This is the thing- when you or I say “Imperialist”, we think of The British Empire, with the attendant Tea & Scones, spot of Cricket, and maybe some Safari Hunting after lunch.
It seems when people in the US say “Imperialist”, they’re thinking of something involving burning down villages, kicking puppies, and stealing oil from people whose names don’t have vowels in them.
I know the British Empire wasn’t all kitten-cuddling, tennis-playing, tea-sipping, and reading The Times, but I still think that the basic idea is sound, provided the Colonies had self-representation in the Imperial Parliament, Universal Suffrage, and at least one of them had me as Governor-General or Viceroy.
I wear a pith helmet anyway, at least when I’m out hunting or at the rifle range.
Steam Locomotives and Tea Wallahs are sadly lacking from modern society, though. Hmmm… perhaps I should start a Neo-Imperialist party for the next federal election?
*The Neo-British Imperialist Party promises:
*Redrawing of all maps of Africa and South-East Asia to reflect the status and names thereof c. 1928
*Re-introduction of Steam Locomotives for all Inter-City Rail Services
*Re-introduction of Flying Boats for all flights to Exotic Locations
*Portraits of His Majesty King Martini I on the walls of all Government Departments, Post Offices, and Schools
*Subsidised Big Game Hunting Safaris to Africa and India
*A return of Trams to city streets
And more!
No, I can’t see it happening realistically myself, either.
Yes, there should not have been the invasion. We agree. But once the cork was popped off the bottle, once Saddam was ousted, the sectarian differences within Iraq came to the fore and bubbled over. It’s the same reason why Britain felt the place was such a morass before World War II, only on a grander scale: Iraq is an artificially created patchwork quilt of a nation.
I’m not convinced the troops are still there to save lives or help Iraqi’s rebuild their country. The political assertions are ringing hollow. The West has no business being in there – their police action is creating more havoc than it quells.
As I said – you’re entitled to your opinion. But I still think that the West, at long last, should start getting the hell out of there.
However, I agree with you on this: our opinions, either way, matter diddly-squat. It’s up to those politicians now.
Man, I’m the first to admit we rarely agree on anything. But in many ways this is pretty much my take on anything to do with politics lately. (Lately meaning about the past year or so.)
We can all argue and stammer and pound our fists, but in the end it does little to change anything. A vote is nice and all, but if the vote were so strong, what’s with all the specialized groups in every free society? Power follows power, and we all seem to be along for the ride.
Something semi-amusing (and I’m guilty of it as well) is how, at least in the US, there are 200 million people that all think they have the answer. Just take a sampling of posts on this board pointing out what needs to be done regarding Iraq. If anyone had the answer they’d be too busy to post here.
Are we to understand that your beliefs are pretty much represented by this sentence, minus the last clause?
Because if so, it probably ought to be pointed out that those things, well, didn’t happen. There’s not much benefit to having an empire if you allow your colonies the right of self-determination. They invariably decide they don’t want you stealing their resources anymore, see?
You might as well say you’re a Communist who believes the whole thing would have worked if only the individual hadn’t become so damned lazy without a profit motive.
I hereby nominate this as The Best Question Ever Asked. On the Straight Dope, That Is.
Sorry, I must decline the nomination, on the technical issue of having omitted the last phrase of the hypothetical internal quotation, which was ‘then I won’t support the war.’
PRR will do, NRATB. God do I ever hate having to get into nonsense defending having a long user name and wasting more keystrokes dealing with that stupid issue than I would have if I just had a more sensible username, I mean I really hate that stuff, maybe I can find another user name that’s shorter, but that will also require some work, oh woe is me, life is so hard sometimes
Yes, I’m serious. The whole “Let’s all wear Pith Helmets and enjoy a cruise on a Night Boat to Cairo” thing is tongue in cheek, but I do think that the basic idea behind Imperialism can be made to work, albeit more on a “Overseas Department” system similar what the French use (ie, the overseas territory is basically treated as part of the mother country, which just happens to be overseas), rather than the “Europeans show up, shoot the Natives, and nick their country” (with apologies to Capt. Blackadder, as already referenced) system…
Of course you stand by your opinion. It seems a common psychological defense mechanism of conservatives to presume that “If we’ve made a mistake, it is excused by the ‘fact’ that the other side has made equally significant mistakes.”
I refer you to the thread I mentioned previously. It was started in April of 2003, and reflects, in my opinion, the growing sense that Bush was full of shit in his statements about the presence of WMD. This may be summarized in the thread title, in the sense that “going out on a limb” indicates that the person is hesitatingly advancing a position that is not yet strongly believed or well supported. It also illustrates that, unlike your assertion, there was no clear sense among liberals that there were no WMD, and nothing at all of any sort of presumption to that effect.
Please let me know how this can be explained away in your model of the way things were.
Quite the stroll down memory lane, there, Hentor. I especially loved the part where Sam Stone offered to bet $20 Canadian that WMD would be found within a month.
Personally, I’d rephrase that to “a common psychological denfence of people…”
In any event, I’m not using said defence, because I had no need for it. I have no need for it because I wasn’t sure there were WMDs in Iraq before the war. Yes, I thought it more likely than not, but I wasn’t sure. I believe I can hold my head high and be marginally proud of that, unlike the people ON BOTH SIDES who would swear blind they knew one way or the other. How could they?
But you fudge the all-important factor of doubt. (Though you would be hard pressed to find anyone, of any political stripe, who openly stated that they were sure there were no WMD. You have no such examples, please stop pretending that you do.)
Doubt is the substantial point, there was doubt. The Bushiviks went into frothing fits every time such doubt was raised (as witness the numerous insinuations about the inspectors, and the foul and disgraceful campaign against Scott Ritter, as iron-ass a Marine lifer as was ever born…)
So, by effect, they placed themselves as contending that there was no such doubt, by denying it at every opportunity. As well they might, the case for aggressive war was that it was pre-emptive war, based on a grave, gathering, and imminent threat. Otherwise, it is nothing more than simple aggression. A crime on an international scale, according to the principles we purport to hold dear.
