The British Empire - Nasty but needed

[Invader Zim]

They were proper nasty yes i know, but when lokking back on it was it needed. Without the empire many of the Colony's would still be in the dark ages. So in many ways the Empire in fact did every one a favour... But then again most of the Colony's have fucked economies.

Edit: MAZDAK IS A TWAT!!!!

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I think that someone would make progress to have advantage of it and not be oppressed for 300 years.

And furhtermore their economies suck right now, except Australia.

[Just Joe]

words can't describe your idiocy, AK-47. so i won't even try.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Just Joe on 4:36 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
words can't describe your idiocy, AK-47. so i won't even try.

I think you stand from a biased point of view, JustJoe. And your opinion is understandable.

The one example that shines out for me is India. The jewel in the crown of the empire. In actual fact, India's politics was much more stable before independance. Also, socially, India was more stable. Yes, the British held their noses up, but I think maybe that wouldve changed had it still been British rule now.

Overall, I think independance was better. India is India. And Indians are Indians. It is much better to be independant. But Britain did provide a lot of stability for India and it would be worse now had Britain never ruled.

But then you have the African nations which Britain just fucked.

It's an interesting one. And one you can't really have a definite answer to.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Just Joe on 4:36 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
words can't describe your idiocy, AK-47. so i won't even try.

YOU STUPID CAN YOU NOT FUCKING READ. UUURRRRR :controls his anger:

Listen its really simple, the - British - empire - was - horrid. But- they - advanced - loads - of - places - which - would - now - be - Centuries - behind - what - they - are - now.

Is that simple enough or must i say it words of only one sylable.

Fucking Retard this must go down in the hall of shame for a complete lack of open mindedness and plain stupidity. Well Done Joe you have reached a new level.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I think maybe you must understand that Joe is in an insurmountably biased position. You must understand his view.

Although, yes, to those who are impartial it appears narrow minded.

[Just Joe]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 4:46 pm on Mar. 21, 2003

Quote: from Just Joe on 4:36 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
words can't describe your idiocy, AK-47. so i won't even try.

I think you stand from a biased point of view, JustJoe. And your opinion is understandable.

The one example that shines out for me is India. The jewel in the crown of the empire. In actual fact, India's politics was much more stable before independance. Also, socially, India was more stable. Yes, the British held their noses up, but I think maybe that wouldve changed had it still been British rule now.

Overall, I think independance was better. India is India. And Indians are Indians. It is much better to be independant. But Britain did provide a lot of stability for India and it would be worse now had Britain never ruled.

But then you have the African nations which Britain just fucked.

It's an interesting one. And one you can't really have a definite answer to.


that the Empire gave India stability is not without doubt. but Hitler gave Germany stability. that is gave India economic prosperity is not without doubt. but Hitler gave India economic prosperity. you get the idea.

stability and prosperity mean nothing if you don't have freedom. if black slaves in 18th century America were payed more than lawyers, i'd still have a big problem with it.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Very true.

As a historian you have to say what me and AK have said. As a compassionate human being you have to say what you have said.

It depends what stance we are meant to take, and I think a debate such as this calls for us to be historians.

[Just Joe]

AK-47, Hitler may have 'advanced' the Soviet Union if he was give more time. but if you made a thread saying how the Third Reich was 'needed', i'd think you were more of an anus than you already are.

i don't care if the British Empire gave the world everything and anything, it shouldn't be admired by ANYONE who considers themselves left wing.

if this Iraqi war kills only 4 people, i'll still denounce it because imperialism is wrong the world over. it is not right for one country to rule over or bully another one. even if the benefits extend to the smaller country.

[chamo]

Imperialism is not justified by bringing "underveloped" nations "up to scratch". I do not see that joing into a country and taking away the rights of its people and making them as doing it any good. The people are fine living in what they consider to be their modern world. They will prosper in their own time, they do not need another superpower to come and do it for them.
Often the native people of the country are just made to be workers while the white colonislists settle as the new bourgeois, just look at South America! Even up to today, and more so in the 1950s there was a huge gap between the rich and the poor. The ones in poverty were always the native indians of Argentina, Peru, Chile, Guatemala, and the bourgeois were always white people of Spanish origin, usually backed up by US investment.
The poor natives could not enjoy the "new economic prosperity" that had been brought to them, the only people it benefitted were the colonialists living in luxuary in "their new land".

