Time to bring back colonization

[JerrySeinfeld]

Isn't it about time, given images like this:

http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm

That we simply started ramping up our presence in the middle east?

I know everyone on the left is bored and has ADD when it comes to committment, but my goodness.

We all know what's at stake here. We all know the lefties want to do what "feels good" so lets start talking turkey about the differences...the REAL differences between our societies and why our way of life is so much better.

We seriously need to colonize - ie IMPOSE our way of life (freedom, equality for women, democracy) upon these people who frankly, don't know any better.

Let's get on the the colonization! The USA, the world's first non-imperial superpower needs to change its ways and start IMPERIALIZING!!!

[myata]

Good riddance. I'm sure we'll see you there, in the first lines of new colonization. And don't forget to bring your buddies along as well. Don't rush, take your time coming back. We'll hold it for you here.

[jdobbin]

Let's get on the the colonization! The USA, the world's first non-imperial superpower needs to change its ways and start IMPERIALIZING!!!

Does this mean Canada can get the U.S. to overthrow the metric system?

[bradco]

"The USA, the world's first non-imperial superpower needs to change its ways and start IMPERIALIZING!!!"

I wonder what Latin America would have to say about this comment. Their intervention policies were a new form of imperialism in my opinion.

[bradco]

from the site you provided:

"was found guilty of beating her husband to death with a steel hammer as he slept."

Obviously there are questions of whether or not she was guilty but if she is then she received the same punishment she would have possibly recieved in texas. Just without all the appeals that are present in the US system which more than just a few conservatives argue against. (for the record Im against the death penalty in any country)

Although I would argue on intervening to protect people's lives I see that as much different than imperialism.

[Argus]

Let's get on the the colonization! The USA, the world's first non-imperial superpower needs to change its ways and start IMPERIALIZING!!!

The West does not have the stomach for what colonizing means. You don't colonise with kindness and gentle manners. You colonize by slaughtering anyone who opposes you. The British, French, Portugese and Spanish were very good at this. But times have changed. The public wouldn't tolerate the kind of harsh measures required to keep order in colonies.

[Higgly]

The USA, the world's first non-imperial ....

ROTFLMAO!

[jbg]

Great thread.

I've argued, for a long time, that colonialism under some label needed to be restored. The shrinking of the globe makes it more urgent.

The old imperatives were merely to protect shipping and commerce. We still need to protect our oil supply.

Now, when dangerous people from faraway lands (I know, I sound like Kipling) can fly planes that they cannot build into buildings they cannot build, control must be asserted somehow. The UN model, of allowing for "self-determination" and allowing independent governments to police their own countries has been an abject, total failure. These countries are swamps of human misery and conflict. Their rulers, however, have swelling Swiss bank accounts and all the armaments that money can buy.

Ever wonder why the peole of Gaza are starving, wages are not being paid, yet arms of all kinds are getting in? Those arms aren't free.

Even though the West, for the period, roughly, from 1945 to 2001 was prepared to "live and let live", the others in the world were not. Thus, the need to re-establish global order.

[Black Dog]

The West does not have the stomach for what colonizing means. You don't colonise with kindness and gentle manners. You colonize by slaughtering anyone who opposes you. The British, French, Portugese and Spanish were very good at this. But times have changed. The public wouldn't tolerate the kind of harsh measures required to keep order in colonies.

Never mind the stomach: we don't have the dosh. How much would a project like this cost? Who would pay for it?

[myata]

Never mind the stomach: we don't have the dosh. How much would a project like this cost? Who would pay for it?

Er, volunteers? Anyone?

[Argus]

The West does not have the stomach for what colonizing means. You don't colonise with kindness and gentle manners. You colonize by slaughtering anyone who opposes you. The British, French, Portugese and Spanish were very good at this. But times have changed. The public wouldn't tolerate the kind of harsh measures required to keep order in colonies.

Never mind the stomach: we don't have the dosh. How much would a project like this cost? Who would pay for it?

Doing it right means it pays for itself. Furthermore, the best way to do it on the cheap is to use mercenaries.

Bill Gates could conquer all of Africa fairly cheaply. He could hire eastern Europeans for a song, buy up their old equipment dirt cheap, and then take over a screwed up country or two: Liberia would do. One good mechanized division would slaughter any army any African state could put against it. So then it's just a matter of taking care of guerrilas. You can never take care of them all, of course, but there are several paths to reducing their numbers - some harsh, like slaughtering anyone in a given area, some more patient, which is paying informers and raising the standard of living so people stop wanting to overthrow their conquerors.

And really, it wouldn't be very hard to raise the standard of living in most African countries.

And after you've got the first country you just recruit from there, and use locals to oversee the other locals and conquer new territory. The British were masters of this in India. They held the whole country, virtually a continent, including modern Bangaldesh and Pakistan, with a few thousand people.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Doing it right means it pays for itself. Furthermore, the best way to do it on the cheap is to use mercenaries.

Bill Gates could conquer all of Africa fairly cheaply.

Not really, (and the US did control Liberia, supporting a 'brutal dictatorship' to protect their economic interests there) the problem lies in 'the opposing force'. It used to be communists, such as the decades old imbroglio over the resources of Angola. If there is something there worth having, chances are someone else wants it too, so they do the same things you do...hire mercs, (or the gov't, if possible) and your costs skyrocket. On the plus side, (just to be cheeky) it is almost always just the locals that have to do all the dying.