An Empire of Good Intentions

[plan_D]

The United States of America have always aimed for freedom and liberty of all people's of any race, gender or religion. That is why America is called the "Land of the Free" and that is also why the U.S has taken part in many wars throughout history, to free those oppressed or in danger of losing democracy.

No one can fault the intentions of the United States but good intentions and good deeds are about as far apart as heaven and hell.

I watched a programme about the British Empire and the intentions of the Empire through the different stages during the 19th Century. In the 19th Century the United Kingdom was England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland and the British Empire encompassed over one fifth of the planet.

During the early part of the 19th Century the British government took a liberal view on it's empire and believed the right path to take was to educate it's sub-ordinate nations in Asia and Africa. It would educate them, build an infrastructure with new, modern, Victorian technologies. It would then, when all had settled, leave the country to stand on it's own two feet and have the nation an ally of Britain rather than a sub-ordinate nation. It sounds like a nice idea...

...the problem was that to do so the British would have to destroy the cultures of those nations it educated. The British did give those nations a Victorian sense of being but it had to either destroy or diminish the national culture when doing so. Another problem was that Britain at that time was trying to keep itself rich, the sub-ordinate countries had to carry on their exports for the British Empire to make it's money. This caused problems among the lower classes as they would end up starving and feeling left out. Taking India for example, it was not an act of British indifference or cruelty to the lower class of India or India itself but a rigid mindset and slow movement of politics as a whole. Truely, Britain and it's Viceroys in India had all good intentions for India.

If I had to explain every reason for this, it would be a book so I'm going to cut this short. In 1857 Mutiny in India. The Indians uprose against the British rule after millions had either starved or been left homeless. This was finally crushed in 1858 but it prompted a change of thought...a more material thought in the British government. The people don't want to be culturised or educated, they want FOOD, HOUSING and a state of WELL-BEING!

So, what next? Let India be Indian but supply them with food and housing. They would still be a sub-ordinate nation to Britain and be a part of the Empire, with exports. So, it began...as this would be the whole Empire, firstly in Ireland as they had suffered the potato disease in 1848 leaving most, if not all, potato farms on the west coast destroyed and the land reclaimed by the land owners for more profitable gains, like cows. It takes a lot of work to organise a mass feeding and housing programme throughout the Empire but the normal working man doesn't truly appreciate the time it takes, he wants it now!

So, that failed...and in England (oh yes, England wasn't perfect) the LABOUR party was created for the ..well, labour of England.

So, what next for the British Empire?! Home rule! The liberals again took the idea of planting the sub-ordinate nations on their own two feet with Home Rule. India, again for example, would be it's own nation, under it's own government but under the supervision of Britain...sounds lovely, doesn't it? Just what they'd always want?! NO! They don't want to be a part of British dominion but...they can't stand on their own two feet 'cos the country isn't prepared for such administration nightmares and building programmes.

So, in many cases...Britain then had to rule by sword.

A VERY simple look there but the moral of the story is...


...America has good intentions...but it isn't going to work. The British Empire tried it.

[GT]

Update.

[marconi]

Hell is paved with good intentions.British Empire is not the first and not the last Empire which has these intentions.Roman Empire had same intentions to bring it's high culture to barbarians.Damn, even USSR had good intentions ... and you can now see what happened.

GT
Here is an interesting article, concerning future oil crisis: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think the western worlds will let the oil become a problem when it gets scarse. Hopefully we will be smart and switch to better means such as electric cars and so forth.

[marconi]

Did you read that article I've mentioned?

[GT]

Update.

[plan_D]

I don't think any of you read my original post properly. Read it again and discover the whole meaning of the post pointing out that the U.S good intentions will not work due to lessons learnt from the British Empire.

The British only attempted to bring culture to it's sub-ordinate nations during the first half of the 19th Century. After the 1857 Mutiny in India, Britain wanted to allow the countries to be their own but supply them with food and housing.

The British Empire failed to achieve it's goals of a free and liberal world in the 19th Century.

The United States has the same good intentions as the British Empire. The United States wants to create a world of free trade and democracy, just like the British Empire wanted in early 19th Century and, then again in late 19th Century.

The fact of the matter is, what the U.S is trying to do with the world today is not about oil. It's about a free trade system where America hopes to reap the benefits of grateful countries. It would be nice if that could and would work because although America is doing it for it's own good, it's creating good among the world at the same time or at least hoping to.

