Utopia

Ack! I return so unrepentant.

I guess I have an unusual view. What I took from my study was the Russian/Soviet overview studies was their incrediblebent toward expansion and Afghanistan represents an attempted annexation, to me.

One text, in part--

Although the British had begun to show interest in Afghanistan as early as their 1809 treaty with Shuja, it was not until the reign of Dost Mohammad, first of the Muhammadzai rulers, that the opening gambits were played in what came to be known as the "Great Game." The Great Game set in motion the confrontation of the British and Russian empires--whose spheres of influence moved steadily closer to one another until they met in Afghanistan. It also involved Britain's repeated attempts to impose a puppet government in Kabul. The remainder of the nineteenth century saw greater European involvement in Afghanistan and her surrounding territories and heightened conflict among the ambitious local rulers as Afghanistan's fate played out globally.
-----
...proves nothing--but I don't see Soviet's Afghanistan gambit as bordered on the single event, but the trend. Annexation.

I'm sure there are opposing viewpoints.

Utopia would need to be capitalism that included universal love. "Love" here would be defined as "wanting the very best for yourself and others."

That kind of love would ensure that every business decision included consideration of the ramifications for all concerned so most of the problems associated with capitalism (trade issues, environment, etc.) would be automatically resolved. When there were differences, these could be settled by discussion and consulation.

So why capitalism? Because it allows for everybody to go at his/her own pace. The type A go-getters could be as productive as they wished and the lazy could do just enough to supply food, clothes, and shelter for themselves.

Unrealistic? Of course. But then so is Utopia

BoGoWo, if you take the humane factor out of the equation; what's to prevent us from entering a 'brave new world'? But I assume you're planning on somehow inserting 'wisdom' rather than knowledge into the thinking paterns. Which would be the only 'humanistic' approuch. This would however include the flawed unrationality with which we are doomed(imo, today, opinion may vary :p).

And you two history buffs! :-)
What about Japan then? They prove to be rather productive, with their devoted souls. Giving themselves completely to their company(which is like a family to them, the zaibatsu exclude the _need_ of government). They are effecient, of course, we'd have to get into detail about there contradictory culture and therefor system. Is it this kind of capatilism which we should spread? Which elements should be altered or are basic to a functional environment which does not perpetuate greed (extreme forms of it anyway)?

Note, ignore this is needed : I know it's hard not to start a bush-smearing campaign while talking about invading iraq and afghanistan(->cold war>russia doing the same) but let's not talk about it here . Nevertheless, I do think USA did it for soul reason of ensuring their global dominance by striking the middle east and by means of informal imperialism(when 'leaving' Iraq, leaving it with a mcdonalds on every corner. Well, you know what I mean remaining to be an inducing factor. But let's not get into that in here.

Some thoughts on the first two paragraphs please