Girl raped and hanged!

[Grunwalder]

Which is [cultural imposition] something I am strongly against.

Funny thing is, THAT opposition is a matter
of morals. 

I'm the poster boy for isolationism and non-intervention.

Culturally, economically, and militarily.

Or, as many people have called me, a pig-headed putz.

 

[Balinux]

Let them evolve on their own damn it! Otherwise how can they have social pride? As long as their history is : the Americans came and instored good order to our natural caos,...  They will not be happy and they will revolt. And then war, war, war,...

 

[TheSlightFeelingOfRegret]

Let them evolve on their own damn it! Otherwise how can they have social pride? As long as their history is : the Americans came and instored good order to our natural chaos,...  They will not be happy and they will revolt. And then war, war, war,...

Not necessarily. There are still many people in Borneo who would prefer to be under British colonial rule. The Falkland islands were defended by Margaret Thatcher (Well, not personally; she had to spend her time suppressing miners, more's the pity) in the 1980s and the inhabitants of that island are still very much pro-Britain.

And "As long as their history is : the Americans came and instored good order to our natural chaos,...  They will not be happy and they will revolt." to be honest if I was african I would be happy with that situation (probably, of course i can't say for sure) I can still remember how the tribes lived in the past without having to worry about the neighbours turning up with the intention of hacking me to death.

 

[Balinux]

Im talking about imperialism everywhere, noone likes being under foreign rule. And that situation is usualy solved by war.

 

[Archonsod]

The Falkland islands were defended by Margaret Thatcher (Well, not personally;

Of course not, deployment of Margaret Thatcher anywhere would be a Crime Against Humanity.

Im talking about imperialism everywhere, noone likes being under foreign rule. And that situation is usualy solved by war.

Actually, 99% of people really couldn't give a **** who's in charge. It's when they start imposing taxes, throwing them in prison or otherwise interfering with their daily lives that they get uppity. In fact, unless you announced it you could probably quite easily take over any country without a hitch.

Of course, you can always exterminate the native population too. Tends to put the kibosh on any would be rebellions.

 

[Grunwalder]

Let them evolve on their own damn it! Otherwise how can they have social pride? As long as their history is : the Americans came and instored good order to our natural chaos,...  They will not be happy and they will revolt. And then war, war, war,...

Not necessarily. There are still many people in Borneo who would prefer to be under British colonial rule. The Falkland islands were defended by Margaret Thatcher (Well, not personally; she had to spend her time suppressing miners, more's the pity) in the 1980s and the inhabitants of that island are still very much pro-Britain.

And "As long as their history is : the Americans came and instored good order to our natural chaos,...  They will not be happy and they will revolt." to be honest if I was african I would be happy with that situation (probably, of course i can't say for sure) I can still remember how the tribes lived in the past without having to worry about the neighbours turning up with the intention of hacking me to death.

The Falkland Islands are also coincidentally British territory, and the population is of 70% British descent, most of whom have migrated there within the past 120 years. They have nothing to really hate the Crown for.

And Borneo is the best you could come up with? I think most would prefer the restoration of the Brunei Sultunate, when the people of Borneo were actually worth a darn in their own neighborhood.

Whereas, world over, 99% of places that were colonized over the extent of human civilization at one point or another, were willing to take up arms, and did, everytime, at least once, in the period of their colonization. Korea, Algeria, Morocco, Kenya, Ethiopia, China, Russia, the Western Hemisphere[ outside of Belieze and French Guyana], India, Ceylon, Afghanistan, Judea, Turkey, Armenia; a list that could take up another thousand lines. People despise overlords. They'd rather be abused by a leader of their own people than a foreign one.

 

[Bellum]

Not the first time I've heard of **** like from that country.

 

[Archonsod]

In most cases it's specific abuse by the rulers which cause a country to rise up, not the mere fact that they're colonised. Britain itself was once divided into twelve sovereign nations, but you don't see anyone campaigning for Mercian independence.

 

[TheSlightFeelingOfRegret]

Let them evolve on their own damn it! Otherwise how can they have social pride? As long as their history is : the Americans came and instored good order to our natural chaos,...  They will not be happy and they will revolt. And then war, war, war,...

Not necessarily. There are still many people in Borneo who would prefer to be under British colonial rule. The Falkland islands were

The Falkland Islands are also coincidentally British territory, and the population is of 70% British descent, most of whom have migrated there within the past 120 years. They have nothing to really hate the Crown for.

And Borneo is the best you could come up with? I think most would prefer the restoration of the Brunei Sultunate, when the people of Borneo were actually worth a darn in their own neighborhood.

Whereas, world over, 99% of places that were colonized over the extent of human civilization at one point or another, were willing to take up arms, and did, everytime, at least once, in the period of their colonization. Korea, Algeria, Armenia; a list that could take up another thousand lines. People despise overlords. They'd rather be abused by a leader of their own people than a foreign one.

What's your point about the Falkland Islands? Yes they are mostly British and yes they have no reason to hate Britain but they clearly weren't originally British. I'd like to see the tectonic movement that could cause a bit of Britain to end up next to Argentina (but I wouldn't like to see it too close up.) If you limit your list of examples to "colonies that have a reason to hate their colonisers" then I'm on to a loser here.

What I am saying is: it depends how the situation is handled. If the colonising army approaches the new colony with the opinion that the natives are inferior people, as was the case with a lot of historic colonies, then things are clearly going to get heated, quickly. People may hate overlords, but they only grumble about governments. The difference between the two isn't just the spelling.

