Ah, the intersection of history and economics. A lot of the situation around the First Opium War was complicated by the prolific activities of the British tradi

Ah, the intersection of history and economics. A lot of the situation around the First Opium War was complicated by the prolific activities of the British trading company and the economic motivations of the crown. The British didn't want a drug-addled China, they just wanted to change the trade balance (in Britain's favor of course) and opium trade was a convenient way to do that. Our notions of altruism now weren't prevalent at that time, so of course Britain would remake a country in its own image. They were terribly arrogant and had little to no respect for indigenous cultures (and I never meant to argue otherwise). And, of course nations can potentially create stability on their own, and without British influence. Many have done exactly that throughout history. That said, I wouldn't tend to argue for the colonization of peaceful, well-organized countries. I do think that colonization, under modern approaches and with the intentions of being present in a country only temporarily, is a reasonable approach to countries which can't seem to govern themselves.