Watch the BBC's "The Power of Nightmares" free online
Useful Info
of the BBC that explains why Islamists hate America and why
Neoconservatives such as Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Crystal/etc
essentially do as well. The two groups, it turns out, have rather
similar beliefs, which you'd never know from watching TV in the USA.
See the video here: http://Muvy.org
Useful Info
MuahMan
"Useful Info" <usefu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181942505.0...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Fuck You! Kill all muslims, Nuke the Middle East, elect Ron Paul
Do those 3 things and we have utopia on earth.
Peter B. P.
Did you drink from the potty again?
--
regards , Peter B. P.
http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
"We don't dial 911 - we dial .357".
cuh...@webtv.net
usual.Islam is a cult of death.
I Agree with elect Ron Paul.
cuhulin
AJA
less we forget "Chamberlain"
I guess we will bail England and Europe out again........?
"Peter B. P." <pe...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk> wrote in message
news:1hzrzqt.215wd411z0mfpN%pe...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk...
cuh...@webtv.net
Pac www.propacpetfood.com in that big plastic box by my bathroom
door and I always keep my potty clean in case I croak, little doggy, she
won't go hungry and thirsty for a long while.It's either that, or she
will be eating my dead old body up.
cuhulin
philkryder
> MuahMan <muah...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "Useful Info" <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1181942505.0...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > > "The Power of Nightmares" is a documentary by Adam Curtis
> > > of the BBC that explains why Islamists hate America and why
> > > Neoconservatives such as Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Crystal/etc
> > > essentially do as well. The two groups, it turns out, have rather
> > > similar beliefs, which you'd never know from watching TV in the USA.
>
> > > See the video here:http://Muvy.org
>
> > Fuck You! Kill all muslims, Nuke the Middle East, elect Ron Paul
>
> > Do those 3 things and we have utopia on earth.
>
> Did you drink from the potty again?
>
> --
>
> "We don't dial 911 - we dial .357".
when I listen to Ron Paul (if that is who you mean) he makes a lot of
sense.
But, it starts with mind our own business and keeping our nose and
troops out of others.
He's very different and his ideas are very different from Bush/Cheney.
Things like:
Spend less.
Mind our business.
Set a good example of what capitalism can be.
Meteorite Debris
away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
America needs to down size its economy. So does the western world in
general but the USA in particular. Simply by not importing any oil will
bring this about. Benefits include added independence of hostile states,
plus not adding to the ways and means of terrorism, plus not adding fuel
to the bon fire of resentments, plus lower greenhouse emissions, plus
encouraging better living cities with better public transport, plus less
pollution, plus a USA with a permanently shrinking economy will attract
fewer illegal migrants, plus a permanent depression will also depress
the domestic birth rate. There is not a single global problem that is
not ameliorated and improved by a smaller US economy. There is not a
single global problem that is not made worse by a larger US economy.
With a down sizing US economy the earth wins, world peace wins and
quality of life wins. It's a win win win situation. People will need to
live on less money but hell we all have way too much anyway.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Eeyore
Meteorite Debris wrote:
> With a down sizing US economy the earth wins, world peace wins
It won't do much for Africa which is where most of the wars are.
Graham
Meteorite Debris
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> chipped away at his/her stone
>
>
Au contaire! US oil companies are making the circumstances there worse
and that all plays out. British oil companies even more. Plus there is
the plan proposed by Larry SUmmers as President of the World Bank in
1993. He proposed that African countries were insufficiently polluted
for their level of poverty. This is now being reversed with western
waste being exported there. So the problems of Africa are all entirely
Afrogenic.
A poorer US would mean less mining for uranium and coltran, diamonds and
other minerals, all of which displace, dislocate, corrupt and intensify
local tensions.
There are also British, French and Chinese interests but they also have
the same problems as the US and also need to down size. The world can
not afford so many giants.
Eeyore
Meteorite Debris wrote:
> Last time that great scribe Eeyore
> <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> chipped away at his/her stone
> these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
>
> > Meteorite Debris wrote:
> >
> > > With a down sizing US economy the earth wins, world peace wins
> >
> > It won't do much for Africa which is where most of the wars are.
>
>
> Au contaire! US oil companies are making the circumstances there worse
> and that all plays out.
Oil plays no part in the Darfur troubles, the trouble with Ethiopia and Eritrea,
nor was it involved in the Rwandan genocide for example.
You're so wrong on all points.
But you're American no doubt and have no real understanding of African issues.
There's the problem, you probably have a TV-dinner view of the world.
Graham
Anthony Matonak
> Last time that great scribe Eeyore wrote:
>> Meteorite Debris wrote:
>>
>>> With a down sizing US economy the earth wins, world peace wins
>> It won't do much for Africa which is where most of the wars are.
> A poorer US would mean less mining for uranium and coltran, diamonds and
> other minerals, all of which displace, dislocate, corrupt and intensify
> local tensions.
It wouldn't be very good for the US though, would it?
Anthony
cuh...@webtv.net
and www.stratfor.com and James F. Tichacek's RAO Bulletins and a few
others.I try to keep up with World wide news.Whenever I am not flirtin
with me wimmins around the World, usually I am reading News.
cuhulin
no spam
>> >
>> > It won't do much for Africa which is where most of the wars are.
