I am looking forward to understand from you which part of your
"For imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a different country, or giving up its resources to another country."
does the CIA sponsored coup against fledgling Iranian democracy not fit.
> No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different.
... like pressuring India to loosen its standards for agricultural seeds so that US companies can flood the huge market with theirs that have germination rate of 65% whereas the indian minimum standard was high 90%. Free trade when it is beneficial to US companies, protected if not, or else regime change.
... like forcing India to remove the separation of investment banking and consumer banking. These dont look any different from forcing ones way into markets and access to resources that they would not have achieved otherwise.
... like locating dangerous chemical plant with safety mechanisms deliberately omitted to cut cost that otherwise would not have been possible in their own country and using that to post higher profits (at the expense of locals bearing the brunt of the Bhopal disaster).
I dont perceive the difference that you are trying to point out. Unless you really believe the point of the ladt iraq war was spreading democracy, if you buy that I doubt we would gain much by a conversation.
EDIT: I am intrigued that this hasnt been responded to for an hour whereas responses were pretty quick before.
Yup I know. I meant time after the appearance of "reply" link. I have interacted with rayiner before and find him rational so was curious about how he thinks abut the things I had pointed out.
I believe the Iranians would like to have a word with you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9...
I am looking forward to understand from you which part of your
"For imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a different country, or giving up its resources to another country."
does the CIA sponsored coup against fledgling Iranian democracy not fit.
> No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different.
... like pressuring India to loosen its standards for agricultural seeds so that US companies can flood the huge market with theirs that have germination rate of 65% whereas the indian minimum standard was high 90%. Free trade when it is beneficial to US companies, protected if not, or else regime change.
... like forcing India to remove the separation of investment banking and consumer banking. These dont look any different from forcing ones way into markets and access to resources that they would not have achieved otherwise.
... like locating dangerous chemical plant with safety mechanisms deliberately omitted to cut cost that otherwise would not have been possible in their own country and using that to post higher profits (at the expense of locals bearing the brunt of the Bhopal disaster).
I dont perceive the difference that you are trying to point out. Unless you really believe the point of the ladt iraq war was spreading democracy, if you buy that I doubt we would gain much by a conversation.
EDIT: I am intrigued that this hasnt been responded to for an hour whereas responses were pretty quick before.