patrick.net

Well, soon we may pray for a return to English Colonialism. A time when we had one dictator 3000 miles away as opposed to 3000 dictators one mile away. When the Indians did not aim nuclear weapons at us. When Africa had food and devoid of wholesale massacre. Chinese Communists in check. Middle East oil supply secured and plentiful for the western civilized world. Middle East dictators didnt aim nuclear weapons at the west.

astrid Says:
The British are par for the course, maybe a little ahead, in its methods. This is a case of “everybody does it.”

Really? I don't remember anything about the Inuit sailing halfway around the world to engage in a spot of colonial meddling and plunder. Which is why to this day, I don't believe the Inuit have suffered a massacre at Gandamak.

Bap33 Says:
how is it you can give more credit to one account than the other? Just wandering.

I don't - I just said it helps to get a non-anglo-centric view. The reason the English reports are particularly suspect is that there was a tremendous effort to cover up the incompetence, ignorance and arrogance of the officers and diplomats who led the campaign. Insulting the natives and double-dealing with them is not a great way to win friends and influence people.

Independent reports based on journals of lower-ranking officers and other observers (not afghans, btw) paints a picture that is far less one-sided than the official English story.

SP

salk Says:
Well, soon we may pray for a return to English Colonialism.

Starting with the United States?

A time when we had one dictator 3000 miles away as opposed to 3000 dictators one mile away. When the Indians did not aim nuclear weapons at us.

They do? I would be very interested in a reference, since you seem to have some fantastic sources.

Middle East dictators didnt aim nuclear weapons at the west.

Name one. Back it up with a credible source (i.e. not Pat Buchanan).

SP

Insulting the natives and double-dealing with them is not a great way to win friends and influence people.

I'd have a think about that in the current middle east context also -- re-neo-colonialism... remember arming and training the mujahideen against the Russians?

the salk's main sources appear to be bill o'reilly, anne coulter, rush limbaugh and faux news (faux news provides the informed healthy balance against the others...)

SP,

Okay, all EMPIRES (AKA successful civilizations in some people's books; since many civilizations, including the Inuits, are suffering cultural declines due to the dominating influences of Russian/Nordic/Anglo-Saxon cultures) do it.

If the Inuits had an empire (I know, that's a comment that's nearly as asinine as "if Iraq was anywhere else.."), I don't think they would have done much better. Brutality and stupidity are inherent in any empire. I'm not advocating that for the British Empire here, just for the British culture (I know, that sounds wrong even as I type it out!).

astrid said:
If the Inuits had an empire, I don’t think they would have done much better.

Yeah, if my hypothetical orange was rotten, I am sure it would taste as vile as the real rotten apple that I have here.

SP

Pakistan? North Korea? Iraq? Libya? Iran? Syria? All of which are confirmed are suspected to have nuclear weapons. Which is better for you? Nuclear Pakistan or Colonial India?

salk Says:
Pakistan? North Korea? Iraq? Libya? Iran? Syria? All of which are confirmed are suspected to have nuclear weapons.

Yes, but you said something like "Middle East dictators have nuclear weapons aimed at the west". Posessing nukes is very different from having the ability to deliver them.

Pakistan's nukes are aimed at India. Iraq does not have any. Libya does not either (confirmed by the CIA). Iran and Syria do not have the means to deliver these weapons to any target outside the middle east.

The only countries that have nukes _aimed_ at the "west" are Russia, China and (possibly) North Korea. None of which are in the middle-east.

Which is better for you? Nuclear Pakistan or Colonial India?

Is that a binary choice?

SP