egafd.com

Well, we have our spats, Mr Johnson and I, there are times when he drives
me mad....though not as mad as he does Jim Slip....but this time round,
David, let me compliment you on your detailed summing up on Anglo-Afghan
history and the messy current war. You are, in my opinion, 100% spot on !!
I would just add for Zorro and some of the others defending our presence
there (I think, rather naively), that they fail to grasp anything about Afghan
tribal society, (I am not talking the big towns here). It is true that in the
1940s and 1950s this was relatively civilized and even Western looking in
Kabul, but little had changed in the provinces even then. Understand that
despite the good intentions of the British and Americans in general (and
trying not to be cynical), Afghans will always view us as "unclean", as "un-
believers" and want us out of their country at any price. History always has
clear lessons; with Afghanistan, as far as USA and Britain are concerned, it
is a no win situation.....

The first time we interfered with Afghan affairs (1838-42) the outcome for us was even worse, with the almost total annihilation of our occupying force as it and its camp followers retreated to the Khyber Pass.

The number of deaths from the 1st World War was over 15 million.. There was a similar number of injured.

Presumably you would describe this in terms of
"Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price." as you do re. the Afghan war.

"Given that it was the beginning of the end for European empires and expansionism"

Completely wrong.

At the end of the Ist World War, in Africa, Britain and France divided German Kamerun (Cameroons) and Togoland. Belgium gained Ruanda-Urundi in northwestern German East Africa, Great Britain obtained by far the greater landmass of this colony, thus gaining the ?missing link? in the chain of British possessions stretching from South Africa to Egypt (Cape to Cairo), Portugal received the Kionga Triangle, a sliver of German East Africa. German South West Africa was annexed to the Union of South Africa. The majority of the African colonies within the British Empire did not receive independence to the 1960's, nearly 50 years after the 1st World War.

"You're talking of the settlement, not the war."

The huge number of deaths in the First World War led to a desire to punish severely the Germans. The severity of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles was a key factor in the rise of Hitler. Without the First World War, no settlement. The two are inextricably linked.

Your views are remarkably naive. No wonder you were such a fervent supporter of Nick Clegg..... at least before the election.

You support the invasion of Libya even though the actions of the Allies bears absolutely no relation to the original UN resolution and only the civilians on the side of the goodies have been protected.

You supported the invasion of Iraq even despite the completely discredited reason for going to war i.e. weapons of mass destruction.

You support the war in Afghanisatan despite sharing implicitly numerous misconceptions that Zorro has about Afghanistan and Afghan society.

Both naive and simplistic, your views are hopelessly inaccurate and have limited credibility.

Cheers
D

My grandfather fought the Afghans over 100 years ago and said we would never beat them. They enjoy fighting and guns rule their society. A Western version of peace is simply not in their way of life.

You are too kind, sir.

[quote]The number of deaths from the 1st World War was over 15 million.. There was a similar number of injured.

Presumably you would describe this in terms of
"Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price." as you do re. the Afghan war.[/quote]

Absolutely.

[quote]"Given that it was the beginning of the end for European empires and expansionism"

Completely wrong.

At the end of the Ist World War, in Africa, Britain and France divided German Kamerun (Cameroons) and Togoland. Belgium gained Ruanda-Urundi in northwestern German East Africa, Great Britain obtained by far the greater landmass of this colony, thus gaining the ?missing link? in the chain of British possessions stretching from South Africa to Egypt (Cape to Cairo), Portugal received the Kionga Triangle, a sliver of German East Africa. German South West Africa was annexed to the Union of South Africa. The majority of the African colonies within the British Empire did not receive independence to the 1960's, nearly 50 years after the 1st World War.[/quote]

Which is why I chose my wording carefully. I said 'beginning of the end of European expansionism' not 'the end of European expansionism'. Given that Europeans were colonising half the globe for nigh on 400 years at that time then I'd say the last 50 years was 'the beginning of the end'. I reiterate my belief that the first world war was the beginning of the end of European expansionism and that without the great war many African and Asian nations would have had to wait longer than 50 years to gain independence (if at all had the German and Ottoman empires prevailed).

[quote]"You're talking of the settlement, not the war."

The huge number of deaths in the First World War led to a desire to punish severely the Germans. The severity of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles was a key factor in the rise of Hitler. Without the First World War, no settlement. The two are inextricably linked.[/quote]

I don't see where you're going with this. The treaty may have been a mistake but it doesn't make the cause 15 million people died for worthless. In the end it was worth it. If you think differently then I must assume you think it would have been better had we let the 2nd Reich and the Ottomans do as they pleased......which would have meant enslaving all of Europe, Africa and most of Asia; I must assume you think despotic monarchies controlling Europe instead of British-styled democracies is tolerable and not worth fighting against. I find that thoughtless and it whiffs of a man who takes the freedoms and privileges he now enjoys for granted. If you wish to be a slave then that's your prerogative. I, on the other hand, do not and am immensely thankful of what previous generations gave up so I can live the life I now am doing.

[quote]Your views are remarkably naive. No wonder you were such a fervent supporter of Nick Clegg..... at least before the election.[/quote]

No, you're the naive one. You wouldn't be able to argue politics and about who you should and shouldn't vote for under the despotic rule of the 2nd Reich, David. Our masters would have had it all sorted out for us and it saved 15 million lives!*

[quote]Both naive and simplistic, your views are hopelessly inaccurate and have limited credibility.[/quote]

Hardly. The naivety comes from a man free to say almost anything he wants, have sex with almost anyone he wants, pray to whomever he wishes and freely read 99% of every book ever written..........but none of it was worth fighting for. The simplicity comes from the man who says 'killing bad, living good'. The credibility goes to the men who fought and died for what we both have, David. I realise that more than you, I feel.



