Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If you have to ask, I probably can't explain it in a way that you will understand. Being "The top dog" doesn't mean you have to be the best at any one thing or anything. It means through perception, reality, whatever, others look to you to set the agenda. Your presence helps to maintain order and stability. When your position is challenged others watch carefully how you respond, your response sets the tone. Respond in the wrong way and everything falls into chaos. Respond in the correct way calm and order are preserved. If you let low ranking members get away with defiant behaviors you risk higher ranking members to directly challenge your position.
|
So it's a state of mind more than actual power. Gotcha. If that's the case, then being top dog is a temendous responsibility. I don't think our government is up to it. Frankly, I don't think China or the EU are up to it either. We'd probably be better off with a checks and balances type of arrangement with the other powers. Had that been the case in 2003, I think we can all agree that Asia and Europe would have kept the US out of Iraq.
If we are top dog, why did over half the planet protest the US invasion of Iraq? Shouldn't they have fallen into line?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Sadaam, was a low ranking member getting away with defiant behavior. It needed to end. At risk were not only threats from him, but the entire ME going into chaos and possibly the rest of the world. Iran, China, North Korea all have the potential to be bigger problems than Iraq. Currently all eyes are on how we (The Top Dog) handles the situation.
|
The US had and has no legal authority over Iraq. Had we been in danger, I would ahve supported some military action. All we've proven now is that if we don't like you, you're f**ked. That's more like a bully than a top dog.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I know in advance what some of you will say. And I say we don't live in a Disney Land like world. Power struggles are governed by animalistic behaviors, and before comment take a detailed look at historical transitions of power and read "The Art of War". Historically cultures who fail in the art of war get enslaved (serve others) or die. Perhaps 1000 years from now we will evolve and we can all be happy, but that day ain't today.
|
AH! That's the problem. If we are going to lead, then we had better figure out what example we want to make. Power struggles between people or groups without morals are animalistic. We are not animals, and when we behave like animals, we give permission for our enemies to behave like animals.
I've read the Art of War several times.
"No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique."
"If victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardour will be damped."
"Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain."
"Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardour damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."
"Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. While speed may sometimes be injudicious, tardiness can never be anything but foolish."