I can see your point AK but I do not believe that it did the people much good.

[Invader Zim]

Right ok listen. Im not saying that britain should still have the empire, Im not even saying she should have even Built the empire. Im just saying that its responcible for the majority of technology which we now take for granted. Most modern technology is based on or around theorys that were thought of by Victorian scientists.

Yes i know that the Empire fucked loads of countrys that is not in dispute. I am mearly stating that the Empire had many over looked good points. Such as the abolition of slavery etc.

[Just Joe]

most of the so called good points happened in spite of the Empire, not because of it.

and you've, AGAIN, gone back on youre views. you said the Empire was 'needed', now, you say the good parts can't be overlooked. well can the Hitlers motorway project be overlooked when discussing the reich? yes it can. it can be overlooked because it probobly would have happened anyway and the man and his regime were despotic and evil. much like the British Empire.

[chamo]

Yes, Britain is responsible for most inventions that we use in daily life. However, inventions do not maketh the man. More important that little gimmicks are people's freedom. I don't know if you are agreeing with me or not, I do understand your odd logic AK.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

Suporting any kind of empire is a mistake and obviously has nothing to do with a leftist perspective.
To say that brits advanced places is really pushing It.
How can you advanced under opresion?
Do you need to be opressed to advance?
Japan was way behind Britain a few hundred years ago.Now see what hapened and needless to say the most advanced country in the world was never a colony.
Saying colonialism made the infortunate clonized smarter or more civilised is something I would expect to hear from a Conquistador or a Nazi.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Just Joe on 5:31 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
most of the so called good points happened in spite of the Empire, not because of it.

and you've, AGAIN, gone back on youre views. you said the Empire was 'needed', now, you say the good parts can't be overlooked. well can the Hitlers motorway project be overlooked when discussing the reich? yes it can. it can be overlooked because it probobly would have happened anyway and the man and his regime were despotic and evil. much like the British Empire.


Ok fine i dont care. Go back to living in the middle ages before the Empire came along i dont care. If so stop using the internet, because electricitys British, when you get ill.. no penecilin British again, Hydrolics, pneumatics cant have them ether. Abolishment of slavery again, defeating of Napolion, banning of opium trading.

The list go's on and on. I anm simply saying that the British empire was necassary, for the expancion of human knowlage the increase's in medicen.

[chamo]

Yes! The British Empire was necessary, a gift from God!

It goes back to the old nationalist statement "If it wasn't for us, you would still be living in caves"

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

A lot of you are only reading one side of AK's argument.

Clearly the Empire brought massive benefits to places, but sometimes ruled by wrongful means. That is basically what he said.

He wasn't saying the Empire was great and perfect.

[chamo]

Other nations can develop at their own pace. They do not need or want another one to do it for them.
With these "great benefits" brings all the ethnic cleansing and seperation of people into rich whites and poor indians. With the inventions there is capitalist imperialism, the two cannot be seperated, that therefore means that "benefits" will always bring with them investors, slave trade and capitalists who will destroy the culture. I am sure that India would have given up its benefits, (which they were too poor to actually purchase) for freedom from Britain.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Actually, most Indians believe that the Empire did a lot for them. They would be a lot worse off now had it not been for the British, and they're not that well off now.

There is so much corruption in the Indian government that did not exist under British rule. Also, Queen Victoria herself ensured that education of the Indian people was improved massively and literacy rates rose immensely due to her and the governments of her time. Victoria introduced education to the poor of India.

But before you all start goin at my throat like you did to AK, I realise that there was opression on the Indian people. Police brutality and slavery were in existence and this is obviously wrong.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from AK47 on 5:25 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
Right ok listen. Im not saying that britain should still have the empire, Im not even saying she should have even Built the empire. Im just saying that its responcible for the majority of technology which we now take for granted. Most modern technology is based on or around theorys that were thought of by Victorian scientists.

Yes i know that the Empire fucked loads of countrys that is not in dispute. I am mearly stating that the Empire had many over looked good points. Such as the abolition of slavery etc.

No offence intended, AK-47, but you have obviously not lived in any ex colonies. You sound like my grandfather who served in Kenya. Fuck that shit... Imperaliasm screwed the African economy up and down. Europe received FAR more money than it EVER gave to Africa. This is not bullshit... look to Tanzania, Kenay, Uganda, SA, Zimababwe, Nigeria... all suffered under British rule. If you want any corroboration of this opinion read Davidson, Mazrui or any other expert of African history.

