Russia Goes Rogue

[AsianDream]

The Talaban weren't financed by the U.S.; during the conflict in Afghanistan in which the U.S. supported Afghan forces fighting the Soviets, the Talaban did not yet exist. They did, however, inherit substantial amounts of U.S. arms and materiel.

This is a highly semantic point – they may not have used the “Taliban/Al Queda” brand time names at the time – but these were the guys the US gave lots of weapons and money to.

You seem to imply that the US supplied weapons to legitimate “freedom fighters” against the Soviets – then these good innocent democracy loving guys all went home – and somehow left all these weapons lying around for bad guys to accidentally pick up?

Doesn't that sound sort of unlikely - no matter how partisan and distorted your view of events is?

 

[AsianDream]

I notice that whenever I ask about the American Civil War and the circumstances surrounding it, everyone becomes very quiet. Because they know the answer. The Civil War was a just war fought for the right reasons with the right result ensuing. The Union was saved and the secessionists were defeated.

Or do you, and I shall ask this yet again, believe that the Southern States should have had the right to secede? And if so, do you believe that the Union had the right to defend its integrity? Answer me this and I will have a better understanding of your position on this matter.

I don’t know why anyone would be quiet about the US Civil War – the outcome may not be what the victors had in mind at the start.

But most History books rate this as a war against the immense and ancient evil of Slavery – which the good guys won.

The southern states forever gave up any right they might have had to “self determination” by embracing and seeking to perpetuate a totally evil idea.

In this example of "evil doers" being defeated - probably some credit is due to the British Empire and the steadfast fight by British Christians against slavery.

 

[AsianDream]

This is why international law tends to favour territorial integrity over self determination. The system as we know it today was designed to formulate globally accepted standards of human behaviour as pertains to sovereign nations and international organisations primarily. It is to provide stability.

This system is one which provides for stability, not individual freedoms or civil rights. That is the job of the individual states themselves. Respect for and adherence to territorial integrity provides for stability. Nationalism and minority self determination do not.

The worship of the God of “Stability” is an ancient one.

It is one that sent China into a deep 3000 year sleep – while the rest of the world passed it by.

But individual rights and freedom is all that really matters or have any “moral right”. Other ideas are just "Window dressing" those that have power use to justify keeping it.

The territorial concept of the state is no more valid (and in most ways the same as) a deal done between inner city gang leaders.

 

[Chalchalero]

I don’t think the 2047 expiry date of the Chinese agreement over Hong Kong with the British has much relevance.

What are the British able to do to enforce this in the meantime anyway?– sending a few imperial gunboats no longer looks like a very credible threat – even if the “cash strapped” Brits could afford to do it.

But you are right – the British did run HK very well – their most important legacy is the idea that government administration should not be corrupt and the importance of the rule of law.

In 1997 Hong Kong’s GDP was 15% of that of mainland China with (at the time) 0.7% of their population. Excluding the rather parasitic (Party connected) Chinese “Property billionaires” much of the real industrial growth in China has been driven by people from Hong Kong.

Politically - the fact China hasn’t fucked up HK is more a message to Taiwan – to show that they can be trusted.

Anyway – I’m in danger of straying seriously “off topic” – maybe I should open a thread on the “future of Hong Kong” – but I doubt many people here (predominantly US) would either know enough about it or be interested enough to comment.

My reference to 2047 had nothing to do with Britain's reaction to anything, but rather my own speculation as to what the world and China will be like then and how that will affect or change Hong Kong's status.

I do agree with you that we have gone way off topic, though...

 

[AsianDream]

My reference to 2047 had nothing to do with Britain's reaction to anything, but rather my own speculation as to what the world and China will be like then and how that will affect or change Hong Kong's status.

I do agree with you that we have gone way off topic, though...

My answer was to say that the treaty with the British is completely irrelevant to either the present or future fate of Hong Kong.

The world in 2047 will probably be far more dominated by the aftermath of "Peak Oil" - which has either just passed or will do so in the next decade.

To get back "on topic" - the fact that Russia is now the main Oil and Gas supplier to the EU might well explain why they are so anxious not to confront Russia over the issue of Georgia?

 

[Kulindahr]

In this example of "evil doers" being defeated - probably some credit is due to the British Empire and the steadfast fight by British Christians against slavery.

Those same forces would have caught up with the South eventually. The Christian fight against slavery succeeded to a great extent because the economic situation made slavery too costly.

The worship of the God of “Stability” is an ancient one.

It is one that sent China into a deep 3000 year sleep – while the rest of the world passed it by.

But individual rights and freedom is all that really matters or have any “moral right”. Other ideas are just "Window dressing" those that have power use to justify keeping it.

The territorial concept of the state is no more valid (and in most ways the same as) a deal done between inner city gang leaders.

Wow.
That is one very astute post!

 

[Kulindahr]

To get back "on topic" - the fact that Russia is now the main Oil and Gas supplier to the EU might well explain why they are so anxious not to confront Russia over the issue of Georgia?

I said that earlier in the thread, and no one paid attention.

 

[Chalchalero]

Oh yes. I have said so as well, but no one listened to me either. In fact, I have tried to provide many facts and figures to define my position, but people have tended to ignore that too. You people seem to need three line posts. So here we are, right?

 

[AsianDream]

Originally Posted by AsianDream
In this example of "evil doers" being defeated - probably some credit is due to the British Empire and the steadfast fight by British Christians against slavery.

Those same forces would have caught up with the South eventually. The Christian fight against slavery succeeded to a great extent because the economic situation made slavery too costly.

I don't think historic outcomes are inevitable – they only look so with hindsight.

So a history in which the South won the US civil war could have happened. Slavery is a very efficient system for those that own the slaves.

So I think that in this case the contemporary Christian moral idea against slavery was a very powerful force.

 

[AsianDream]

Originally Posted by AsianDream
To get back "on topic" - the fact that Russia is now the main Oil and Gas supplier to the EU might well explain why they are so anxious not to confront Russia over the issue of Georgia?

I said that earlier in the thread, and no one paid attention.

I'm sure no one will pay attention to me saying it either! - but it is essential background knowledge for anyone that wants to have any real understanding of the EU response in this case

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think historic outcomes are inevitable – they only look so with hindsight.

So a history in which the South won the US civil war could have happened. Slavery is a very efficient system for those that own the slaves.

Just one thing to say about that: Eli Whitney.