It was weird to be a pro-war Liberal

[Virus]

If you understood how colonialism worked, you'd realize that it wasn't two farthings difference between that and slavery.

It depends who, and what period of history you're looking at. The British Empire from the 19th century stamped out the slave trade.

 

[BenBurch]

It depends who, and what period of history you're looking at. The British Empire from the 19th century stamped out the slave trade.

And instead found something even cheaper; Work "free" people to death at starvation wages.

Did I say not two farthings difference? I'm sure that they actually saved more than two farthings per.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I think it is wierd to be a pro-war human being.

I think that using the terms pro versus anti is misleading. Generally speaking it's fairly easy to identify someone who is against something without exceptions but trying to fit someone into a pro category is much more difficult because there are usually exceptions involved. Take abortion for example. The anti-abortion crowd is pretty clear. No abortions no matter what while the (so called) pro-abortion crowd usually has a point where they say no, that's going to far. Of course there are also some who would say that a ninth trimester abortion is just fine too but we usually lock those ones away... But I digress. Calling someone pro anything implies that they don't have any reservations about it at all. I think that by far most of the people that you might call pro-war were in fact in favor of war within limitations (otherwise they would be for ALL wars no matter who was involved or what the war was about in the first place). By the anti-abortion crowds system of measurement I am pro abortion because I think that it's not really anyone elses business until the fetus can reasonably be kept alive outside of the womb at which point I have a hard time with it (but even then there are certain cases where I think that an abortion can be called for even when the baby might survive outside the womb). By some of the "Pro"-abortion types I'm just as bad as the zero tolerance type anti-abortionists. I figure if I'm pissing off both sides I'm probably doing it right.

I knew that Iraq was going to happen again soon after the first round was over in 1991 and Saddam started up with his shenanigans less than a year later, and I was fine with that to a degree. The whole WMD stuff was pretty much a smokescreen bolstered by Iraqs past history with weapons inspectors and it was used to get the backing of the public (most of whom probably couldn't even point to Iraq on a globe to save their own lives ) because it was easier than detailing all of the other reasons that collectively were enough to go legally go back in anyway. For that I fault our media and their sound bite methods of delivering the news.

I also knew that it would take awhile once we went in before we could safely leave behind a stable democracy (or at least a reasonable semblance of one which is good enough in my book). In my mind the best case scenario was at least five years but that didn't include things like Fallujah or the insurgency in general. I had no preset number in mind for casualties on either side other than I knew that the US side would take considerably less damage than the Iraqi side.

For all of that I guess you would call me pro-war but I don't think that I'm pro-war but more pro-stability with the knowledge that sometimes stability comes with a steep price to pay.

tl;dr version: Using prefixes like pro or anti is usually an easy way out of having to think or even ask about the complexities of someone else's opinions and how they came to them. I tend to think that people who use them are either intellectually lazy or have an agenda to push without regard to the situation at hand.

 

[angrysoba]

tl;dr version: Using prefixes like pro or anti is usually an easy way out of having to think or even ask about the complexities of someone else's opinions and how they came to them. I tend to think that people who use them are either intellectually lazy or have an agenda to push without regard to the situation at hand.

Well, it was the OP who used the term "pro-war" to describe his own position on Iraq and then a number of other countries in which there never was an interventionist war.

 

[Virus]

And instead found something even cheaper; Work "free" people to death at starvation wages.

Did I say not two farthings difference? I'm sure that they actually saved more than two farthings per.

Only 14 out of of 41 former British colonies are doing better now than they were in the 60's under colonialism.

Those countries were better off because the British civil servants delivered free trade polices, balanced budgets, a work ethic, low taxes, a stable currency, rule of law, property rights, courts that could enforce contracts and most importantly the British rulers were not corrupt.

Because investors could trust the institutions, foreign investment was higher and per capita incomes were higher. For the most part, the post-colonial age has been one of tyranny, corruption, civil war, poverty and dependence on foreign aid (most of which gets stolen). The reason is simple; Western culture is superior. Primitive, tribal cultures are not fit for modernity. That's why a liberal form of colonialism would benefit chronically failed and rogue states.

