Viewing Thread:
"How long will it take before..."

I have decided to begin this thread so that we can all predict the future in our own little way. Basically we will all pick a topic/subject etc and predict how long it will take to happen and why/how it will come about. I'll get the ball rolling -

How long will it take before we achieve world peace?

We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.

This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.

Belldandy wrote:

>
> They were certainly the people filling the governments yes, the power
> was elsewhere but the 'natives' - incidentally a European colonial
> term used to describe people thought to be inferior to the Europeans,
> by the Europeans - were the figureheads.

Yes, I know. However, it is also a term to describe someone native to a particular country. How come you saw the derogatory term rather than the descriptive?

>
> That actually wsn't my intention, more to show how both sides became
> involved in events in the developing world and how groups in those
> places had little hope without turning to the USA or USSR if they
> wanted power.

Uhh... That's why I followed it up with a line explaining that I was making a joke.
>

>
> Yep, I was kinda following on from the Angol stuff, the point is that
> you seemd to be defining (and don' take this the wrong way)
> independence in the terms that the Colonial Powers wanted people to
> understand it - symbolically and publically the colonies were free,
> but not really in any other sense.

Well...yes, yes I am. Because if you want to get into the theories on international economic inter-dependence, then you'll have to apply it to the US. Bearing in mind that they are sitting on the biggest trade deficit in their history, that makes the US dependent on an awful lot of countries. You say not; you say it works both ways and that, Saudi for instance, are dependent on the US cos they buy the oil from them, despite the fact that the US are equally (if not more) dependent on Saudi. Yet you don't seem to wish to apply that exact same logic to the newly independent powers. The UK needed raw materials from the Empire, ergo they were just as dependent on the independent nations.


>
> In a sense I suppose it does, it comes down to how much one believes
> America would do to maintain Saudi oil before it went elsewhere, and
> just how Saudi would maintain it's wealthy status without it's
> biggest customer. I believe that after a point, America would go
> elsewhere - right now it's increasing it's strategic oil reserves to
> levels exceeding Cold War days, even taking into account the
> increased amount of oil needed in reserve as a minimum given the
> increased need today as compared with the Cold War days. Bush has
> refused to rule out going for oil in Alaska, and it wouldn't take a
> large amount of money to exploit Siberian oil, not to mention the
> kick start the Russian economy would get. I believe that, in the
> worst case scenario, it's entirely possible for the West to
> essentially leave the Middle East to itself and just contain any
> problem that occurs there, bar Israel of course, but they're aided
> for different reasons.

You believe they would go elsewhere? And yet, you don't believe that the war in Iraq was about oil? Okay, fair enough; you have blind faith to keep that belief going.

>

>
> Certainly it was not direct rule, but it was indirect and not true
> independence by how I'd define it, and certainly not how those who
> were in the colonies (and not in charge) defined it.

Again though; the US policy toward Saudi is affected by the US dependence on Saudi oil. So therefore there is no 'true' independence as ALL nations are, to an extent, reliant on each other. Which makes further mockery of the whole "Us and them" attitude taken by many on the right wing.


> No, what I'm trying to say is that it was a two way process - outside
> powers intervening and internal powers making deals. Before
> independence many groups formed in the colonies to oppose the rule of
> them by the Colonial powers, it was a common cause. But when the
> Colonial powers withdrew, the alliances fractured, usually leaving
> many seperate groups with differing ideas for the future. In some
> cases these groups saw that there was no way they could outfight the
> others, and uneasy truces lasted - like in Angola, Somalia,
> Afghanistan, and so on. BUT, because of the Cold War and the USA/USSR
> method of seeing everyone as Friend/Enemy , and the realisation of
> certain groups that this could be used to their advantage to get
> total power instead of shared power, the problems began. The blame
> lies both with the West, the East, and a very small number of leaders
> who believed they were doing the best thing for their supporters.
> Ultimately, those leaders had only gained any kind of power because
> of the Colonial process in the first place which led to the formation
> of groups opposing the colonisers, but without the colonial process
> there may not have been a USA, which totally changes history. I'm not
> saying anyone is blameless, but that everyone had motives which they
> believed in at that time and that place, and whilst some did it
> knowing full well what would happen, I believe, as I do for
> Colonialism, that some people involved genuinelly believed they were
> doing good and did so in good faith. Viewing events now, with a view
> over the entire Cold War, it seems easy to relate events to each
> other and give the idea of some grand scheme, but I tend to believe a
> lot of it came down to frightened reactions made in response to other
> reactions, that spiralled out of control. It's an opinion, hence you
> may well disagree.

Look, Hitler had motives that seemed legitimate to him. It doesn't change the fact that he is responsible for great suffering. The west and east had their reasons? Well fine; does that mean that the suffering just goes away? Thing spiralled out of their control? They're our leaders; that shouldn't happen. And if it does...well, time for some new leaders. As Dubya is going to find out at the next election.



>
> Except the freedom to do so would be short lived and not result in
> the leader retaining power, and it would mean a cut off of financial
> aid. It was like early SAP's, stick to them and get money, don't and
> we'll watch you circle the drain until someone takes your place who
> will stick to them. They had the freedon to retain the old colonial
> policies, but these were solely intended to benefit the Colonial
> powers and not the colonised, hence adopting them, without the
> resources of the Colonial power, would not work.

Which, again, is like every nation in the world. The US have the freedom to break trading ties with Saudi. They have the freedom to revoke China's Most Favoured Nation trading status. But they can't, because it would be short lived and (thanks to the economic consequences) will result in the leader losing power.


>
> Indonesia has the misfortune of being a rather excellent launching
> area for any operations against China and North Korea, the Cold War
> may be gone but those two nations are still technical threats - China
> to Taiwan and Asia - potentially Russia, and North Korea to the
> South. Whilst the opposition to the government of Indonesia remains
> idealogically anywhere near North Korea or China then no one is going
> to be too keen to get them into power and the existing government
> out. Not nice, but I feel that is the reality of. Plus I'd argue that
> Angola is still "gone to hell" anyway.

Erm...what about South Korea as a launching pad?! A bit nearer to both nations, don't you think? And if the US are so opposed to those two nations, why the enormous amount of trade with one and the aid to the others?

You feel that's the reality? Tell me; have any alternatives to keeping butchers in power been tried? No? Then how do you know? And once more I ask you; don't you agree that this policy of the US's creates more terrorists (yes, maybe only poor suicide bombers; but they can kill lots of people)

>

>
> Where those nations were close to moving towards the
> Socialist/Communist position, or had done, the US felt the need to
> act. Whether it's bullying depends on how you see it, as wel las
> Soviet intentions.

Erm...you said that people either joined with the US or had a CIA coup against them. Your argument of "But Russia would have been worse" doesn't really hold much weight with someone who has suffered under a brutal ruler thanks to the US of A. As you said, we'll never know what might have happened if things panned out differently. So why are you expecting people in oppressive nations to be somehow grateful, or at least not to bear resentment, toward the US.


> It can, but it's far easier to get it elsewhere should Saudi Arabia
> refuse, who the hell wants to put up with terrorists hitting fuel
> lines and the like when you can set up in Alaska or Siberia with
> little hassle ?

