Relative importance of Meddling in Who Controls Foreign Nations
IMHO as of now:
Has the US national TV media understood, that by emphasizing one thing, you de-emphasize other things? By overemphasizing the question of who should rule over some foreign nation with a small economy and a small population, they underemphasize the importance of who should rule over the USA, which group of persons would deliver the government that does the best job of governing the American people.
It's as if, you could be wrong about everything but agree with them re who should rule some foreign nation, and they would love you; and, you could be right about everything but disagree with them re who should rule a foreign nation, and they'd hate you.
Group A, B, C, D, or E could end up in power in nation T. Conceivably, the cost-benefit from the US perspective, of getting involved in who rules over nation T, could be inferior compared to not getting involved in who rules over nation T.
The US's 'boy' in the game could end up failing to attain to power. "As a man who taketh a dog by the ears, so he that involveth himself in a quarrel not his own" (Proverbs). Getting involved in conflicts creates enemies. Nations do not like to be bossed over by foreign nations. The time energy and money the US puts into backing A, B, C, D, or E in the contest for power in T, might conceivably produce a better cost-benefit for the US, if put into something else.
If you back A in its quest for power in nation T, but ultimately B wins power in nation T, and A has clashed with B, then your position when B seizes power, will be that B hates you.
For every nation in the world it could said, that the other nations in the world if thinking materialistically, would like to rule over that nation if they could get away with it, if the cost-benefit redounded to their benefit. However, nations normally do not attempt to rule over other nations, because a) they could fail in the attempt; and b) succeeding in the attempt, it could end up blowing up in their face.
These principles hold true both when a nation rules or attempts to rule another nation directly, and also when a nation rules or attempts to rule another nation through a surrogate.
Admittedly sometimes it is in a nation's interest, looking at the cost-benefit and probabilities, to attempt to influence who rules over a foreign nation; however it should not be assumed that such is always the case.
Seems as if the US, having succeeded a few times in meddling in who rules a foreign nation, has developed a mental affliction wherein it is overly confident that meddling in who rules a foreign nation will redound to its benefit.
When nation D attempts install its favorite in nation F, the result is lasting resentment in nation F, directed against nation D. The more D meddles in F's affairs, the greater the resentment.
Events like well-filmed foreign civil wars are exciting and interest to watch on TV. What is forgotten, is that how important a thing is, is not always a certain proportion of how videogenic it is.
Has the US national TV media understood, that by emphasizing one thing, you de-emphasize other things? By overemphasizing the question of who should rule over some foreign nation with a small economy and a small population, they underemphasize the importance of who should rule over the USA, which group of persons would deliver the government that does the best job of governing the American people.
It's as if, you could be wrong about everything but agree with them re who should rule some foreign nation, and they would love you; and, you could be right about everything but disagree with them re who should rule a foreign nation, and they'd hate you.
Group A, B, C, D, or E could end up in power in nation T. Conceivably, the cost-benefit from the US perspective, of getting involved in who rules over nation T, could be inferior compared to not getting involved in who rules over nation T.
The US's 'boy' in the game could end up failing to attain to power. "As a man who taketh a dog by the ears, so he that involveth himself in a quarrel not his own" (Proverbs). Getting involved in conflicts creates enemies. Nations do not like to be bossed over by foreign nations. The time energy and money the US puts into backing A, B, C, D, or E in the contest for power in T, might conceivably produce a better cost-benefit for the US, if put into something else.
If you back A in its quest for power in nation T, but ultimately B wins power in nation T, and A has clashed with B, then your position when B seizes power, will be that B hates you.
For every nation in the world it could said, that the other nations in the world if thinking materialistically, would like to rule over that nation if they could get away with it, if the cost-benefit redounded to their benefit. However, nations normally do not attempt to rule over other nations, because a) they could fail in the attempt; and b) succeeding in the attempt, it could end up blowing up in their face.
These principles hold true both when a nation rules or attempts to rule another nation directly, and also when a nation rules or attempts to rule another nation through a surrogate.
Admittedly sometimes it is in a nation's interest, looking at the cost-benefit and probabilities, to attempt to influence who rules over a foreign nation; however it should not be assumed that such is always the case.
Seems as if the US, having succeeded a few times in meddling in who rules a foreign nation, has developed a mental affliction wherein it is overly confident that meddling in who rules a foreign nation will redound to its benefit.
When nation D attempts install its favorite in nation F, the result is lasting resentment in nation F, directed against nation D. The more D meddles in F's affairs, the greater the resentment.
Events like well-filmed foreign civil wars are exciting and interest to watch on TV. What is forgotten, is that how important a thing is, is not always a certain proportion of how videogenic it is.
posted by David Virgil at 4:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home