But it won't work, as I said in the first post that obviously no one paid attention to, the British Empire tried the exact same in the 19th Century.

"The British Empire failed but that was after WW 2 about 57years ago and the US never had colonies like the UK did or the intention to have an Empire like that."

The British Empire failed in it's goal of a liberal world of free trade in the 19th Century, or didn't you read my first post? The U.S had and has colonies direct your attention to the 1800-1914 board and discover the history of America. The U.S wanted an empire, it was just as imperialistic as every other "cultured" nation of the 19th Century.

"Shure !! America has good intentions but is it going to work?"

No it's not. The British Empire tried to do it in several different ways, I mentioned three in the original post. That was the whole idea of the post. The British Empire was a generous, cultured and kind Empire at heart but what is at heart and in reality are different things entirely.

The oil "crisis" has nothing to do with it. The U.S isn't aiming for oil in Iraq, it's aiming for a stable, cultured, democractic free state capable of joining the free trade network of the modern world. This would have the U.S and it's allies with another trading partner. It would benefit the world and Iraq. But as I mentioned in the first post, the British Empire tried for that...and it does not work because there has to be nations under other nations. There has to be poor and rich nations. There has to be poor and rich people. There has a be a class system of sorts, no where near as strict as 19th Century Britain but still...

[Parmigiano]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The oil "crisis" has nothing to do with it. The U.S isn't aiming for oil in Iraq, it's aiming for a stable, cultured, democractic free state capable of joining the free trade network of the modern world. ...

I can only hope you are right, maybe I am too cynical but I believe that goodwill and ideals of freedom and democracy has little to do with the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The oil (or better, the control of the main source of energy) is the key of all western activities in Middle East. And the key behind all 'Islamic holy war'. Saddam was OK until he was under 'our' control and was fighting Iran, he was the same ******* and was killing peole like in the last years. He became a problem when started to be independent, and let's not forget that the excuse to start the Iraqui war (the weapons of mass destruction) has been proved a total fake.

We (western powers) just need to keep this resources under control, until alternative sources of energy will be economically available. Otherwise all our civilization will crash.
What the US and other nations are doing is a necessary job to maintain the current level of supremacy, what the Arabs try to do is to reverse this status quo.

The fact that one party fights for 'democracy' and the other fights for the 'Coran' is just smoke, and both parties uses the most effective weapons and tactics they have available.

I would be happy if your analysis is right and mine is wrong, it would be a better world, but as the old saying goes ' thinking badly is a sin, but is often right'

cheers

[Parmigiano]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The oil "crisis" has nothing to do with it. The U.S isn't aiming for oil in Iraq, it's aiming for a stable, cultured, democractic free state capable of joining the free trade network of the modern world. ...

I can only hope you are right, maybe I am too cynical but I believe that goodwill and ideals of freedom and democracy has little to do with the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The oil (or better, the control of the main source of energy) is the key of all western activities in Middle East. And the key behind all 'Islamic holy war'. Saddam was OK until he was under 'our' control and was fighting Iran, he was the same ******* and was killing peole like in the last years. He became a problem when started to be independent, and let's not forget that the excuse to start the Iraqui war (the weapons of mass destruction) has been proved a total fake.

We (western powers) just need to keep this resources under control, until alternative sources of energy will be economically available. Otherwise all our civilization will crash.
What the US and other nations are doing is a necessary job to maintain the current level of supremacy, what the Arabs try to do is to reverse this status quo.

The fact that one party fights for 'democracy' and the other fights for the 'Coran' is just smoke, and both parties uses the most effective weapons and tactics they have available.

I would be happy if your analysis is right and mine is wrong, it would be a better world, but as the old saying goes ' thinking badly is a sin, but is often right'

cheers

[plan_D]

I don't believe for a second that the U.S is aiming for oil. If that had been so the U.S forces could have captured the oil fields of Iraq and held them from all opposition. The USA is the most powerful single country on the planet and no nation would be willing to sacrifice men and money to stop the U.S unless it was a direct threat to their national security.

What the U.S is aiming to do with the world is to create a liberal and free trading network. If the U.S can pull off such a grand scheme of global culture and decency of life then, they hope, the world will be forever grateful and be an ally to the U.S. To be an ally also means to be a trading partner.

The U.S wants to secure free trading partners with the world. By creating a free, democratic state in Iraq it hopes to acquire a trading partner which it will have no beef trading with. This, of course, has the oil involved but it is not just about oil. The U.S has to export it's goods to more nations than it currently is. By giving Iraq the oppurtunity on the world market and Iraq a more modern, cultured society it has a new customer for it's own goods.

