Of course, we had the US in there in the role vacated by the British - and doing similar "Great Game" type stuff - giving money to the Afghans to buy their loyalty, "advisors", etc.
> Might we not feel a little uncomfortable if someone said 'hey, look
> at the Teutonic Knights, look at Bismarck, look at Hitler -- of
> _course_ the Germans still want to conquer Eastern Europe'? I would
> simply counsel against regarding history as such a clear and linear
> predictor of future policy. A factor, sure, but not always the
> deciding one -- especially when there is no evidence to support such
> a historicist line.
Well, the next time the "Germans" (whetever they might be at that time) attack eastwards, we can re-visit this ;-).
The past deeds of someone (or a country) *should* be taken into account when predicting future actions or looking for explanation of why they did something. Agreed that they aren't necessarily a hard and fast indicator, but it shows pre-disposition and goes towards determing the character of the defendant.
RR
C'est par mon ordre et pour le bien de l'Etat que le porteur du présent a
fait ce qu'il a fait.
- Richelieu
Powered by hypermail