Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenGum
I just want to say, I disagree with the idea that Afghanistan can be a strong point or asset in any kind of global political struggle a la Kipling's Great Game. I think it is a liability that will bleed any foreign power that moves into it, until they get tired of the bleeding and go home with loss of prestige, resources, opportunities, and human lives.
|
I wasn't implying that we are attempting to make a colonial state out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan, while not nearly as important as Pakistan, will most likely play a role in future events. Your and Merc's point is strong, and I agree with it, but sometimes our government can be hard headed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
I think Pierce's thinking is a little too limited, too early-twentieth-century in its framing. He's not thinking in terms of the dramatic globalization that is the salient feature of the world's economy. Globalization makes talk of a nation not being "self sufficient/sustainable" moot.
|
From what I understand, global capitalism is based on the assumption of sufficient global resources. So, if resources are insufficient, we will regress towards a more mercantile mindset assuming we want to keep the same standards of living or don't progress on our needs.