Save a country, look like the biggest douche ever

[shadowstriker86]

So i was having a conversation with my brother, and he said we could end 3rd world countries corruption crap if we just took over them using mercenaries, saying that we're not going to war, we're just solving their problems for them since they're too slow. While on paper this looks like a bad idea, imagine if it actually worked. what do you think?

 

[TheLastCylon]

Well, I'm pretty sure most countries would dislike getting taken over by foreign mercenaries. So yeah, it's a bad idea.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Why don't we just do my style of Civilization?

First, we become friends, then once I build a wall, roll tanks in and occupy a city. After that, nuke the city.

 

[Taipan]

You won't save shit. The population will hate you and you'll constantly have to fight a brutal and bloody insurgency war, like what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only advancement that will come is that you'll unite the country for a short while against a common enemy. Once you give up in frustration and leave, they'll go back to raping and killing each other.

The fact of the matter is, Africa and much of the Middle East is so fucked up (largely because they do it to themselves), it's going to take centuries of cultural and political change before they can get past the feudal era. Nothing we (as in the West) can do is going to speed up that process. Latin America is a little better, but their problem is socialist/fascist government, which again we can't fix for them.

As a matter of comparison, it took England roughly 100 years to go from feudal monarchy to parliamentary democracy. The UK was at that time the world's superpower, with massive gold reserves and a navy (sea power was the trump card of that era) that few if any could match (think America today, minus the world-wide empire). So, if it took England that long to transition (and they had their fair share of wars and political/religious purges during that period), expecting the Third World to do so in our lifetime is ludicrous. They don't have anywhere near the same resources, education or political stability.

My personal feeling is that we should just let things progress normally. Some Third World countries have already begun modernising and stabilising politically, and are trading/sending their kids overseas to be educated in the West. Others continue to be hellholes, others are just stagnant and corrupt. In any case, countries are going to have to fail or succeed on their own merits. Outside influence generally just makes things worse.

If you wanna be really extreme, you could just nuke the whole lot. Socio-political problems don't matter if all the participants are radioactive ash. Wait a few centuries, go in with clean-up crews, re-populate.

 

[Radeonx]

...Wouldn't it be easier to nuke them instead of paying thousands of mercenaries to march away to a incredibly large insurgency war?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm reminded of the Starfleet's Prime Directive from Star Trek.

 

[bladester1]

You won't save shit. The population will hate you and you'll constantly have to fight a brutal and bloody insurgency war, like what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only advancement that will come is that you'll unite the country for a short while against a common enemy. Once you give up in frustration and leave, they'll go back to raping and killing each other.

The fact of the matter is, Africa and much of the Middle East is so fucked up (largely because they do it to themselves), it's going to take centuries of cultural and political change before they can get past the feudal era. Nothing we (as in the West) can do is going to speed up that process. Latin America is a little better, but their problem is socialist/fascist government, which again we can't fix for them.

As a matter of comparison, it took England roughly 100 years to go from feudal monarchy to parliamentary democracy. The UK was at that time the world's superpower, with massive gold reserves and a navy (sea power was the trump card of that era) that few if any could match (think America today, minus the world-wide empire). So, if it took England that long to transition (and they had their fair share of wars and political/religious purges during that period), expecting the Third World to do so in our lifetime is ludicrous. They don't have anywhere near the same resources, education or political stability.

My personal feeling is that we should just let things progress normally. Some Third World countries have already begun modernising and stabilising politically, and are trading/sending their kids overseas to be educated in the West. Others continue to be hellholes, others are just stagnant and corrupt. In any case, countries are going to have to fail or succeed on their own merits. Outside influence generally just makes things worse.

If you wanna be really extreme, you could just nuke the whole lot. Socio-political problems don't matter if all the participants are radioactive ash. Wait a few centuries, go in with clean-up crews, re-populate.