Except that the Alaskan idea was destroyed in Congress. The Siberian scheme puts money in Russian pockets. All that Iraqi oil costs is lives. And Dubya has shown that he doesn't much care about them. The American public do, but Dubya's also shown that he's happy to lie to them in order to advance a scheme.

>
> Yep, can't argue with that, but it's not a dependence set in stone or
> everlasting.

No, I agree. But neither is the dependence of former colonial powers on their former colonists set in stone either, correct?


>
> Yes I can

Okay then. So why are you continuing to say that Dubya's insane "War on terror" will end terrorism? Hell, you even admit to the fact that it will lead to decades of terrorism. Why defend it?

>, but when I look at those who leed the terrorists and fund
> them, I tend to see a largely wealthy group of people who want to be
> in charge of their own little empire and are willing to manipulate
> the feelings of the ordinary people around them to achieve that aim.

A bit like the government then? Fine, I agree with you; I've said as much myself in that huge long post you've avoided responding to. Doesn't change the fact that more rank and file terrorists are being created every day thanks to the US.

> Whatever resentment people have is not best channeled towards the
> terrorists position because the terrorists serve no one but
> themselves in the end.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't that irrelevant? The terrorist leaders motivation is of course suspect. Your point being? The simple fact is that they offer a way to strike at the government responsible for many people's misery. D'you think that someone who has lost their family will sit and consider the motivations of the men offering them a chance for revenge?

> Sure, people won't sit back and take it, but
> that applies both ways - not just to the actions of the West, but the
> actions of the terrorists. Right now the UN is pulling foreign staff
> out of Baghdad, it'll set back the reconstruction and recovery
> program because - in an eerie echo of the past - the foreign staff
> are the ones in charge with the authority to make things happen. And
> they're leaving 'cause of the terrorists. Now if you're an ordinary
> Iraqi that's effected by that then I don't think you're going to have
> too much sympathy with the terrorists do you ? The overarching
> problem is that world will not work as it is now if everyone is equal
> and everyone is happy.

Erm, Bell...you've just quite eloquently argued my point for me; the world will be better if everyone is equal and happy. Yet the US's approach is to maintain inequality, and to hell with whomever is unhappy. And that will just create more terrorists, and more terror. But you support this. I ask again; are you insane? You surely must be to support a policy that will lead to continual terrorism and has absolutely no chance of abating it.

No, people won't be happy with the terrorists. But neither are they happy with the US and UK occupation, are they? They demonstrate enough to make this point. Yes, it's a freedom they wouldn't have had under Saddam. But you're continually ignoring the fact that they are using this freedom to demonstrate their dislike of occupation.

>
> Now you can say that's the result of the Right, or whatever, but the
> course of the West has been set by the people who voted those
> governments into power democratically, if you argue that that choice
> is wrong or flawed, then you can begin to see the viewpoint that
> America took when it saw Soviet/Communist/Socialist governments
> coming to power or nearly coming to power.

Erm...no. No I can't. Could you elaborate please?


>
> Except it is only insane from certain points of view, and it only
> leads to continuos terror from those points of view. The current
> policy is to go after terrorists, rogue nations, by any and all means
> necessary to protect the interests of the USA and it's allies. To me
> that is not a state of continuos terror but the beginning of the road
> to a more peaceful, fairer world.

Yes; from a sane point of view. You've just agreed that inequality is not a good thing. Now how can a series of wars that keep people in a state of terror, support of brutal regimes cos they;re 'pro western', how can that lead to a peaceful fairer world? How can the grinding of entire nations under the heel of US and UK sponsored dictators lead to peace?

> As it is there has been a constant
> state of warfare ever since the end of WW2, long before the current
> UK, USA and other allied administrations came to power.

Oh come on Bell; trying to say that this is the way things have always been? Get real; I went to America a few weeks ago and found that terror alert tests are broadcast nationally at least once a week. That never happened during the cold war. You're trying to excuse Dubya and Blair's selfish warmongering by saying "Things have always been like this", when people are not stupid and are quite aware that they have NOT. Seriously, what you're proposing as truth there is a very close parallel to the whole "Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia!" rewriting of history beloved of totalitarians.


>
> After he was in power yes, but during the push to put him in power
> no.

So...the caravan of death during his push to power? The execution of Allende and numerous others in a football stadium? Don't they count? Come on Bell; you're telling me that the CIA DIDN'T pick up on the fact that a right wing authoritarian general would murder thousands of people?

>

>
> I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here - in those places it
> was a simple case of either a pro USA or pro USSR regime being
> installed because neither side wanted the other to install it for
> fears it would allow the other side to expand it's sphere of
> influence. Doesn't excuse what happened, nor does it imply that a
> different chain of events would have made things better or worse
> because they never happened.

What I'm looking for is acknowledgement that trying to spread the message of 'The Love of Freedom and Democracy' by installing oppressive, murdering dictators isn't the best method of propogating ones ideaology. And acknowledgement that the current problem with terrorism is no more than America and the west reaping what it has sown.


>

>
> Which is what I've said if you look at the two sentences I've left in
> - that the threat is gone now, because of the actions taken - though
> just as you were unconvinced that the end of the empire was down to
> the lack of British military force, I'd say the downfall of the
> USSR's empire was not solely down to economic reasons but also
> Gorbachev and glasnost - had there been a different person in power
> in 1989 - the kind that elements of the Soviet military tried to
> install in 1991 during the failed coup - then the Soviet satellites
> which declared independence that summer may not have done so so
> easily. Heck, the Cold War could still be here now had the right
> people not been in the right place.

Yes...the Soviet Union came to an end via peaceful means, didn't it? No need to wage a war against the Soviets, was there?

The cold war is no longer in motion, but we're possibly on the cusp of something worse; a terrorist war. And you seem to have acknowledged that Dubya's policies are going to make it worse. You've then said "But it will make things better" but not explained HOW it will make for a better world.

>
> Anyhoo, are you saying you're looking forward to more decades of
> needless paranoia and fear? Needless because our leaders are too
> dumb
> to try and address the cause of terrorism, rather than it's effects?
>
> That's just it, I don't believe that is the future and won't - the
> terrorists were there before 9/11 but the will to act was not - I'd
> rather we take them now than in the future before they acquire even
> more capabilites and weapons

The terrorists are going to spread like wildfire now thanks to Dubya's little war. You've come so close to admitting that. Yet you keep falling back on "but this will make things better", and offering no evidence in support of that.

>, and after all our leaders are those who
> are voted in legally and democratically. Whilst I know you're
> possibly itching to mention Bush's election, I'd remind you that two
> US courts ruled on the legality of the count and against further
> recounts, nor has any criminal charge been brought in relation to the
> election.

Sorry, what the hell has the election got to do with anything?!?! Or, for that matter, our leaders. Jesus...okay, for the record, I'd remind you that the judges in those courts were registered Republicans. And criminal charges against a president have to go through congress. Republican controlled congress.

Our leaders are democratically elected? Great. Shame America is so determined to remove democratically elected leaders from other countries (Venezuala at the moment...except Dubya made a pigs ear of it) in the name of...uhh...democracy, apparently. Shame America is supporting oppressive dictators whilst attempting to claim that they want rid of evil regimes.

>
> Out of interest, do you know what the first action in the War on
> Terror was, that was authorised by Bush ?

