Comment by poof131 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by poof131 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Seems like we’ve entered some sort of post-modern neocolonialism. How do we “fix” the broken countries of the world. The neocons under Bush tried to remake the middle east by invading Iraq.[1] Debated with someone here who felt we just needed more time in Afghanistan so a generation could understand good governance.[2] In this article, the thrust seems to be benevolent foreign powers and businesses will lead the way to prosperity. All seem like colonialism without the name and all seem to totally disregard secondary effects.

Read a great article awhile back on HN that talked about the impulse to fix other people’s problems far away from your own.[3] Seems that SV and Stanford could do a lot more to fix the issues closer at hand in the Bay Area (homelessness, unaffordable living, rising inequality) and the US in general before solving all the worlds problems. Lead by example sort of stuff. Instead my main takeaway from the article is get rich in the startup lottery then proselytize your grand vision and plans from your bubble of prosperity. Sell the dream but don’t look in the mirror.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_C...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412172

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10884840

What Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan was radically different and obviously idiotic. They took over two countries by force and then imposed democracy on countries with no democratic traditions.

The proposed neocolonial plan far less problematic. You are not imposing a rule from the outside, which would naturally cause resentment. You get the country to agree to a voluntarily giving away a chunk of the country with preferably few people.

Then people will have to CHOSE to live and work there by moving there. Nobody there will live under European/American/Japanese or whatever rule without having chosen to do so by moving. We know people are capable of accepting foreign rule if it is voluntarily. People do it all the time when they move to Europe or the US.

It seems to me as a much more attractive option to have people being able to move within their own country to get freedom and prosperity rather than having to move all the way to Europe and America and having to deal with completely different languages and customs.

>> Seems that SV and Stanford could do a lot more to fix the issues closer at hand in the Bay Area (homelessness, unaffordable living, rising inequality) and the US in general before solving all the worlds problems. Lead by example sort of stuff

Speaking as someone who currently struggles financially, one of those three things is not like the other....

Homelessness and unaffordable living are things that could potentially threaten me personally. Rising (income) inequality does not. There are bonuses and fat paychecks being received all the time by upper management in a casino nearby where I live. Those well-off managers are not the sort of things that are worth losing sleep over.

Hope that things work out for you. Definitely agreed there's a difference in immediate existential threat between those categories, but concentration of wealth isn't wholly unrelated. Some would argue it's a cause.

I'm expecting a resurgence in colonialist-like approaches. Especially in the context of the Middle East. It's exactly failures like Afghanistan and Iraq that make some consider solutions involving total governance for much more than just a few years. A case can be made for the US having been morally obliged to basically colonize Iraq (and Afghanistan tho I'm less familiar with that one).

I've lived a while in a sub-par country. The incompetence at every level of society is staggering. Even corruption isn't as big a deal as incompetence.

Plenty of people I talk to agree that having the US or Germany or someone just run the government completely would be a huge step up. Honestly I can't find any realistic objection. Just hopeful stuff about educating them, making it better, etc. Approaches that have been tried a long time and simply aren't working. Apart from pride (which doesn't cure infections, get kids in schools, or feed people), there really isn't a reason for those people to object.

The problems of colonialism tended to be human rights, eh? Are we really concerned that Belgium would start cutting hands off in the 21st century? (It's also sort of funny. China's getting big in Africa. No way they're going to treat people there very well. Can't imagine a 21st century British empire in Africa ending up worse than Chinese business domination.)

I chatted to some educated Afghanis and they thought the period of greatest peace and prosperity in their life times was the Russian occupation which the US went to some effort to end. I sometimes wonder if western policies to bring democracy to Islamic areas by bombing them really do much good. We could perhaps just bribe the dictators to up their human rights a bit.

Syria is an ongoing case where there remain options. I think our tactful new foreign secretary may have the right idea that we should hold our noses and work with "the linchpin of a vast post-Soviet gangster kleptocracy" who looks "a bit like Dobby the House Elf" and the "manipulative tyrant Assad". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/1...

Yea the big problem with "opening up" the colonization game is you'll have people fighting over who's the colonizer (tho it's still sort of happening anyways). No doubt Russia might have been decent for them.

Pretty sure he'll back off from that after getting briefed [possibly by Israel if internally won't be enough]. I'd assume the same for Trump if he wins.

Operation Orchard [0] is a good example that Assad's nastiness wasn't just an internal issue that could be ignored. Unless of course he somehow promises to behave this time.

Everyone realizes the "rebels" could turn out to be even nastier guys so no Western power has a clear interest in letting any of the 3 parties win.

As such a ground invasion makes little sense if you have to cede power eventually - there's no guarantee some "good guys" will magically emerge, they won't.

That's were establishing an international colony comes in. Or as some suggest just an international safe zone on some portion of Syrian territory.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

We'll see. The UK doesn't have much power in the region compared to the US, Turkey, Iran, Israel et al so what Boris thinks probably won't affect things much. Still a US, Turkey, Assad Putin deal could probably bring some sort of peace and we could still bomb Assad if he tries to get nukes.

I got the opposite impression. My impression is that he's addressing our own problems. And that countries with less evolved rules and, yes, poor, might be the best partners.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com