British Colonialism

I think there is some truth in the phrase "American Colonialism" but not in the same way as it was with the British. 9/11 gave America a very public bloody nose, and the American people demanded that something be done about it. So America effectively set itself up as the worlds policeman against international terrorism wherever they determined they saw it. First to pop their head up over the parapet just 6 months later was Saddam Hussein, which led to the Iraq War. They didn't have a UN mandate to invade, but as Bush famously said "No one tells America what to do".

General "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf who died last week was the commander of coalition forces in Desert Storm, the first Gulf War in 1990-91. He liberated Kuwait from Iraqi forces, and then wanted to carry on into Baghdad saying "Let me finish the job". But he was over ruled and told, you have done what you were sent out to do. Many still say that if he had been given permission to carry on, the second Iraq war, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in 2003, wouldn't have happened.

There have been many noises about Irans nuclear capability, and I suspect it is only a matter of time, and when not if, the USA and a coalition force invade. They also aren't happy about North Korea, but I would think they would be a bit more wary of that conflict, given Russian and Chinese interests. But nevertheless Americas activities continue with "Operation Enduring Freedom" under the umbrella of the Global "War on Terror" (GWOT).

So in a way America is trying to colonise parts of the world, by wanting to instigate a change by various countries to an American led, peaceful way of life. That is a bit different to British colonialism where the main thrust was for our benefit, not so much for the locals. Although as I have said in other threads, nearly all previous British colonies have gone markedly downhill after they were given their independence. Notably Uganda and Idi Amin, and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia)and Mugabe.

Is this somehow more than what the rest of the world does? Or why are we singling out the USA? Is Madison Avenue that advanced?

Ah, the shoe's on the other foot now is it? As the OP, you singled out Britain!

Sirius can you allow anyone to answer, or must you attempt to start flames with every new post?

I see threads like this one as flame bait. We cannot change history, & can only learn from it. That's the problem, we're not, especially with individuals doing their best to rake up the past.

especially with individuals doing their best to rake up the past.

Here you go...a great reference guide for USA & UK....

Reference

Power Shift

New kid on the block the US don't like
____________

Quite useful links, thanks.

A prosperous 2013 to all our posters, and let us learn from history and the mistakes made. Especially in recognising the way things are done in the target country, rather than the way we do things

____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Although as I have said in other threads, nearly all previous British colonies have gone markedly downhill after they were given their independence. Notably Uganda and Idi Amin, and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia)and Mugabe.

By whose standards and whose viewpoint?

How were they doing before you came along?

How much resources, e.g. labour and minerals did you steal from them? Did you even attempt to pay market rate? Did you even attempt to find the owner to pay them?

Is what followed worse or simply a continuation of the standards you taught them?

US-Panama Crisis

"Why was it difficult for a superpower country to take on a small Latin American dictatorship? Why did US coercive measures short of intervention fail to oust him?"

Spanish - American War {Cuba)

"U.S. interest in purchasing Cuba had begun long before 1898. Following the Ten Years War, American sugar interests bought up large tracts of land in Cuba. Alterations in the U.S. sugar tariff favoring home-grown beet sugar helped foment the rekindling of revolutionary fervor in 1895. By that time the U.S. had more than $50 million invested in Cuba and annual trade, mostly in sugar, was worth twice that much. Fervor for war had been growing in the United States, despite President Grover Cleveland's proclamation of neutrality on June 12, 1895"

The 1st Vietnam - US Philippine War

"It is ironic that it has taken half a century and the remarkably similar situation in Indochina to re-focus attention on the Philippine struggle for national liberation against the forces of American imperial aggression"

Amazing what such a young nation of only 236 years of age has done - trying to emulate the "Old World" then?

So when your standards fail, blame the "Old World" for influencing your standards? How infantile!
____________

........how were they doing when their overlords were busy beating and raping their women with bottles and castrating their men with pliers? Is what followed worse or simply a continuation of the standards you taught them?

If people want to be critical about colonialisation and exploitation then I would expect them to at least mention the person who used "his" colony as his personal money box.

King Leopold II of Belgium

How much resources, e.g. labour and minerals did you steal from them? Did you even attempt to pay market rate? Did you even attempt to find the owner to pay them?

What rubbish have you been reading?

Is what followed worse or simply a continuation of the standards you taught them?

That is manifestly untrue and you know it.

When we had an Empire the world was a better place. You might not like that, and you probably won't, tough, but it was. Yes, and we didn't always behave in the best way that we could have, we all know that and accept it. But your anti British rant is a bit unusual for you. So I will put it down to an excess of New year imbibing.

If you want an example today, look at Tibet.

Here in the USA, we unfortunately succeeded in converting the natives. They gave up. In many ways they and we are much worse off for it. In some limited other ways they are better off. Now they are the professors writing the history books. Because of this the books aren't myopic one sided accounts of guts, glory and white man's burden. They tell the truth about the horrific repression that colonialism imposes on the natives. Something likely lacking in the British school system. They tell the truth about the theft of resources, the destruction of nature and all the other things the colonizer sucks out of the land and people for the profit motive.

If you want an example today, look at Tibet.



While we may be dependent sovereigns I am a proud member of the OSAGE NATION

as well as a US citizen. You need look no farther than the url link for my account.

Many tribe's have survived, those that take the least from the fed are doing

the best.

And I would not mind being a colonial as well as long as I have to pay no new

tax's and am not expected to pay attention to the royal family :)

____________

I suspect it is true. A little tribal warfare under their pre-British rules isn't the same as the cold efficiency of the Red Coats.

Who in 1812 were friends of the native Americans and who were not?

Who in 1812 were friends of the native Americans and who were not?

Who in 1812 were friends of the native Americans and who were not?

any one born in a county is a native, but if you mean Indians

than not vary many manifest destiny meant that you could do a lot that

would normally be called bad and call it good with the wight population

cheering like all though's nice blanket's the cherokee got, shame that they came

from smallpox patients?