No, I don't offhand. Why, does it show that he actually wanted to stop terrorism by peaceful means?


>
> Certainly, but our views are tainted by beliefs and the fact we can
> view past events as a whole, rather than the situations they were at
> the time, and without the pressure those who acted faced.

Erm...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Dubya and the US's actions will increase terrorism. People can see that now. EVERYONE can see that now, even you've started to think it through. That's not 'the pressure of the situation'. Look at the lies carefully assembled by the White House to justify a phony war. They took their time over them. Pressure? Hardly.

> Take
> Vietnam, imagine you're the President having to decide whether to
> act, or stand by. If you act you're sending people to die, if you
> don't and the North Vietnamese take control of the entire country
> then you'll be blamed for surrendering a nation to the communists and
> for having stood by as it happened.

Y'know, I can actually accept that. What I can't accept is the subsequent support the US gave communist Pol Pot for no reason other than he hated the Vietnamese. Doesn't reek of higher motives, does it. Looks just like petty revenge to me. A shame 4 million Cambodians had to die for the sake of that petty revenge.

> You have no idea what will happen
> if you take either action, apart from intelligence estimates from
> places like the CIA, which you know aren't going to give the full
> situation. And you can't change your mind once you've made the
> decision, and you can't ask anyone else. It's you, and whatever you
> do will send people to their deaths one way or the other.

No, you can't know. But you can do your best to find out the most probable effects. And the probably effect of keeping a brutal dictator in power are that the people will be easy pickings for anyone who wants recruits for terrorism. Send people to their deaths? What right has the US to send people of another nation to their deaths?

>
> I can't even pretend to understand how people make decisions like
> that and I won't believe that it's as simple as Bush wanting to blast
> his way through everyone in the way, or similar analogies for other
> leaders at points in history.

Neither do I. I believe it's about lining his and his friends' pockets. And to hell with whatever fear we have to face over the coming years. As long as he and his cronies make a profit, then all is well.


>
> No problem,I much prefer discussing stuff (when I have the time) than
> arguing, that's why I'm trying not to be like I was, kind of. Good
> and evil doesn't really exist, it's all perceptions and the actual
> words can have different meanings to different people, and none of
> them are wrong or right, just shaped by society and beliefs. I
> believe the USA and it's allies are basically good - not that they
> never do anything questionable or wrong - but that the overall
> objectives are worth that.

I still fail to see how a supposed objective of encouraging democracy is achieved by destroying it. Personally, I think you show blind faith in what the US government wants.


>Give it 10, 20, 30 years from now and
> we'll probably both have different ideas depending on what happens.
> Remember that just days before the Berlin Wall fell the CIA was
> estimating the Cold War would continue for a decade at least.
>
> Whether that means the CIA was incompetent, or that you never know
> how events will unfold, is a matter of belief.

True enough.

I've always wondered if man will create something that can travel the same speed of light.

It seems virtually impossible, but how long would it take before we did see this happen. Would it be thousands of years away or would we never see it happen?

Light wrote:
> Right...so not new colonial masters but natives then? That's really
> all I was interested in. Thanks for that.

They were certainly the people filling the governments yes, the power was elsewhere but the 'natives' - incidentally a European colonial term used to describe people thought to be inferior to the Europeans, by the Europeans - were the figureheads.

> Erm...was there any reason for that beyond "Look at how nice
> America are! Look at how EVIL Russia is!"?!
> I'm just being sarcastic of course; always interesting to read up on
> events one isn't fully aware of.

That actually wsn't my intention, more to show how both sides became involved in events in the developing world and how groups in those places had little hope without turning to the USA or USSR if they wanted power.

> Erm...but didn't I already say that my definition of independence and
> yours differed, hence the disagreement?

Yep, I was kinda following on from the Angol stuff, the point is that you seemd to be defining (and don' take this the wrong way) independence in the terms that the Colonial Powers wanted people to understand it - symbolically and publically the colonies were free, but not really in any other sense.

> Fair enough. But as I said, the US is dependent on Saudi oil. So
> doesn't that leave them as lacking independence?

In a sense I suppose it does, it comes down to how much one believes America would do to maintain Saudi oil before it went elsewhere, and just how Saudi would maintain it's wealthy status without it's biggest customer. I believe that after a point, America would go elsewhere - right now it's increasing it's strategic oil reserves to levels exceeding Cold War days, even taking into account the increased amount of oil needed in reserve as a minimum given the increased need today as compared with the Cold War days. Bush has refused to rule out going for oil in Alaska, and it wouldn't take a large amount of money to exploit Siberian oil, not to mention the kick start the Russian economy would get. I believe that, in the worst case scenario, it's entirely possible for the West to essentially leave the Middle East to itself and just contain any problem that occurs there, bar Israel of course, but they're aided for different reasons.

> You're overqualifying the statement; the taxes went to the new
> governments, which indicates independence. Yes, I totally accept that
> after their independance from direct colonial rule they were still
> reliant on them as trading partners. But they no were no longer
> directly ruled, hence they are independent. As I say; neither of us
> clearly defined what we meant, hence the disagreement over
> independence.

Certainly it was not direct rule, but it was indirect and not true independence by how I'd define it, and certainly not how those who were in the colonies (and not in charge) defined it.


> So...hang on here; are you trying to absolve the US and Russia (not
> to mention Europe) of blame for the numerous problems these nations
> have? Because those developing nations have people equally as capable
> of being manipulative, self serving cumrags as the developing world?
> Er...bearing in mind that those same cumrags could not have gotten
> into power without the help of the west, east, or whomever, I don't
> agree with you. Unless of course I've misunderstood, in which case
> I'd be obliged if you could clarify.

No, what I'm trying to say is that it was a two way process - outside powers intervening and internal powers making deals. Before independence many groups formed in the colonies to oppose the rule of them by the Colonial powers, it was a common cause. But when the Colonial powers withdrew, the alliances fractured, usually leaving many seperate groups with differing ideas for the future. In some cases these groups saw that there was no way they could outfight the others, and uneasy truces lasted - like in Angola, Somalia, Afghanistan, and so on. BUT, because of the Cold War and the USA/USSR method of seeing everyone as Friend/Enemy , and the realisation of certain groups that this could be used to their advantage to get total power instead of shared power, the problems began. The blame lies both with the West, the East, and a very small number of leaders who believed they were doing the best thing for their supporters. Ultimately, those leaders had only gained any kind of power because of the Colonial process in the first place which led to the formation of groups opposing the colonisers, but without the colonial process there may not have been a USA, which totally changes history. I'm not saying anyone is blameless, but that everyone had motives which they believed in at that time and that place, and whilst some did it knowing full well what would happen, I believe, as I do for Colonialism, that some people involved genuinelly believed they were doing good and did so in good faith. Viewing events now, with a view over the entire Cold War, it seems easy to relate events to each other and give the idea of some grand scheme, but I tend to believe a lot of it came down to frightened reactions made in response to other reactions, that spiralled out of control. It's an opinion, hence you may well disagree.

> Again, I disagree; they DID have the freedom to implement those
> policies. But they also had the freedom to keep many of them as they
> are; if it isn't broken, why fix it?

