4 ms·
>The UK doesn't have some imperialist policy of land grabs It has centuries of exactly that at a global scale, and continued post-war neo-colonial land grabbin
by coldtea 5mo ago
>The UK doesn't have some imperialist policy of land grabs
It has centuries of exactly that at a global scale, and continued post-war neo-colonial land grabbing and pressuring, plus eager participation in all the imperialist games of its larger brother.
I mean, just mentioning "Tony Blair" is enough...
- foldr 5mo agoWhat land did Tony Blair grab? You can disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq without making the exaggerated claim that this was part of some kind of long-term imperialist occupation. The UK currently has fewer military personnel in Iraq than it has in, say, Germany. And Britain doesn’t control the Iraqi government.
- coldtea 5mo ago>What land did Tony Blair grab? You can disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq without making the exaggerated claim that this was part of some kind of long-term imperialist occupation. Yeah, just a few decades years, to secure oil deals and/or keep control of the region. No biggie. That this can be said with a straight face about invasions to two countries that created civil war, suffering, hundreds of thousands of deaths, displacement, etc, is telling of the ever-present colonialist mindset.
- foldr 5mo agoMy post wasn’t defending the Iraq war. It was just pointing out that the war was not a land grab. Iraq is not now a part of the UK or US (in contrast to the situation with Russia and Crimea, for example).
- roenxi 5mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_installations_in_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military... For anyone else interested, negotiations that could lead to the US leaving Iraq and fully returning control to the Iraqi people are also going swimmingly, according to reports.
- foldr 5mo agoThe US military presence in Iraq is already far smaller than its presence in Germany and many other countries. Certainly, the US is a global superpower (albeit a declining one) that exerts influence via its military strength. But Iraq is not occupied by the US any more than Germany is.
- roenxi 5mo agoIf Germany wants the US to leave, do they have to negotiate to get that to happen?
- foldr 5mo agoIt’s hard to say. What would happen if Germany demanded that US forces leave? Germany undoubtedly has the right to do this. I don’t think anyone can say what would happen with any confidence, as it’s quite an outlandish scenario. My guess is that, ultimately, US forces would leave, NATO would collapse, and relations between the US and Germany would decline precipitously. But hey, actions have consequences. This does not mean that Germany cannot get rid of US forces if it wants to; it just means that it doesn’t want to because it would be a bad idea.
- dgroshev 5mo agoSaying that it's the invasions that created civil wars and suffering in Afghanistan and Iraq is just exceptionally ignorant. Here's a taster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Ir... For all their failures, the allies never bombed cities with nerve agents.
- ZeroGravitas 5mo agoYour page says: > Saddam committed crimes of aggression during the Iran–Iraq War Which links to a page about the war: > Iraq was aided by [...] the United States, the United Kingdom, > After years of military and economic losses, decreasing morale, intensifying Iran–U.S. relations, and little international action against Iraqi attacks on Iranian civilians, Iran agreed to a ceasefire with Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 598. So they basically did.
- dgroshev 5mo agoI don't think anyone engaging in a good faith discussion would make the conclusion you just made.
- ZeroGravitas 5mo agoWhy not? What do you think an llm would say if you asked it: > Did the US and UK support Saddam Hussein when he was using weapons of mass destruction on Iranian civilians?
- dgroshev 5mo agoThe question is completely different from the point I was making. "X did bad things on their own" and "Y had absolutely no relationship with X at any point" are two points so blindingly obviously different that I'm having a hard time accepting that you are genuinely confused about the difference. It's a motte-and-bailey fallacy that starts with countries and leaders having relationships in a global, interwoven world and ends with excusing a blood-thirsty dictator as if they had no agency.
- specproc 5mo agoI think something Brits don't fully understand is the extent of our vassalage under the US. We do, as you rightly note have quite the history of a policy of imperialist land grabs, now we just play a support function to somebody else's empire.
- foldr 5mo agoOk, but you can say the same for the US. It also has vastly more troops in Germany than Iraq, and it also does not control the Iraqi government. And the less said about Afghanistan the better. So where is the land grab?
- specproc 5mo agoOne does not need to dictate every item of policy to control a country, one just needs to ensure that there's alignment on strategic issues. I think this was America's key point of learning when it took over the reins of the European empires after WW2. In Germany, historically the strategic issue was anti-communism, but now it serves as a military logistics hub; in Iraq, it's about trade in oil in dollars and access to Iraqi oil fields for US companies. The UK is more complex and more total, ranging from support in the security council, to access to markets for US goods and services, to stationing of US troops and hardware. Most of our economy is geared up for the benefit of US investment funds. Any government, whether it be Germany, Iraq or the UK, which tries to alter any of these fundamentals will quickly find out the extent to which their land has been grabbed.
- foldr 5mo agoOr, to put it more succinctly, Iraq is occupied by the US in about the same sense that Germany is. And while the US no doubt exerts influence over Germany in part via its military power, I think the position that the US military presence in Germany is part of a “land grab” would be a rather fringe one.
- specproc 5mo ago
- thrownthatway 5mo ago[flagged]
- coldtea 5mo ago>The British empire has been completely wound down, other than a handful of small overseas territories. Just because Britain couldn't afford it anymore. And after bloodshed, in India, Kenya, Cyprus, Malaysia, and elsewhere. Not out of the bigness of their heart. And the post-colonialism never ended. The same grabby hands get everywhere they can get. And why exactly are those "small overseas territories" unquestionably retained? "No biggie, just an island here, an island there, and island there, some land in here"
- thrownthatway 5mo agoI really would have expected a much more reasoned approach from the likes of you Mr coldtea. Historically I’ve found your comments informative, well thought out, and entertaining. Here’s the Wikipedia article on the BOTs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories I’m willing to acknowledge those locales probably remain British territories, at least some of them, as an spect of projecting force, in addition the to historical quirks. I probably don’t know enough. And, ultimately, it would be nice if everyone got along and was generally content to stay in their lane. Would the former British colonies be doing better or worse had they never been colonised? Quite possibly better. We’ll never know. At least some of the former colonies have failed spectacularly. That’s probably a good enough reason to never try any of that again. I’m trying to steelman your arguments here Mr coldtea. Not only that, I have also raged against what happened in a similar manner from time to time.
- jimjohnny123 5mo ago> Would the former British colonies be doing better or worse had they never been colonised? It's not necessarily correct to assume that they failed because they were previously colonised by the British. Should we have instead allowed other powers to colonise them? That is the only realisitic counterfactual here. Can we truly say the world would have been better off if the British had not colonised various countries, for example when it came to waging the Second World War?
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- happymellon 5mo ago20 years since he was in power...
- coldtea 5mo agoAlso 20 years since he set the tone every later guy kept making the same or worse... Not to mention he was never punished even for blatant violations, has been trusted with positions of power and influence since, and is making a public political comeback in 2026 too.