.
of course, they were a very expensive dysfunctional shithole military dictatorship until the late 90s.
and then suddenly they were japan jr, like overnight
this is like objecting to giving a guy food stamps because what we really need to do is improve social mobility and opportunity and create a solid basis for sustainable economic security across the broad socio-economic spectrum
which is great
but meanwhile
that dude needs to eat
That's what I mean though, that's why you don't pull out. We'll never "defeat terror", if we pull out we've left a weakened state with a huge power vacuum and enemies more than willing to come right back and fill it and return things to how bad they use to be. Same thing that happened in the 80's with the Soviets and Afghanistan basically. So you stay, and fight the "war on terror", but what you're really doing is giving people the chance to rebuild. You take the lumps and get called invaders, but the end result is a country that can finally protect itself, and then you can leave.
Kind of like Iraq...
What, you say there has been even more bombings recently? How odd.
Granted, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you as far as potentially helping nations rebuild. But we've been doing way too much of that, in all the wrong ways, and for all the wrong reasons.
south korea worked out all right, and it's not a terrible terrible analog for long-term nationbuilding.
of course, they were a very expensive dysfunctional shithole military dictatorship until the late 90s.
and then suddenly they were japan jr, like overnight
korean economic miracle predated liberalization
+1
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
I wonder how resource-rich a hypothetical south vietnam would have been
We could have let it rot under a local sphere of influence (Nasser then Saudi Arabia for North Yemen) or been the big dicks on campus and hoped they came to heel (South Korea)
Majority of Vietnam's resource wealth is relatively new and mostly in the ocean.
I would say there is a chance it could of gone the South Korea route but Park's government was much more in a position to hold ground than the South Vietnamese.
Top of that North Vietnam at least till 1969 and the death of Ho Chi Minh were not a standard communist/maoist movement. Though I would say their legitimacy was more like the CCP's due to their success against the French.
A more interesting version would of been backing Ho Chi Minh after WWII when he first came to the US asking for resources to build US style government. He only went to the Soviets after we rejected him for "communist" ties and wanting to appease the French who after WWII could of gone either way.
this is like objecting to giving a guy food stamps because what we really need to do is improve social mobility and opportunity and create a solid basis for sustainable economic security across the broad socio-economic spectrum
which is great
but meanwhile
that dude needs to eat
That's what I mean though, that's why you don't pull out. We'll never "defeat terror", if we pull out we've left a weakened state with a huge power vacuum and enemies more than willing to come right back and fill it and return things to how bad they use to be. Same thing that happened in the 80's with the Soviets and Afghanistan basically. So you stay, and fight the "war on terror", but what you're really doing is giving people the chance to rebuild. You take the lumps and get called invaders, but the end result is a country that can finally protect itself, and then you can leave.
Kind of like Iraq...
What, you say there has been even more bombings recently? How odd.
Granted, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you as far as potentially helping nations rebuild. But we've been doing way too much of that, in all the wrong ways, and for all the wrong reasons.
south korea worked out all right, and it's not a terrible terrible analog for long-term nationbuilding.
of course, they were a very expensive dysfunctional shithole military dictatorship until the late 90s.
and then suddenly they were japan jr, like overnight
korean economic miracle predated liberalization
Japan Jr. is a good description but we all forget Japan was a one party system most of the last 60 years and did most of its industrializing under an Prussian style monarchy.
I wonder how resource-rich a hypothetical south vietnam would have been
We could have let it rot under a local sphere of influence (Nasser then Saudi Arabia for North Yemen) or been the big dicks on campus and hoped they came to heel (South Korea)
Majority of Vietnam's resource wealth is relatively new and mostly in the ocean.
I would say there is a chance it could of gone the South Korea route but Park's government was much more in a position to hold ground than the South Vietnamese.
Top of that North Vietnam at least till 1969 and the death of Ho Chi Minh were not a standard communist/maoist movement. Though I would say their legitimacy was more like the CCP's due to their success against the French.
A more interesting version would of been backing Ho Chi Minh after WWII when he first came to the US asking for resources to build US style government. He only went to the Soviets after we rejected him for "communist" ties and wanting to appease the French who after WWII could of gone either way.
