Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This morning's New York Times front page makes depressing reading. The headlines, with one exception, about the collapse of the Afghan government and Taliban takeover, and the earthquake in Haiti. Both are countries without governments in any sense that we would recognize or understand....
Though the current travails in Afghanistan focus on political violence and in Haiti on a natural disaster (the violence occurred a month ago with the assassination of the President), both can be expected to lead to major humanitarian tragedies.
...
At some point, similar help in Afghanistan will be needed. Given the lack of a competent, transparent government to distribute the assistance, the moneys will disappear. There are plenty of greedy hands perfectly willing to take advantage of the goodwill of the generous.
More ominously, the Taliban, when it governs, participates in or permits the use of territory to launch devastating attacks, September 11, 2001 being a prime example. The original impetus to colonialism was, in part, economic greed on the part of the West. But also in part, piracy and other attacks were motivators. The sailing trips around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn, and eventually the building of the Panama Canal were motivated in part by hackostilities emanating from Africa and Asia. The West's response after the September 11 attacks hinted at a return to some kind of control by the West in some of these areas. Are we in for a repeat?
We have little interest in exploiting Afghanistan and similar failed states. A "debate question" is by what method does the West protect itself?
There is little in these two countries worth exploiting.
Humanitarian aid is a waste of treasure, ineffectual, and ultimately counter productive.
But colonialism, really?
Since we can't control foreign lands peacefully I don't even know what that means or how it would work.
I have an idea.How about some old fashioned 'Leave'emAlone-ianism'?
Most third world terror attacks are anti US policy and in the final analysis irrelevant to our nations survival, so we'll respond times2... then step back.
It's not perfect, but it's better than the last few s#1tshows, so I'm ok with it.
There is little in these two countries worth exploiting.
Humanitarian aid is a waste of treasure, ineffectual, and ultimately counter productive.
But colonialism, really?
Since we can't control foreign lands peacefully I don't even know what that means or how it would work.
I have an idea.How about some old fashioned 'Leave'emAlone-ianism'?
Most third world terror attacks are anti US policy and in the final analysis irrelevant to our nations survival, so we'll respond times2... then step back.
It's not perfect, but it's better than the last few s#1tshows, so I'm ok with it.
But what if a particular ideology is offended by the U.S. support of Israel? Do we step back from supporting people like us?
I don't think colonization will work anywhere anymore. Maybe Antarctica or Mars. Afghanistan is filled with various tribes that live the way they do because that's what they choose to do. Maybe if China wanted a round of ethnic cleansing it might have enough people to move there and instill a new tipping point on culture, but aside from that it won't work.
Haiti is a bit different. It's newer. If it remains in a failed state long enough the culture will adapt to such precariousness in life as we saw in the former Soviet states. But really what's needed is a change of ideals.
The post World War II mandates are the model I'd like to follow. We remade Germany and Japan in our image, and they are both successful, peaceful, contributing members of the world community today. Whereas, our current piecemeal approach toward failed states, where we give aid and take in refugees, but have little actual say in what happens on the ground, is a demonstrated failure.
We often get accused of going it alone, so if it were up to me, I would go before the United Nations with a proposition. If they approve, we go into Afghanistan and Haiti and completely take them over. We set up the institutions of government and society exactly the way we want them. If the local residents complain, we ignore them. After all, they can't even govern themselves, so why should we care what they think? We do all the heavy lifting ourselves (i.e. not under any kind of UN control), and as long as we refrain from human rights abuses, we can do whatever we want. The residents get no say in anything, and they get no special privileges (i.e. no automatic citizenship or permanent-resident status or anything like that). The UN, not the US, pays for the costs of our mandates.
The mission explicitly ends in 10 years. At that time, if the world community likes the progress that's being made, they can authorize another 10 year extension. If they don't, we're done, and we walk away. Oh, and if they do authorize an extension, but we don't want to do it any more . . . well, that's the time we use our veto.
But, what if the collective world community, in the form of the UN, does not give us authorization to do this? Then we completely wash our hands of those two countries. No aid, no support, no in-migration, no peace-keeping missions, no nothing. We turn back any would-be refugees from those places, at gunpoint if necessary. It's either all or nothing, and we do either one only with the world's blessing.
