Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[Novus America]

I wasted a year of my life for nothing in Iraq. And would get sent back. I am more than willing to fight for a good cause. But not as happy fighting for another failed political experiment managed by people with no clue. Obama and Bush totally screwed up in Iraq. Until we get better leaders and some sort of working end game let's not try again.

I agree. Before we go back in we need a clear end goal, not some I don't know when type thing. Don't get me wrong I don't mind fighting for my nation.

Neither do I mind. But like you I do not like fighting for nothing either.

Navy. I honestly mostly kept a steel box floating around an oil platform. Nothing exciting or like what the grunts went through. And you?

[Trumpostan]

Many people think "westernizing" a nation should be our goal, or "bringing X shithole to modern times", or even "bring democracy to their backyard" when we have no idea of the issues within these regions.

Our missions should not be to "civilize those fucking backwater hippies", to be fair; and it is ethnocentric and even racist to think that the West, and only the West, has the answers to a regional problem.

Ok so what about Afghanistan in that case. Was it really racist to go ahead and get rid of the Taliban government while giving them a chance at something better? Rather than saying screw it and leaving them to their own devices?

In getting rid of the Taliban government we were essentially getting rid of part of our ghost. Never mind that the Taliban is still around, as it that other creature from the times of the Afghan-Soviet war: Al-Qaeda and its even more radical offshoots. Supporting islamic fundamentalists against a weak Afghan government (backed by the Soviets). Boy did that end up working well for us, didn't it? And we're also still dealing with other ghosts. The Iranian government, the result of the islamic revolution of 1979 which was the result of the Shah's oppression which we enabled with the overthrow of democratically elected PM Mossadegh in the 1950s.

Seems like every time we meddle in the Middle East and its surroundings, it gets worse. And that's not even mentioning our propping up of the #1 terrorist ideology supporting country: Saudi Arabia.

[HMS Vanguard]

The 36-39 Arab revolt didn't cause large numbers of casualties, about 300 British troops per year dead and wounded. If a country loses a war, it can well lose control of its colonies, especially when any insurgency is backed by a bigger and stronger imperial power, in that case the Soviet Union. Countries spontaneously losing colonies 'in peacetime' to native 'protesters' did not happen.

Umm there were more than just British casualties. Rule through mustard gas is not good for the people.

British casualties are what matter when determining if continued colonial rule is sustainable. People do not endless pursue lost causes, they give up and go home. Most people would rather live a reasonable life in peace than face certain death over a political cause of ephemeral personal relevance that is in any case sure to fail. There was no major uprising in India between 1857 and independence, for instance.

Sure, lots of insurgenices were supported by other colonial powers. Wars and undermining the other is part of the colonial game.

Right but this sort of thing hasn't gone away in the post-colonial world, it has become more common. It is much more risky to wage a proxy war against France, the UK, or even a weak imperial power like Belgium or Portugal than to do so against an independent African state.

[Thermodolia]

I agree. Before we go back in we need a clear end goal, not some I don't know when type thing. Don't get me wrong I don't mind fighting for my nation.

Neither do I mind. But like you I do not like fighting for nothing either.

Navy. I honestly mostly kept a steel box floating around an oil platform. Nothing exciting or like what the grunts went through. And you?

Army, combat medic.

[Novus America]

Umm there were more than just British casualties. Rule through mustard gas is not good for the people.

British casualties are what matter when determining if continued colonial rule is sustainable. People do not endless pursue lost causes, they give up and go home. Most people would rather live a reasonable life in peace than face certain death over a political cause of ephemeral personal relevance that is in any case sure to fail. There was no major uprising in India between 1857 and independence, for instance.

Sure, lots of insurgenices were supported by other colonial powers. Wars and undermining the other is part of the colonial game.

Right but this sort of thing hasn't gone away in the post-colonial world, it has become more common. It is much more risky to wage a proxy war against France, the UK, or even a weak imperial power like Belgium or Portugal than to do so against an independent African state.

People also want some freedom too. And the wars are less risky now. Which is a good thing. No more massive wars. No more seven years war type shit. No more conflicts exploding into world wars either.

Colonialism resulted in wars. Big wars. Small wars. All kinds of wars.