Iran could've literally been our best friend if we hadn't overthrown their government and installed a murderous psychopath as the leader...
+1
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I wonder how resource-rich a hypothetical south vietnam would have been
We could have let it rot under a local sphere of influence (Nasser then Saudi Arabia for North Yemen) or been the big dicks on campus and hoped they came to heel (South Korea)
Majority of Vietnam's resource wealth is relatively new and mostly in the ocean.
I would say there is a chance it could of gone the South Korea route but Park's government was much more in a position to hold ground than the South Vietnamese.
Top of that North Vietnam at least till 1969 and the death of Ho Chi Minh were not a standard communist/maoist movement. Though I would say their legitimacy was more like the CCP's due to their success against the French.
A more interesting version would of been backing Ho Chi Minh after WWII when he first came to the US asking for resources to build US style government. He only went to the Soviets after we rejected him for "communist" ties and wanting to appease the French who after WWII could of gone either way.
Not one of our better diplomatic moves.
+2
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
this is like objecting to giving a guy food stamps because what we really need to do is improve social mobility and opportunity and create a solid basis for sustainable economic security across the broad socio-economic spectrum
which is great
but meanwhile
that dude needs to eat
That's what I mean though, that's why you don't pull out. We'll never "defeat terror", if we pull out we've left a weakened state with a huge power vacuum and enemies more than willing to come right back and fill it and return things to how bad they use to be. Same thing that happened in the 80's with the Soviets and Afghanistan basically. So you stay, and fight the "war on terror", but what you're really doing is giving people the chance to rebuild. You take the lumps and get called invaders, but the end result is a country that can finally protect itself, and then you can leave.
Kind of like Iraq...
What, you say there has been even more bombings recently? How odd.
Granted, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you as far as potentially helping nations rebuild. But we've been doing way too much of that, in all the wrong ways, and for all the wrong reasons.
south korea worked out all right, and it's not a terrible terrible analog for long-term nationbuilding.
of course, they were a very expensive dysfunctional shithole military dictatorship until the late 90s.
and then suddenly they were japan jr, like overnight
korean economic miracle predated liberalization
yeah it must have. like, in college in the 90s i knew some kids who graduated from the ROK army to study abroad in the US and god did they have tough lives.
and then a few years later i would meet korean immigrants that came from decidedly modern bourgeois backgrounds that were basically indistinguishable from upper-middle class kids anywhere.
did korea basically follow the same economic development model as japan & taiwan?
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I wonder how resource-rich a hypothetical south vietnam would have been
We could have let it rot under a local sphere of influence (Nasser then Saudi Arabia for North Yemen) or been the big dicks on campus and hoped they came to heel (South Korea)
Majority of Vietnam's resource wealth is relatively new and mostly in the ocean.
I would say there is a chance it could of gone the South Korea route but Park's government was much more in a position to hold ground than the South Vietnamese.
Top of that North Vietnam at least till 1969 and the death of Ho Chi Minh were not a standard communist/maoist movement. Though I would say their legitimacy was more like the CCP's due to their success against the French.
A more interesting version would of been backing Ho Chi Minh after WWII when he first came to the US asking for resources to build US style government. He only went to the Soviets after we rejected him for "communist" ties and wanting to appease the French who after WWII could of gone either way.
Iran could've literally been our best friend if we hadn't overthrown their government and installed a murderous psychopath as the leader...
Probably would of been less best friend but more would talk to us and lean towards us over Russia.
But really that is proof of nationalizing ones oil holdings from the British and the US is a bad idea.
I wonder how resource-rich a hypothetical south vietnam would have been
We could have let it rot under a local sphere of influence (Nasser then Saudi Arabia for North Yemen) or been the big dicks on campus and hoped they came to heel (South Korea)
Majority of Vietnam's resource wealth is relatively new and mostly in the ocean.
I would say there is a chance it could of gone the South Korea route but Park's government was much more in a position to hold ground than the South Vietnamese.
Top of that North Vietnam at least till 1969 and the death of Ho Chi Minh were not a standard communist/maoist movement. Though I would say their legitimacy was more like the CCP's due to their success against the French.
A more interesting version would of been backing Ho Chi Minh after WWII when he first came to the US asking for resources to build US style government. He only went to the Soviets after we rejected him for "communist" ties and wanting to appease the French who after WWII could of gone either way.
