2dimes wrote:You know I find it helps if you make analogies exaggerated. Those totally logical points are working against you here Sax.
I disagree if we consider the following: the sax-analogies help to outline the implicit reasoning of "White Man's Burden," which has become a foundation from which intervention into other countries in various forms is justified. For example, one could make the case that the Falklanders should not receive sovereignty because they would be unable to save themselves from the bloody talons of Argentina.
This sounds reasonable until we recall the implications of a mutual defense pact between the UK and the Falklanders, which would obliterate the standing of that White Man's Burden argument. The US has such an (in)formal agreement with the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and others. One substitute/complementary service for a mutual defense pact would be basing military troops there (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, NATO in Turkey, etc.). These measures serve as a threat deterrent to other interventionist countries, and for decades have worked exceedingly well.
But why doesn't the UK follow such a plan?
(Because it does not wish to grant the Falklands their sovereignty. Instead, the UK and its economic interests seek to profit from the opportunities of maintaining significant control over that region's resources. In short, the UK desires to maintain its colonizing power over the Falklands).