Well, the colour is definitely changing; whether red wine has any bearing, or whether the alien
bacteria are losing the fight, only time and possibly a stint in an isolation unit will be able to tell us.
But modern imperialism doesn't work like that. You can't say "hey, we're taking over your country
because we want your stuff" any more. You have to say "Hey, we're smashing up your country because we don't like your leader". We have the right to do this because we are superior and it is our manifest destiny etc. So the violent, jingoist imperialism continues, but without the colonial governance bit which makes it a bit too obvious. So no-one thinks about what happens next (except the pesky anti-interventionists), and you get chaos.
Look, we've settled this. The US is not to blame for anything here, alright?
But there were *already* systems in place to keep the lid on the barbarians.
The prior systems of government in Iraq, Libya and Syria that actually *knew* how to run these countries.
Any sane person would swap ISIS for the stability of Saddam, Assad and Ghaddafi in a heartbeat.
Re: Super Tuesday. If Leicester wins 10 out of 11 as predicted, that's it isn't it?
Hang on, so Leicester is Donald Trump?!
Yes, well that's all the fault of the Americans and their ridiculous and hypocritical anti-
imperialist rhetoric. They made imperialism toxic and thus made it impossible for the West to do what it actually needs to do to make the rest of the world a better place - i.e. run it.
Yes, but back in the day, the same people who have castigated us for intervening against savages
like Saddam used to castigate us for supporting them and doing nothing to stop them behaving badly. The West can't win.
Whatever people may have thought in the past, I think we have enough evidence now
that the approach we have seen so far to regime change has not worked. If you think a fully colonial system could work, good luck with rolling that out. In the meantime I'll stick to my position.
Says the man who denies being a patrician tory
