CameronPoe wrote:
Conquest one hoped had been consigned to the dustbin of history following the misadventures of Hitler and other such despots. Citing historic examples of conquest does not and will never legitimise it.
Let's just say I have a much less optimistic view of humanity. I believe periods of conquest are inevitable and that global capitalism necessitates it. I'm not necessarily saying it's the most moral way of doing things, however.
CameronPoe wrote:
I don't think it is the position of anyone other than Iraqis to decide the direction their country (countries?) take, be that through warfare or otherwise. An imposed solution is just like putting a sticking plaster on something destined to explode and sort itself out at some point again in the not too distant future. I will never advocate intervention outside ones 'sphere of influence' - the middle east not falling into said sphere.
Two things... I do see the Middle East as our sphere of influence because of the fact that we have so many economic interests there. We also have military forces there (and had them there long before the second Iraq invasion). Second, while I agree with you ideally about Iraqis being responsible for their own country, I think that they've shown themselves incapable of handling this sort of thing in a practical sense.
CameronPoe wrote:
For some reason though the US, perhaps because it is a nation all about flashy image, has always sought to protect its paper-thin facade of 'altruistic good guy'. People would respect a bit more honesty even if they still disagreed with the interventionist, unilateralist, fingers-in-many-pies position the US has taken since WWII.
Agreed. We should be upfront about our real interests. We should tell the world, "Look, I know you don't like some of what we've done, but ask yourself what you'd do in our position." We're the most powerful country in the world, so naturally, we're going to push a few countries around here and there. It doesn't make it right, but it happens. This is why I keep saying that I hope the EU becomes more militarily powerful so that you guys can balance things out some.
CameronPoe wrote:
This is one point I would fundamentally disagree with. I feel political advancement is a natural progression and 'evolutionary' process. An external party can rarely produce a satisfactory resolution to 'trouble' in divided or frankly directly opposing nations/regions. It is this interfering (and in some cases condescending) attitude that harks back to British days of old where the Brits went around the world spreading 'civilisation' (how nice of them...). The global economy is just fine as it is.
The Romans did a great job of setting up an economic empire. The British did as well. The British had to let go of their empire and the Romans fell, but many countries advanced from these influences. Look at India today and how India was before the British.
Obviously, this isn't true of every area that has been conquered and then given independence, but in the cases where it didn't work, it's usually a case of not finishing the job. Most of Africa is in shambles because Europe just raped them of resources and then drew up arbitrary borders. They should have stuck around and modernized these nations.
CameronPoe wrote:
I know. Every last 'first worlder' is all over China like a rash at the moment - financial interests promoted through agreements, not at gunpoint. The EU has NO interest whatsoever in developing a position of considerable military might. It's days of violence and annexation are hopefully largely over.
I would suggest that the EU's current reluctance to rise in military might is that they much prefer America to do the dirty work.
CameronPoe wrote:
We're too different. The US has now become a political liability in Europe and elsewhere. Berlusconi, Aznar, Blair and Howard ousted or sidelined in the past few years. The whole concept of attacking other sovereign nations in the interests of oil, money, pipelines, competing globally with Russia/China or Israeli security are not what Europe is about and I don't think it ever will be. Our horrid history of imperialism has taught us valuable lessons.
I would agree that attacking Iraq was a tremendous mistake. Saddam had a stable government, so there was no need to invade. However, when a country becomes as unstable as Sudan, I define them as no longer being sovereign. A country incapable of ruling itself is not what I consider sovereign.
CameronPoe wrote:
Africa is unfixable. It will take centuries for any semblance of an organised and ordered society to prevail there. It's a complete waste of time.
I disagree. I believe a century of coordinated effort between the U.S. and the E.U. will modernize them. Much death will ensue, but death will occur regardless of whether we act or not.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-12-09 12:29:00)