Except the freedom to do so would be short lived and not result in the leader retaining power, and it would mean a cut off of financial aid. It was like early SAP's, stick to them and get money, don't and we'll watch you circle the drain until someone takes your place who will stick to them. They had the freedon to retain the old colonial policies, but these were solely intended to benefit the Colonial powers and not the colonised, hence adopting them, without the resources of the Colonial power, would not work.

> I would also differenciate between post-colonial "it's all gone
> to hell" such as Angola, with the "it's all gone to hell,
> and it's being kept that way" scenario one finds in Indonesia.

Indonesia has the misfortune of being a rather excellent launching area for any operations against China and North Korea, the Cold War may be gone but those two nations are still technical threats - China to Taiwan and Asia - potentially Russia, and North Korea to the South. Whilst the opposition to the government of Indonesia remains idealogically anywhere near North Korea or China then no one is going to be too keen to get them into power and the existing government out. Not nice, but I feel that is the reality of. Plus I'd argue that Angola is still "gone to hell" anyway.

> Erm...so you're saying that the US essentially bullied nations into
> supporting them? Right...and you don't see how this could create
> resentment toward the US?

Where those nations were close to moving towards the Socialist/Communist position, or had done, the US felt the need to act. Whether it's bullying depends on how you see it, as wel las Soviet intentions.

> Really? Where...oh, that;s right; they can get the oil from Iraq now,
> can't they.

It can, but it's far easier to get it elsewhere should Saudi Arabia refuse, who the hell wants to put up with terrorists hitting fuel lines and the like when you can set up in Alaska or Siberia with little hassle ?

> The Cold war point is a little irrelevant, but isn't it true that
> Saudi provides the majority of US oil? So the two are dependant on
> the other, no?

Yep, can't argue with that, but it's not a dependence set in stone or everlasting.

> I'll ask again; can't you see how this policy causes resentment
> toward the US? You seem to have this idea that the people of those
> nations would just sit back and take it. As the terrorist attacks
> against the US and it's allies increase, this would seem to prove the
> folly of such a shortsighted policy.

Yes I can, but when I look at those who leed the terrorists and fund them, I tend to see a largely wealthy group of people who want to be in charge of their own little empire and are willing to manipulate the feelings of the ordinary people around them to achieve that aim. Whatever resentment people have is not best channeled towards the terrorists position because the terrorists serve no one but themselves in the end. Sure, people won't sit back and take it, but that applies both ways - not just to the actions of the West, but the actions of the terrorists. Right now the UN is pulling foreign staff out of Baghdad, it'll set back the reconstruction and recovery program because - in an eerie echo of the past - the foreign staff are the ones in charge with the authority to make things happen. And they're leaving 'cause of the terrorists. Now if you're an ordinary Iraqi that's effected by that then I don't think you're going to have too much sympathy with the terrorists do you ? The overarching problem is that world will not work as it is now if everyone is equal and everyone is happy.

Now you can say that's the result of the Right, or whatever, but the course of the West has been set by the people who voted those governments into power democratically, if you argue that that choice is wrong or flawed, then you can begin to see the viewpoint that America took when it saw Soviet/Communist/Socialist governments coming to power or nearly coming to power.

> Apart, of course, from a state of continuous terror. Bell, you seem
> to be agreeing that Dubya's insane policy is going to lead to
> constant warfare, and fear of terror attacks. And what is more, you
> seem delighted by the prospect. Are you insane?

Except it is only insane from certain points of view, and it only leads to continuos terror from those points of view. The current policy is to go after terrorists, rogue nations, by any and all means necessary to protect the interests of the USA and it's allies. To me that is not a state of continuos terror but the beginning of the road to a more peaceful, fairer world. As it is there has been a constant state of warfare ever since the end of WW2, long before the current UK, USA and other allied administrations came to power.

> No; it seemed absurd and horrifying then as well. Try telling
> otherwise to the families of the disappeared.

After he was in power yes, but during the push to put him in power no.

> No, it isn't. And it's of little comfort to the thousands who died in
> Chile. Or to the millions who died in Cambodia (guess who supported
> Pol Pot when he came to power? Oh yeah...). I'll say again Bell; your
> argument is sound, but it falls down because you refuse to apply it
> to the US.

I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here - in those places it was a simple case of either a pro USA or pro USSR regime being installed because neither side wanted the other to install it for fears it would allow the other side to expand it's sphere of influence. Doesn't excuse what happened, nor does it imply that a different chain of events would have made things better or worse because they never happened.


> At the time the threat was real and it was there, that threat is
> gone
> now because of the actions that were taken.
>
> No; the threat has gone because the USSR bankrupted itself trying to
> keep up with US military spending.

Which is what I've said if you look at the two sentences I've left in - that the threat is gone now, because of the actions taken - though just as you were unconvinced that the end of the empire was down to the lack of British military force, I'd say the downfall of the USSR's empire was not solely down to economic reasons but also Gorbachev and glasnost - had there been a different person in power in 1989 - the kind that elements of the Soviet military tried to install in 1991 during the failed coup - then the Soviet satellites which declared independence that summer may not have done so so easily. Heck, the Cold War could still be here now had the right people not been in the right place.

> Anyhoo, are you saying you're looking forward to more decades of
> needless paranoia and fear? Needless because our leaders are too dumb
> to try and address the cause of terrorism, rather than it's effects?

That's just it, I don't believe that is the future and won't - the terrorists were there before 9/11 but the will to act was not - I'd rather we take them now than in the future before they acquire even more capabilites and weapons, and after all our leaders are those who are voted in legally and democratically. Whilst I know you're possibly itching to mention Bush's election, I'd remind you that two US courts ruled on the legality of the count and against further recounts, nor has any criminal charge been brought in relation to the election.

Out of interest, do you know what the first action in the War on Terror was, that was authorised by Bush ?

> No, we won't. But we know what did happen, and we can comment on that
> accordingly.

Certainly, but our views are tainted by beliefs and the fact we can view past events as a whole, rather than the situations they were at the time, and without the pressure those who acted faced. Take Vietnam, imagine you're the President having to decide whether to act, or stand by. If you act you're sending people to die, if you don't and the North Vietnamese take control of the entire country then you'll be blamed for surrendering a nation to the communists and for having stood by as it happened. You have no idea what will happen if you take either action, apart from intelligence estimates from places like the CIA, which you know aren't going to give the full situation. And you can't change your mind once you've made the decision, and you can't ask anyone else. It's you, and whatever you do will send people to their deaths one way or the other.

I can't even pretend to understand how people make decisions like that and I won't believe that it's as simple as Bush wanting to blast his way through everyone in the way, or similar analogies for other leaders at points in history.

> Thanks for taking the time to post that though. The facts are
> interesting, though I do wish you'd apply them to the actions of the
> US rather than maintaining your determination that they are somehow
> the good guys.

No problem,I much prefer discussing stuff (when I have the time) than arguing, that's why I'm trying not to be like I was, kind of. Good and evil doesn't really exist, it's all perceptions and the actual words can have different meanings to different people, and none of them are wrong or right, just shaped by society and beliefs. I believe the USA and it's allies are basically good - not that they never do anything questionable or wrong - but that the overall objectives are worth that. Give it 10, 20, 30 years from now and we'll probably both have different ideas depending on what happens. Remember that just days before the Berlin Wall fell the CIA was estimating the Cold War would continue for a decade at least.

