OT att Yenhoi.

[Mr Punch]

Just some chat based on a recently deleted thread I was writing to reply to...

Yenhoi, while I don't agree with Royal Dragon's pov, and while I agree in part that the region known as Iraq was more civilized than many places for a long time, I feel your oversimplification of British history is as dangerous and innaccurate as Royal Dragon's oversimplification of the Iraqi situation you are addressing.

Sure the British Empire was responsible for a hell of a lot of atrocities, but apart from a few obvious examples of attempted genocide (Australia, NZ) for which there are no excuses, I do not believe that the British policy was to leave colonized countries in a deliberate state of disrepair.

It wouldn't have made any sense diplomatically or for the stability of the remaining British Empire. Plus, most ex-colonies have been able to strengthen their world position and economies by enjoying free trade largely with links through the ex-Empire. Quite rightly, especially for example given the economic growth in India now, most of them are now recognizing Britain for what it is now, a dwindling world power, and taking their trade elsewhere. But the fact remains that we left a legacy of trade routes and diplomacy throughout the globe.

Now personally, I think there's a lot more to global responsibility than free trade, and I have my doubts that any trade, if it is not based on the sustainability of resource use, is good for the country originating it. But if we are using trade as a measure of economic success, however unfeasible in the long term, the British Empire semi-inadvertently did a lot of good.

Also looking at for example, the way the US govt did not have any diplomats or 'specialists' at the start of their foray into Iraq, but turned to seasoned diplomats from Britain and even France to establish links with the common Iraqi people just after the fall of Hussein, and how the tactics of the British Army in southern Iraq have for some time garnered more peaceful results than the actions of the US army in the north (even despite the close association of our adminstrations), you should see that many Iraqis see us in a different light to the nation-wrecking *******s that you are suggesting we have always been.

Again, as you said, the Iraqis are not one people. The Iraq that Britain took from the remnants of the Ottoman rule was not a nation, and the peoples there had already effectively sunk the Ottoman Empire through the sheer amount of energy it took to keep control of the warring factions in the region. I'm not suggesting that they were barbarians; as you said, there were some people living in the region who had a lot to gain by upsetting any peaceful mechanism that was attempted. But by the same token, there were some
people living in the region who looked on British rule as just another powerful bunch of leaders, and could deal and trade peacefully with us: the legacy of Gertrude Bell is more complicated than just to say 'We left the place a mess', and many Iraqi people still remember the British with a certain fondness (this is not to say I think they are wise or even 'correct' in doing so).

Sure, we left a mess. But we walked into one in the first place. The centuries of relative stability in the region had already been destroyed. And I don't think it's accurate to say it was a deliberate policy of the British Empire to destroy what we had controlled.

I'm not condoning the British Empire builders' actions in any way, but there were, just as in Iraq, good and bad people, with good and bad policy mechanisms, and good and bad ideas of how useful what trade is with whom, but I'm pretty sick of hearing this revisionist pov from Mel-****ing-Gibsonist history majors that the British Empire was out-and-out evil. They were operating in a different context, from a different (admittedly often wrong) perspective, but like any parasite, it doesn't make sense to kill the host.

My last point being, unfortunately, we weren't even that good at being parasites and the global trade systems that we established are still responsible for a lot of ills in today's society (including environmental damage, imperialist attitudes and not just ours, and...) especially the idea that production should take precedence over resources, when people are still fighting over those very resources while a precious few make money from trade. The lessons that the British should have learned by their mistakes and their deliberate premeditated powermongering, should have been well-heeded by other currently major world powers. As someone said, the Americans have ended the Cold War by making it a hot one, and your administration seems too intent on revising history rather than learning its lessons.

(paraphrase): What did the Romans ever do for us...?!

Well, there's the roads, the hospitals, the sanitation, the civil service, the forestry service, education, law...

[yenhoi]

I agree with most of your points. Well said.

I disagree with this, and most of what you said to back it up:

I do not believe that the British policy was to leave colonized countries in a deliberate state of disrepair.

I agree that this wasent the idea with all or even most of the regions/nations. Some places, specifically the Afghanistan area and Iraq/Iran were drawn up with exactly that in mind.

There are many factors involved. In many places it was the most clever of the natives that got the job of being in charge afterwards, sometimes the most brutal or powerful, etc.

At any rate, the modern internation landscape is a great example of the brilliance of the British in their design of the post-Imperial world, and the Anglo-American design of the post-WWII/Cold War world. I would still say that most of "the world's problems" today are direct results of actions and policys of the west both good and bad for them and others.

Ya dig?

:D

[yenhoi]

I also think the world, primarily the Europeans and Arab/Middle Eastern countries missed a great opporatunity of REAL, concreate international law by not supporting the enforcement of U.N. resolutions against Iraq. The Eastern block nations of europe saw this window and have jumped with both feet. France and Germany will not be the big dogs in post-Iraq/Bush Europe/NATO. Bush will probably be re-elected (save some act of god) and will have the greatest American mandate any president has had since Roosevelt.

:eek:

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by yenhoi
I agree with most of your points. Well said.Thank you. I'm with you in agreeing with me! :D


I disagree with this, and most of what you said to back it up:

I do not believe that the British policy was to leave colonized countries in a deliberate state of disrepair.

I agree that this wasent the idea with all or even most of the regions/nations. Some places, specifically the Afghanistan area and Iraq/Iran were drawn up with exactly that in mind. OK. In a nutshell, when you have time... why? Why do think this, and why would that have been a useful policy?

Generally I'm with you, but having had relatives who have worked in the modern British Civil Service, based roughly as it was on the military heirarchy, I still think even if there was such a policy their monstrous inefficiency would have rendered it unworkable.

[yenhoi]

Iran/Iraq: To prevent a Arab/Middle Eastern superstate.

Afghanistan (area): To prevent a Indian or Chinese superstate.

This would be good for the english and the west in many terms, economically, politically, and military-authority-power-wise.

If anything the actions have resulted in "problem" spots that Englands children have found reason to fix, and in the process have bettered many western states political power and influence that benefits england and englishmen, and will continue to better many aspects of western peoples lives.

As far as england goes I am not speaking for any sort of real-exp or anything of the sort. Just my opinion and observations which I feel are consistant with the mindset and real-politik understanding of the times. had I been in charge of the English Empire at the time and being forced to slowly leave the different parts of the empire, I would attempt to set the situation up so that in the future it would be easier for me to step back in and assert military or economical dominance. Like you said, with a different more militaristic spin.

Not one worldy power in the past has ever acted in ways that would even be loosely mistaken for the liberal-goody-goody-ness (international law and forms of free-trade or economical mish-mash nets that ideally prevent states from waging war on one another) that the european states would like to see today. This would be good for medium sized states that see their power and influence passing in the modern international landscape, like France and Germany and should be percieved as "bad" for states like the USA and China.

Which is why it would have been a step in the right direction for these smaller states like France and Germany and even Iran to have supported the enforcement of UN resolutions against Iraq, because years from now, american administrations from now, other international events from now, could be used in simular fashion against large superstates like America and China. The U.N. as an international body with no real international power or authority should have jumped at the chance to pick up the club of the United States and pound itself into a real supernational force with actual substance.

;)