| Anti-Imperialism causes war & suffering.
Sounds like an absurd statement? Think about it for a second.
In all of history there is one common thread. When a country becomes to weak to support and defend itself it falls to another country that is prepared to make use of it's resources and in the process restores order; wars that last for a few years resulting in a victor and a new citizenship. Think of it as mans version of natural selection. We need strong governments to thrive, weak governments can't defend themselves from both internal and external pressures, the strong government takes over; Imperialism.
So now we have today. A time in which Imperialism of all kinds is essentially forbidden. Borders have been set and cannot be changed without the permission of other countries. So what happens when a country becomes so weak it can no longer rule itself? They are sealed in their borders to "work things out for themselves", ie. kill each other, until someone walks out over the hill of bodies victorious. These internal wars last not for years but decades. In the meantime other stronger countries which in the past could have just walked in and imposed order are relegated to secretly funding (or not so secretly if you are the UN) money and arms (with which they kill more people) to whatever side they want to win.
So I ask you, is anti-Imperialism really the solution we all seem to think it is or has it just created more war & suffering in countries like, say... Rwanda, Darfur, etc, et? |