egafd.com

Then you have unreliable sources !laugh!

Yes, well.....*shrugs shoulders*.....I'll waste no more time trying to work out where you actually stand!

It was Cleggie's missus wot told me you were useless! He spent all his time going on about needing decking, she said, rather than attending to me.

[img]http://www.capitalcarpentry.com/images/decking2.jpg[/img]

Cheers
D

Cleggie's missus is Spanish. She got mixed up when I was talking about 'getting wood'.

But enough about my sexual conquests - there are one or two it upsets. !laugh!

But the 18th and 19th century land grabs by the European powers in Africa and Asia was not the same thing. Such expansionism wasn't one country interfering in the affairs of another with the intention of protecting some of that country's citizens from their own government or other malevolent forces or to restore law, order and stability to a particular country or region. Besides, rarely were there established administrations with well defined borders similar to nation states, in the areas grabbed. We had any number of instances of gun-boat diplomacy, not always associated with empire building as as such, but usually intended to protect our interests in that or other areas. For instance we shelled ports on Persia's coasts (mid 19th c.) to let the Shah know we were unhappy about his intentions towards southern Afghanistan. I have tried to think of altruistic 'police'actions from those days. We had two 19th c. goes at installing monarchs in Afghanistan that we thought would be popular with the locals, with no intention of staying too long.

Andy, you say

"But the 18th and 19th century land grabs by the European powers in Africa and Asia was not the same thing. Such expansionism wasn't one country interfering in the affairs of another with the intention of protecting some of that country's citizens from their own government or other malevolent forces or to restore law, order and stability to a particular country or region."

I am not saying that invading an African country in the 19th Century is the same as invading Libya.

Lizard's main point is as follows,
"I will explain my views more clearly, so you can try and understand. It doesn't matter which country is involved, take any! if it's possible for a UN or NATO or any other force to get involved, thereby saving massive loss of life, then they should. This invariably means using great force against the agressor, however, when you can't see the agressor, as in Rwanda and some of the other country's you mentioned, it's almost impossible, as there are no command and control systems to take out, this is especially true in African states."

What I am saying is I don't believe Lizard's point is correct. You can invade and control countries without them having a sophisticated command and control system. This is true irrespective of whether your objective is to merely take over the country for your own purposes or for an humanitarian purpose. And it has happened throughout history.

Cheers
D

I don't think we need a history lesson.However,regardless of political view,you should support our Service people,when going in harms way.After all they are protecting you too!

" I don't think we need a history lesson.However,regardless of political view,you should support our Service people,when going in harms way.After all they are protecting you too!
"

First, the question I was answering was about history so it is difficult to reply without talking about history. I have a great deal of respect for army personnel. They risk and on occasions give their lives. My father spent 11 years in the armed forces. That respect doesn't necessarily involve having to support all the wars that politicians send the Services into. It isn't Service people who make the choice as to which wars they get involved in.

Well, not as far as I am concerned away.

Cheers
D