This is seen in that starvation is effectively solved in the USa (and now runs the other direction; the poor in the US often tend toward obesity instead of starvation).

The “solution” to countries with starvation today is likely massive full-scale invasion and domination; something the modern world doesn’t have an appetite for.

▲

gherkinnn 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Sure. As if the massive full-scale invasion and domination of Iraq and Afghanistan worked so well. And throwing in more firepower and loosening the rules of engagement won't fix it either.

It boggles the mind how anybody over the age of 20 can think this way.

▲

phil21 5 days ago | parent [-]

The primary reason the invasion of Afghanistan failed was because the US tried to pretend it wasn’t an invasion or domination. Telling the local warlords and factions beforehand they just had to outlast things was a plan doomed to failure before it even began.

If the government had sold “we are making this place the 51st state and it will take 100 years to make that happen” there would be an entirely different outcome.

I’m not saying that’s what should have happened. I actually feel nothing should have happened. But if you are going to take extensive lethal action like that, at least man up and be honest over what it will take to be successful.

The US populace is bizarrely afraid of admitting they live the amazing lives they do due to empire. It’s politically untenable to actually state the reality of what it takes to subjugate a population, no matter if the death numbers are similar for abject pointless failure versus eventual success.

▲

bombcar 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly. There's no country on the Earth today with the empire dreams and ability of the British colonial period. And nobody is willing to bring it back (and perhaps for very good reasons, mind you).

What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is an embarrassment and black stain; had we been openly evil and empirical (?) we'd have killed less with a better result.

	▲	mmooss 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> There's no country on the Earth today with the empire dreams and ability of the British colonial period. The colonial Brits weren't trying to feed the world, but aggregate power and wealth. Their former colonies didn't do too well, except wealthy ones like the US, Canada, etc. After the colonial period ended, many of those countries have utterly transformed economically. Look at Brazil, China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, .... all prospered after embracing democracy (or at least moving in that direction, in China's case).
	▲	anon291 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Imperial is the word you are looking for.

▲

foogazi 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> If the government had sold “we are making this place the 51st state and it will take 100 years to make that happen” there would be an entirely different outcome.

Such hubris - nobody would have signed up for that

	▲	anon291 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly the point he was making. Americans have no will to colonize or empire build

▲

mmooss 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you give an example of that working? The fact is that the 'modern world' - at least before recent phenomena - created by far the greatest expansion of freedom and prosperity, and greatest reduction in poverty, in human history. Way, way beyond anything else, including colonial eras.

Also, when ideas like yours are tried, it turns out that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and powers - including the US - serve their own interests. How could you imagine otherwise at this point?

And without democracy, they can't help it - self-determination provides better outcomes because the people who are subject to the 'help' have a seat at the table and they have power. The issues that others dismiss or make secondary (or tertiary) are the ones the self-determined people can insist on in a democracy.

> modern world doesn’t have an appetite for

It's not a lack of appetite, it's counter to our goals of freedom and self-determination, and all experience of prosperity.

▲

anon291 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah America has no ability to colonize other countries. We are not unified enough as a culture to do that. Look at the debacle of Afghanistan.

Like right now there is starvation in Nigeria because Islamofascists from the north are hunting Christians in the south. Exactly how will any amount of American money convince religious zealots to stop being zealots? If anything, a large influx of money from infidels will just make the clerics claim that their victims are foreign operatives. There is nothing we can do other than pray or stage a full scale military invasion. At that point we can either choose to fully administer the place (unsustainable) or we would have to destroy the apparatus that made the situation possible, which is going to look a helluva lot like a genocide. An impossible situation and only one of many across the globe.

	▲	mmooss 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> there is starvation in Nigeria because Islamofascists from the north are hunting Christians in the south Can you provide some evidence that that's a cause of hunger problems in Nigeria? It's such a politicized claim onw, it's > There is nothing we can do other than pray or stage a full scale military invasion. Warfare doesn't solve any problems, as anyone who knows its history or experiences it will express. It's the worst problem for humanity. Are you really claiming that problems aren't otherwise solved? It's absurd. Your plan is almost never done and the correlation, between peace (and the outlawing of war) the growth of freedom and prosperity - including in West Africa - is the opposite.