On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Bruce Johnson
<xxxxxx@pharmacy.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
>
>> I often look at historical
>> precedent here, what did the Romans do? Or
>> better yet the East Indian Company.
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> The way the USSR 'managed' it's various 'clients' & potential ones could also be instructive.
>>
>> Of course they generally, relatively speaking, of course & w/ some exceptions (see Afghanistan, for example) wielded a lighter 'touch' outside the Warsaw Pact, but even w/i the 'Pact there were varying degrees of heavy-handedness.
>
> The old USSR was very much a centralized state. This just doesn’t work in an empire where information travels at the speed of transport. Evyn gets it right; the East India Company is a better model.
>
> T4 laid bare the origins of the 3I as a mercantile empire in the ‘Zhunastu School of Contact’. See also “World Bank” and “Shock Doctrine”. Also see entire US foreign policy vis-a-vis central America for most of the 20th century.
>

Or, perhaps, Hernan Cortes (Cortez?) - 11 ships, 500 men, 13 horses
and a small number of cannons, and he took down the Aztec.