[Conghaileach]

from AK47:
They were proper nasty yes i know, but when lokking back on it was it needed. Without the empire many of the Colony's would still be in the dark ages. So in many ways the Empire in fact did every one a favour... But then again most of the Colony's have fucked economies.

And I suppose that black Americans should be glad that their ancestors were dragged from their homeland in chains, because it's a more developed country!

[Conghaileach]

There's a book called "How the Irish Saved Civilisation: The Untold Story of Ireland's Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe". Look at it here here (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385418493/qid=1048299620/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/026-7527229-2055625).

The Irish, at the time when the British first invaded, were one of the most advanced people in Europe. The Brehon Laws, basically the system of law and order, were desrcibed by an English man as representing well the hatred the Irish had for injustice.

But then the British came and instigated 800 years of repression and murder. They illegalised the Brehon Laws, they illegalised the Irish language, they illegalised the mention of Ireland in any songs or poetry. They illegalised Catholicism at one point. We should be glad for all they've done for us.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CiaranB on 2:18 am on Mar. 22, 2003
from AK47:
They were proper nasty yes i know, but when lokking back on it was it needed. Without the empire many of the Colony's would still be in the dark ages. So in many ways the Empire in fact did every one a favour... But then again most of the Colony's have fucked economies.

And I suppose that black Americans should be glad that their ancestors were dragged from their homeland in chains, because it's a more developed country!


Thats right its all the Empires fault, the americans, the Duch, The portuguese, the spanish, the Blacks them selves, the italians and the french they never took slaves at all did they (for fuck save be realistic) . Yes your quite right its all the Nasty British who did it all.

The latest post i agree with you as i have been since like page 1 of this thread and page 2 of the Irish holacaust.

But the supposed Irish Holacaust happened over 600 years later.

(Edited by AK47 at 9:12 am on Mar. 22, 2003)


(Edited by AK47 at 10:42 am on Mar. 22, 2003)

[chamo]

the Blacks themselves

How do you figure.
The thread being relative to the British I think that's what CiaranB was referring to. If the crimes are shared by other countries does that make them any less or any better? Nome.

The only people who prosper under Empires are the colonialists who come from them, they settle in the country and like in big houses with tobacco fields and businesses while the natives live in shanty towns and are forced to work. The only economic prosperity brought to a country is for the country's colonialist settlers, not it's people.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from happyguy on 10:30 am on Mar. 22, 2003

the Blacks themselves

How do you figure.
The thread being relative to the British I think that's what CiaranB was referring to. If the crimes are shared by other countries does that make them any less or any better? Nome.

The only people who prosper under Empires are the colonialists who come from them, they settle in the country and like in big houses with tobacco fields and businesses while the natives live in shanty towns and are forced to work. The only economic prosperity brought to a country is for the country's colonialist settlers, not it's people.


I say the Blacks them selves beacuse in a book i read, it said, that different tribes killed each other and invaded each thers territory. The majority of slaves taken were prisoners of these wars sold to the white slavers.

I mean do you really see it being possible for the white slavers to round up thousands of slaves and put them on the boats. No all that was done by blacks. Its Sickning but true.


The only people who prosper under Empires are the colonialists who come from them, they settle in the country and like in big houses with tobacco fields and businesses while the natives live in shanty towns and are forced to work. The only economic prosperity brought to a country is for the country's colonialist settlers, not it's people.

I have already agreed with this all i am saying is that without the empire the entire world would be centuries behind in technology. Surely that must be a good thing.

Nome

That must be the most pathetic insult i have ever heard. LOL

[chamo]

Nome it wasn't an insult, it was how I say the word "no".

Not everyone calls who they are replying to an "ignorant fucker" "fucking idiot" "retarded shit" in their posts AK47, so don't expect them to.

With the technology comes the colonialists. They are inseperable. If you want to believe that this techonology makes the world better, then fine, believe that; you would usually have little moral virtue.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You've all completely misinterpreted what AK said.

[Just Joe]

what is even the point of this fucking thread? the Empire did some good things that would have happened anyway. so? Capitalism has done good things. Hitlers Germany did good things. SLAVERY did good things. what does it mean? who cares? they were/are all fucking terrible things that no serious Socialist should support or even comprimise with.

so i ask again, WHY did you start this thread, AK-47?