[HMS Vanguard]

British casualties are what matter when determining if continued colonial rule is sustainable. People do not endless pursue lost causes, they give up and go home. Most people would rather live a reasonable life in peace than face certain death over a political cause of ephemeral personal relevance that is in any case sure to fail. There was no major uprising in India between 1857 and independence, for instance.


Right but this sort of thing hasn't gone away in the post-colonial world, it has become more common. It is much more risky to wage a proxy war against France, the UK, or even a weak imperial power like Belgium or Portugal than to do so against an independent African state.

People also want some freedom too.

Which means what? Is there freedom in Vietnam, a communist dictatorship, because the despots happen to be yellow instead of white? Is someone in the US today freer than one hundred years ago, when there was no NSA, no CIA, no income tax?

The "freedom" anti-colonialists are talking about is ephemeral, having almost no connection to daily life or actual range of personal choices. In the more standard definition of the term, there's a lot less freedom in the Third World than there was in the colonies.

And the wars are less risky now. Which is a good thing. No more massive wars. No more seven years war type shit. No more conflicts exploding into world wars either.

Colonialism resulted in wars. Big wars. Small wars. All kinds of wars.

Rubbish. In the age of colonialism, Europe was beset by war. Nowadays, pretty much anywhere but Europe is beset by war.

[Mugrul]

Ok so what about Afghanistan in that case. Was it really racist to go ahead and get rid of the Taliban government while giving them a chance at something better? Rather than saying screw it and leaving them to their own devices?

In getting rid of the Taliban government we were essentially getting rid of part of our ghost. Never mind that the Taliban is still around, as it that other creature from the times of the Afghan-Soviet war: Al-Qaeda and its even more radical offshoots. Supporting islamic fundamentalists against a weak Afghan government (backed by the Soviets). Boy did that end up working well for us, didn't it? And we're also still dealing with other ghosts. The Iranian government, the result of the islamic revolution of 1979 which was the result of the Shah's oppression which we enabled with the overthrow of democratically elected PM Mossadegh in the 1950s.

Seems like every time we meddle in the Middle East and its surroundings, it gets worse. And that's not even mentioning our propping up of the #1 terrorist ideology supporting country: Saudi Arabia.

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan wasn't going to survive into the 90's anyway. The USSR is to blame for Afghanistan's troubles.

Nevertheless what you say is irrelevant since I wasn't arguing about the benefit of American intervention.

[Genivaria]

People also want some freedom too.

Which means what? Is there freedom in Vietnam, a communist dictatorship, because the despots happen to be yellow instead of white? Is someone in the US today freer than one hundred years ago, when there was no NSA, no CIA, no income tax?

The "freedom" anti-colonialists are talking about is ephemeral, having almost no connection to daily life or actual range of personal choices. In the more standard definition of the term, there's a lot less freedom in the Third World than there was in the colonies.

And the wars are less risky now. Which is a good thing. No more massive wars. No more seven years war type shit. No more conflicts exploding into world wars either.

Colonialism resulted in wars. Big wars. Small wars. All kinds of wars.

Rubbish. In the age of colonialism, Europe was beset by war. Nowadays, pretty much anywhere but Europe is beset by war.

The communist dictatorship in Vietnam was CAUSED by colonialism in Vietnam.

[Imperializt Russia]

Ok so what about Afghanistan then. Was it really racist to get rid of the Taliban government and give them a chance at something better? Rather than saying screw it and leaving them to their own devices.

We gave them the chance to choose and they chose Karzai, a radical Islamist.

The difference between Karzai and the Taliban is that the Taliban will execute you for not being Muslim whereas Karzai will commute the sentence to life imprisonment.

If we were to impose Western values, rather than just political structures, it would be against the will of the population and would encounter a lot of resistance.

Because societal change does not, and can not, occur over fucking night.

The Soviets learned this in Afghanistan.

[HMS Vanguard]

Which means what? Is there freedom in Vietnam, a communist dictatorship, because the despots happen to be yellow instead of white? Is someone in the US today freer than one hundred years ago, when there was no NSA, no CIA, no income tax?

The "freedom" anti-colonialists are talking about is ephemeral, having almost no connection to daily life or actual range of personal choices. In the more standard definition of the term, there's a lot less freedom in the Third World than there was in the colonies.