I wouldn't say that its necessarily all their fault that they are in the mess that they are in. The age of Imperialism, when most of Africa and the Middle East were just territories exploited by the Europeans, fucked them up more so than they do themselves. All those hundreds of years, give or take, almost completely stalled their cultural/political change. Also, the crap that went on after WWII is to blame as well, considering how many of the countries where battle grounds of democracy vs communism. Afghanistan comes to mind...

 

[PuppetMaster]

I'm reminded of the Starfleet's Prime Directive from Star Trek.

I'm reminded about every colony in the English empire. If we did that, 200 years from now they'd be celebrating about how they fought off the big evil Americans, much the same way Americans talk about English. Hell, the right to bear arms was written in the event they ever showed up so normal people could defend themselves and not just the militia

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm reminded of the Starfleet's Prime Directive from Star Trek.

I'm reminded about every colony in the English empire. If we did that, 200 years from now they'd be celebrating about how they fought off the big evil Americans, much the same way Americans talk about English. Hell, the right to bear arms was written in the event they ever showed up so normal people could defend themselves and not just the militia

Some 3rd world countries are already trying to fight off the big evil Americans so we can see how well this plan'll work.

 

[stone0042]

snip

Well, that's one hell of a first post. Welcome to the Escapist!

 

[Crimsane]

Why don't we just do my style of Civilization?

First, we become friends, then once I build a wall, roll tanks in and occupy a city. After that, nuke the city.

Seems like a terrible idea. Why're you nuking a city occupied by your own tanks?

 

[Janick_Gers]

Why don't we just do my style of Civilization?

First, we become friends, then once I build a wall, roll tanks in and occupy a city. After that, nuke the city.

Seems like a terrible idea. Why're you nuking a city occupied by your own tanks?

Agreed; why waste the time and money to set up tanks and walls if they're just going to be in the blast radius of some nukes anyways?

 

[The Shade]

Why don't we just do my style of Civilization?

First, we become friends, then once I build a wall, roll tanks in and occupy a city. After that, nuke the city.

Works every time, doesn't it? The ol' Friendly Fire scheme.

Oh, Civilization, and your AI's inability to see betrayal coming...

 

[Marcus Dubious]

Well, I'm pretty sure most countries would dislike getting taken over by foreign mercenaries. So yeah, it's a bad idea.

I think Iraq would agree with you.

 

[TriggerUnhappy]

You won't save shit. The population will hate you and you'll constantly have to fight a brutal and bloody insurgency war, like what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only advancement that will come is that you'll unite the country for a short while against a common enemy. Once you give up in frustration and leave, they'll go back to raping and killing each other.

The fact of the matter is, Africa and much of the Middle East is so fucked up (largely because they do it to themselves), it's going to take centuries of cultural and political change before they can get past the feudal era. Nothing we (as in the West) can do is going to speed up that process. Latin America is a little better, but their problem is socialist/fascist government, which again we can't fix for them.

As a matter of comparison, it took England roughly 100 years to go from feudal monarchy to parliamentary democracy. The UK was at that time the world's superpower, with massive gold reserves and a navy (sea power was the trump card of that era) that few if any could match (think America today, minus the world-wide empire). So, if it took England that long to transition (and they had their fair share of wars and political/religious purges during that period), expecting the Third World to do so in our lifetime is ludicrous. They don't have anywhere near the same resources, education or political stability.

My personal feeling is that we should just let things progress normally. Some Third World countries have already begun modernising and stabilising politically, and are trading/sending their kids overseas to be educated in the West. Others continue to be hellholes, others are just stagnant and corrupt. In any case, countries are going to have to fail or succeed on their own merits. Outside influence generally just makes things worse.

If you wanna be really extreme, you could just nuke the whole lot. Socio-political problems don't matter if all the participants are radioactive ash. Wait a few centuries, go in with clean-up crews, re-populate.