[chamo]

The title of this thread suggests that technology is "needed". Why is that so? Technology may bring medicine, it also brought guns and weapons of war to help enslave the people of the country.

In what sense have I misinterpreted the thread? It is claimed that Britain brought other countries up to "scratch". Not at all. Not to those country's people, to it's countrymen living in those countries. Colonialists not natives.
Technology brought comes attached with all the nasty stuff. Inseperable.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from AK47 on 10:49 am on Mar. 22, 2003

Quote: from happyguy on 10:30 am on Mar. 22, 2003

the Blacks themselves

How do you figure.
The thread being relative to the British I think that's what CiaranB was referring to. If the crimes are shared by other countries does that make them any less or any better? Nome.

The only people who prosper under Empires are the colonialists who come from them, they settle in the country and like in big houses with tobacco fields and businesses while the natives live in shanty towns and are forced to work. The only economic prosperity brought to a country is for the country's colonialist settlers, not it's people.


I say the Blacks them selves beacuse in a book i read, it said, that different tribes killed each other and invaded each thers territory. The majority of slaves taken were prisoners of these wars sold to the white slavers.

I mean do you really see it being possible for the white slavers to round up thousands of slaves and put them on the boats. No all that was done by blacks. Its Sickning but true.


The only people who prosper under Empires are the colonialists who come from them, they settle in the country and like in big houses with tobacco fields and businesses while the natives live in shanty towns and are forced to work. The only economic prosperity brought to a country is for the country's colonialist settlers, not it's people.

I have already agreed with this all i am saying is that without the empire the entire world would be centuries behind in technology. Surely that must be a good thing.

Nome

That must be the most pathetic insult i have ever heard. LOL



What about Liberia? They were never colonised, yet are technologically on par with most other African nations. Ethiopia was only colonised for a few years and likewise are on par technologically with their neighbours. Most of China was never colonised yet developed technologically. Japan was not colonised. I hardly think that colonisation is a prerequisite for technological development.

[chamo]

No, colonialisation has never done any good, ever. Civilisations will develop at their own pace, their intention should not be to develop other nations, even though this was not the Empire's aim, their aim was simply to get power.
Slower to develop civilistions do not want more developed nations to develop them. This is because the technology etc. will bring about the destruction of their culture, interference with cultures also brings death to the people of that culture eg; American Indians being given guns, brought more wars, fighting death to both sides, not the glory of technology.
The only interest of the British Empire was money and power. They only went to explore and colonise so that they could say they did, have more control of the world than it's allies, all that nationalist stuff. The bigger aim was trade, products, slaves and economy. It did not aim to bring prosperity to places.

[redstar2000]

The subtitle of AK47's thread on the British Empire--"nasty but needed"--gives away the game, I think.

Patriotic nostalgia is a vice of some who live in declining imperial powers...they can't help recall--or recreate in their imaginations--the "golden years" when the world trembled at an Englishman's frown.

Inevitably, they polish the memory of "achievements" and "accomplishments" while avoiding accounts of the bloody deeds that made those "good things" possible.

The "reasoning" is specious and the "facts" are dubious...but that's the whole point of nostalgia.

It's not really about history at all...it's about warm fuzzy feelings, like the memory of a love affair.

I'd even go so far as to call it excusable...except for one thing. How easily does it slide into apology for today's "nastiness"?

Is England's role as a junior partner in American imperialism's piracy in Iraq "nasty but needed"?

In other words, AK47, what about now?

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from happyguy on 8:07 pm on Mar. 22, 2003
No, colonialisation has never done any good, ever. Civilisations will develop at their own pace, their intention should not be to develop other nations, even though this was not the Empire's aim, their aim was simply to get power.
Slower to develop civilistions do not want more developed nations to develop them. This is because the technology etc. will bring about the destruction of their culture, interference with cultures also brings death to the people of that culture eg; American Indians being given guns, brought more wars, fighting death to both sides, not the glory of technology.
The only interest of the British Empire was money and power. They only went to explore and colonise so that they could say they did, have more control of the world than it's allies, all that nationalist stuff. The bigger aim was trade, products, slaves and economy. It did not aim to bring prosperity to places.
#

That is complete rubbish. To say that no colonialisation did any good is plain wrong. I was beginningto gain respect for you in this thread through your views, but that is just plain incorrect

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:23 am on Mar. 23, 2003
The subtitle of AK47's thread on the British Empire--"nasty but needed"--gives away the game, I think.