Rubbish. In the age of colonialism, Europe was beset by war. Nowadays, pretty much anywhere but Europe is beset by war.

The communist dictatorship in Vietnam was CAUSED by colonialism in Vietnam.

That's absurd victim-blaming. The communist dictatorship in Vietnam was created by the anti-colonialists.

[Imperializt Russia]

The communist dictatorship in Vietnam was CAUSED by colonialism in Vietnam.

That's absurd victim-blaming. The communist dictatorship in Vietnam was created by the anti-colonialists.

"Vietnam" wasn't a country until after the communist movement began, as a reaction to continued colonial rule.
Because it was French Indochina then.

[Novus America]

People also want some freedom too.

Which means what? Is there freedom in Vietnam, a communist dictatorship, because the despots happen to be yellow instead of white? Is someone in the US today freer than one hundred years ago, when there was no NSA, no CIA, no income tax?

The "freedom" anti-colonialists are talking about is ephemeral, having almost no connection to daily life or actual range of personal choices. In the more standard definition of the term, there's a lot less freedom in the Third World than there was in the colonies.

And the wars are less risky now. Which is a good thing. No more massive wars. No more seven years war type shit. No more conflicts exploding into world wars either.

Colonialism resulted in wars. Big wars. Small wars. All kinds of wars.

Rubbish. In the age of colonialism, Europe was beset by war. Nowadays, pretty much anywhere but Europe is beset by war.

Umm the USfreer today than a hundred years ago. Women and souhern blacks can vote now.
And you again go massively generalizing the Third World. It is again not some war plagued heart of darkness for the most part, abeit with exceptions.

No. Most of the world today is not beset by war. At all. Just a few places.

And the colonial wars were inside and outside of Europe both!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_war#Wars

Huge numbers of small colonial wars as well as massive wars were fought during the colonial era

[Novus America]

We gave them the chance to choose and they chose Karzai, a radical Islamist.

The difference between Karzai and the Taliban is that the Taliban will execute you for not being Muslim whereas Karzai will commute the sentence to life imprisonment.

If we were to impose Western values, rather than just political structures, it would be against the will of the population and would encounter a lot of resistance.

Because societal change does not, and can not, occur over fucking night.

The Soviets learned this in Afghanistan.

And the US in Iraq.

[Imperializt Russia]

Which means what? Is there freedom in Vietnam, a communist dictatorship, because the despots happen to be yellow instead of white? Is someone in the US today freer than one hundred years ago, when there was no NSA, no CIA, no income tax?

The "freedom" anti-colonialists are talking about is ephemeral, having almost no connection to daily life or actual range of personal choices. In the more standard definition of the term, there's a lot less freedom in the Third World than there was in the colonies.


Rubbish. In the age of colonialism, Europe was beset by war. Nowadays, pretty much anywhere but Europe is beset by war.

Umm the USfreer today than a hundred years ago. Women and souhern blacks can vote now.

And poor whites.

[Genivaria]

The communist dictatorship in Vietnam was CAUSED by colonialism in Vietnam.

That's absurd victim-blaming. The communist dictatorship in Vietnam was created by the anti-colonialists.

As a response to colonialism yes.
And it's not victim blaming, it's mugger blaming.

Your precious precious colonialism is the mugger here.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because societal change does not, and can not, occur over fucking night.

The Soviets learned this in Afghanistan.

And the US in Iraq.

I'd argue we still haven't.

In Afghanistan it's more important because until the Taliban arrived as an organised militant force, the major resistance were peasant farmers who objected to these foreigners imposing their modern ways of life.

[Thermodolia]

Umm the USfreer today than a hundred years ago. Women and souhern blacks can vote now.

And poor whites.

Don't forget that gays can get married.

[Alexiandra]

No. The only way the US wins its war against extremism is by fostering viable partnerships with trustworthy allies on the ground.

[HMS Vanguard]

Which means what? Is there freedom in Vietnam, a communist dictatorship, because the despots happen to be yellow instead of white? Is someone in the US today freer than one hundred years ago, when there was no NSA, no CIA, no income tax?

