"...overflowing with foulmouthed ignorance."
http://www.irongarmx.net/phpbbdev/
Does the author go into the British history in Iraq and Afghanistan?Shafpocalypse Now wrote:It was in the context that the US should have involved the Brits more with building up the stability of Iraq. Whereas not all former British colonies have succeeded, they do have a track record that far surpasses the US.
Then you could argue that they, too, took a crack at Afghanistan...but you can then argue that the US support of the mujaheddin is what destroyed that.
It's a shame that colonization is no longer in fashion. Countries that go through a long enough colonial period often develop enough of a civilization, culture, government, and economy that they can self govern without deteriorating into a shithole that is raped by a succession of brutal dictators.Batboy2/75 wrote:Or how the Brits decided to pay off insurgents in South Iraq; instead of actually patrolling or doing any nation building.
The Middle East and Africa are a fucking mess in part, because of English and French nation building in colonial times.
THhey are a mess because of the populations,not what we did or didn`t do.No real problems in,say Canada,Australia or New Zealand.Batboy2/75 wrote:Or how the Brits decided to pay off insurgents in South Iraq; instead of actually patrolling or doing any nation building.
The Middle East and Africa are a fucking mess in part, because of English and French nation building in colonial times.
Fuck that turd and his book.
BTW- I have been against Nation building from day 1. Instead we should adopt the game preserve strategy.
Yeah, Pakistan and Kenya are garden spots. The Brits had some successes, but it's not like their track record is perfect.Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Read in a Brit written novel that if there's one thing the Brit's know how to do, it's how to set up a country for long term stability as opposed to falling apart immediately after they left.
OK, but then how do you give the Brits credit for the ones that stayed halfway sane? It's almost as if cricket, gin, and bewigged judges can't explain all of, say, India's relative success either.Bobby wrote:THhey are a mess because of the populations,not what we did or didn`t do.No real problems in,say Canada,Australia or New Zealand.Batboy2/75 wrote:Or how the Brits decided to pay off insurgents in South Iraq; instead of actually patrolling or doing any nation building.
The Middle East and Africa are a fucking mess in part, because of English and French nation building in colonial times.
Fuck that turd and his book.
BTW- I have been against Nation building from day 1. Instead we should adopt the game preserve strategy.
They offered a model civil service (compared to others at the time). Countries that could adopt it effectively tended to succeed. In countries that couldn't, Things Fell Apart.dead man walking wrote:the brits didn't build nations, they ruled colonies, which managed to become nations after bloody hell broke loose.
britain is a soggy little island that offers few lessons and is of little consequence in the world today.
shakespeare, however, was a helluva writer
white male european models are good. i can accept that.Turdacious wrote:They offered a model civil service (compared to others at the time). Countries that could adopt it effectively tended to succeed. In countries that couldn't, Things Fell Apart.dead man walking wrote:the brits didn't build nations, they ruled colonies, which managed to become nations after bloody hell broke loose.
britain is a soggy little island that offers few lessons and is of little consequence in the world today.
shakespeare, however, was a helluva writer
dead man walking wrote:the brits didn't build nations, they ruled colonies, which managed to become nations after bloody hell broke loose.
britain is a soggy little island that offers few lessons and is of little consequence in the world today.
shakespeare, however, was a helluva writer
On the contrary, the history of the British Empire is replete with lessons for modern times.dead man walking wrote:the brits didn't build nations, they ruled colonies, which managed to become nations after bloody hell broke loose.
britain is a soggy little island that offers few lessons and is of little consequence in the world today.
shakespeare, however, was a helluva writer
The agreement to pull-out was signed under Bush.Andy80 wrote:Ironic that Obmmnutz is now advocating to do what GW preached the whole time in Iraq. To build a free inclusive government because free nations don't war with each other. Why did Obama fuck it all up by pulling out of there too soon?
Oh...I should have known!stanley_white wrote:The agreement to pull-out was signed under Bush.Andy80 wrote:Ironic that Obmmnutz is now advocating to do what GW preached the whole time in Iraq. To build a free inclusive government because free nations don't war with each other. Why did Obama fuck it all up by pulling out of there too soon?
-Stan
stanley_white wrote:The agreement to pull-out was signed under Bush.Andy80 wrote:Ironic that Obmmnutz is now advocating to do what GW preached the whole time in Iraq. To build a free inclusive government because free nations don't war with each other. Why did Obama fuck it all up by pulling out of there too soon?
Army planners have privately acknowledged they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000, but maybe as high as 70,000, for a substantial time beyond 2011.
...
When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview how big the American “residual” force would be in Iraq after 2011, Secretary of Defense Gates replied that although the mission would change, “my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops”.
In a new book, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta suggests that President Obama failed to heed his advisers who wanted to leave troops in Iraq past December 2011, which may have contributed to the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
"It was clear to me--and many others--that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together," Panetta writes in the book, an excerpt of which was published on Time.com this week.
Panetta acknowledged the difficulties of putting together the agreement that would have allowed U.S. forces to stay in the country - it had the support of various leaders in Iraq, but none who were willing to back it publicly - but also said the U.S. could have used its leverage, such as reconstruction aid money, to convince then-President Nouri al-Maliki to support a continued U.S. presence.
...
"Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he said.
Yeah, and you're a racist.Andy81 wrote:Oh...I should have known!stanley_white wrote:The agreement to pull-out was signed under Bush.Andy80 wrote:Ironic that Obmmnutz is now advocating to do what GW preached the whole time in Iraq. To build a free inclusive government because free nations don't war with each other. Why did Obama fuck it all up by pulling out of there too soon?
-Stan