Whether that means the CIA was incompetent, or that you never know how events will unfold, is a matter of belief.

Belldandy wrote:

> Typcially their old colonial masters or some new ones, Take Angola as
> an example, it was given independence by ( I think ) the Portugese,
> but the country soon fractured into 3 groups of people - the MPLA ,
> FNLA and UNITA. Of these the MPLA were the largest, and the three
> groups agreed to hold democratic elections after independence.

Right...so not new colonial masters but natives then? That's really all I was interested in. Thanks for that.

>
> Except for one minor little problem, the MPLA were a socialist left
> wing group, and they were suddenly amassing a rather worrying cache
> of weaponry from outside the country. The CIA convinced Congress to
> take action, but Vietnam was still too fresh in everybody's memory.
> Not that it mattered, the President of the FNLA approached the CIA,
> who struck a deal. America would support the FNLA with logistics,
> weapons, and money. At the same time American agents approached
> UNITA's leader, Josev Samvibi (may have the name slightly wrong), who
> had a feverent hatred of socialism. He also told the CIA that the
> source of the MPLA's weapons etc was not the USSR, but Cuba. A deal
> was struck and civil war erupted, with the FNLA and UNITA forces with
> an initial advantage. The MPLA President contacted Castro, who sent
> 400 Cuban 'advisors' along with equipment and weaponry. Suddenly the
> tables turned and the MPLA was winning. The reality was that the FNLA
> were little better than untrained soldiers with weapons, and their
> leaders had no military knowledge. America turned to South Africa,
> whom it officially criticised because of apartheid. Unofficially,
> America got South Africa to intervene, incidentally South Africa was
> none too keen on the MPLA because the group hated apartheid. South
> African forces moved in, sweeping most resistance aside, and as
> independence day neared they were close to the capital city. Cuba
> then asked Russia to send aid, and unable to abandon Cuba, the
> Soviets sent equipment and supplies to Angola directly. Which were
> promptly fired on by the South Africans, who reported to the
> Americans, who sent more stuff in. To cut the story short, South
> African forces were cut to bits by the MPLA/Cuban forces, and the
> civil war dragged on for decades until this day, killing millions.
> Independence meant little, ordinary Angolans had exchanged one master
> for another, and were no better off.

Erm...was there any reason for that beyond "Look at how nice America are! Look at how EVIL Russia is!"?!
I'm just being sarcastic of course; always interesting to read up on events one isn't fully aware of.

>
> Even in those places where civil war did not occur, the installed
> leaders found themselves, diplomatically, reliant on the former
> masters, after all most ex colonies had little effective military,
> weak economies, and few precious resources. When it came to
> development, the funds for this were largely under the control of the
> Bretton Woods institutions of the World Bank, IMF and GATT, and to be
> elegible you had to meet certain conditions, which aimed to turn
> developing nations into models of the West. You wanted money ? It was
> the West's way or the highway...or the Soviet's way. The newly
> independent countries had new leaders, but they were little more than
> mouthpieces for others and the policies they adopted generally
> eminated from the West or the East. Some nations in the developing
> world did try to break away from this obvious problem, they formed
> the Non Aligned Movement in 1961.

Erm...but didn't I already say that my definition of independence and yours differed, hence the disagreement?

>
> This was not a neutral organisation though, more a forum for
> countries to discuss development without the intervention of the USA
> or USSR. It made various demands to the UN for a fairer deal for the
> developing world. The UN passed these demands, but everyone ignored
> them and the NAM had little power outside the member countries, who
> were all in financial trouble anyway, and reliant largely on the
> countries ignoring their demands. Hence they were still depenendent.

Fair enough. But as I said, the US is dependent on Saudi oil. So doesn't that leave them as lacking independence?


>
> In most cases it wasn't that simple. The NAM called for fair trade
> guidelines which would lessen tax on the goods of the developing
> world, but as I said, no one conformed to it - it would give the
> developing world a manufacturing advantage over most other nations
> because the goods would be cheaper, hence damaging the Western
> economy - which apart from the USA was still fragile after WW2. Tax
> wise the revenues did go to the new government, but they found
> themselves needing to buy many export goods that could not be
> found/made in the colonies, and these came from the former colonial
> powers. Hence the money went back to the same people, or different
> ones from the West, or East.

You're overqualifying the statement; the taxes went to the new governments, which indicates independence. Yes, I totally accept that after their independance from direct colonial rule they were still reliant on them as trading partners. But they no were no longer directly ruled, hence they are independent. As I say; neither of us clearly defined what we meant, hence the disagreement over independence.

>
> What is important to remember is that the developing world was not
> just a puppet of the West/East after most of it gained independence,
> in most cases help was actively saught from the East/West by a
> faction. Having said that most of these factions came into being as a
> result of the initial colonialism/imperialism and the way the
> colonisers had changed the national borders of many places with
> little regard for cultures, ethnic groups, religion and so on. After
> independence the nations kept their colonial borders rather than
> revert to pre-colonial ones.

So...hang on here; are you trying to absolve the US and Russia (not to mention Europe) of blame for the numerous problems these nations have? Because those developing nations have people equally as capable of being manipulative, self serving cumrags as the developing world? Er...bearing in mind that those same cumrags could not have gotten into power without the help of the west, east, or whomever, I don't agree with you. Unless of course I've misunderstood, in which case I'd be obliged if you could clarify.



>
> Dependency theory and the others are not solely economic theories,
> you're entitled to your opinion, I'm just saying that there is a
> massive number of scholars and academics, and literature, all saying
> that indepenendence rarely meant independence.
>
> I suspect we're talking at cross purposes; I mean that
> the leaders of the country's in the British Empire stopped being the
> British Government, and started being native rulers.
>
> In the sense that a white man was no longer the figurehead of the
> country, yes, but in the sense that the new person had the powers of
> head of state, with freedom to implement economic, social, health and
> development programs of their own, and to form a foreign policy of
> their own, and so on, then the answer is no.

Again, I disagree; they DID have the freedom to implement those policies. But they also had the freedom to keep many of them as they are; if it isn't broken, why fix it?

I would also differenciate between post-colonial "it's all gone to hell" such as Angola, with the "it's all gone to hell, and it's being kept that way" scenario one finds in Indonesia.


> Yes, but not just economically, but culturally - colonialism had
> eradicated most of the traditional practices, and modernisation
> strategies of development wiped out most of the rest - religiously
> (the Christian based religions were carried into the colonies right
> at the start of colonialism way back in the 15th century) -
> militarily, and diplomatically. Essentially there were two choices -
> you pursued WB and IMF goals to receive funding/loans and help from
> the West, or you pursued socialism or variant thereof and received
> help from other socialist nations plus the bonus prize of the
> CIA/American forces possibly overthrowing you.

Erm...so you're saying that the US essentially bullied nations into supporting them? Right...and you don't see how this could create resentment toward the US?


> No, because the oil can be gained from elsewhere should the need
> arise, and the Cold War ended 15 years ago, and because Saudi Arabia
> still needs the US as a friend, rather than an enemy. Plus, it needs
> to sell oil to maintain it's status.