>>
>>
>> Au contaire! US oil companies are making the circumstances there worse
>> and that all plays out.
>
> Oil plays no part in the Darfur troubles, the trouble with Ethiopia and
> Eritrea,
> nor was it involved in the Rwandan genocide for example.
>
> You're so wrong on all points.
>
> But you're American no doubt and have no real understanding of African
> issues.
> There's the problem, you probably have a TV-dinner view of the world.
>
Graham, I have noticed that as issues get more distant from a person the
less they understand them. Once you get outside a local community almost
everyone is lost.
J. Davidson
all figured out by now?
J. Davidson
Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46753060...@hotmail.com...
Eeyore
Meteorite Debris wrote:
> Last time that great scribe Eeyore
> <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> chipped away at his/her stone
> these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> >
> > Meteorite Debris wrote:
> >
> > > With a down sizing US economy the earth wins, world peace wins
> >
> > It won't do much for Africa which is where most of the wars are.
>
>
> Au contaire! US oil companies are making the circumstances there worse
Bollocks.
You know FUCK ALL about the place.
Graham
Eeyore
no spam wrote:
A good way to help cure that is foreign travel.
Sadly not something that Americans are fond of either. Or indeed terribly
convenient for Australians (as it seems the previous poster is ) given how far
away from everything they are.
Graham
Eeyore
"J. Davidson" wrote:
> Graham, Africa is so much older than we are (USA). Why have they not got it
> all figured out by now?
Why do you think age has anything to do with it ?
Getting things 'figured out' is typically associated with 'civilisations'. A
highly civilised society is able to divert skilled manpower from subsistence
living to issues like education and the study of science. From this we obtain
knowledge and are able to develop society in some useful planned way. An
agrarian society is forever unable to do this. Africa is even today barely
moderately 'civilised'.
Why aren't they ? I dunno. They just didn't fancy it I suppose.
Graham
Lars Träger
Lars Träger
> Graham, Africa is so much older than we are (USA). Why have they not got it
> all figured out by now?
> J. Davidson
Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until very
recently (compared to the age of the USA).
--
Lars T.
Eeyore
Lars Träger wrote:
It was not any better before was it ?
At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the region.
Graham
J. Davidson
told them what to do.
Jackienews:4675A284...@hotmail.com...
David Wright
Oh, like you did in India? That dry British humor, it cracks me up
every time.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
-- Bill Maher
Eeyore
"J. Davidson" wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > "J. Davidson" wrote:
> >
> > > Graham, Africa is so much older than we are (USA). Why have they not
> > > got it all figured out by now?
> >
> > Why do you think age has anything to do with it ?
> >
> > Getting things 'figured out' is typically associated with 'civilisations'.
> > A highly civilised society is able to divert skilled manpower from
> > subsistence living to issues like education and the study of science. From
> this we
> > obtain knowledge and are able to develop society in some useful planned way.
> An
> > agrarian society is forever unable to do this. Africa is even today barely
> > moderately 'civilised'.
> >
> > Why aren't they ? I dunno. They just didn't fancy it I suppose.
>
> age, experience, trial and error, something over the centuries should have
> told them what to do.
But it didn't. So why is that ?
Graham
Eeyore
David Wright wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Lars Träger wrote:
> >> J. Davidson <fredjac...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Graham, Africa is so much older than we are (USA). Why have they not got it
> >> > all figured out by now?
> >>
> >> Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until very
> >> recently (compared to the age of the USA).
> >
> >It was not any better before was it ?
> >
> >At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the region.
>
> Oh, like you did in India? That dry British humor, it cracks me up
> every time.
Tell me about democracy in India before the British were there.
Graham
no spam
I think a big factor in the lack of foreign traveler from the US is the US
size and diversity. In one vacation trip you can swim in the ocean, ski in
the mountains, hike through the desert, see the Grand Canyon and walk on
glaciers; all without leaving the US. If you live in almost any other
country you'd have to go to a foreign country to do more than one.
I don't think a lot of people in Europe don't grasp just how large the US
is. As you might know we have states with bigger economies than some
European countries not to mention more area.
no spam
>>> > got it
>>> > all figured out by now?
>>> > J. Davidson
>>>
>>> Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until very
>>> recently (compared to the age of the USA).
>>
>>It was not any better before was it ?
>>
>>At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the region.
>
> Oh, like you did in India? That dry British humor, it cracks me up
> every time.
Hum. . .First off India isn't in Africa. Second it seems as though India is
doing MUCH better than most African countries. Third, doesn't India have a
fairly civilized and democratic system?
no spam
>> > > got it all figured out by now?
>> >
>> > Why do you think age has anything to do with it ?
>> >
>> > Getting things 'figured out' is typically associated with
>> > 'civilisations'.
>> > A highly civilised society is able to divert skilled manpower from
>> > subsistence living to issues like education and the study of science.
>> > From
>> this we
>> > obtain knowledge and are able to develop society in some useful planned
>> > way.
>> An
>> > agrarian society is forever unable to do this. Africa is even today
>> > barely
>> > moderately 'civilised'.
>> >
>> > Why aren't they ? I dunno. They just didn't fancy it I suppose.
>>
>> age, experience, trial and error, something over the centuries should
>> have
>> told them what to do.