Patriotic nostalgia is a vice of some who live in declining imperial powers...they can't help recall--or recreate in their imaginations--the "golden years" when the world trembled at an Englishman's frown.

Inevitably, they polish the memory of "achievements" and "accomplishments" while avoiding accounts of the bloody deeds that made those "good things" possible.

The "reasoning" is specious and the "facts" are dubious...but that's the whole point of nostalgia.

It's not really about history at all...it's about warm fuzzy feelings, like the memory of a love affair.

I'd even go so far as to call it excusable...except for one thing. How easily does it slide into apology for today's "nastiness"?

Is England's role as a junior partner in American imperialism's piracy in Iraq "nasty but needed"?

In other words, AK47, what about now?

:cool:


You can think what you like but it certainly does not make you right. I think that you have a great fear of capitalism and authority because you dont understand it. And what you dont understand you fear. I would also say i am cursed with this but you however are the most affected member of this forum. You believe that any athority in a capitalist nation is evil, ie the police. However what would happen without the police. You dont think if those things because your fear of capitalist authority blinds you...

we both no that that is complete crap... but no more than the shit you posted.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 3:06 am on Mar. 23, 2003

That is complete rubbish. To say that no colonialisation did any good is plain wrong. I was beginningto gain respect for you in this thread through your views, but that is just plain incorrect

Could please furnish me with some examples of how imperialism has worked to the advantage of nations? The costs, in all the examples I know of (which I will admit are primarily African), hugely outweigh the benefits.

[redstar2000]

Since you evaded my question, AK47, I'll ask it again and keep asking until you answer.

Is England's role as a junior partner in American imperialism's piracy in Iraq "nasty but needed"?

As to the content of your evasion:

"I think you have a great fear of capitalism and authority because you don't understand it."

Actually, it seems to me that my understanding of capitalism is considerably better than yours...but I am biased, to be sure. Fear of authority is just common sense...they have the guns, remember? And they are quite willing to use them...that's history, the title of this forum.

"What would happen without the police?" Not exactly willing to give us a chance to find out, are they?

Now, quit blowing smoke out of your ass and answer my question.

:cool:

[chamo]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 3:06 am on Mar. 23, 2003

Quote: from happyguy on 8:07 pm on Mar. 22, 2003
No, colonialisation has never done any good, ever. Civilisations will develop at their own pace, their intention should not be to develop other nations, even though this was not the Empire's aim, their aim was simply to get power.
Slower to develop civilistions do not want more developed nations to develop them. This is because the technology etc. will bring about the destruction of their culture, interference with cultures also brings death to the people of that culture eg; American Indians being given guns, brought more wars, fighting death to both sides, not the glory of technology.
The only interest of the British Empire was money and power. They only went to explore and colonise so that they could say they did, have more control of the world than it's allies, all that nationalist stuff. The bigger aim was trade, products, slaves and economy. It did not aim to bring prosperity to places.
#

That is complete rubbish. To say that no colonialisation did any good is plain wrong. I was beginningto gain respect for you in this thread through your views, but that is just plain incorrect


Well, what I neglected to say is that colonialistation does do a bit of good in the way of spreading medicinde, but the bad points greatly outweigh the good.

Technology did as much good for the British Empire colonies as the atomic bomb did for Japan.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:32 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
Since you evaded my question, AK47, I'll ask it again and keep asking until you answer.

Is England's role as a junior partner in American imperialism's piracy in Iraq "nasty but needed"?

As to the content of your evasion:

"I think you have a great fear of capitalism and authority because you don't understand it."

Actually, it seems to me that my understanding of capitalism is considerably better than yours...but I am biased, to be sure. Fear of authority is just common sense...they have the guns, remember? And they are quite willing to use them...that's history, the title of this forum.

"What would happen without the police?" Not exactly willing to give us a chance to find out, are they?

Now, quit blowing smoke out of your ass and answer my question.

:cool:


Is England's role as a junior partner in American imperialism's piracy in Iraq "nasty but needed"?


What place does this question have in this topic. If you had not noticed the British empire has been disolved. So your question completely out of place in this thread and this forum.

You see the British empire is completely unrelated to Britains modern day iraq policy.

But i will answer the question any way...

