Thread: Colonialism.... a comparison

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Fair enough but when George W invaded Iraq, do you think it was ideological?

It was a poorly thought through plan to use the war on islamic terrorism to finish Bush seniors business from Gulf War 1.

Gulf War 1 was about ensuring stability for the region which supplies much of the world's oil.

It was not so the the evil USA could 'steal' the oil. It was so that the mercantile USA could carry on buying the oil. It is called international trade and it is good for the wealth of everyone concerned. Neighbouring tin pot dictators throwing their weight about and upsetting the market place will find themselves in hot water.

GW1 was about defending the sovereign integrity of an independent commercial supplier, not about commandeering resources like in primitive times when nations went to war to annex and appropriate territory for their sovereign control.

The follow-up GWII was pretty stupid. It did get rid a tyrant who terrorised his population but at some considerable cost to regional stability.

Neither war was about the direct commandeering of territory and/or resources. That type of war-mongering had gone the way of the dinosaur until it was revived by Russia in 2014.

Loopy you sure it never had anything to do with the petrodollar?

Originally Posted by Looper

Gulf War 1 was about ensuring stability for the region which supplies much of the world's oil

Ideology getting in the way of resources.

If there wasn't oil in Iraq the US would not have never gone in. Ideology is the marketing efforts of the govt to gain support. The US has been doing it from the get go. What's being played out in Central Asia now is the same thing the US did in Central America, only worse results.

Britain was after territory, the US is playing the same game, just after resources and places to sell products instead. It all comes down to sending money back to the homeland though.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

just after resources and places to sell products

I see that the mote is slowly falling from your eyes uncle ju. The beauty of globalised free market economics is that if you want to

1. obtain resources

and also

2. sell products

then there is a cunning alternative to war - it is called 'trade'

Globalised free market economics has probably done more for the large pacification of the human species than any other single effect. Not only does trade allow you a means to obtain what you want without costly 'zero or negative sum' war but it means that your neighbour, instead of becoming a threat, becomes a valued ally in your mutual economic wealth. Without having him as a trading partner you would both be worse off. Once these bonds of pacification develop beyond a certain point you cannot even afford to go to war with your neighbour even if he insults your mother's virtue, the economic benefits of peaceful trade are simply too great.

If you think that nations go to war to 'take stuff' off other nations you are living in the wrong century, or even millennium.

There are far better ways to 'get stuff' from your neighbour.

Countries do not go to war to take other countries' oil in the 21st century (or even the late 20th century). It is a primitive myth perpetuated by tin-foiler muppets to feed their paranoid conspiracy theory instincts.

Originally Posted by Looper

There are far better ways to 'get stuff' from your neighbour.

Countries do not go to war to take other countries' oil in the 21st century (or even the late 20th century). It is a primitive myth perpetuated by tin-foiler muppets to feed their paranoid conspiracy theory instincts.

Yeah, there are better ways. Bottom line though, majority of wars fought are about resources. And in the US anyway, war is built in to the economy and is an easily sold product. Nine times out of 10 wars are fought over economics and resources.

This...

Originally Posted by SKkin

I don't see any of them as better. The downsides outweighed the upside in all cases...IMO. Peoples and cultures should be left to their own devices...for better or for worse. What gives any culture/nation/people the right to feel that they are "exceptional" over another? That their way must be imposed on "lesser brutes."

Originally Posted by SKkin

The downsides outweighed the upside in all cases...IMO.

This is complete fiction. Colonisation spread technologically and socially progressive ideas to parts of the world that were centuries if not millennia off the pace and would still be mired there otherwise.

The lucky natives were not slaughtered by Spaniards but largely spared by Englanders.

The more advanced British also brought more advanced technology as well as treating natives more humanely.

Originally Posted by SKkin

Peoples and cultures should be left to their own devices...for better or for worse.

