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: Neocon who wrote (145371)	9/10/2004 3:02:50 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Neocon, do you think it's commendable to have a back and forth conversation with another poster with lots of jibes about a third poster? I don't. Why not just talk to GST directly?

To: Neocon who wrote (145371)	9/11/2004 3:55:31 PM
From: John Soileau	Respond to of 281500

<<that does not mean that they automatically prefer an indigenous regime to a foreign regime, without reference to the nature of the regime.>> Hey Neocon, With that statement I think you're fighting Mother Nature, or at least not giving her her due. The will to be free of foreign domination is exceptionally robust, as long history demonstrates. Look at various empires over the ages; each had a devil of a time suppressing unrest in the dominated areas, from Alexander to Queen Victoria. Each was ultimately unsuccessful in preserving domination, EVEN where the dominator brought tangible benefits to the dominated. That struggle goes on and on--make a list of the warring hotspots of the last 200 years for example, and then classify them into two categories: "trying to throw off nonindigenous control" and "other", and compare the results to see what I mean. Essentially all of the African, South American, Central American and Caribbean nations are the product of this desire to end nonindigenous control, EVEN where the replacement regime is far worse (too often the case!) than the nonindigenous one. The British empire alone provides a host of examples. In case after case, the fairly benign, but indisputably nonindigenous, administration of the British colonies was spurned by the dominated peoples, regardless of the character of the soon-to-be-dominant indigenous regime (Obote, anyone?). Since freedom fighters are almost by nature extreme in their convictions and not indisposed to violence, supporting them is typically a risky bet, but one nevertheless almost always taken by the general populace. Tails "us" wins, heads "them" loses. You are correct that a purely rational approach would have the populace calculating whether the nonindigenous vs. indigenous cause should be preferred, and throwing their support accordingly; but chicken lips are easier to find than evidence of that rationality in practice in the real world. Time after time, with monotonous regularity, the "us" team wins out over the "them" team in the hearts and minds of the indigenous, regardless of other merits. I'm not sure that freedom from foreign domination is the "most basic" freedom (whatever that means), but it has been sought across the globe and over the ages with unsurpassed vigor, a vigor unchecked by worries over the nature of the new "us" regime. I think you have underestimated this dynamic ("Of course people prefer to be in charge of their own affairs but that does not mean that they automatically prefer an indigenous regime to a foreign regime"), and underestimating dynamics is not a good idea, whether with reference to Iraq or otherwise. John