In terms of humanitarian aid and moral standing, then yes... Infact they should have removed Saddam last time, in the first gulf war. And that i support to the ground if a modern facist dictator responcible for the death of over 1,000,000 people is removed from power.

However im not as stupid as to think that is Britain and USA's aim they are in it for Money and oil. A war for that i am deaply opposed to, however i see the humanitarian crisis and something must be done, to stop further loss of life by saddams hand. So i find that i cannot answer you question, as well as i would like to. So i will have to go with yse the war is nasty but necessary. However it is a poor question which does not fully take into acount, the needs of the people of Iraq, especially not the Kurds etc. Who im sure you must feal sorry for.


Actually, it seems to me that my understanding of capitalism is considerably better than yours...but I am biased, to be sure. Fear of authority is just common sense...they have the guns, remember? And they are quite willing to use them...that's history, the title of this forum.


Actually before the police force was set up in the 1820's - 30's crime levels were huge and murder was a very common crime, so yes i think we need the cops.

Also i very much doubt you do know more about capitalism than i do...

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Uhuru na Umoja on 1:15 pm on Mar. 23, 2003

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 3:06 am on Mar. 23, 2003

That is complete rubbish. To say that no colonialisation did any good is plain wrong. I was beginningto gain respect for you in this thread through your views, but that is just plain incorrect

Could please furnish me with some examples of how imperialism has worked to the advantage of nations? The costs, in all the examples I know of (which I will admit are primarily African), hugely outweigh the benefits.


I gave you the India example. It may have been carried out in "uncivilized" ways, but the empire made India much better and with independance came instability on every walk of Indian life. The ongoing feud on Kashmir continues due to independance. Islamic militancy and extremism became very dangerous when Pakistan and India split. Under British rule, they were one and although extremism existed, it grew immensely with independance.

I know that many examples of imperialism and colonialism are not nice ones. But this what AK was saying. Benefits did exist and they are NOT always outweighed by the cruelties.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 3:04 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
I know that many examples of imperialism and colonialism are not nice ones. But this what AK was saying. Benefits did exist and they are NOT always outweighed by the cruelties.
This is was what was not explicit earlier. I would, however, even take out the always. Yes there are benefits, but in the nations I have studied these have never outweighed the detriment done. Remember too that British rule did not always bring unity and peace. In many nations the British 'divide and rule' policy actively hindered nationalism (look at the divisions in Uganda thanks to the British pro-Baganda policies).

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I know that. AK and I have been saying that all through the thread.

"No, colonialisation has never done any good, ever."

Thats the only reason I made that post. You seem to have changed your view now...to have such a change happen in 23 hours and 16 minutes is pretty amazing. You should be more decisive in what you say.

[redstar2000]

"Yes, the war is nasty but necessary." -- AK47

The reason I pressed you so hard, AK47, is that I didn't want to call you a servile lackey of U.S. imperialism without having confirmation in your own words.

May you personally reap what you are so eager to see others sow!

:angry:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:42 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
"Yes, the war is nasty but necessary." -- AK47

The reason I pressed you so hard, AK47, is that I didn't want to call you a servile lackey of U.S. imperialism without having confirmation in your own words.

May you personally reap what you are so eager to see others sow!

:angry:

I do not support the American Capitalist war on Iraq or any were. However i do see that the people of Iraq have suffered genocide at the hands of Saddam hussain, and i see no moral solution other than the immidiate, removal of Saddam and His Regime. However i would wish that they do it as swiftly and painlessly as possible, and avoid civialian casualties. However i can assure you that there will be a hell of a lot more Civillian casualties if we do not remove him from power.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 8:31 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
I know that. AK and I have been saying that all through the thread.

"No, colonialisation has never done any good, ever."

Thats the only reason I made that post. You seem to have changed your view now...to have such a change happen in 23 hours and 16 minutes is pretty amazing. You should be more decisive in what you say.

How have my views been incosistent? Go back and look through my posts. I have said that in general (ie. weighing pro against cons) colonialism was negative in all istances that I know of. I have further pointed out that Liberia, who has not colonised but suffered due to other external factors (the ruling elite of non-African blacks), is not worse or better off than most other African nations. Hence claims of the great techonological advances of the British are false. As for the quote 'no colinisation has never done any good, ever', I did NOT say that. All I asked for is examples, and you gave one. How is all of this contradictory?

