Seld-defeating US foreign policy

[Tyler Durden]

Well, when push comes to shove I have to admit Mr Donald doesn't mince 
words. Guess that's what Cypherpunks is for!

However...

>The US government should expose and condemn these objectionable
>practices, subvert moderately objectionable regimes, and
>annihilate more objectionable regimes.  The pentagon should
>deprive moderately objectionable regimes of economic resources,
>by stealing their oil, destroying their water systems, and
>cutting off their trade and population movements with the
>outside world.

As was stated elesewhere, there is sfirst of all the problem of -who- 
determines the meaning of objectionable. Is it the latest DC regime? You 
make it seem like you espouse a philosophy that makes it easy and obvious to 
see what's objectionable.

More than that, however, this may be completely self-defeating. Most 
governments are not static entities. Some will evolve or die via relatively 
Darwinian processes, and interference really ends up being self-defeating, 
or possibly far worse.

I won't belabor my favorite example of China--Vietnam--Cambodia, but it's 
clear to me things could have been completely different had the US not 
espoused blatantly aggressive policies towards China in particular. In this 
context a very strong case can be made that the US caused the Khmer Rouge to 
come to power, precisely by performing in a way similar to what you espouse. 
We also had opportunities to ally with China early on, and let's remember we 
were allies with Ho Chi Min during WWII. But all we did is blindly pursue a 
policy that ended up devliering precisely OPPOSITE to what you would seem to 
espouse. And we're doing the same thing in the middle east.

-TD

_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/