I'm not saying it's ever going to happen. Western society has been too conditioned to be ultra-PC and ashamed of itself to even consider the possibility.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Only 14 out of of 41 former British colonies are doing better now than they were in the 60's under colonialism.

Irrelevant. Frederick Douglass was starving in the woods after he escaped from slavery. He still chose to be there rather than return to the plantation.

 

[Virus]

Frederik Douglass was in America. Not the British Empire.

 

[BenBurch]

Frederik Douglass was in America. Not the British Empire.

I find your lack of history disturbing.

 

[Virus]

He was born after America became independent.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Guess what? When the people of those countries decide for themselves that they've had enough of dictatorial rule, they themselves change the powers that be. No need for outside do-gooders to try to fix it.

It's not a simple matter in either event. The country hasn't got the resources to intervene in every case, and citizens have to be organized enough to carry out the actions whenever they take it upon themselves. Libya is in utter turmoil because the government is a complete whackadoodle as is Syria where these events have been ongoing for months. Iran is another case in point where rally's have been on and off for the last several years.

I was for Afghanistan and Iraq but never having the two campaigns taking place simultaneously. If we're doing any of this sort of policing resources need to be focused on the task at hand, not diverted into other affairs before the first is sorted..

 

[Giz]

And instead found something even cheaper; Work "free" people to death at starvation wages.

Did I say not two farthings difference? I'm sure that they actually saved more than two farthings per.

I think you need to read more history, that's about the worst summary of economic development and imposition of common law in the Empire that I have ever read. The only time it approaches truth might be identured servents in the early days of the North American colonies... as a generality it is hogwash.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Frederik Douglass was in America. Not the British Empire.

And?

 

[Giz]

And?

Hmmm, moral question…

We can all agree that invading and colonizing a democracy would generally be bad (as it would violate the self determination of the locals).

We can also agree that if an Empire has a colony that has the capacity to run itself as a democracy then the Empire should respect the wishes of the people of that colony regarding independence.


But what if the country being invaded/colonized wasn't a democracy but instead a mess of corrupt warring despotisms? Is it still immoral?

1) The locals right to self determination hasn't been infringed (they didn't have one before - only the local hereditary despots had any sovereignty)

2) The locals will have more/better law, prosperity, peace etc

(So far this could apply to Roman Britain or Gaul, the next one though is more with British India in mind)

3) When the local populace is ready for self rule, the occupying Empire respects that wish and vacates the premises.


Is that immoral? Why?

(Pretty sure I read in "1066 and all that" that the Roman occupation of Britain was viewed as a "good thing". Which seemed reasonable…)



Note - obviously some Empires and colonization is bad… the question is not "Can Imperialism/colonialism be bad?" (which is an obvious 'yes') but is it, when for a limited time, necessarily bad…

 

[Neally]

The country hasn't got the resources to intervene in every case, and citizens have to be organized enough to carry out the actions whenever they take it upon themselves.

So when they are motivated enough to collectively make a change, they will. Again no justification for another country to come in and make it happen according to how fast they think it should be happening.

 

[BenBurch]

He was born after America became independent.

Not what I was appalled by.

 

[Virus]

So when they are motivated enough to collectively make a change, they will. Again no justification for another country to come in and make it happen according to how fast they think it should be happening.

Why not? Why is the right for illegitimate tyrants to abuse people and send them into squalor a higher priority?

 

[bikerdruid]

(Pretty sure I read in "1066 and all that" that the Roman occupation of Britain was viewed as a "good thing". Which seemed reasonable…)

the hundreds of druids massacred by roman forces at anglesey in 60ad, might disagree, for one minor example.

 

[Virus]

the hundreds of druids massacred by roman forces at anglesey in 60ad, might disagree, for one minor example.

Standards of the day.

Overall, the best thing going at the time was the Roman Empire. Which was culturally superior to everything else.

 

[bikerdruid]

Standards of the day.

Overall, the best thing going at the time was the Roman Empire. Which was culturally superior to everything else.

culturally superior???
that is a value judgement that cannot be made objectively.
the gaulish celts had a rich culture, destroyed by caesar.
the british, the welsh, all had rich cultures.
different cultures, but not superior or inferior.
they were indigenous cultures.

 

[Virus]

culturally superior???
that is a value judgement that cannot be made objectively.

Yes it can.