4 ms·

Historically societies have based foreign policy on equally or more ridiculous assumptions so I'm not so quick to dismiss the idea of fear, prejudice or histori

Historically societies have based foreign policy on equally or more ridiculous assumptions so I'm not so quick to dismiss the idea of fear, prejudice or historical animosity being a factor. Regardless, you clearly were not making the point that no one has those faulty assumptions, you were pointing out that they were faulty. That was my entire point.

doktrin 14y ago
> Historically societies have based foreign policy on equally or more ridiculous assumptions so I'm not so quick to dismiss the idea of fear, prejudice or historical animosity being a factor. As a generality, sure. However, "fear of a united Korea" is not a driving factor behind any "Western" plot to keep them divided. It's preposterous to anyone who knows anything about geopolitics in the region. > Regardless, you clearly were not making the point that no one has those faulty assumptions, you were pointing out that they were faulty. That was my entire point. You're interpreting my post a little narrowly. The "assumptions" are faulty to the point of being ludicrous. It's implied that no-one actually believes it to be true. It's a bit like saying terrorists "hate us for our freedom".
- freshhawk 14y ago
  > It's a bit like saying terrorists "hate us for our freedom". Excellent example! My point is that that preposterous assumption is widely believed by people who vote and is therefore a large factor in foreign policy, even if those who are using it as a talking point have other motivations and don't actually believe it. Then there are also those that are in office and do believe this kind of stupidity, optimists generally feel these types of politicians "can't exist" because how would they get into office without being smarter than that. As I got older and actually met a decent number of politicians I realized they were normal people who can be just as stupid and confused as the public in general, especially when it's in their interests to believe these things.

doktrin 14y ago

> Historically societies have based foreign policy on equally or more ridiculous assumptions so I'm not so quick to dismiss the idea of fear, prejudice or historical animosity being a factor. As a generality, sure. However, "fear of a united Korea" is not a driving factor behind any "Western" plot to keep them divided. It's preposterous to anyone who knows anything about geopolitics in the region. > Regardless, you clearly were not making the point that no one has those faulty assumptions, you were pointing out that they were faulty. That was my entire point. You're interpreting my post a little narrowly. The "assumptions" are faulty to the point of being ludicrous. It's implied that no-one actually believes it to be true. It's a bit like saying terrorists "hate us for our freedom".

freshhawk 14y ago
> It's a bit like saying terrorists "hate us for our freedom". Excellent example! My point is that that preposterous assumption is widely believed by people who vote and is therefore a large factor in foreign policy, even if those who are using it as a talking point have other motivations and don't actually believe it. Then there are also those that are in office and do believe this kind of stupidity, optimists generally feel these types of politicians "can't exist" because how would they get into office without being smarter than that. As I got older and actually met a decent number of politicians I realized they were normal people who can be just as stupid and confused as the public in general, especially when it's in their interests to believe these things.