Really? So perhaps you would let us know what you believe? Do you believe that we did not go in to Afghanistan to overthrow a vicious, tyrannical regime? That we did not hope to give the population a chance of peace and freedom? That we did not hope to withdraw as soon as possible? Enlighten us, do!
Sooner or later (probably later) the Israeli state will collapse and be swept away. That particular problem will be solved, although the Middle East will still face a myriad of other intractable problems as always. Many colonies have ended before, including nearly all the countries in Africa in the 1960s, French Indo-China in 1954, British India in 1947, and the whole of Latin America in the 19th century. When the hitherto colonists lose power, they always have options: they can either stay on and make their peace with their former subjects, or leave and find a home somewhere else in the world. Likewise there have been many cases of puppet states which have collapsed when external support was withdrawn, apart from the mediaeval crusader states. Perhaps these examples will suffice: * East Germany when Russian support was withdrawn in 1989 * Quisling's Norway when German support was withdrawn in 1945 * The Papal States when French support was withdrawn in 1870 The former rulers, if they were still alive, were lucky if they escaped punishment for their crimes.
Nice post. I remember about 30 odd years ago my best friend went to Strathclyde University. One evening on his way back to his room he was grabbed and shoved up against a wall. A threatening voice said simply " Catholic or Protestant Pal ? " My friend very quickly lied and said Jewish. The response was to be let go with a "sorry pal" Sums up the stupidity of religion .
It's surely a little more complicated than that - even if the avowed intentions were as you describe. After all, the tyrannical régime was overthrown years ago - it's just that the régime that replaced it doesn't work very well. You can give the population a chance for peace and freedom, but your very presence nullifies many of these chances. It's also to assume that the population is homogenous and wants what the West wants. It doesn't. It's tribal and it has no end of agendas of its own. Some of it subscribes to what the West thinks it wants, but much of it doesn't. Freedom from what? From itself? I'm sure we all wanted to withdraw as soon as possible, but it's never an opportune time with these places. Look what has happened in Iraq: you train up a military to the tune of billions of $$$ and it just buggers off as soon as an enemy shows up. I imagine the thing will be just the same in Afghanistan. The Taliban haven't exactly been defeated, have they? In any case, the original argument for war in Afghanistan was to clear out Al Qaida and beat up the Taliban who were harbouring them. Al Qaida largely decamped to Pakistan and the Taliban were defeated - as a government. But nothing definitive has happened, nor would it if we stayed for 100 years. Does this sort of policing really work in cultures so unlike our own? I can see ISIS being at the sharp end of some more military action soon, but to imagine that Iraq is going to become some sort of Western democracy in the Middle East really is cloud-cuckooland thinking and it always was. The only possible happy-ish outcome is that the Kurds might end up with a reasonably peaceful state of their own, but I don't hold out much hope for the rest of the place.
Kalashnikov proud sponsors of Islam since 1949 I bet Kalashnikov shares are at an all time high at the moment
War will never end in that region, even if Israel were to pack up and walk away. The Arab nations will fight anyone including each other. No end ...ever.
"Really? So perhaps you would let us know what you believe? Do you believe that we did not go in to Afghanistan to overthrow a vicious, tyrannical regime? That we did not hope to give the population a chance of peace and freedom? That we did not hope to withdraw as soon as possible? Enlighten us, do!" We were lead into Afghanistan by a government intent on backing up their American friends. We went in to assist the Americans in grabbing as much of the vast mineral wealth as possible. Have you any idea how much silicone, for example, is under Afghanistan ? There is NO WAY that we could ever defeat the "regime" - we tried 100 years ago... The Russians tried in the 1980's... All that ever happens is the "regime" ( call it Taliban or whatever ) retreats into the mountains or across a border that they do not even recognise into a neighbouring country, wage guerrilla warfare and wait for the occupiers to leave - as all previous ones have done. "Peace and freedom" ? Peace - as in the inter-factional petty conflicts that characterise most Islamic countries? The sort that usually leads to one sect grabbing power and suppressing all others ? Ask the Kurds what they think about that… The mistake that you – and many others in the west – make is that you assume the average Afghani wants a western style democracy. The vast majority don’t give a damn who is in charge as long as they get left alone. What we are trying to inflict upon them is a government that they don’t care about; but one that will force them to obey its rules and to pay taxes… And withdraw as soon as possible ? We never had a definitive end game. We have never had clearly defined objectives, and kept changing them anyway… There was no way we could ever withdraw quickly. So, here we are a decade later – over 450 British servicemen killed… And what will happen when we do withdraw ? After a couple of years of instability and civil war the Taliban – or whatever the equivalent is then – will take over, and the average Afghani will go back to growing weed and being happy to be left alone.