>
> But it didn't. So why is that ?
Very interesting question isn't it. What prevents a people from banding
together to make their living easier? You could point out that the climate
in most of Africa makes it fairly easy to live a hunter-gatherer life style.
A problem with that is you have the American Indians who lived in a climate
similar to Europe but still lived the hunter-gatherer life style.
Personally I lean toward it being more of a religion/belief issue. Not to
get into a big theological discussion but. . .If you look at most of the
'first world' countries today you see they have one thing in common; a
Judaeo-Christian background WITH religious freedom. For a people to join
together they have to have a common bond but for them to prosper they must
have the freedom to be individuals. Very few religions/beliefs teach
tolerance to non-believers. Christianity and Buddhism are the only two that
pop into my mind right now. Before someone out hyperventilates and starts
blowing spittle all over their keyboards I know that you can point out many
historical events where Christians were not so tolerant but in most of these
cases its more of a power issue than a religious one. IWO, some smuck
wanted to be in control and used the name of Christ to do it, still happens
to day and will be happening tomorrow with man being what he is. I'll point
out to you that Christians are told that if someone doesn't want to hear
what you have to say, you are to leave them alone and never bother them
again (Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5).
Eeyore
no spam wrote:
In Africa, the countries doing best are also the most civilised and democratic.
Graham
David Wright
Eeyore
David Wright wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Tell me about democracy in India before the British were there.
>
> After you tell me about it *while* the British were there.
Well, we built their parliament for them for starters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_parliament
Graham
Steve Cothran
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, we built their parliament for them for starters.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_parliament
Probably this time you guys taught them that it is much wiser and more
profitable to tax the shit out of their gas rather than their tea.
David Wright
David Wright
Yes, but whether we can attribute that to the British is an
interesting question, isn't it? I mean, it's not as though the
Indians had the right to vote when the Brits were running things
as part of their Empire (on which the sun never rose, to quote
James Joyce).
Eeyore
David Wright wrote:
> no spam <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> >
> >Hum. . .First off India isn't in Africa. Second it seems as though India is
> >doing MUCH better than most African countries. Third, doesn't India have a
> >fairly civilized and democratic system?
>
> Yes, but whether we can attribute that to the British is an
> interesting question, isn't it?
That India isn't in Africa ? Are you soft in the head ?
> I mean, it's not as though the Indians had the right to vote when the Brits
> were running things
> as part of their Empire
What do you think we built their Parliament for ? Just to look pretty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_India#Beginnings_of_self-government
There was even an Indian MP in the UK parliament as early as 1892 !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadabhai_Naoroji
I suspect you've been brought up on the American lies about the British Empire.
Graham
Eeyore
David Wright wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >David Wright wrote:
> >
> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Tell me about democracy in India before the British were there.
> >>
> >> After you tell me about it *while* the British were there.
> >
> >Well, we built their parliament for them for starters.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_parliament
>
> Not that they had any real voice in running their country.
They increasingly did actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act
Don't forget that in many countries even women haven't had the vote until
relatively recent times !
1920 in the USA for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Graham
no spam
>>>>> > not
>>>>> > got it
>>>>> > all figured out by now?
>>>>> > J. Davidson
>>>>>
>>>>> Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until very
>>>>> recently (compared to the age of the USA).
>>>>
>>>>It was not any better before was it ?
>>>>
>>>>At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the region.
>>>
>>> Oh, like you did in India? That dry British humor, it cracks me up
>>> every time.
>>
>>Hum. . .First off India isn't in Africa. Second it seems as though India
>>is
>>doing MUCH better than most African countries. Third, doesn't India have
>>a
>>fairly civilized and democratic system?
>
> Yes, but whether we can attribute that to the British is an
> interesting question, isn't it? I mean, it's not as though the
Not at all. Its clear to anyone who looks at objectively. From what little
I know of India the British influence is very clear.
> Indians had the right to vote when the Brits were running things
> as part of their Empire (on which the sun never rose, to quote
> James Joyce).
Compare Africa and India today. They were colonies of European powers but
now are not. Now given your choice which would you rather live in India or
Central African Republic?
Note how and why the British removed themselves from India and how Portugal
left Angola or France left the Ivory Coast. The British set up a system
that the Indian's could run, they also were leaving a country which the
people truly wanted to run the country. In most of the African
nations/colonies the 'protecting power' just said; "Here, its your country
now. We wash our hands of the whole mess." Then they left.
Also in Africa a lot of the wars for independence were nothing more than
proxy wars where the USSR and/or China supplied arms to anyone willing to
cause problems for any NATO member nation.
David Wright
Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>David Wright wrote:
>
>> no spam <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Hum. . .First off India isn't in Africa. Second it seems as though India is
>> >doing MUCH better than most African countries. Third, doesn't India have a
>> >fairly civilized and democratic system?
>>
>> Yes, but whether we can attribute that to the British is an
>> interesting question, isn't it?
>
>That India isn't in Africa ? Are you soft in the head ?
I was looking more at the last question, as should have been obvious
(but clearly it wasn't).
>> I mean, it's not as though the Indians had the right to vote when the Brits
>> were running things
>> as part of their Empire
>
>What do you think we built their Parliament for ? Just to look pretty.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_India#Beginnings_of_self-government
Largely, yes. After all, most Indians weren't even allowed to vote.