Really? So to satisfy your misplaced white guilt self-flagellation these primitives should have be left to their own devices to face the ravages of diseases like malaria which have claimed approximately 50% of the lives of all the humans who have lived throughout the history of the species?

They should have been left in a state of pre-civilised perpetual war which kills about 5% of hunter gatherer populations when civilisation and the order that it brings would save those lives?

They are not creatures in a zoo to be left in primitive squalor to salve your bleeding heart. Get your head out of your ass.

Civilisation is good. Civilisation is right. Civilisation works.

Originally Posted by Looper

considering council estate scum today live lives of unimaginable futuristic luxury compared to the Elite of 1851.

Originally Posted by Looper

The wealthiest societies on the planet are free market economies which have inequality by definition. The 'poor' in these societies are the wealthiest 'poor' on the planet.

Maybe that's a sad commentary on the way "wealth" is defined in the modern day world.

Is this "unimaginable futuristic luxury..."



compared with Mentmore Towers built 1852?



Not in my mind...

Originally Posted by Looper

salve your bleeding heart.

First time I've been called a bleeding heart.

Originally Posted by Looper

Civilisation is good. Civilisation is right. Civilisation works.

Civilisation of the west destroys the ancient civilisations. and in loopy's eyes that's good.

Originally Posted by Looper

The lucky natives were not slaughtered by Spaniards but largely spared by Englanders.

Think the Aborigines in Aussieland might disagree and a few Am. Indians too. Native folk fared better under Spanish rule than the British efforts of genocide.

Originally Posted by Looper

You tell'em speedbump.

Skkkiin - start another thread with your 4 page long copy and paste elite conspiracy theory!

Seems we've went way off into the weeds again...Sorry Hugh. No more book excerpts from me.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Native folk fared better under Spanish rule than the British efforts of genocide.

Yep, them conquistadors were big softies at heart!

They were just foolin around with them swords and canons. And the decimation of the central american natives was just a misunderstanding- - some crossed wires in the missives from Madrid!

Originally Posted by SKkin

compared with Mentmore Towers built 1852?

But someone living in scumsville UK has refrigerated food, central heating and an electric blanket. They can talk to anyone in the world with a device in their pocket. They have more clothes than they know what to do with. They have electric lights that come on like magic with buttons on the wall. They have unlimited endless music and visual entertainment. They participate in online communication and discussion with the entire rest of the planet sitting at their kitchen table. Their children are given 12 years education for free. They choose from a selection of fresh exotic food brought to their sainsbury on the corner from every corner of the globe.

The residents of the imposing, if draughty-looking, Mentmore Towers did not enjoy any of these things in 1851.

The 2018 stinking scums are the first generation of poor people who are fatter than the rich people!

Loopy aren't you an Aussie, last I heard they had a good welfare program for the ockers.

You may find the UK govt is taking a lot of the stuff away from those people now.

Sounds like Loopy is part of the Open society program.

Originally Posted by Looper

Yep, them conquistadors were big softies at heart!

Brutal, not genoocidal.

Originally Posted by Looper

The 2018 stinking scums are the first generation of poor people who are fatter than the rich people!

A little known fact....excellent.

Originally Posted by Chico

Snub, I forgot you get your news from VOA

That's MK. Unless Snub is MK?

Originally Posted by Speedhump

fghanistan has been ungovernable since it was born, nothing to do with the British, learn your history

Allegedly many have conquered the place starting in 2000BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#History

Originally Posted by Chico

Loopy you sure it never had anything to do with the petrodollar?

He fails to see the connection between the currency and the resources that can be "purchased" with the said unicorn shit petrodollar.

Originally Posted by Chico

Civilisation of the west destroys the ancient civilisations.

Never destroyed nor replaced.
The West has never recognized or acknowledged the greater origins of influence and contributions.

By the way HL, no need to send me another 'f*** off' notification. I'll ignore your pathetic abuse as I did before.

The trips of deluded fantasy doesn't qualify as civilisation ​or evolving.