What I have qualms with was the statement 'nasty but necessary', which CLEARLY implies that colonialism was on balance a good thing. I completely disagree with this and continue to. So please, read specifically what I say before you post... I have been more consistent than AK in this discussion (as he has gone from 'nasty but neccessary' to 'nasty but unneccessary').

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from AK47 on 9:58 am on Mar. 24, 2003

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:42 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
"Yes, the war is nasty but necessary." -- AK47

The reason I pressed you so hard, AK47, is that I didn't want to call you a servile lackey of U.S. imperialism without having confirmation in your own words.

May you personally reap what you are so eager to see others sow!

:angry:

I do not support the American Capitalist war on Iraq or any were. However i do see that the people of Iraq have suffered genocide at the hands of Saddam hussain, and i see no moral solution other than the immidiate, removal of Saddam and His Regime. However i would wish that they do it as swiftly and painlessly as possible, and avoid civialian casualties. However i can assure you that there will be a hell of a lot more Civillian casualties if we do not remove him from power.

Doesn't you signature (the quote from Mazdak) somewhat contradict this?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Uhuru na Umoja on 11:18 am on Mar. 24, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 9:58 am on Mar. 24, 2003

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:42 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
"Yes, the war is nasty but necessary." -- AK47

The reason I pressed you so hard, AK47, is that I didn't want to call you a servile lackey of U.S. imperialism without having confirmation in your own words.

May you personally reap what you are so eager to see others sow!

:angry:

I do not support the American Capitalist war on Iraq or any were. However i do see that the people of Iraq have suffered genocide at the hands of Saddam hussain, and i see no moral solution other than the immidiate, removal of Saddam and His Regime. However i would wish that they do it as swiftly and painlessly as possible, and avoid civialian casualties. However i can assure you that there will be a hell of a lot more Civillian casualties if we do not remove him from power.

Doesn't you signature (the quote from Mazdak) somewhat contradict this?

Its actually supposed to show what an idiot mazdak is and how he comes out with compleete shit. But ican see how you can get confused i will change it.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Yes, irony and sarcasm are often difficult to pick up on in writing (especially when you do not know someone personally). Now your sentiments are far clearer.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Uhuru na Umoja on 11:14 am on Mar. 24, 2003


How have my views been incosistent? Go back and look through my posts. I have said that in general (ie. weighing pro against cons) colonialism was negative in all istances that I know of. I have further pointed out that Liberia, who has not colonised but suffered due to other external factors (the ruling elite of non-African blacks), is not worse or better off than most other African nations. Hence claims of the great techonological advances of the British are false. As for the quote 'no colinisation has never done any good, ever', I did NOT say that. All I asked for is examples, and you gave one. How is all of this contradictory?



You are very correct, it was the other guy with the Lenin avatar who said, so I apologise to you...

And re-direct all of my last few posts to him!

[queen of diamonds]

This thread begs the question - does it really matter what motives drive people? At the end of the day, the result's determined by people's actions, not their motivations. Now, while their actions will undoubtedly be driven by their motivations, now that they've done what they've done, and their motivations have had the impact they're going to have, do we really need to bother about them anymore? The fact that the British were out for their own personal gain is irrelevant to the debate - whether they did more good than bad. In answering the question, it's possible to answer in the affirmative for selfish leaders and in the negative for leaders who thought they were doing what was best by their country.

History is about learning from the mistakes of the past, but clearly, no-one is. What Britain was to the world in its day, America is now. So the question must be asked -what are we to do with what we've learnt from the past? How will it benefit us now?

Just for the record, Socialsmo o Muerte, the divisions in India were caused largely by the British, who took pains to cause divisions between any groups they could find. And while India's political system may be a great deal less stable than it was under the British, its system pre-British times was a great deal more stable than under the British. But the British did contribute to the modernisation of India, I'll give you that. As an Indian, my view on that topic may be a little on the biased side....


if this Iraqi war kills only 4 people, i'll still denounce it because imperialism is wrong the world over. it is not right for one country to rule over or bully another one. even if the benefits extend to the smaller country.

Joe, go ahead and denounce what you like. Personally I don't think Iraq would be very much better under an American-sponsored dictator, but you don't seem to have an issue with whether the people of Iraq would be better off or not. If what a leader declares themself to be is more important to you than the practicality of what they are, all I can say is - wake up to reality.