Looks to me like the usual sham that's intended to keep the masses
quiet by letting them think they have a hand in running things.
>There was even an Indian MP in the UK parliament as early as 1892 !
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadabhai_Naoroji
But he wasn't representing India, he was elected from Finsbury
Central. Which I'm pretty sure is not in India.
>I suspect you've been brought up on the American lies about the
>British Empire.
Actually, Americans don't think much about the British Empire.
David Wright
Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>David Wright wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >David Wright wrote:
>> >
>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Tell me about democracy in India before the British were there.
>> >>
>> >> After you tell me about it *while* the British were there.
>> >
>> >Well, we built their parliament for them for starters.
>> >
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_parliament
>>
>> Not that they had any real voice in running their country.
>
>They increasingly did actually.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act
Extremely minor, with all the real power still being held by the
British.
>Don't forget that in many countries even women haven't had the vote until
>relatively recent times !
So? That has nothing to do with whether there was any real democracy
in India before the British left. Which they didn't really do
voluntarily.
David Wright
no spam <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> > Graham, Africa is so much older than we are (USA). Why have they
>>>>>> > not
>>>>>> > got it
>>>>>> > all figured out by now?
>>>>>> > J. Davidson
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until very
>>>>>> recently (compared to the age of the USA).
>>>>>
>>>>>It was not any better before was it ?
>>>>>
>>>>>At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the region.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, like you did in India? That dry British humor, it cracks me up
>>>> every time.
>>>
>>>Hum. . .First off India isn't in Africa. Second it seems as though India
>>>is
>>>doing MUCH better than most African countries. Third, doesn't India have
>>>a
>>>fairly civilized and democratic system?
>>
>> Yes, but whether we can attribute that to the British is an
>> interesting question, isn't it? I mean, it's not as though the
>
>Not at all. Its clear to anyone who looks at objectively. From what little
>I know of India the British influence is very clear.
Oh, the influence is clear. But let's not kid ourselves: it's not as
though the British went to India with the goal of setting up a
democratic form of government and then bailing out as soon as
possible. They went there to make money; the British East India
Company was not some sort of philanthropic organization. Then the
British government took it over, and they retained power as long as
they were able to. Churchill was certainly in no hurry to leave.
The Indians lucked out and got a reasonable government afterwards, but
it wasn't easy or cheap or bloodless. And luck definitely played a
role; consider Iraq for contrast.
>> Indians had the right to vote when the Brits were running things
>> as part of their Empire (on which the sun never rose, to quote
>> James Joyce).
>
>Compare Africa and India today. They were colonies of European powers but
>now are not. Now given your choice which would you rather live in India or
>Central African Republic?
Obviously India, but former British rule guarantees nothing. People
fail to realize the enormous role luck plays in the world.
>Also in Africa a lot of the wars for independence were nothing more than
>proxy wars where the USSR and/or China supplied arms to anyone willing to
>cause problems for any NATO member nation.
Same for Southeast Asia. India was lucky that there wasn't the right
sort of internal discord on which the superpowers could have played.
no spam
>>> >>
>>> >> After you tell me about it *while* the British were there.
>>> >
>>> >Well, we built their parliament for them for starters.
>>> >
>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_parliament
>>>
>>> Not that they had any real voice in running their country.
>>
>>They increasingly did actually.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act
>
> Extremely minor, with all the real power still being held by the
> British.
>
>>Don't forget that in many countries even women haven't had the vote until
>>relatively recent times !
>
> So? That has nothing to do with whether there was any real democracy
> in India before the British left. Which they didn't really do
> voluntarily.
I'm not sure I agree with that last statement. From what little I have read
about situation the UK was in at the time it seems to me that they were
ready to leave. It had reached the point to where keeping the 'empire'
running was costing more than it was worth. After WWII the UK had enough
problems at home to prevent it from being able to spend the money needed on
the 'empire' so they were looking to get out of the empire business.
If the British had really wanted to keep India they could have. Years ago I
read a story on how easy it would have been to put an end to the 'passive
resistance'. It wouldn't have been pretty and definitely it wouldn't have
cricket therefore the British never would have done it. It involved using
force against peaceful people.
Heck, today the powers that be won't even use force against violent groups
of people. If you check history the fastest way to put an end to a riot or
violent acts by an assembled group of people is by the use of force. Recent
history even show this. Remember a few years ago when people were throwing
Molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers? Notice that that no longer happens?
Know why? Its because Israel issued a statement saying that anyone with
one, lighted or unlighted, would be shot on sight.
no spam
And this is different from the powers that were in Africa? Which is one of
the points, the places where the British were there and left are in a lot
better shape than the former colonies of other countries. IIRC, about the
only countries in Africa which are fairly stable and prosperous are the
countries with British influence. Egypt and South Africa pop into mind
first.
> they were able to. Churchill was certainly in no hurry to leave.
Read my other post but here quickly. . .He might have not been in a hurry to
leave but at the time he knew he was going to have to go. A business man
who has a down turn in business might not be in a hurry to get rid of his
vaction home but he knows its either that or lose everything in bankruptcy.