Rhee was a basketcase on the level of Diem, so it's hard to tell what would've happened
the US manhandling the transition from colonialism seems like a frequent occurrence, actually. the British had a willingness to pick promising winners and then back them with firepower.
Posts
If the universe hated him, Geth would have recycled the thread on page 1000.
i am the classiest whore
Lucky 7's!
We could have let it rot under a local sphere of influence (Nasser then Saudi Arabia for North Yemen) or been the big dicks on campus and hoped they came to heel (South Korea)
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
huh..
That's what I mean though, that's why you don't pull out. We'll never "defeat terror", if we pull out we've left a weakened state with a huge power vacuum and enemies more than willing to come right back and fill it and return things to how bad they use to be. Same thing that happened in the 80's with the Soviets and Afghanistan basically. So you stay, and fight the "war on terror", but what you're really doing is giving people the chance to rebuild. You take the lumps and get called invaders, but the end result is a country that can finally protect itself, and then you can leave.
"Gawd. No privacy. Hard to move. Worst. House. Ever."
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
man
you never see anyone having that kind of life-affirming fun with cats
unless you do the Hong Kong thing and barricade yourself into a coastal area, abandoning the rest of the country. then your population gets over-represented by the Western-sympathetic minority
yeah i took it safe this time
It depends. How life-affirming and fun is it for you when an animal jumps on to your lap unbidden and shoves its asshole in your face.
What, you say there has been even more bombings recently? How odd.
Granted, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you as far as potentially helping nations rebuild. But we've been doing way too much of that, in all the wrong ways, and for all the wrong reasons.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
well there is that
i guess it sort of depends on your stance on buttholes
Just made a couple with my late lunch and it's awesome
We don't need to rebuild necessarily, we need to be the fence to keep the wolves away while the sheep figure things out. But "our troops are dying protecting the Iraqi population and we're getting nothing for it" doesn't make a good talking point.
south korea worked out all right, and it's not a terrible terrible analog for long-term nationbuilding.
of course, they were a very expensive dysfunctional shithole military dictatorship until the late 90s.
and then suddenly they were japan jr, like overnight
korean economic miracle predated liberalization
what is a caesar?
is it what canadians call gravy & 7-up?
Majority of Vietnam's resource wealth is relatively new and mostly in the ocean.
I would say there is a chance it could of gone the South Korea route but Park's government was much more in a position to hold ground than the South Vietnamese.
Top of that North Vietnam at least till 1969 and the death of Ho Chi Minh were not a standard communist/maoist movement. Though I would say their legitimacy was more like the CCP's due to their success against the French.
A more interesting version would of been backing Ho Chi Minh after WWII when he first came to the US asking for resources to build US style government. He only went to the Soviets after we rejected him for "communist" ties and wanting to appease the French who after WWII could of gone either way.
Gravy and Moscato d'Asti.
Japan Jr. is a good description but we all forget Japan was a one party system most of the last 60 years and did most of its industrializing under an Prussian style monarchy.
Iran could've literally been our best friend if we hadn't overthrown their government and installed a murderous psychopath as the leader...
Not one of our better diplomatic moves.
Late lunch? It's 5pm!
#AbolishTheMealSystem
yeah it must have. like, in college in the 90s i knew some kids who graduated from the ROK army to study abroad in the US and god did they have tough lives.
and then a few years later i would meet korean immigrants that came from decidedly modern bourgeois backgrounds that were basically indistinguishable from upper-middle class kids anywhere.
did korea basically follow the same economic development model as japan & taiwan?
That Ethiopian kids hacking tablets story was amazing.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
so yeah that lasted about 9 minutes.
and now she is skeptical about my intentions for using it
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Probably would of been less best friend but more would talk to us and lean towards us over Russia.
But really that is proof of nationalizing ones oil holdings from the British and the US is a bad idea.
I'd say she knows exactly why you use it.
I want to die
Rhee was a basketcase on the level of Diem, so it's hard to tell what would've happened
the US manhandling the transition from colonialism seems like a frequent occurrence, actually. the British had a willingness to pick promising winners and then back them with firepower.
And once again, the internet lives down to its reputation.