* I think that avoiding a war with the 2nd Reich and the Ottomans wouldn't have saved 15 million lives, or the lives of those killed leading up to, and including the 2nd World War. Both the Ottoman and German empires were deeply -due to religion- anti-semitic. Their views on black Africans were light years behind the older colonial powers too. Especially the Turks who were in their own right as big a trader in slaves as any of the Portuguese, Belgians, British and French. I believe Hitler got away with killing so many Jews in Europe because Christendom had blamed the 'devious Jews' for killing their Messiah for a good thousand years or so. I believe the Jews would have been completely eradicated from Europe and the Middle East, by hook or by crook and if not that then easily far more than 15 million would have died. I also believe that a confrontation with Russia, at the very least, was unavoidable. Russia fighting alone would have meant a far higher figure for the dead than the total the allied effort came to.

Again, you're free (aren't you lucky?) to believe differently, but you underestimated me if you thought I hadn't put much thought into why I think the way I do about the wars I've supported.

I really can't believe you don't realise that the 2nd Reich and Ottoman empires wouldn't have killed many more people than 15 million, had we not stood up to them. Have you put much thought into the consequences of losing that war? I mean, really?

"Which is why I chose my wording carefully in terms of stating Given that it was the beginning of the end for European empires and expansionism"

Not carefully enough, obviously. The fact that the allies expanded their empires at the end of the 1st World War was obviously not the beginning of the end. This is beyond question no matter how much you struggle with the typical Slater pedantry.

A more sensible choice of the beginning of the end would have been the Second World War, the end of which was swiftly followed by Indian independence and then a whole host of independence for African countries in the sixties.

"I don't see where you're going with this."

It's obvious for those of us, who, unlike yourself, understand that there are often a whole host of unintended consequences from wars. The First World War and the settlement at Versailles was a key factor in the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.

THe way in which you talk like someone who has just watched a bunch of John Wayne films back to back and come out with guff like "If you wish to be a slave then that's your prerogative" to defend a whole range of foreign adventures whether it be Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. is silly.

You remind me of George Bush in a flying jacket on an American warship claiming "Mission accomplished" and then the Iraqis experienced years and years of utter mayhem. Naive and simplistic!


"I think that avoiding a war with the 2nd Reich and the Ottomans wouldn't have saved 15 million lives," "I really can't believe you don't realise that the 2nd Reich and Ottoman empires wouldn't have killed many more people than 15 million,

Pathetic child-like guesswork masquerading as intelligent discussion

Cheers
D

Given your response to my comment about how you feel about the Afghan war (see below)

Presumably you would describe this in terms of
"Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price." as you do re. the Afghan war.


Absolutely.


perhaps you can answer the question

What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?

Cheers
D

[quote]Not carefully enough, obviously. The fact that the allies expanded their empires at the end of the 1st World War was obviously not the beginning of the end. This is beyond question no matter how much you struggle with the typical Slater pedantry.[/quote]

Typical Slater pedantry? You always get personal when irritable. You'll start talking about how many posts I've contributed, next, highlighting how many threads I've started and everything. I'd argue it WAS the beginning of the end in that the European nations had spent so much effort and resources into the war that they could no longer hold on to their territories abroad. The carving up of German-held African colonies was just easy pickings. They weren't held for long, really.

[quote]A more sensible choice of the beginning of the end would have been the Second World War,[/quote]

Nah. A more sensible choice of words would be 'final nail in the coffin'. One could more soundly argue that the beginning of the end, at least for British Empire, was losing the War of Independence. Like building an empire, losing one is a process. And as you point out, without the first world war we may not have had a second, thus the old European empires still holding on to certain territories. Even if you're right, the precursor was the first world war and thus: 'beginning of the end'. You thought I meant 'end of empire' not 'beginning of the end of empire' and you're trying to wheedle your way out of it. Be more careful.

[quote]It's obvious for those of us, who, unlike yourself, understand that there are often a whole host of unintended consequences from wars. The First World War and the settlement at Versailles was a key factor in the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.[/quote]

So you keep saying and to which I've answered with my own thoughts on why this isn't relevant regarding the worthiness of that war. If you have other points relevant to the debate then by all means convey them as best you can, but try not to repeat yourself.

[quote]THe way in which you talk like someone who has just watched a bunch of John Wayne films back to back[/quote]

And there we are. This is the level you're bringing it to now?

[quote]You remind me of George Bush in a flying jacket on an American warship claiming "Mission accomplished"[/quote]

Oh, this gets worse! After your John Wayne quip all I need for you to embarrass yourself even more is to come across all hypocritical and call my thoughts and discourse immature or child-like! Imagine if you were to do something as daft as that? I think I'd pee myself.

[quote]Pathetic child-like guesswork...[/quote]

Toilet time!




Now at least come back with something which negates my point about the world being a worse place if the German/Austro and Ottoman despots had actually won that war. Come back with a list of privileges people of all genders, sexualities, colours and religions have now, which you feel are worth giving up to get those 15 million people back. Then we can talk seriously because as I've said already, you smack of a man who takes his rights and freedoms for granted.

[quote]What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?[/quote]

At the moment? Education for girls is the one that sticks out the most. And, yes, I think that one thing alone is worth it.