The world market is a collection of nations that involves vast networks of imports and exports. The U.S wants to enlarge this network for it's own good and the good of the world. The network can only extend to those of a decent, democratic and free thinking nations. What the U.S is doing is creating these nations. It has all good intention while creating a world where the U.S is forever in a state of power, not by force but by diplomacy.

I have nothing against the intention of the U.S. In fact, I have nothing against the current affairs on the outside of the U.S. The British Empire did exactly the same inside the sphere of it's Empire during the 19th Century. The problem is, it cannot work as the British Empire found out.

The spread of democracy is a nice thought but the fact of the matter is not all nations want democracy. In relgious states they believe the inclusion of democracy is a destruction of their culture.

If it works, then good. I see no problem with the creation of better living, richer and more open states even if it is for the benefit of the "mother" nation.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I don't believe for a second that the U.S is aiming for oil. If that had been so the U.S forces could have captured the oil fields of Iraq and held them from all opposition. The USA is the most powerful single country on the planet and no nation would be willing to sacrifice men and money to stop the U.S unless it was a direct threat to their national security.

What the U.S is aiming to do with the world is to create a liberal and free trading network. If the U.S can pull off such a grand scheme of global culture and decency of life then, they hope, the world will be forever grateful and be an ally to the U.S. To be an ally also means to be a trading partner.

The U.S wants to secure free trading partners with the world. By creating a free, democratic state in Iraq it hopes to acquire a trading partner which it will have no beef trading with. This, of course, has the oil involved but it is not just about oil. The U.S has to export it's goods to more nations than it currently is. By giving Iraq the oppurtunity on the world market and Iraq a more modern, cultured society it has a new customer for it's own goods.

The world market is a collection of nations that involves vast networks of imports and exports. The U.S wants to enlarge this network for it's own good and the good of the world. The network can only extend to those of a decent, democratic and free thinking nations. What the U.S is doing is creating these nations. It has all good intention while creating a world where the U.S is forever in a state of power, not by force but by diplomacy.

I have nothing against the intention of the U.S. In fact, I have nothing against the current affairs on the outside of the U.S. The British Empire did exactly the same inside the sphere of it's Empire during the 19th Century. The problem is, it cannot work as the British Empire found out.

The spread of democracy is a nice thought but the fact of the matter is not all nations want democracy. In relgious states they believe the inclusion of democracy is a destruction of their culture.

If it works, then good. I see no problem with the creation of better living, richer and more open states even if it is for the benefit of the "mother" nation.

Excellent post "D!" If it was all about the oil, we would of sucked millions of gallons out of Iraq by now....

As I stated in another post there are BILLIONS and I mean BILLIONS of untapped reserves here in the US. In my state alone it is estimated that there is more shale oil in this state than all the oil in Saudi Arabia. Because of logistic, enviornmental and political reasons, these reserves haven't been tapped. Aside from that, Plan D said it all!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I can not stand people that say it is about the oil. If it was about oil, I would have been gaurding the oil fields outside of Beig and Kirkuk, and the pipeline outside of Tikrit every damn day. You know what the pipeline was constantly blown up and burning and we did nothing to stop it. I dont recall a single soldier defending a pipeline or an oilfield while I was there.

But hell everyone else who is not there seems to know what is "really" going on there and they love to believe the press. I really can not stand people that have not been there pressing with there thoughts of oil and domination by the US. Give it up people you dont know crap about it. I would love for you all to tell the families of my fallen comrads that there sons and daughters died for oil. You have know clue.

[evangilder]

One of the problems with trying to give people freedom and democracry is when they have lived under tyranny and dictatorships. When that is all you know, the concept of freedom is very foreign. People who have been oppressed suddenly either want to be the oppressor or they want to exact revenge on those who oppressed them.

To suddenly go from living in an oppressive society that is full of fear to an open and free society is a tough transition.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I can agree with that.

[plan_D]

You also have to give the country the ability to stand on it's own two feet with democracy. A previously undemocratic nation does not know how to do that so you have to occupy the area for a long time. With occupation comes hatred from the population wondering why foreign troops are in their lands. That is when rebellions start and the military has to quell them, killing people. When people get killed it fuels the rebellion more and so on, so forth until the inevitable happens...the country with the original good intentions has to abandon or rule by the sword.