> The Indians lucked out and got a reasonable government afterwards, but
> it wasn't easy or cheap or bloodless. And luck definitely played a
Their 'luck' was the fact that were a British colony rather than under
another European power.
> role; consider Iraq for contrast.
Apples and oranges. Try Iraq and WWII Germany or maybe better WWII Japan if
the emperor had told the Japanese to never surrender.
>>> Indians had the right to vote when the Brits were running things
>>> as part of their Empire (on which the sun never rose, to quote
>>> James Joyce).
>>
>>Compare Africa and India today. They were colonies of European powers but
>>now are not. Now given your choice which would you rather live in India
>>or
>>Central African Republic?
>
> Obviously India, but former British rule guarantees nothing. People
> fail to realize the enormous role luck plays in the world.
Name one former British colony which has fallen back to the near stone age
like most of the former colonies in Africa (which was the original point).
>>Also in Africa a lot of the wars for independence were nothing more than
>>proxy wars where the USSR and/or China supplied arms to anyone willing to
>>cause problems for any NATO member nation.
>
> Same for Southeast Asia. India was lucky that there wasn't the right
> sort of internal discord on which the superpowers could have played.
True and look how well those former FRENCH colonies did and are doing today.
How many people in SEA were killed by their own governments after the French
threw up their hands left almost overnight? I'll give you a hint, we don't
know. We aren't even sure how many people were killed in one country
(Cambodia/Kampuchea) by one government (Khmer Rouge).
India wasn't a hot battle ground during the cold war because it had a strong
government with the support of its people. I point out, again, that a lot
of that was because of the way the British treated its colonies before,
during and after giving up power.
Eeyore
no spam wrote:
> India wasn't a hot battle ground during the cold war because it had a strong
> government with the support of its people. I point out, again, that a lot
> of that was because of the way the British treated its colonies before,
> during and after giving up power.
I don't recall any of the other European countries operating anything like the
Commonwealth of Nations that still acts as a bond between former British
colonies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Commonwealth
Graham
Lars Träger
> no spam wrote:
>
> > >>> Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until very
> > >>> recently (compared to the age of the USA).
> > >>
> > >>It was not any better before was it ?
> > >>
> > >>At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the region.
>
> In Africa, the countries doing best are also the most civilised and
> democratic.
Yeah, but are they former British colonies?
--
Lars T.
Lars Träger
> Lars Träger wrote:
>
> > J. Davidson <fredjac...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Graham, Africa is so much older than we are (USA). Why have they not
> > > got it all figured out by now? J. Davidson
> >
> > Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until very
> > recently (compared to the age of the USA).
>
> It was not any better before was it ?
Says who?
> At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the region.
Killing parts of the population is "introducing civilisation"? Replacing
their rulers with your king is "introducing democracy"?
Not to mention that you created countries without any regard to the
people you ripped apart or forced to live together no matter how much
they ha#ted each other? And then gave one group preferential treatment,
increasing tension?
Didn't you learn from the dact that the Irish and Scots *still* don't
like the English too much?
--
Lars T.
Lars Träger
> >>Hum. . .First off India isn't in Africa. Second it seems as though
> >>India is doing MUCH better than most African countries. Third, doesn't
> >>India have a fairly civilized and democratic system?
> >
> > Yes, but whether we can attribute that to the British is an
> > interesting question, isn't it? I mean, it's not as though the
>
>
> Not at all. Its clear to anyone who looks at objectively. From what little
> I know of India the British influence is very clear.
>
>
> > Indians had the right to vote when the Brits were running things
> > as part of their Empire (on which the sun never rose, to quote
> > James Joyce).
>
> Compare Africa and India today. They were colonies of European powers but
> now are not. Now given your choice which would you rather live in India or
> Central African Republic?
>
> Note how and why the British removed themselves from India and how Portugal
> left Angola or France left the Ivory Coast. The British set up a system
> that the Indian's could run, they also were leaving a country which the
> people truly wanted to run the country. In most of the African
> nations/colonies the 'protecting power' just said; "Here, its your country
> now. We wash our hands of the whole mess." Then they left.
Yeah, things are much better in countries like Nigeria and Sierra Leone.
--
Lars T.
Eeyore
Lars Träger wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > no spam wrote:
> >
> > > >>> Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until very
> > > >>> recently (compared to the age of the USA).
> > > >>
> > > >>It was not any better before was it ?
> > > >>
> > > >>At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the region.
> >
> > In Africa, the countries doing best are also the most civilised and
> > democratic.
>
> Yeah, but are they former British colonies?
Yes.
Graham
Eeyore
Lars Träger wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lars Träger wrote:
> >
> > > J. Davidson <fredjac...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Graham, Africa is so much older than we are (USA). Why have they not
> > > > got it all figured out by now? J. Davidson
> > >
> > > Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until very
> > > recently (compared to the age of the USA).
> >
> > It was not any better before was it ?
>
> Says who?
History.
> > At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the region.
>
> Killing parts of the population is "introducing civilisation"?
There was very very little killing ever involved as in all parts of the Empire.
The only example of significance that comes to mind if the Zulu War. If you
think there was widespread killing, let's have your evidence.
> Replacing
> their rulers with your king is "introducing democracy"?
