|
That region of Africa is just so fucked...
I feel like the tribal system of old is still in place today it just much more bloody due to modern weapons making killing much easier. I can't even remember half the names of rebel groups that hide out in the dense jungles in Central Africa. Each small group holds a region of territory as their own and wars with the neighbouring tribes.
If a strong military nation were to move into the region and stabilize it and bring some riches to the people and stop the killing by just out right just slaughtering all the rebel groups would it really be a bad thing?
I read something interesting on how Western aid actually fucks Africa up even more. By providing free food to the masses it makes farming an impossible job. How can a small farmer working by hand possibly compete with free food? With no stream of income it's impossible for them to begin to build up their infrastructure.
|
what are the motives to this war
|
Wouldn't it make even better sense to just trade with a unitary government that can provide its own stability and builds its own excellent infrastructure to get resources out cheaply without massive bloodletting? You know, like modern-day South Africa, Canada, or Saudi Arabia?
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 22 2012 18:41 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 18:30 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 18:06 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. Kwark, the real issue here isn't an argument between violence by proxy and an abrogation of sovereignty. The real issue is how to get to a sustainable development model that plows the fruits of natural wealth back into infrastructure without needing the Rothschild/Rhodes-esque middleman. Look at Scandinavia--they did it quite successfully. It can be done. Why revert to a more messy model when a better one already exists?
That's a tough idea to sell when the guys you need to buy it are the middle men. Where's the margin in them keeping their money? Anyway, it's probably too late now anyway to be honest. Look at India and Pakistan, that whole thing was started by the British and they're still pissed at each other for some reason and it won't be resolved any time soon. No amount of development will let Africa forgive itself for what it's done, you'll just have richer countries engaging in higher tech wars.
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 22 2012 18:44 Shady Sands wrote:
Wouldn't it make even better sense to just trade with a unitary government that can provide its own stability and builds its own excellent infrastructure to get resources out cheaply without massive bloodletting? You know, like modern-day South Africa, Canada, or Saudi Arabia?
They could dictate their own price on their raw materials or object to the oil fields/diamond mines being owned by foreigners. There's no profit in it (for anyone but them). The idea is absurd. Also the example of South Africa is pretty odd given they're still engaging in state brutality against the black labourers in their mines, we just overlook it for a price.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/16/south-african-police-shoot-striking-miners
Mine owned by Lonmin, formerly known as London and Rhodesian Mining and Land Company Limited, based in London. Rising unionism among the blacks threatened the bottom line but fortunately the local elites felt it necessary to fire guns at them until they got over it. Working as intended.
The scenes we saw in South Africa will keep happening until the local government loses stomach for being a proxy for Western business interests or until it is no longer able to repress its own people. At this point someone will seed some kind of ethnic conflict, arm both sides and then explain to them that the public would be upset if they openly traded guns for blood platinum so unfortunately they have to pay far more than the guns are worth.
|
On November 22 2012 18:42 tokicheese wrote:
That region of Africa is just so fucked...
I feel like the tribal system of old is still in place today it just much more bloody due to modern weapons making killing much easier. I can't even remember half the names of rebel groups that hide out in the dense jungles in Central Africa. Each small group holds a region of territory as their own and wars with the neighbouring tribes.
If a strong military nation were to move into the region and stabilize it and bring some riches to the people and stop the killing by just out right just slaughtering all the rebel groups would it really be a bad thing?
I read something interesting on how Western aid actually fucks Africa up even more. By providing free food to the masses it makes farming an impossible job. How can a small farmer working by hand possibly compete with free food? With no stream of income it's impossible for them to begin to build up their infrastructure.
As long they are still natural resources available to be exploited by the first world, as long there is not going to be peace/meaningful development in Africa. The whole mess is just too profitable for us.
|
On November 22 2012 18:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 18:06 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language.
I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 22 2012 19:05 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 18:30 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 18:06 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves. Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language. I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
|
On November 22 2012 18:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 18:41 Shady Sands wrote:On November 22 2012 18:30 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 18:06 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. Kwark, the real issue here isn't an argument between violence by proxy and an abrogation of sovereignty. The real issue is how to get to a sustainable development model that plows the fruits of natural wealth back into infrastructure without needing the Rothschild/Rhodes-esque middleman. Look at Scandinavia--they did it quite successfully. It can be done. Why revert to a more messy model when a better one already exists? That's a tough idea to sell when the guys you need to buy it are the middle men. Where's the margin in them keeping their money? Anyway, it's probably too late now anyway to be honest. Look at India and Pakistan, that whole thing was started by the British and they're still pissed at each other for some reason and it won't be resolved any time soon. No amount of development will let Africa forgive itself for what it's done, you'll just have richer countries engaging in higher tech wars.
It was Jinnahs idea for a separate muslim nation. The british, and everyone else wanted a unified country. The big problems were the egos Nehru, and Jinnah. Neither wanted to let go, and Jinnah decided he wanted a country for himself. If your talking about the hindu-muslim divide, that existed way before the british.
|
On November 22 2012 19:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 19:05 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 18:30 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 18:06 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves. Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language. I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region. They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
Kwark... the imperialist countries in the world aren't colonial any more, they don't build infrastructure, they don't contribute to developing local economy, they don't even provide basic health care and education through religious institutions. They are straight out parasitic, you can't find the British / Dutch colonial models in the world operating any more, people long since figured out that you don't need to have a physical presence in the population representation to efficiently control a region. Your point is pretty mute.