Really? Where...oh, that;s right; they can get the oil from Iraq now, can't they.

The Cold war point is a little irrelevant, but isn't it true that Saudi provides the majority of US oil? So the two are dependant on the other, no?
>
> With the former colonies the over-riding concern in the West was to
> prevent Soviet Expansion and the rise of Socialism in Africa, Latin
> America, parts of the Middle East and Asia. That fear shaped the
> West's policy towards those countries, we wanted them to have leaders
> who needed us and would not turn to the Soviets - hence why we ended
> up putting some right maniacs in charge. They were maniacs, but 'our'
> maniacs. The secondary concern was to keep as much control of them as
> possible without overt military action which could precipitate the
> Soviets becoming overtly involved in a conflict, hence why local
> conflicts in the third world often became proxy wars as the East and
> West supported sides who ideology vaguely fitter their own.

I'll ask again; can't you see how this policy causes resentment toward the US? You seem to have this idea that the people of those nations would just sit back and take it. As the terrorist attacks against the US and it's allies increase, this would seem to prove the folly of such a shortsighted policy.

>
> Going back to Saudi Arabia, like it or not the War On Terrorism is
> this generations Cold War in that it's framing the policy of the US,
> and others. And everyone knows it. Say Saudi Arabia did inexplicably
> cut oil supplies, it's status in the State Department suddenly risks
> going from Ally to Terrorist - as you've pointed out Light, many
> terrorists have come from Saudi Arabi and operate there, hence giving
> justification for action. The only problem is that the Cold War kept
> situations like that theoretical one in check. Say the US attacks
> Saudi Arabia, why the USSR would form an alliance and move to defend
> it's socialist brothers (or similar). But now, the US has little to
> fear from anyone in direct military terms at least where it
> intervenes in certain regions.

Apart, of course, from a state of continuous terror. Bell, you seem to be agreeing that Dubya's insane policy is going to lead to constant warfare, and fear of terror attacks. And what is more, you seem delighted by the prospect. Are you insane?


>
> The fact that Chile subscribed to dependeny theory meant that the
> condition for a coup were created, giving the US the chance to give
> the situation a little push to kick start it. Sadly, the objective
> was solely to ensure that a South American country did not, at any
> cost, have a socialist government friendly to Russia. Whilst it all
> seems absurd and horifying now, it did not at the time because the
> threat was there. A Socialist Regime in Americ'a Backyard.

No; it seemed absurd and horrifying then as well. Try telling otherwise to the families of the disappeared.


>
> But the crucial point was that the West did not understand the
> concept of the buffer zone states, and the idea that Russia gained
> control in them to ensure it's border security is a revisionist
> theory of the Cold War, and of little comfort to those who died or
> lost people.

No, it isn't. And it's of little comfort to the thousands who died in Chile. Or to the millions who died in Cambodia (guess who supported Pol Pot when he came to power? Oh yeah...). I'll say again Bell; your argument is sound, but it falls down because you refuse to apply it to the US.

>
> During the Cold War it was a simple division - West / East. No
> diplomatic room for an inbetween. The US acted to remove the threat
> of socialism, the USSR acted to remove the threat of capitalism -
> Afghanistan was hardly a buffer zone was it ? The elected governments
> that were removed were all socialist/Communist ones and it's not like
> that kind of government has a good track record. To the West, the
> actions were taken to restore democracy because Capitalist ideology
> said placed socialism/Communism one step above hell on earth, and the
> governments of that nature had mainly received funds and help from
> Socialists from abroad and other governments to help them gain
> power.
>
> At the time the threat was real and it was there, that threat is gone
> now because of the actions that were taken.

No; the threat has gone because the USSR bankrupted itself trying to keep up with US military spending.

Anyhoo, are you saying you're looking forward to more decades of needless paranoia and fear? Needless because our leaders are too dumb to try and address the cause of terrorism, rather than it's effects?

>
> And now I'm going to stop typing, it's an almighty subject with
> thousands of works on it, there is no one real explanation, only
> opinions with evidence which can usually be countered with other
> evidence, and so on. People at the time made decisions, and made them
> for reasons which we can never fully understand, nor can we know what
> different decisions would have made happen. Would Latin America have
> become a communist territory without US intervention ? Would the
> Taliban have existed if Russia had not invaded and the USA and Saudi
> Arabia provided help ? We'll never know.

No, we won't. But we know what did happen, and we can comment on that accordingly.
Thanks for taking the time to post that though. The facts are interesting, though I do wish you'd apply them to the actions of the US rather than maintaining your determination that they are somehow the good guys.

Light wrote:
> And who did they answer to? The British Empire, or the rulers of the
> new country?

Typcially their old colonial masters or some new ones, Take Angola as an example, it was given independence by ( I think ) the Portugese, but the country soon fractured into 3 groups of people - the MPLA , FNLA and UNITA. Of these the MPLA were the largest, and the three groups agreed to hold democratic elections after independence.

Except for one minor little problem, the MPLA were a socialist left wing group, and they were suddenly amassing a rather worrying cache of weaponry from outside the country. The CIA convinced Congress to take action, but Vietnam was still too fresh in everybody's memory. Not that it mattered, the President of the FNLA approached the CIA, who struck a deal. America would support the FNLA with logistics, weapons, and money. At the same time American agents approached UNITA's leader, Josev Samvibi (may have the name slightly wrong), who had a feverent hatred of socialism. He also told the CIA that the source of the MPLA's weapons etc was not the USSR, but Cuba. A deal was struck and civil war erupted, with the FNLA and UNITA forces with an initial advantage. The MPLA President contacted Castro, who sent 400 Cuban 'advisors' along with equipment and weaponry. Suddenly the tables turned and the MPLA was winning. The reality was that the FNLA were little better than untrained soldiers with weapons, and their leaders had no military knowledge. America turned to South Africa, whom it officially criticised because of apartheid. Unofficially, America got South Africa to intervene, incidentally South Africa was none too keen on the MPLA because the group hated apartheid. South African forces moved in, sweeping most resistance aside, and as independence day neared they were close to the capital city. Cuba then asked Russia to send aid, and unable to abandon Cuba, the Soviets sent equipment and supplies to Angola directly. Which were promptly fired on by the South Africans, who reported to the Americans, who sent more stuff in. To cut the story short, South African forces were cut to bits by the MPLA/Cuban forces, and the civil war dragged on for decades until this day, killing millions. Independence meant little, ordinary Angolans had exchanged one master for another, and were no better off.

Even in those places where civil war did not occur, the installed leaders found themselves, diplomatically, reliant on the former masters, after all most ex colonies had little effective military, weak economies, and few precious resources. When it came to development, the funds for this were largely under the control of the Bretton Woods institutions of the World Bank, IMF and GATT, and to be elegible you had to meet certain conditions, which aimed to turn developing nations into models of the West. You wanted money ? It was the West's way or the highway...or the Soviet's way. The newly independent countries had new leaders, but they were little more than mouthpieces for others and the policies they adopted generally eminated from the West or the East. Some nations in the developing world did try to break away from this obvious problem, they formed the Non Aligned Movement in 1961.