>
> Not to mention that you created countries without any regard to the
> people you ripped apart or forced to live together no matter how much
> they ha#ted each other? And then gave one group preferential treatment,
> increasing tension?
>
> Didn't you learn from the dact that the Irish and Scots *still* don't
> like the English too much?
Utter rubbish.
Graham
Lars Träger
Lars Träger
> Lars Träger wrote:
>
> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Lars Träger wrote:
> > >
> > > > J. Davidson <fredjac...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Graham, Africa is so much older than we are (USA). Why have they not
> > > > > got it all figured out by now? J. Davidson
> > > >
> > > > Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until very
> > > > recently (compared to the age of the USA).
> > >
> > > It was not any better before was it ?
> >
> > Says who?
>
> History.
You are history?
> > Didn't you learn from the dact that the Irish and Scots *still* don't
> > like the English too much?
>
> Utter rubbish.
Gee, don't be so hard on yourself.
--
Lars T.
Eeyore
Lars Träger wrote:
PROVE IT ?
The most developed, most prosperous country in the entire African continent is South
Africa !
Graham
no spam
>> > >>> very
>> > >>> recently (compared to the age of the USA).
>> > >>
>> > >>It was not any better before was it ?
>> > >>
>> > >>At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the
>> > >>region.
>>
>> In Africa, the countries doing best are also the most civilised and
>> democratic.
>
> Yeah, but are they former British colonies?
Let's see I seem to remember the British has some kind of influence in both
Egypt and South Africa. Those are the only two countries that come to mine
when when I think of stable African countries. How civilised and democratic
they are depends on your point of reference.
no spam
>> but
>> now are not. Now given your choice which would you rather live in India
>> or
>> Central African Republic?
>>
>> Note how and why the British removed themselves from India and how
>> Portugal
>> left Angola or France left the Ivory Coast. The British set up a system
>> that the Indian's could run, they also were leaving a country which the
>> people truly wanted to run the country. In most of the African
>> nations/colonies the 'protecting power' just said; "Here, its your
>> country
>> now. We wash our hands of the whole mess." Then they left.
>
> Yeah, things are much better in countries like Nigeria and Sierra Leone.
Seems like 90-95% of Africa is worse off today than it was before 1900.
David Wright
There are other countries that are fairly stable in Africa. There
are, of course, many others that are highly unstable.
David Wright
Which, of course, reached this wonderful state because of the fine
British influence that allowed the development of apartheid. Not to
mention the fine historical development of the concentration camp,
which the Brits invented during the Boer War.
Eeyore
David Wright wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Lars Träger wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> > Lars Träger wrote:
> >> > > Eeyore wrote:
> >> > > > no spam wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > >>> Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until
> >> > > > > >>> very recently (compared to the age of the USA).
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>It was not any better before was it ?
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to
> >the region.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In Africa, the countries doing best are also the most civilised and
> >> > > > democratic.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yeah, but are they former British colonies?
> >> >
> >> > Yes.
> >>
> >> Prove it.
> >
> >PROVE IT ?
> >
> >The most developed, most prosperous country in the entire African
> >continent is South Africa !
>
> Which, of course, reached this wonderful state because of the fine
> British influence that allowed the development of apartheid. Not to
> mention the fine historical development of the concentration camp,
> which the Brits invented during the Boer War.
There's a cheap jibe if ever there was one.
The *internment* of Boers in large camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
has no similarity whatever to the German death camps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_extermination_camp
Graham
Arnold Walker
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:mNkfi.35807$G23....@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
Both in past 700 years and the present.
But that was the story everywhere, Islam has gone.
The only thing as standard...was the number of European Colonies that as
soon
as the they got independence. Screwed, blued, and tattooed civilized and
democratic
ways with some form of socialist dictatorship.But then socialism loves
misery since than is the method of control.
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
no spam
>>>> > >>> very
>>>> > >>> recently (compared to the age of the USA).
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>It was not any better before was it ?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the
>>>> > >>region.
>>>>
>>>> democratic.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but are they former British colonies?
>>
>>Let's see I seem to remember the British has some kind of influence in
>>both
>>Egypt and South Africa. Those are the only two countries that come to
>>mine
>>they are depends on your point of reference.
>
> There are other countries that are fairly stable in Africa. There
> are, of course, many others that are highly unstable.
True but with that said. . . Iraq was fairly stable under Hussein but I
don't think you'd call it civilized nor democratic.
I do have to wonder just what all those stable countries have in common.
no spam
>>>> > >>> very
>>>> > >>> recently (compared to the age of the USA).
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>It was not any better before was it ?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to the
>>>> > >>region.
>>>>
>>>> In Africa, the countries doing best are also the most civilised and
>>>> democratic.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but are they former British colonies?
>>
>> Let's see I seem to remember the British has some kind of influence in
>> both Egypt and South Africa. Those are the only two countries that come
>> to mine when when I think of stable African countries. How civilised and
>> democratic they are depends on your point of reference.
> On Africa, Islam had more influence and cause for instabiltity than
> Britian.
I'm on the other side of the fence, I think British influence is a
stabilizing factor.
David Wright
Oh, most of them are dictatorships, or repressive monarchies, or
something equally ugly. That includes Egypt, by the way.
Lars Träger
Where the dutch settlers kicked you out almost a century ago.