 

[Grunwalder]

What I am saying is: it depends how the situation is handled. If the colonising army approaches the new colony with the opinion that the natives are inferior people, as was the case with a lot of historic colonies, then things are clearly going to get heated, quickly. People may hate overlords, but they only grumble about governments. The difference between the two isn't just the spelling.

People only grumble about governments?

When did that start?

colonies that have a reason to hate their colonisers

Which is where you come to the point that there are very few colonies in history that have had no reason not to. Racism, culture, what-have-you.

 

[Bulle]

This is why I prefer Qatar.

 

[Raelzak]

What I am saying is: it depends how the situation is handled. If the colonising army approaches the new colony with the opinion that the natives are inferior people, as was the case with a lot of historic colonies, then things are clearly going to get heated, quickly. People may hate overlords, but they only grumble about governments. The difference between the two isn't just the spelling.

People only grumble about governments?

When did that start?

colonies that have a reason to hate their colonisers

Which is where you come to the point that there are very few colonies in history that have had no reason not to. Racism, culture, what-have-you.

English Civil War, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the American Civil War was just a lot of grumbling, there was no hate there.

edit: figure I should through in a /sarcasm, that almost looks serious.

 

[calandale]

People despise overlords. They'd rather be abused by a leader of their own people than a foreign one.

Never really understood this.
War is TERRIBLE for the common
folk. Much worse than most subjugations.

What's your point about the Falkland Islands? Yes they are mostly British and yes they have no reason to hate Britain but they clearly weren't originally British. I'd like to see the tectonic movement that could cause a bit of Britain to end up next to Argentina (but I wouldn't like to see it too close up.) If you limit your list of examples to "colonies that have a reason to hate their colonisers" then I'm on to a loser here.

Uhm, there was NO ONE there, when colonized.
And, they don't have the power to defend themselves
against the claims of Argentina, which would certainly
take them, if independent. A COMPLETLY different
culture.

 

[Archonsod]

Which is where you come to the point that there are very few colonies in history that have had no reason not to. Racism, culture, what-have-you.

There are also comparatively few which have taken open revolt as the route to independence, from Rome (most colonies captured by third parties or abandoned) to Britain (most colonies abandoned or granted protectorate status).

 

[Volkier]

Interesting fact now that I come to think of it - the Islam religion is about 300-400 years younger than Christianity, which also went through such an evolution curve. 300 or 400 years back, Christian nations where burning witches and hanging people 'because the priest said so' just the same as what is happening in the Muslim nations right now.

If that theory is correct, then indeed they will grow out of it as people suggested, but I'm still going to guess that the girl, her parents, and pretty much everyone concerned must have felt like their own beliefs have just betrayed them. I might be wrong - but I probably would if that was the case ::\

 

[forksaint]

Interesting fact now that I come to think of it - the Islam religion is about 300-400 years younger than Christianity, which also went through such an evolution curve. 300 or 400 years back, Christian nations where burning witches and hanging people 'because the priest said so' just the same as what is happening in the Muslim nations right now.

Exactly. Our religious leaders were feared for their power and their brutal exhibitions of it. It's not like they were "open for suggestions".
How would they feel if we were to forcibly impose another moral code upon them? Additionally, the people there are confused enough as they are.
We have to wait. It's not wise to go Duke Nukem on people from the Middle Age.

 

[Archonsod]

It's eminently wise. It's probably the only way to get them to leave such idiotic beliefs in the past, where they belong.

 

[forksaint]

It's eminently wise. It's probably the only way to get them to leave such idiotic beliefs in the past, where they belong.

You wouldn't think about the possibility of civil war? What is perfectly clear to us might be seen as the Path of the Devil there.
Violence breeds violence, and we're extremely efficient breeders with our nasty-looking hand cannons and self-sufficient overbearing-ness.
Plus, you can't convert to democracy when you're dead.

 

[The Yogi]

Outrages like this places the Islamic Republic Iran irretrievably outside the community of civilised nations. It's ruled by a clique of ignorant savages.

But the problem here really isn't their culture as such, it's their political system that allows these savages to have their way. Shiite Persians, if anything, tend to be a lot more liberal than say, wahabite Saudis - even with their fundamentalist rule, Iranian women are allowed to have jobs outside of home, drive cars etc. Our good allies the Saudis are much, much worse in these respects.

It's entirely feasible to have a democratic, enlightened regime in Iran without having to go to the extremes of uprooting their entire culture - in fact much more easily so in Iran than say Iraq (because of the ethnic divisions) or Saudi Arabia (there some "uprooting" would probably be necessary). The problem is that as with any nation state, as soon as someone from outside forcibly walks in to settle things, the people tend to rally to the leaders, whatever they might think of them, just like so many non-Nazi Germans rallied around Hitler when WW2 began.

I guess most nationalities would react that way, with the possible exception of Americans, because America is defined to a great extent by a certain set of values, not so much by ethnicity. Many Americans would probably consider an overt Fascist or Communist regime in their country as "unamerican" and gladly help overthrow it. But Americans should realise this is quite uniqe in the world. In most other countries, patriotism, nationality and ethnicity are unseparable.

 

[Archonsod]

Plus, you can't convert to democracy when you're dead.

Why on earth would I want them to convert to Democracy? Replace an ignorant superstition with an idiotic government, I reckon that would most definitely be a no - score draw.

Many Americans would probably consider an overt Fascist or Communist regime in their country as "unamerican" and gladly help overthrow it.

You reckon? They haven't done so yet