This was not a neutral organisation though, more a forum for countries to discuss development without the intervention of the USA or USSR. It made various demands to the UN for a fairer deal for the developing world. The UN passed these demands, but everyone ignored them and the NAM had little power outside the member countries, who were all in financial trouble anyway, and reliant largely on the countries ignoring their demands. Hence they were still depenendent.

> The colonies had generated wealth largely by sending goods back to
> the UK, raw materials were pretty much useless to them as there was

> So, they were still dependant on the British for trade. Bearing in
> mind that the Raj was the result of the East India Company's labours,
> I can't say as I'm surprised. And there were lots of Brits there?
> Okay, fair enough. Did the local people pay taxes to those British
> people post-independence, or did they pay them to a native ruler?

In most cases it wasn't that simple. The NAM called for fair trade guidelines which would lessen tax on the goods of the developing world, but as I said, no one conformed to it - it would give the developing world a manufacturing advantage over most other nations because the goods would be cheaper, hence damaging the Western economy - which apart from the USA was still fragile after WW2. Tax wise the revenues did go to the new government, but they found themselves needing to buy many export goods that could not be found/made in the colonies, and these came from the former colonial powers. Hence the money went back to the same people, or different ones from the West, or East.

What is important to remember is that the developing world was not just a puppet of the West/East after most of it gained independence, in most cases help was actively saught from the East/West by a faction. Having said that most of these factions came into being as a result of the initial colonialism/imperialism and the way the colonisers had changed the national borders of many places with little regard for cultures, ethnic groups, religion and so on. After independence the nations kept their colonial borders rather than revert to pre-colonial ones.

> Truthfully? I'm not interested in the exact macroeconomic theories
> that justify your assertion that Independent doesn't really mean
> independent.

Dependency theory and the others are not solely economic theories, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm just saying that there is a massive number of scholars and academics, and literature, all saying that indepenendence rarely meant independence.

I suspect we're talking at cross purposes; I mean that
> the leaders of the country's in the British Empire stopped being the
> British Government, and started being native rulers.

In the sense that a white man was no longer the figurehead of the country, yes, but in the sense that the new person had the powers of head of state, with freedom to implement economic, social, health and development programs of their own, and to form a foreign policy of their own, and so on, then the answer is no.

> You're saying
> that economically, they were totally dependent on us and so we still
> ruled them (is that right?).

Yes, but not just economically, but culturally - colonialism had eradicated most of the traditional practices, and modernisation strategies of development wiped out most of the rest - religiously (the Christian based religions were carried into the colonies right at the start of colonialism way back in the 15th century) - militarily, and diplomatically. Essentially there were two choices - you pursued WB and IMF goals to receive funding/loans and help from the West, or you pursued socialism or variant thereof and received help from other socialist nations plus the bonus prize of the CIA/American forces possibly overthrowing you.

>Which means that, under that logic, the
> US are ruled by Saudi Arabia as they are completely dependent on
> their oil. Which I realise is an oversimplification, but as we're
> trying to keep a debate to the board, and not attempting to point to
> external sources so that one doesn't have to fully explain ones
> belief on a certain matter, I believe it's a forgiveable one.

No, because the oil can be gained from elsewhere should the need arise, and the Cold War ended 15 years ago, and because Saudi Arabia still needs the US as a friend, rather than an enemy. Plus, it needs to sell oil to maintain it's status.

With the former colonies the over-riding concern in the West was to prevent Soviet Expansion and the rise of Socialism in Africa, Latin America, parts of the Middle East and Asia. That fear shaped the West's policy towards those countries, we wanted them to have leaders who needed us and would not turn to the Soviets - hence why we ended up putting some right maniacs in charge. They were maniacs, but 'our' maniacs. The secondary concern was to keep as much control of them as possible without overt military action which could precipitate the Soviets becoming overtly involved in a conflict, hence why local conflicts in the third world often became proxy wars as the East and West supported sides who ideology vaguely fitter their own.

Going back to Saudi Arabia, like it or not the War On Terrorism is this generations Cold War in that it's framing the policy of the US, and others. And everyone knows it. Say Saudi Arabia did inexplicably cut oil supplies, it's status in the State Department suddenly risks going from Ally to Terrorist - as you've pointed out Light, many terrorists have come from Saudi Arabi and operate there, hence giving justification for action. The only problem is that the Cold War kept situations like that theoretical one in check. Say the US attacks Saudi Arabia, why the USSR would form an alliance and move to defend it's socialist brothers (or similar). But now, the US has little to fear from anyone in direct military terms at least where it intervenes in certain regions.

> I'll take great issue with your summary of Chile; the only reason
> that there was a coup there was because of the USA. They replaced a
> democratically elected leader with a brutal dictator. To say that
> "Well, it meant that Russia didn't take over" is a pretty
> appalling argument; the implication is that it's better to live under
> an oppressive capitalist than any sort of communist is...well, it's
> blinkered and fundamentalist.

The fact that Chile subscribed to dependeny theory meant that the condition for a coup were created, giving the US the chance to give the situation a little push to kick start it. Sadly, the objective was solely to ensure that a South American country did not, at any cost, have a socialist government friendly to Russia. Whilst it all seems absurd and horifying now, it did not at the time because the threat was there. A Socialist Regime in Americ'a Backyard.

> Rather like saying that the US
> sponsored coup in Brazil was to defeat communism, despite the fact
> that the left wing president had offered support to the US during the
> Cuban Missile Crisis. Really, how do you expect to be taken seriously
> espousing the US as the land of Freedom and Democracy when they've
> done so much to ensure that other countries remain undemocratic and
> anything but free? It's not too different from Russia estabilshing
> their East European buffer zone. In fact, it's not even remotely
> different.

But the crucial point was that the West did not understand the concept of the buffer zone states, and the idea that Russia gained control in them to ensure it's border security is a revisionist theory of the Cold War, and of little comfort to those who died or lost people.

During the Cold War it was a simple division - West / East. No diplomatic room for an inbetween. The US acted to remove the threat of socialism, the USSR acted to remove the threat of capitalism - Afghanistan was hardly a buffer zone was it ? The elected governments that were removed were all socialist/Communist ones and it's not like that kind of government has a good track record. To the West, the actions were taken to restore democracy because Capitalist ideology said placed socialism/Communism one step above hell on earth, and the governments of that nature had mainly received funds and help from Socialists from abroad and other governments to help them gain power.

At the time the threat was real and it was there, that threat is gone now because of the actions that were taken.

And now I'm going to stop typing, it's an almighty subject with thousands of works on it, there is no one real explanation, only opinions with evidence which can usually be countered with other evidence, and so on. People at the time made decisions, and made them for reasons which we can never fully understand, nor can we know what different decisions would have made happen. Would Latin America have become a communist territory without US intervention ? Would the Taliban have existed if Russia had not invaded and the USA and Saudi Arabia provided help ? We'll never know.

Depends; if violence is always the last option, then wars will be a lot less frequent. As they become less frequent, so they gradually disappear.

Unfortunately, any and all politicians seem to think that it's the first option. Especially the ones who've never even done military service...

It's fundamentaly impossible to have "peace" which I define as non conflict. If I want to take something from you because I am greedy, poor, lazy, angry whatever and you don't want me too, but I am however prepared to use violence and you are not, I'll always win. Thus if you don't fight back you'll be boogered. You may claim that you will be a better person but if I survive and you don't, the only one who is a better person is me; being the only person.