--
Lars T.
Lars Träger
Oddly enough, the countries that have been independent the longest in
Africa (1910 and 1922).
--
Lars T.
Lars Träger
Eeyore
Lars Träger wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Lars Träger wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > Lars Träger wrote:
> > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > In Africa, the countries doing best are also the most civilised and
> > > > > > democratic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, but are they former British colonies?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > > Prove it.
> >
> > PROVE IT ?
> >
> > The most developed, most prosperous country in the entire African
> > continent is South Africa !
>
> Where the dutch settlers kicked you out almost a century ago.
Pardon ? The Union of South Africa was a British Dominion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_Africa
The Dutch part of the population were largely responsible for introducing the
racist legislation known as apartheid of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
Graham
no spam
I wouldn't know about that because I don't know the living conditions of
1700 Africa. Could you tell me how wonderful their lives were in the
1700's.
I do seem to remember that around that time in places they were capturing
each other for slaves as well as selling the slaves.
@there Vernono O
You got that right.
Lars Träger
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:vQvgi.35924$G23...@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
> >>> Seems like 90-95% of Africa is worse off today than it was before 1900.
> >>
> >> And they were worse of 1900 than 1700.
> >
> > I wouldn't know about that because I don't know the living conditions of
> > 1700 Africa. Could you tell me how wonderful their lives were in the
> > 1700's.
> >
> > I do seem to remember that around that time in places they were capturing
> > each other for slaves as well as selling the slaves.
> >
>
> You got that right.
Yeah, the British slave traders "Royal African Company" had nothing to
do with it.
--
Lars T.
@there Vernono O
""Lars Träger"" <Lars.T...@epost.de> wrote in message
news:1i0e4mt.gm9pfl12jsmrkN%Lars.T...@epost.de...
AND???
That makes it right for either group?????
That makes it such that there wasn't slave trade "within" tribes, AND
"within" tribes before the western world got involved????
That makes it so there wasn't slave trade, not even involving Africans other
than Ethiopians throughout the entire Greco Roman world 3000 years before
that???
The inter-tribe enslavement in Africa was tremendous and it got worse when
the "outside" world decided to pay for slaves.
Try getting an education without hate inherent.
@there Vernono O
"Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message
news:4682e289$0$6422$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
A little point of interest.
Although slavery was bad in the U.S and seemed surrounded by the cotton
industry, that is not where slave trade with the Americas started or was the
worst. Slave trade started and continued in the sugar industry of the
Caribbean and central America.
Eeyore
Vernono O wrote:
> A little point of interest.
> Although slavery was bad in the U.S and seemed surrounded by the cotton
> industry, that is not where slave trade with the Americas started or was the
> worst. Slave trade started and continued in the sugar industry of the
> Caribbean and central America.
There were slaves being traded thousands of years before that.
The slaves from Africa that were brought to the USA and the Caribbean by traders
to sell them to plantation owners were enslaved as a result of inter-tribal wars
in Africa. The 'winning side' would sell off their prisoners of war as slaves.
Graham
no spam
>> >>> Seems like 90-95% of Africa is worse off today than it was before
>> >>> 1900.
>> >>
>> >> And they were worse of 1900 than 1700.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't know about that because I don't know the living conditions
>> > of
>> > 1700 Africa. Could you tell me how wonderful their lives were in the
>> > 1700's.
>> >
>> > I do seem to remember that around that time in places they were
>> > capturing
>> > each other for slaves as well as selling the slaves.
>> >
>>
>> You got that right.
>
> Yeah, the British slave traders "Royal African Company" had nothing to
> do with it.
Slaving in Africa was going on long before the British showed up. If you do
a quick google search you will see that it is STILL going long after the
British have left.
The fact that the Africans had no problem with capturing and selling their
own people has much more to do with the slave trade in Africa than the
British and other non-African nations. Look at drugs, cocaine and heroin
specifically, as a modern day analogy to slavery. People in South America
and South West Asia were using these drugs long before the western world
discovered them. Now they are a problem world wide. So who is to blame?
The suppliers, the distributors, the sellers or the users? Without any one
of those in the chain the problem would not exist. So don't be putting all
the blame on the British for the number of African slaves.
Also you failed to point out how great living was in 1700 Africa compared to
1900 Africa.
no spam
A little point of history.
Slavery was going on in Africa LONG before there was a sugar industry. It
was going on LONG before anyone in Europe knew there was an America. Even
LONG before anyone in Europe knew there was an Africa.
History shows that the Egyptians, FYI Egypt is in Africa, had slaves before
the time the pyramids were built.
no spam
IIRC, the slavers would sell the slaves in the Caribbean then buy sugar.
Then they'd sell the sugar in America and buy rum. Then they'd either sell
the rum in Europe and buy some stuff to trade for slaves in Africa and start
the cycle again. Or they'd take the rum to Africa and trade it directly for
slaves to start all over. Either way they made a fairly good profit at each
stop.
@there Vernono O
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46833362...@hotmail.com...
That's what I said.
@there Vernono O
The biggest user of this sugar was the British Isles.
@there Vernono O
That's what I said.
Eeyore
Vernono O wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote in message
> > Vernono O wrote:
> >
> >> A little point of interest.