Damn good first post, welcome to the Escapist. As for the OP,

Well, I'm pretty sure most countries would dislike getting taken over by foreign mercenaries. So yeah, it's a bad idea.

Basically this.

 

[Neonbob]

...Wouldn't it be easier to nuke them instead of paying thousands of mercenaries to march away to a incredibly large insurgency war?

...were you channeling me for a second there?
Seriously, high explosives(and super high explosives :-D) will solve any problem on the planet if you use them correctly.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

Why dont we just build a missle defense system, tighten up security, and send weapons to those countries until they fight it out. in say 20 years when the fire as died, who ever left can be assimilated by us.

 

[quiet_samurai]

All those fucked up countries in Africa are like that because it is a learned culture for them. They are brought up in that hostile and constant state of war, much like the Middle East and countires in Eastern Europe. To go in and pacify them wouldn't do shit because they are unstable by nature, and the only way to counteract that instability and violence is with time. Look at Southern Asia like Vietnam and Loas for example, in the mid 20th century it was very unstable and war-torn, now although poor they are quite peaceful.

All we can really do is hope they come to their senses and change on their own, who knows maybe they will.

...Wouldn't it be easier to nuke them instead of paying thousands of mercenaries to march away to a incredibly large insurgency war?

No way, nukes are expensive. Not to mention the cost of the aftermath and stigma we would recieve for doing it.

You won't save shit. The population will hate you and you'll constantly have to fight a brutal and bloody insurgency war, like what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only advancement that will come is that you'll unite the country for a short while against a common enemy. Once you give up in frustration and leave, they'll go back to raping and killing each other.

The fact of the matter is, Africa and much of the Middle East is so fucked up (largely because they do it to themselves), it's going to take centuries of cultural and political change before they can get past the feudal era. Nothing we (as in the West) can do is going to speed up that process. Latin America is a little better, but their problem is socialist/fascist government, which again we can't fix for them.

As a matter of comparison, it took England roughly 100 years to go from feudal monarchy to parliamentary democracy. The UK was at that time the world's superpower, with massive gold reserves and a navy (sea power was the trump card of that era) that few if any could match (think America today, minus the world-wide empire). So, if it took England that long to transition (and they had their fair share of wars and political/religious purges during that period), expecting the Third World to do so in our lifetime is ludicrous. They don't have anywhere near the same resources, education or political stability.

My personal feeling is that we should just let things progress normally. Some Third World countries have already begun modernising and stabilising politically, and are trading/sending their kids overseas to be educated in the West. Others continue to be hellholes, others are just stagnant and corrupt. In any case, countries are going to have to fail or succeed on their own merits. Outside influence generally just makes things worse.

If you wanna be really extreme, you could just nuke the whole lot. Socio-political problems don't matter if all the participants are radioactive ash. Wait a few centuries, go in with clean-up crews, re-populate.

How fast they truly moderninse really depends on the culture. Look at Japan they went from a feudal system to an industrial in almost one generation. If you were a Japenese fighter pilot in WW2 it's quite possible your grandfater told you stories of sword weilding samurai and having to bow as they passed by.

 

[Radeonx]

All those fucked up countries in Africa are like that because it is a learned culture for them. They are brought up in that hostile and constant state of war, much like the Middle East and countires in Eastern Europe. To go in and pacify them wouldn't do shit because they are unstable by nature, and the only way to counteract that instability and violence is with time. Look at Southern Asia like Vietnam and Loas for example, in the mid 20th century it was very unstable and war-torn, now although poor they are quite peaceful.

All we can really do is hope they come to their senses and change on their own, who knows maybe they will.

...Wouldn't it be easier to nuke them instead of paying thousands of mercenaries to march away to a incredibly large insurgency war?

No way, nukes are expensive. Not to mention the cost of the aftermath and stigma we would recieve for doing it.

So? The other option is invading a country with thousands or millions of mercenaries who will end up taking the law into their own hands and doing whatever they want. I'd rather get nuked.