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 22 2012 19:11 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 19:08 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 19:05 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 18:30 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 18:06 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves. Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language. I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region. They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place. Kwark... the imperialist countries in the world aren't colonial any more, they don't build infrastructure, they don't contribute to developing local economy, they don't even provide basic health care and education through religious institutions. They are straight out parasitic, you can't find the British / Dutch colonial models in the world operating any more, people long since figured out that you don't need to have a physical presence in the population representation to efficiently control a region. Your point is pretty mute.
My point is that it was nicer when we were doing all those things rather than the parasitic sponsoring of wars we now do. As for classic imperialism, actually invading a country was what you did after imperialism failed, the situation you have at the moment in South Africa is pretty much ideal, textbook imperialism.
|
Sad.
I really hope the UN doesn't twiddle its thumbs and actually does something. Lord knows the western world only steps in when money or political interests are involved.
When will the world put humanity before money and politics?
The UN seems like the only armed force in the world with good intentions, but gets wrapped in international politics that cuts its arms and legs off. I wish the UN had more power and abolished the bullshit security council.
|
On November 22 2012 19:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 19:11 Caihead wrote:On November 22 2012 19:08 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 19:05 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 18:30 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 18:06 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves. Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language. I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region. They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place. Kwark... the imperialist countries in the world aren't colonial any more, they don't build infrastructure, they don't contribute to developing local economy, they don't even provide basic health care and education through religious institutions. They are straight out parasitic, you can't find the British / Dutch colonial models in the world operating any more, people long since figured out that you don't need to have a physical presence in the population representation to efficiently control a region. Your point is pretty mute. My point is that it was nicer when we were doing all those things rather than the parasitic sponsoring of wars we now do. As for classic imperialism, actually invading a country was what you did after imperialism failed, the situation you have at the moment in South Africa is pretty much ideal, textbook imperialism.
Well maybe we should move forward more independence and rights/ability for third world / developing countries to develop with out undue influence of the Western states instead of wishing for a return to colonialism.
|
On November 22 2012 19:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 19:05 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 18:30 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 18:06 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves. Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language. I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region. They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
"Us" is a weird way of phrasing it. And your idea that we should ally ourselves to the people creating the conflict and lend them our resources (edit: so that they may exploit these places in a more humane way) is crazy.
|
On November 22 2012 19:15 Destro wrote:
Sad.
I really hope the UN doesn't twiddle its thumbs and actually does something. Lord knows the western world only steps in when money or political interests are involved.
When will the world put humanity before money and politics?
The UN seems like the only armed force in the world with good intentions, but gets wrapped in international politics that cuts its arms and legs off. I wish the UN had more power and abolished the bullshit security council.
The UN can't flex its muscles because its legal entities and peace keeping troops are hamstringed and made invalid by the policies of specific first world countries which also provides the majority of the funding for it. What do you want them to do when they can't hold the veto power states responsible for anything. When UNESCO recognized Palestine as a country the US / Canada / UK pulled their funding and vastly crippled the operations of the organization in actually providing valuable educational and health services around the world. Tens of thousands are affected by their operations on a daily basis and those individuals affected are holding UNESCO responsible for it. Look at the history of US Vetoes in the UN for the past 30,40 years, it's frankly disgusting.
|
I wonder if the colonial powers will ever take responsibility for their actions in the past. Reading kwarks posts - I doubt it.
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 22 2012 19:20 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 19:15 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 19:11 Caihead wrote:On November 22 2012 19:08 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 19:05 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 18:30 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 18:06 hypercube wrote:On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves. Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language. I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region. They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place. Kwark... the imperialist countries in the world aren't colonial any more, they don't build infrastructure, they don't contribute to developing local economy, they don't even provide basic health care and education through religious institutions. They are straight out parasitic, you can't find the British / Dutch colonial models in the world operating any more, people long since figured out that you don't need to have a physical presence in the population representation to efficiently control a region. Your point is pretty mute. My point is that it was nicer when we were doing all those things rather than the parasitic sponsoring of wars we now do. As for classic imperialism, actually invading a country was what you did after imperialism failed, the situation you have at the moment in South Africa is pretty much ideal, textbook imperialism. Well maybe we should move forward more independence and rights/ability for third world / developing countries to develop with out undue influence of the Western states instead of wishing for a return to colonialism.
Obviously that'd be awesome but it's hardly realistic. Those in power are utterly shameless. It was only a decade ago that Tony Blair shook the hand of Gaddafi and sold him a bunch of military hardware to use against his own people and if anyone deserved the ongoing emnity of the British state it was him. I guess BP's lobbyists must have had something pretty spectacular to offer him but still, the guy sponsored the IRA and was intimately involved in terrorism committed on British soil. When you have the Prime Minister posing for photos next to dictators then it's hard to believe we're about to give up on the whole scam.
|
On November 22 2012 19:30 mdb wrote:
I wonder if the colonial powers will ever take responsibility for their actions in the past. Reading kwarks posts - I doubt it.
There's no longer any entity to take that responsibility, it's too large a burden for any one individual to shoulder and the organizations / individuals that represented colonial entities in the past are long gone. There isn't really any way to. The best way to take responsibility is to not repeat the mistakes of the past.
|
takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection.
There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote:
takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection.
There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
If you have a computer you're probably indirectly complicit in the vast majority of the atrocities going on around the world. There's a reason the first world has so much money and it's not that we all just work harder than everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