> >> Although slavery was bad in the U.S and seemed surrounded by the cotton
> >> industry, that is not where slave trade with the Americas started or was
> >> the worst. Slave trade started and continued in the sugar industry of the
> >> Caribbean and central America.
> >
> > There were slaves being traded thousands of years before that.
> >
> > The slaves from Africa that were brought to the USA and the Caribbean by
> > traders to sell them to plantation owners were enslaved as a result of
> > inter-tribal wars in Africa. The 'winning side' would sell off their
> prisoners of war as
> > slaves.
>
>
> That's what I said.
You said the slave trade " started and continued in the sugar industry of the
Caribbean and central America. "
That is not so.
There was trade in slaves at least several thousand years before that.
Graham
@there Vernono O
Over your head. Slave trade from Africa to America.
>
> There was trade in slaves at least several thousand years before that.
I said at least 3000 BCE
>
> Graham
>
>
Max Muir
> In article <467C7195.61B84...@hotmail.com>,
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Lars Träger wrote:
>
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> > Lars Träger wrote:
> >> > > Eeyore wrote:
> >> > > > no spam wrote:
>
> >> > > > > >>> Because most of the continent was run by moronic Europeans until
> >> > > > > >>> very recently (compared to the age of the USA).
>
> >> > > > > >>It was not any better before was it ?
>
> >> > > > > >>At least we Brits introduced civilisation and democracy to
> >the region.
>
> >> > > > In Africa, the countries doing best are also the most civilised and
> >> > > > democratic.
>
> >> > > Yeah, but are they formerBritishcolonies?
>
> >> > Yes.
>
> >> Prove it.
>
> >PROVE IT ?
>
> >The most developed, most prosperous country in the entire African
> >continent is South Africa !
That's changing, isn't it. Soon it will be another Zim.
> Which, of course, reached this wonderful state because of the
> fineBritishinfluence that allowed the development of apartheid.
Our fine British influence in South Africa.
==
"But British concepts of justice and humanity conflicted with
those of Britain's truculent white South African subjects. From
the beginning, her policies were designed to protect what she
regarded as the interests of the natives and to prevent the
abuse of slaves and Hottentot servants, who often lived in a
state close to slavery. To the Boers it seemed that their
British rulers were unduly interested in the welfare of these
people, for the Boers believed in the right of every white man
to 'beat his won nigger' and that the relationship between a
master and his servants and slaves was a private, domestic
affair of no legtimate concern to the government.
In 1813 the British instituted a series of circuit courts to
hear the complaints of servants against their masters. This
was promptly damned as the "Black Court"; the Boers were
incensed that the word of a slave or servant should carry any
weight in a court of law."
page 5 THE GREAT ANGLO-BOER WAR by Byron Farwell.
==
> Not to
> mention the fine historical development of theconcentrationcamp,
> which the Britsinventedduring the Boer War.
No. Concentration camps were used in Cuba in 1896, some
four years before their use in South Africa during the Second
Anglo-Boer War.
The Spanish speak Spanish so they called them 'reconcentrados'
and this leads a lot of people to think the British invented
concentration
camps when actually all they did was translate the name.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/reconcentrado.htm
British journalists translated the name into English
when the British Army began using concentration
camps in South Africa in 1900. But the name is
not really important otherwise we'd be forced to
conclude that the Nazis never used concentration
camps because they called them kozentrationslagers.
Don't be confused by the prefix "re".
==
The prefix "re" in Spanish isn't used the same as the
prefix "re" in English, it's often used as an amplifier
rather than an indication that something was done a second time.
Examples: frijoles refritos are only fried once, chiles
rellenos are only stuffed once. But they're stuffed very
well!
==
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
Not in this case: you seem to be channeling Goebbels' anti-British
propaganda.
According to Robertson, Patrick. "The Book of Firsts," Clarkson N.
Potter,
Inc., New York, 1974, p. 44.
"The idea that the British 'invented' concentration camps was
fostered
by Dr. Goebbels during the 1930s. In 1938 Nazi propaganda picture
postcards, formerly sold as 'genuine Russian concentration camp
scenes',
were relabelled for issue as 'genuine British concentration camp
scenes in
South Africa'."
Eeyore
Max Muir wrote:
> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The most developed, most prosperous country in the entire African
> > >continent is South Africa !
>
> That's changing, isn't it. Soon it will be another Zim.
Says who ?
And how would this transformation take place ?
Graham
Lars Träger
> >> >>> Seems like 90-95% of Africa is worse off today than it was before
> >> >>> 1900.
> >> >>
> >> >> And they were worse of 1900 than 1700.
> >> >
> >> > I wouldn't know about that because I don't know the living conditions
> >> > of
> >> > 1700 Africa. Could you tell me how wonderful their lives were in the
> >> > 1700's.
> >> >
> >> > I do seem to remember that around that time in places they were
> >> > capturing
> >> > each other for slaves as well as selling the slaves.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You got that right.
> >
> > Yeah, the British slave traders "Royal African Company" had nothing to
> > do with it.
>
> Slaving in Africa was going on long before the British showed up. If you do
> a quick google search you will see that it is STILL going long after the
> British have left.
So your point is that the Brits got that culture from the Africans? Or
that they streamlined it?
--
Lars T.