| > The West has resources and well-oiled propaganda machinery in place to control the dissent that's why they don't need to use violence as openly as not-so-rich countries. Disregarding the fact that proving your angle is super hard. So what? It sure beats beating and killing people. > When their monopoly is threatened, they act equally ruthlessly. Ok, but if they don't have to do that all the time, it <<still>> makes them better. It's a tough pill to swallow, go check military casualties for wars. Get back to me after reading Wikipedia pages (so nothing super fancy) for 50-100, chosen randomly, and tell me how many have higher casualty rates for the Western party. My back of the napkin analysis says that at most 10% of those wars have more Western casualties. At the end of the day, that's what it boils down to. If you find ways to avoid violence and when you do have to become violent your stuff is better armorer, moves faster, shoots farther, flies higher, well, that's because someone ultimately, to some degree, maybe because they were forced by public consensus, respected citizens' lives. It doesn't much matter how you get to that respect if you do get there more than your perceived rivals. |