Japan and Germany are frequently mentioned as success stories. But they were already highly organized, mono-ethnic states when they were occupied. Both countries already had the foundations of a civil society based on rule of law rather than personality cult.
Gen. MacArthur had an outstanding staff of advisors to guide him in Japan; they essentially restored parliamentary democracy, gave women the right to vote, and numerous other steps that were more or less reasonable to the Japanese.
The occupation of western Germany similarly took a ruined country full of highly diligent, educated people and, by means of total top-down control plus the Marshall Plan, rebuilt it into a highly organized and successful economy. The continued occupation to counter the Soviets in the east also kept the place under pretty tight control.
Afghan, by contrast, was never a cohesive country, but rather a conglomeration of separate tribes and warlords, with several different languages. The people, like the Africans, have a tribal mentality, not a national identity.
Haiti has been a failed state for many decades. It was probably better off under the Duvalier regime which lasted for decades. Sometimes, a brutal regime is much better than anarchy.
Venezuela is next up. They need some kind of strongman to emerge and take brutal charge, restore free enterprise and win back foreign investors, exploit their oil and gas, and bring the country back to a semblance of order and stability.
Democracy is an idea, not a reality, in much of the world. We should be realistic and not expect instant freedom everywhere. Reagan once said, we should export revolutionary democracy, and that is a noble goal, but not one that is achievable within a short time. In some places, maybe never.
There is little in these two countries worth exploiting.
Humanitarian aid is a waste of treasure, ineffectual, and ultimately counter productive.
But colonialism, really?
Since we can't control foreign lands peacefully I don't even know what that means or how it would work.
I have an idea.How about some old fashioned 'Leave'emAlone-ianism'?
Most third world terror attacks are anti US policy and in the final analysis irrelevant to our nations survival, so we'll respond times2... then step back.
It's not perfect, but it's better than the last few s#1tshows, so I'm ok with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
But what if a particular ideology is offended by the U.S. support of Israel? Do we step back from supporting people like us?
Of course not. They don't dictate our policy but may react in any number of ways.
We must then respond appropriately, decisively, perhaps quite forcefully, but with limitted purpose and finite scope.
IOW not endlessly or terribly asymetrically.
But what if a particular ideology is offended by the U.S. support of Israel? Do we step back from supporting people like us?
Supporting Israel is something that western countries should keep doing. Although by no means perfect, it’s by far the best and most socially progressive nation in the area. Without trying to expand the scope of the topic too much, I think Trump has the right idea by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital, which brought certain Arab countries to the table.
Just like your kids, people have to stand on their own two feet.
Afghanistan was a scam - and an obvious example gross mismanagement. "Ghost" soldiers on payroll but not soldiering? Human rights issues aside, its almost a good thing that Biden pulled the plug. They cant breastfeed off the USA forever. Leave them to themselves.
Haiti is another example of mismanagement and worse. The Haitians need to change Haiti.
We cant just hand dollars to the wealthy and expect them to dole it out to people that need it. That is not how wealthy people obtain, sustain, and grow wealth. If we are going to give Aid, we need to manage, distribute and account for that aid or the people that need it will never see it.
In both cases, if they dont change themselves, they will never truly change.
Colonialism is sort of how we got into these situations to begin with. I highly doubt it can help provide a road out of them.
Last edited by ComeCloser; 08-18-2021 at 03:19 AM..
No more spending money on nation-building projects in backwards places like Afghanistan. These people do not want us or our culture there...period.
The Haiti issue is different. They have experienced a natural disaster and are in need of relief efforts. Haitians also never flew planes into our buildings or throw gay people off of tall buildings.
Coming from a former British Colony, Colonization does have pros and cons....pretty much like any thing else. So much depends on the Colonial power. Some were better than others. Some were downright dreadful!
Coming from a former British Colony, Colonization does have pros and cons....pretty much like any thing else. So much depends on the Colonial power. Some were better than others. Some were downright dreadful!
While I think that's true, I always had the sense that the Brits didn't understand the real implications of their colonialism. To boil it down to a simple analogy:
The Brit says: "But look, we're giving you good roads".
The Indian says: "But look, I want to be a free Indian man (or woman)".
The Brit: "But we're giving you refined English tea".
The Indian: "But I want Indian culture".
The bottom line is the desire for a people to be free to be themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about some old fashioned 'Leave'emAlone-ianism'?