It's the only universal law I understand.

Notorious Biggles wrote:

>
> Jeremiah 10:23 makes the point that humankind can't hack ruling
> themselves and living peacefully.

Does it by any chance say that we need God (and his clergy) to do it?
>
> I don't believe that we as humans will ever be able to attain world
> peace. You may disagree, but that's my belief and I don't see any
> evidence to suggest otherwise.


Erm...isn't Jesus' central tenet to do with peace, love for one another, and brotherhood of man? Call me Mr Picky, but how can you be a Christian and say that you don't expect world peace? Doesn't that show a lack of faith in your Christian beliefs?

Belldandy wrote:

>
> *laughs* And what a good job they're making of it to... so how long
> has he dragged the trial on for ? And just how many times has he done
> all he could to purposely hinder the trail ?

The trial has dragged on for less time than they allowed for it so far. Why, would you rather there was a sham trial that was over in a few months? It's not exactly a quick, open and shut case you know.

He's done lots to hinder the trial. Has he succeeded? Erm...no. The trial goes on. So in other words, yes they are making a good job of it. I'm especially looking forward to when Milosovic gives evidence about how he was in power with the backing of the US and UK. Are you?

>
> Sadly you would be unable to charge Bush with a war crime under the
> current definition, again unless you have evidence the rest of the
> world does not. the UN definition under international law is:

Is this the same Belldandy who proudly proclaimed that International law was there to be broken? The same Belldandy who laughed at International law when the US were breaking it, saying that it didn't matter? Ri-ight...so why should the international law be of any protection now?

>
> "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including...
> wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,
> unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a
> protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the
> forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person
> of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and
> extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by
> military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
>
> Not that a protected person is not a terrorist. Note that the
> suffering caused must be wilful, not just any old suffering, but
> wilful, as in you'd have to prove that Bush ordered the targetting of
> civilians - which he did not do. Nor is the action unlawful as the UN
> resolutions gave the authority once they were breached, which they
> were, numerous times.

Right, right. So, Guantanamo Bay then...? Not exactly militarily necessary, as those held aren't even POW's. They're 'illegal combatants'. Which makes them civilians. They were unlawfully deported from Afghanistan, transferred to unlawful confinement, deprived of a fair and regular trial.

Destruction of property not justified by military necessity? The lawyers will have great fun arguing whether Shock and Awe was militarily necessary, or just a wanton act of destruction.

So there's two grounds straight away. And whilst I'm happy to concede that they're by no means watertight, they're enough to warrant an investigation.

Also, by your definition then any action committed by the Palestinian Authority, or any Arab state, against Israel is fully justified by the UN due to breaches of resolutions. Would you agree that is the case?


>
> Bin Laden on the other hand, no problem, though I suspect he will go
> down fighting as Saddam's sons did.

Yeah, I wonder where he is right now? After all, where could a Saudi multimillionaire who needs kidney dialysis on a regular basis hide? Which country could he keep himself in where he'd be guaranteed to be left alone? Maybe...maybe Saudi Arabia?

>
> Of course instead of accusing world leaders of things they are not
> guilty of some enthusiasm could be directed against those true war
> criminals still on the run or wanted, but hey, let's not eh ?

Wow. For a change, when confronted with a criticism of America, Bell says "Ah, but look at THESE evil dictators in other countries!". You want to talk about that, fine; talk about it in another thread. I for one would love to; after all, America is responsible for most of these war criminals being there in the first place. And bearing in mind your mockery of the current war crime trial at the start of this post, why should anyone believe you have any interest in war criminals being brought to justice in the first place?

Belldandy wrote:

>
> They weren't independent though.
>
> Under British rule numerous institutions were set up to govern the
> colonial territories, and these were modelled on those back in
> England., but under the ultimate command of a colonial administrator
> For the most part, the people that were being colonised provided the
> basic staff for these institutions. When the Brits left these
> institutions remained and for the most part, remain today, especially
> in India and the parts of Africa ruled by the British. The same
> people worked in them, and the person who filled the job of being in
> charge was most likely to be wealthy/powerful - and to have been
> complicit in the initial colonisation anyway. They knew their jobs,
> and lives, depended on keeping things running smoothly. Which leads
> to the next problem...

And who did they answer to? The British Empire, or the rulers of the new country?

>
> The colonies had generated wealth largely by sending goods back to
> the UK, raw materials were pretty much useless to them as there was
> not the modern industry to use it, nor was there any prospect of
> immediately creating such industry because the technology was
> British. To survive the newly independent colonies needed to trade,
> and all they had to trade was what the British had had them trading
> before independence - hence the trade in goods to the UK continued as
> it always had. But under the British the colonies were badly treated
> and not really invested in any more than was absolute necessary,
> strangely the trade to the UK was not providing anywhere near like
> the wealth needed for further development, hence the new colonies
> looked for overseas business to invest, and hey presto, the Brits
> were there, and soon had new industry in place which provided jobs
> and extra wealth, more importantly it kept those in charge safe.


So, they were still dependant on the British for trade. Bearing in mind that the Raj was the result of the East India Company's labours, I can't say as I'm surprised. And there were lots of Brits there? Okay, fair enough. Did the local people pay taxes to those British people post-independence, or did they pay them to a native ruler?

>
> That's just two ways, however you'd both do well to look up
> dependency theory which is a MASSIVE body of work, largely from
> academics in former colonies, which addresses this issue.

Truthfully? I'm not interested in the exact macroeconomic theories that justify your assertion that Independent doesn't really mean independent. I suspect we're talking at cross purposes; I mean that the leaders of the country's in the British Empire stopped being the British Government, and started being native rulers. You're saying that economically, they were totally dependent on us and so we still ruled them (is that right?). Which means that, under that logic, the US are ruled by Saudi Arabia as they are completely dependent on their oil. Which I realise is an oversimplification, but as we're trying to keep a debate to the board, and not attempting to point to external sources so that one doesn't have to fully explain ones belief on a certain matter, I believe it's a forgiveable one.

>
> There are many debates about it but all generally agree on the
> central point that the former colonies were kept initially dependent
> on the Western powers after independence and that this largely
> carries on to today for the most part. It ties into the Cold War
> because certain nations chose to break ties with the West - Grenada,
> Chile are just two - which led to other events. As you undoubtedly
> know, in Grenada it led to a coup which in turn led to Urgent Fury,
> and in Chile it led to another coup. A common argument is that those
> who broke ties with the West replaced one colonial master for
> another. namely Russia, and in Grenada that was largely the case.


I'll take great issue with your summary of Chile; the only reason that there was a coup there was because of the USA. They replaced a democratically elected leader with a brutal dictator. To say that "Well, it meant that Russia didn't take over" is a pretty appalling argument; the implication is that it's better to live under an oppressive capitalist than any sort of communist is...well, it's blinkered and fundamentalist. Rather like saying that the US sponsored coup in Brazil was to defeat communism, despite the fact that the left wing president had offered support to the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Really, how do you expect to be taken seriously espousing the US as the land of Freedom and Democracy when they've done so much to ensure that other countries remain undemocratic and anything but free? It's not too different from Russia estabilshing their East European buffer zone. In fact, it's not even remotely different.