Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (77920)	2/26/2003 7:04:21 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you have anything to support that? Here. zmag.org

To: Ilaine who wrote (77920)	2/26/2003 7:38:25 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<So we're going to colonize Iraq, just as we colonized Afghanistan?> You are looking at the superficialities, not the realities of power. Afghanistan has a government (sort of), a flag, an army (even more sort of), a currency, foreign embassies, and so on. All the formal attributes of a sovereign nation-state. But the reality of power, is that the provincial warlords hold 90% of the ground. And the "government" of Afghanistan holds the rest, only because foreign money and soldiers prop it up. The most powerful person in Afghanistan today, is the U.S. ambassador (OK, maybe it's the CIA station chief). Just as, in pre-Nasser Egypt, the most powerful person was the British ambassador. There is a difference between colonialism and colonialism-by-proxy, but it's just a difference in appearances.