Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14753
    10 Jul '18 06:01
    Once a country gains control of another country there is great motivation to maintain control of that country. Why let them become truly independent? So they can start a war against you later?
    Those that like power generally do not like to let go of that power. It is against human nature. Let us start by Using the British empire as an example. France used to be the enemy of the British empire until Napoleon was defeated. My theory is that France is a defacto colony of the British.

    Why would the British let France become a truly independent nation after controlling it? I don't think any sane nation would risk losing control and having to fight a war against them later because they can't predict what a truly independent leader does in the future.
    Isn't France a puppet nation of the British?
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Jul '18 06:30
    Any evidence for your theory?
  3. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22192
    10 Jul '18 08:14
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Once a country gains control of another country there is great motivation to maintain control of that country. Why let them become truly independent? So they can start a war against you later?
    Those that like power generally do not like to let go of that power. It is against human nature. Let us start by Using the British empire as an example. France u ...[text shortened]... hat a truly independent leader does in the future.
    Isn't France a puppet nation of the British?
    You went to a Montessori school...didn't you?

    Such brilliance.
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14753
    10 Jul '18 08:42
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    You went to a Montessori school...didn't you?

    Such brilliance.
    An ad hominem attack already?

    If you don't want to debate just say so.
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14753
    10 Jul '18 08:48
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Any evidence for your theory?
    Common sense isn't enough?

    They usually fight wars together often using lies as an excuse. Is there a reason you will not even consider the possibility? This subject requires an open mind. Maybe you should avoid this thread.
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14753
    10 Jul '18 09:13
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Any evidence for your theory?
    Nations generally don't admit to installing puppet governments so it isn't surprising evidence is hard to find, but it is accepted that the British installed puppet governments in Iraq and Iran after WW1. That is what imperialism is all about. That is what Empires do.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_puppet_states
  7. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19426
    10 Jul '18 09:30
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Once a country gains control of another country there is great motivation to maintain control of that country. Why let them become truly independent? So they can start a war against you later?
    Those that like power generally do not like to let go of that power. It is against human nature. Let us start by Using the British empire as an example. France u ...[text shortened]... hat a truly independent leader does in the future.
    Isn't France a puppet nation of the British?
    On the level of France being controlled to this day... That's absurd. But there might be some slight slight truth in the fact that the paradigm after Napoleon shifted for a very long time for France, but it is not as if there was real micromanagement.

    I think you're generally right otherwise, though, if we apply this to different relations, like that or the USA to Korea or Saudi Arabia. We dictate the general direction to some degree, and we guarantee the stability of the regimes in exchange for being allowed such great influence in how their paradigm develops.

    I think it's impossible to substantiate this stuff, though because because it is not as if there are overly blatant things to point to and these regimes can mostly, year after year, guarantee their own stability.

    It's just to avoid certain things they make adjustments, and there were formative periods where the US was in control.
  8. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19426
    10 Jul '18 09:31
    This is why the European left abhors Trump: he is so outside of the paradigm they want and they attempt to exert influence by helping the American president ft gaslight voters.
  9. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35854
    10 Jul '18 09:34
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    This is why the European left abhors Trump: he is so outside of the paradigm they want and they attempt to exert influence by helping the American president ft gaslight voters.
    This is the Puppet government theory thread, not the Conspiracy theory thread.
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14753
    10 Jul '18 11:35
    Originally posted by @suzianne
    This is the Puppet government theory thread, not the Conspiracy theory thread.
    A puppet government is a conspiracy. It fits the definition perfectly.
  11. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    528067
    10 Jul '18 11:43
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Once a country gains control of another country there is great motivation to maintain control of that country. Why let them become truly independent? So they can start a war against you later?
    Those that like power generally do not like to let go of that power. It is against human nature. Let us start by Using the British empire as an example. France u ...[text shortened]... hat a truly independent leader does in the future.
    Isn't France a puppet nation of the British?
    If that theory Held water why was there a second world war? The winners would ahve controled that german government...

    Though there are conspiracy theories about Hitler being financed by US magnates to help them furtjher their power.
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14753
    10 Jul '18 11:43
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    On the level of France being controlled to this day... That's absurd. But there might be some slight slight truth in the fact that the paradigm after Napoleon shifted for a very long time for France, but it is not as if there was real micromanagement.

    I think you're generally right otherwise, though, if we apply this to different relations, like that ...[text shortened]... tain things they make adjustments, and there were formative periods where the US was in control.
    I disagree that it is absurd. If the British empire occupied France long enough to gain control of newspapers it could use propaganda to brainwash people into supporting French imperialism as directed by the British.
    I think your government is a puppet government installed by my government. My guess is that you think that is absurd too. Have you noticed any bias in SK news media?
  13. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19426
    10 Jul '18 11:58
    Originally posted by @suzianne
    This is the Puppet government theory thread, not the Conspiracy theory thread.
    LOL...

    Are you honestly suggesting that it is a "conspiracy theory" to say that the European left hates Trump because he goes against their paradigm...

    ... And that it is absurd to suggest that there is transatlantic moral support over the issue?

    I THOUGHT YOU'D BE PROUD OF THAT!
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14753
    10 Jul '18 12:06
    Originally posted by @ponderable
    If that theory Held water why was there a second world war? The winners would ahve controled that german government...

    Though there are conspiracy theories about Hitler being financed by US magnates to help them furtjher their power.
    Losing control of puppet governments does happen. The British Empire lost control of Iraq and Iran. Then they lobbied the USA to attempt a coup which worked out well since it was a bloodless coup. The CIA was very proud of Operation Ajax since it was incredibly efficient. Dirt cheap compared to a military invasion. The CIA then installed their puppet the Shah, a brutal dictator. Then they lost control of Iran during the Carter administration. Carter made the stupid mistake of praising the Shah despite human rights abuses by the Shah. The Iranians were livid and overthrew the Shah.
    Germany was forced to pay reparations after WW1. That led to the rise of Hitler and WW2.

    Yes, I have heard rumors that Hitler was financed by Prescott Bush.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
  15. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80056
    10 Jul '18 13:59
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Once a country gains control of another country there is great motivation to maintain control of that country. Why let them become truly independent? So they can start a war against you later?
    Those that like power generally do not like to let go of that power. It is against human nature. Let us start by Using the British empire as an example. France u ...[text shortened]... hat a truly independent leader does in the future.
    Isn't France a puppet nation of the British?
    This is ahistorical. First France was not defeated by Britain alone, there were coalitions. Since Prussia fielded a larger army than Wellington's at Waterloo (*) it would seem, by your own argument, that they would at least share in control over the puppet government. Why did Britain not intervene in the 1848 revolution, or the coup d'etat of 1851? If Napoleon III was Prussia's puppet ruler why then the Franco-Prussian War? If France was a British colony then why did Britain not intervene in that conflict? The British were concerned about the balance of power shifting in Europe with German Unification and had every reason to join the French side, they remained neutral. Sorry, but losing a war does not automatically make one a colony. France was not Britain's colony after the fall of the First Empire.

    Further, French imperialism and colony taking predates the Napoleonic Wars.

    (*) Wellington is credited with winning the battle because his objective was to hold Napoleon's army until Blucher arrived, when Napoleon would be severely outnumbered. He succeeded in that so the battle is his. But the Prussian army was larger than Wellington's army.
Back to Top