Is a Return to Colonialism Needed - Afghanistan and Haiti Events Sure Make it Seem So (soldier, boycott)
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.
The last thing we need to to is go back to "Colonialism", especially as far as Haiti and Afghanistan are concerned. Let Haiti sort out its own mess. There is no solution there and we should know already that infusing billions of dollars will not change much. Afghanistan? We went there based on 9-11 issues and thought as long as we were there, we could enlighten the populace so that they never went back to the old ways....but guess what?? If the extremely well equipped and trained Afghan Army didn't even think it was important to fight off the Taliban without us being there to remind them they should, then maybe they never really wanted to in the first place. We make the mistake thinking that just because we don't like a certain group, that every person in the country thinks the same way. Maybe someday, the US, Soviets, and Brits can get together and swap war stories, but for now, it is best that part of our history is done. Lets spend the money here, helping Americans instead.
But the pregnant question is, will they leave us alone because we leave them alone? We tried not intervening after the Soviet Union got the heave-ho from Afghanistan. That did not work out to well.And as far as Haiti, just because we stay away from Haiti does not mean the Haitians stay away from the U.S.
There is not much the world can do to uplift Afghanistan. Various countries have tried to help that "country" for more than 60 years and it's just not going to get much better than what they now have in that "country". The culture is a failure. Until that changes just isolate that region, reject any and all "migrants", "refugees" and let it implode.
I wouldn't call military invasions "helping a country." Afghanistan population is 65% rural and dispersed over an area nearly the size of Texas and is very mountainous. Its geography makes forming a strong central government difficult, thus the need for strongmen groups like the Taliban. If the U.S. just leaves them alone (i.e., no sanctions or further military action) then their situation stands a chance for improvement. Just look at Vietnam. U.S. left them alone after the war and surprise their country improved. They will start exporting an electric car to the U.S. It's amazing what can be accomplished when you don't have another country trying to ruin your economy or use it as a military testing ground.
I read that as "Is a Return to Cannibalism Needed..."
I need my eyes checked.
I would say no to both colonialism and cannibalism.
The US has protectorates (Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.) called "insular areas of the United States" and that concept could be revised and somehow standardized by the UN to make it agreeable to all parties. After WW2, countries in Europe and Japan were "occupied" supposedly for a number of years but the USSR was late in leaving. We would not want to shoot our way into a country to be protectors or be military occupiers.
The member countries of the UN might prefer a UN protectorate status. Some countries, like Afghanistan, are ungovernable and essentially tribal. I can't imagine some country wanting to impose its protection in those cases. Haiti might be a possibility but efforts by foreign governments to provide aid or on-site support have been limited.
There is not much the world can do to uplift Afghanistan. Various countries have tried to help that "country" for more than 60 years and it's just not going to get much better than what they now have in that "country". The culture is a failure. Until that changes just isolate that region, reject any and all "migrants", "refugees" and let it implode.
We leave them alone and let them implode; fine. But what keeps groups such as Al Quaeda from hiding out and training there, and mounting attacks on the civilized world, such as September 11, 2001?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins
I read that as "Is a Return to Cannibalism Needed..."
I need my eyes checked.
I would say no to both colonialism and cannibalism.
The US has protectorates (Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.) called "insular areas of the United States" and that concept could be revised and somehow standardized by the UN to make it agreeable to all parties. After WW2, countries in Europe and Japan were "occupied" supposedly for a number of years but the USSR was late in leaving. We would not want to shoot our way into a country to be protectors or be military occupiers.
The member countries of the UN might prefer a UN protectorate status. Some countries, like Afghanistan, are ungovernable and essentially tribal. I can't imagine some country wanting to impose its protection in those cases. Haiti might be a possibility but efforts by foreign governments to provide aid or on-site support have been limited.
See above,, and I sound like a "broken record." Us leaving these countries alone is an invitation to disaster emanating, one way or another, from those countries. The only option, which would cause a headline-making humanitarian disaster, is a full-strength embargo of these countries; nothing goes in, unless non-military and paid for in hard currency and nothing, no one goes out.
Yes, but it will never happen again. The success of places like Singapore and Hong Kong show colonialism can work, but many former British colonies were very clear that they prefer independence.
The irony of course is that China is not positioning itself to be the new colonizers with the full cooperation of many African nations.
Every country has free will, and the former British colonies, whether rich like Hong Kong or poor like Sierra Leone, wanted their independence regardless if it was good or bad for the country.
Hong Kong was a British colony going back to 1841, but it was a backwater until the Mao's communists took over China. Skilled and/or educated Chinese people fled to Hong Kong, turning it into the first of the four Asian Tiger economies.
Singapore was a somewhat financially successful outpost of the British Empire, acting as a major seaport and trading hub for ships arriving from Europe via the Suez Canal. It didn't boom until after it gained its independence from Malaysia in 1965.
Yes, but it will never happen again. The success of places like Singapore and Hong Kong show colonialism can work, but many former British colonies were very clear that they prefer independence.....Every country has free will, and the former British colonies, whether rich like Hong Kong or poor like Sierra Leone, wanted their independence regardless if it was good or bad for the country.
Singapore was a somewhat financially successful outpost of the British Empire, acting as a major seaport and trading hub for ships arriving from Europe via the Suez Canal. It didn't boom until after it gained its independence from Malaysia in 1965.
Singapore was originally part of the Malagasy Republic/Malaysia. In 1964 Singapore was invited not so nicely to leave. I have a National Geographic article which I read as a nine-year old in 1966 which detailed the "exclaving" of Singapore and I'll send it to anyone who DM's me an email address.
Singapore was originally part of the Malagasy Republic/Malaysia. In 1964 Singapore was invited not so nicely to leave. I have a National Geographic article which I read as a nine-year old in 1966 which detailed the "exclaving" of Singapore and I'll send it to anyone who DM's me an email address.
Yes it’s ironic that the Malaysians didn’t want Singapore. Currently, Singapore’s GDP is $324 billion, while Malaysia’s is $315B.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 6 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,603,118 times
Reputation: 5697
Is a Return to [conquering and exploiting the resources of unstable nations] Needed - Afghanistan and Haiti Events Sure Make it Seem So.
Uh, nope, it is not needed. Inability to maintain stability is not a free pass to invade and trespass on foreign lands, mistreat its population, and get cut-rate resources (i.e., steal those resources). A nation's right to independence depends on whether that nation seeks to hurt, harm, or heap indignities on other nations around it.
Is a Return to [conquering and exploiting the resources of unstable nations] Needed - Afghanistan and Haiti Events Sure Make it Seem So.
Uh, nope, it is not needed. Inability to maintain stability is not a free pass to invade and trespass on foreign lands, mistreat its population, and get cut-rate resources (i.e., steal those resources). A nation's right to independence depends on whether that nation seeks to hurt, harm, or heap indignities on other nations around it.
What if "it" makes no efforts to restrain non-governmental groups that "seek to hurt, harm, or heap indignities on other nations" elsewhere in the world? I thought we're all in this together.
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.
