Revert to old ways of diplomacy?

[AqD]

The recent invasion, Hamas and growing terrorism are all indicators that our diplomacy based on promoting hypocritical values is failing. Do you think it's time we conclude the rest of the world is a hopeless and abandon our idealism for the old imperialism? (rebrand to whatever term that sounds better)


What's the difference, you ask?

For a start, we can publicly buy off foreign politicians and help them channel hard-earned money to our banks. We can crown rulers like Putin or Xi to manage their little empires for us, if they happen to lose popular support. Nothing works better than a foreign dictator who has to rely on our military might for survival. Imagine if we supported Mao's cultural revolution - China could never be a threat today.

We can also turn their propaganda machines into factories of controlled oppositions to mainstream medias, that way we'd always control both sides of opinions.

With real controls, terrorism could be easily crushed or limited to those distant countries whose people we don't really care, and our potential enemies would be too busy fighting each other with our weapons they paid for. Also they'd happily comply to our requests
from mining, border control to whatever we need against climate change, since they only need consider our opinions aka their profits not those of their subjects.

The bottom line is, there are many who have been saying the west is imperialist. So we better prove them right and show them!


So what do you say? Sounds reasonable yes?

[mishkin]

Sorry, can you explain again why do you want puppet states run by Western powers instead of democracies in the Southern Hemisphere and the East?

[Muizer]

I don't know. Seems what AqD is arguing is basically business as usual, except without lip service to lofty Western ideals.

[mishkin]

I don't think rejecting imperialism/colonialism is a lofty ideal. It sounds pretty basic and reasonable to me.

[AqD]

Sorry, can you explain again why do you want puppet states run by Western powers instead of democracies in the Southern Hemisphere and the East?

democracy? China and Russia have been democratic since early 1900s according to their laws.

A century later they haven't learned to follow their own laws or even attempt to keep their words, and they've grown dangerous.


And we need them to cooperate on some things such as border control and environment protection. Puppet states are the only way forward.


Besides, it'd benefit our people greatly if we remove the last armed opponent in energy supply.

[Coughdrop addict]

I'd say no, it is always better to have allies and friends then vassals and slaves. Vassals and slaves can only be counted on when you have the strength to keep them in shackles, but should the situation change things can get very bad for you.

Case in point, say a tsunami hit the US East Cost. The loss of life and property would be catastrophic, as would the US's ability to coordinate it's military. But because the US has friends and allies (and has in fact spent a lot on disaster relief in other countries itself) we could expect Canada and the EU and UK and Japan and others to help us out rather then grabbing whatever territory they could.

Now ask yourself, what if a major disaster happened in Russia that crippled it's military capacity? Does anyone help it? Or do it's neighbors start tearing out chunks of land for themselves?

[mishkin]

do you want control? do you want stability? you don't want moral nonsense? I vote for China to turn the entire West into its vassals.

[swabian]

do you want control? do you want stability? you don't want moral nonsense? I vote for China to turn the entire West into its vassals.

Without any doubt, this creature finds this monstrosity particulaly intelligent.

[mishkin]

I'm glad someone realized how monstrous it is to propose that any state/society be imposed over another.

[fkizz]

I'd say no, it is always better to have allies and friends then vassals and slaves. Vassals and slaves can only be counted on when you have the strength to keep them in shackles, but should the situation change things can get very bad for you.

Case in point, say a tsunami hit the US East Cost. The loss of life and property would be catastrophic, as would the US's ability to coordinate it's military. But because the US has friends and allies (and has in fact spent a lot on disaster relief in other countries itself) we could expect Canada and the EU and UK and Japan and others to help us out rather then grabbing whatever territory they could.

Now ask yourself, what if a major disaster happened in Russia that crippled it's military capacity? Does anyone help it? Or do it's neighbors start tearing out chunks of land for themselves?

More or less this. Might makes right sounds good until some whatever unexpect event that life has cripplies your might, and your underlings start chipping away small pieces of power for themselves.
Cooperation is a bit different, and has a larger insurance in case of frailty even if it's a temporary frailty, that cooperation will be favoured over chipping away the biggest power.