The "freedom" anti-colonialists are talking about is ephemeral, having almost no connection to daily life or actual range of personal choices. In the more standard definition of the term, there's a lot less freedom in the Third World than there was in the colonies.


Rubbish. In the age of colonialism, Europe was beset by war. Nowadays, pretty much anywhere but Europe is beset by war.

Umm the USfreer today than a hundred years ago. Women and souhern blacks can vote now.

Which no doubt brings to them tremendous psychic joy. But actual, practical freedom?

And you again go massively generalizing the Third World. It is again not some war plagued heart of darkness for the most part, abeit with exceptions.

No. Most of the world today is not beset by war. At all. Just a few places.

And the colonial wars were inside and outside of Europe both!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_war#Wars

Huge numbers of small colonial wars as well as massive wars were fought during the colonial era

Yes, there are always small wars. Lumping of colonialism with WWI and WWII, as if the one caused the other, is absurd. European wars had European causes and were mostly confined to Europe. The Japanese War is the only exception, of course not caused by Europeans, nor European politics, and officially anti-colonialist.

The era of mass devastation in the Third World however does not begin until the second half of the twentieth century when the anti-colonialists get their claws into Africa and East Asia. There is no colonial equivalent of Mao's hungry ghosts or Pol Pot's Killing Fields. Zimbabwe and Congo Free State can be compared, but at least there was only one Congo Free State, and the colonialists didn't go backwards. 1950-1980 is the Third World's 1914-1945.

[Genivaria]

Umm the USfreer today than a hundred years ago. Women and souhern blacks can vote now.

Which no doubt brings to them tremendous psychic joy. But actual, practical freedom?

What the fuck is 'freedom' to you anyway?

[HMS Vanguard]

That's absurd victim-blaming. The communist dictatorship in Vietnam was created by the anti-colonialists.

As a response to colonialism yes.
And it's not victim blaming, it's mugger blaming.

Your precious precious colonialism is the mugger here.

Your argument is on the lines of blaming Woodrow Wilson for the Holocaust.

[Genivaria]

As a response to colonialism yes.
And it's not victim blaming, it's mugger blaming.

Your precious precious colonialism is the mugger here.

Your argument is on the lines of blaming Woodrow Wilson for the Holocaust.

You...don't do this logic thing very well do you?

[HMS Vanguard]

Which no doubt brings to them tremendous psychic joy. But actual, practical freedom?

What the fuck is 'freedom' to you anyway?

Security of person and property.

Freedom is not political power. If your goal is political power for this or that ethnic group, then yes, Vietnam is more free than it was a few decades ago, despite the fact that its government maintains power by precisely the same methods (shooting protesters - oh but that's impossible and can never work!). If freedom means the ability to work, own what you earn, and live in peace with others, communism was a massive step backwards, and Vietnamese are only recently slowly recovering the freedom the French gave them.

[Imperializt Russia]

As a response to colonialism yes.
And it's not victim blaming, it's mugger blaming.

Your precious precious colonialism is the mugger here.

Your argument is on the lines of blaming Woodrow Wilson for the Holocaust.

Wilson's 14 points weren't really taken on board as I recall, as the European powers had a massive hard-on for their own punitive justice.
One can blame, relatively directly, the Treaty of Versailles for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party. There's a lot of coincidental, tangential bollocks along the way without which they wouldn't have gotten there - but the ToV is their basis. Blaming the Holocaust on any of them is absurd since the Holocaust was only formally considered in about 1942.

Since the communist guerillas were a direct response to French colonial rule, it is entirely reasonable to "blame" colonialism for the communist regime that now rules Vietnam.

[HMS Vanguard]

Your argument is on the lines of blaming Woodrow Wilson for the Holocaust.

You...don't do this logic thing very well do you?

Far be it from me to argue logic with someone who has almost forty thousand posts on NationStates General, you are blaming colonialism for the actions of its enemies, on grounds that if colonialism just surrendered on day 1 maybe its enemies needn't have been so horrible. Which is exactly the same as to say that, had Wilson not brought America into WWI, Germany would have won it and there would have been no Holocaust. It's possible that that's not even true, but assuming it is, doesn't make anything like the moral case you are trying to make. As I said, simply absurd.