I would define "colony" as a place where a small occupying power, usually with far superior fire power, subjugates a larger indigenous population; the British Raj in India for example. Maybe you have a different definition... But as there are very few Palestinians living in the country of Israel, how can it be a colony ? And your example fails to recognise the largest colonial take-over of all time - the USA. We don't see the colonists being swept out of those lands, do we ?
"Sooner or later (probably later) the Israeli state will collapse and be swept away. That particular problem will be solved, although the Middle East will still face a myriad of other intractable problems as always." So, if you're just going to swap one problem for a load of others, why not leave the current one where it is ?
"Really? So perhaps you would let us know what you believe? Do you believe that we did not go in to Afghanistan to overthrow a vicious, tyrannical regime? That we did not hope to give the population a chance of peace and freedom? That we did not hope to withdraw as soon as possible? Enlighten us, do!" Here's a breakdown of countries in and around what we call the middle-east : Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Lybia, Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, India, Pakistan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and of course Isreal... How many of them have "peace and freedom" ? Are you saying we should invade all of the ones with a represive regime ? Despite the fact that the UN convention specifically states that invading another sovereign state purely to facilitate regime change is illegal... Enlighten us, do!
I put forward three points specifically about what were the reasons and intentions of the UK and allied intervention in Afghanistan. You said my points were "cloud cuckoo land". I challenged you to say what was your belief about those three specific points. You have not responded about those points. Instead you prefer to wander off into a host of quite different points. OK, that's your privilege - don't feel obliged to stick to the point if you prefer not to.
Please, the same old spin, wherever you look and read....forget all your Frank Luntz inspired propaganda, just address the real, undeniable issues: occupation, inequality and injustice. Address those points instead of playing the opinion swaying, media influenced, Hasbara led diversion game. Israel has never wanted peace, neither I suspect have Hamas, but what really irks me is the constant disingenuous spin from the Israeli's: Israel-Gaza conflict: The secret report that helps Israelis to hide facts - Comment - Voices - The Independent It's really simple: occupation, inequality and injustice. Of course I don't advocate Israeli's leaving, as I already said, I believe they are all brothers and sisters - all peas from the same pod, and there is only one solution: a one state solution, no apartheid, where Jews and Palestinians are equal, but I can never see it happening - because neither side will ever allow it.
I have no idea why you would think that. In fact, I assume that the average Afghani is functionally illiterate, knows nothing of the civilised world, has been brought up to be a religious bigot, and has never heard of democracy. I have never suggested otherwise. But all that has nothing to do with the point under discussion.
So, if the walls come down, blockade is ended , does anyone think that everyone is going to live together peacefully? If you think that, can I live in your world, it must be very rosey!
Almost the entire world was colonised during the last few centuries, and there were many different types of colonies. In most cases, the position of the colonial regime became untenable and the colonisers had to withdraw or were assimilated. In a few cases the original population was virtually exterminated. You seem to be saying that if the state of Israel is successful in killing or driving away enough Palestinians (rather than merely subjugating them), that means Israel ceases to be a colony as defined by you. Actually I hesitate to attribute such a view to you - can that really be what you are saying?
That is an interesting point and one I totally agree with. Back in the 90s and early 2000s I made several business trips to Egypt. Not to the shiny clean westernised tourist areas but to industrial towns with long journeys through large parts of the country. I`ve always been interested in different cultures and where appropriate made a point of asking factory owners and staff about religion and politics . the overwhelming view seemed to be that they were perfectly happy with Mubarak. Maybe he was corrupt and a crook but he was in charge, made the big decisions and life went on. Now maybe the view I got was biased because I was talking to employed people but I do wonder how much of the Arab Spring will turn out well and if our intrusions in Afghanistan & Iraq have just made things worse however vile the previous regimes may have been. Egypt seems to have swapped Mubarak backed by the army to the army backed by the army. Sorry, gone off topic so to get back on topic, Joan Rivers is vile and what is happening in Gaza is shite.
Probably none of them have "peace and freedom", nor have I ever suggested (except perhaps in your imagination) that any of them have peace and freedom - but that is irrelevant to the point under discussion. You might try actually reading my posts occasionally before responding to things I have never said.
No, no-one at all thinks that. If action is taken to deal with a particular problem, and does solve it, why would anyone imagine that all other problems will also be magically solved? It's not an argument against solving a problem to say that other problems will still exist.
Invade all such states? No, it is not remotely feasible or practical for the UK, or even the USA, tour around the world overthrowing all tyrants wherever we find them, and I have never said otherwise. Nevertheless, if occasionally the opportunity arises, overthrowing tyrants is a good and honourable thing to do. Your interpretation of the convention seems to imply that no matter how maniacally genocidal a tyrant may be, law-abiding people of goodwill should sit back, do nothing, and allow the mass murdering, destruction and raping to carry on unimpeded indefinitely. Well, if that is your view (Is it?), it certainly isn't mine.
