Qatar vs all others

[a completely inoffensive name]

Look at ACIN. He was a little troll when he came but he grew, both personally and intellectually, over the years. He now makes insightful comments that are on topic.

I try to read a book a year, yeah.

[Strike For The South]

South Africa and the former Rhodesia were only "successful" if they were judged by their very small white minority populations. Even then, it took massive subsidies from the apartheid era government to keep up the veneer of prosperity.

[Pannonian]

South Africa and the former Rhodesia were only "successful" if they were judged by their very small white minority populations. Even then, it took massive subsidies from the apartheid era government to keep up the veneer of prosperity.

South Africa, both past and present, are successful in their imperial ambitions, insofar as they dominate their region. Any proposed interventions in their region has to have their say so. If they don't give it, it doesn't happen. And if they decide to intervene, they do it. Global powers apart, that's as imperial as one gets in this day and age; their own mini-Monroe doctrine. If you're a Great Power like China, you can even play this role in the face of the US, eg. North Korea. Smaller global powers like Britain and France can play this role among their smaller former colonies, if the regional hegemons don't raise too much fuss.

[Strike For The South]

South Africa dominated the region during the cold war because of the United States good graces. Most of the material wealth in the country has already been staked out by Westerners anyway. In that sense, their region is unimportant, if China or the US wanted a bigger role, South Africa could do nothing to stop them. They are not a successful country.

[a completely inoffensive name]

South Africa dominated the region during the cold war because of the United States good graces. Most of the material wealth in the country has already been staked out by Westerners anyway. In that sense, their region is unimportant, if China or the US wanted a bigger role, South Africa could do nothing to stop them. They are not a successful country.

For about a decade, South Africa did have a small nuclear arsenal and could have leveraged that. Sending 6-12 nukes in the air could provoke both sides into launching their arsenals, MAD logic would apply here.

[AE Bravo]

If there was any doubt this was a premeditated campaign, it's gone now.

http://www.wsj.com/video/saudi-arabi....html?mod=e2tw

Now that the main regional elite opposition (Qatar) has been ostracized, the Saudi line of succession is secured and no more dinosaur kings. Qatar will have no choice but to pay their fair share to the Trump administration and if they don't submit to the list of demands, there will be a forced bloodless regime change. The Americans at Al Udeid are the only thing preventing this from happening tomorrow.

If the Americans take a firm stance with the Saudis and Turkey starts to favor their relationship with the Saudis over Qatar, it will be over for the legitimacy of the Qatari royal family.

[Greyblades]

Oh cry me a river. The development of the African countries was also only ineffective due to being reduced by war (you know, people in red coats coming to make war) and hindered by outside powers (you know, foreign people in red coats trying to force their culture upon them).

You didn't ever consider that these wars and outside influences might be a natural consequence of Britain's imperial ambitions and the failure to deal with them a purely British problem? You just seem to assume that British world hegemony is somehow God's gift to the greatest country on earth and all the other powers not liking it are obviously inspired by the devil and trying to keep the world a worse place than godly Britain could have made it. *insert facepalm smiley here*

You seem to assume they would have developed anywhere close to our level by now without our influence, or at all.

This is delusional; constant progression is not the automatic "natural" state of humanity, we spent 186,000 years before we started farming, from there it took 14,000 for us to reach where we are now and we only really spent 600-800 of those with any degree of constant advancement. To say the Africans would have developed on their own is to believe in some form of human predeterminism' that humanity cannot help but advance, the very idea is ridiculous when you consider the periods of Japanese and Chinese isolation.

Europe became what it did through what could be explained as anything from a fluke of circumstance and geography to some sort of genuine superiority, whatever floats your boat but the point remains it only developed in Europe, nowhere else. Without European influence Africa would still be what has been for 10000 years; kingdoms and tribes selling their people as slaves to foreigners for weapons to use to capture more slaves.

At best maybe they'd one day go through the same millennia long process of bloodshed and toil that produced Europe as it is today, but more likely they would continue wallowing in medieval stagnancy forever. The only way the continent would have been properly modernized in any reasonable time frame was through the process of colonialism.

The British Empire alongside the French, German and Portuguese, whether through intent or by accident were the only source of progression in the continent and their influence would have eventually produced states of the caliber of India, maybe even the dominions. Cut short as it was we instead got half baked nations with insufficient education and cultural appreciation of democracy to prevent usurpation. Most of the eventual democracies have had to undergo their own periods of conflict and oppression to learn themselves what could have been taught, saving so much blood and tears.

So a state that doesn't go to war would have more resources to improve internal processes? Blowing my mind here.

But seriously, what are you even arguing here. My point was that the British state lacked the necessary structure and power and thus could not hold onto its territories if it wanted to.
Your argument is that this is true, but only because war had depleted the state.

What are you arguing?

My argument was that the British empire produced the best colonial states, in response you called it exceptionalism, tried to associate my position with revisionism and said the "British administrative state was 1. too weak and 2. too ineffective to really govern those states."

In the context of the antagonism before it, I interpret it as an allegation that the British empire's failures was solely down to incompetence, so I respond that it was not incompetence but circumstance; that were it not for the downgrade in capacity and urgent need to cut weight the African colonies would have had a chance to become fully developed before independence, that they could have stood alongside the dominions as successful colonial projects instead of being pushed out the gate half finished.

Why am I not engaging you in an honest debate? because there was no debate to begin with, we agree on the broad strokes I just outlined. But because you are thickheaded and eager to rush into what you perceive is a leftist attack on your national pride, you blindly start spewing garbage on the internet. Talk about wrong-think, you can't even digest the content of an internet post if it means reconciling your views with a "champagne socialist" .

Ignore that last sentence, wrote this in a bad mood.

My arguments were was working under the premise that the native Africans were fully capable of meeting modern standards of self governance if only they had been under a sustained British administration for long enough to develop democratic traditions. I have never in any way implied that race that a factor in their capability to adopt the infinitely more advanced British culture yet you called my arguments Rhodian supremacy.

Cecil Rhodes was an Anglo Saxon race supremacist, you accuse me of blindly spewing garbage but you outright called me a goddamn Nazi!

And why did I receive the standard go to accusation of the oddly comfortable champions of the proletariat? As far as I can tell, from yours, Husar's and Samaritan's lack of anything resembling actual effort to disprove my assessment it's for not following to the long standing left wing contention that colonialism was an irredeemable mistake.

I did try debating you in the past, it was pointless. You ignore all rational arguments and cling to your preconceived notion of the world. Sometimes (rarely) you present some anecdotal evidence. You either unable or unwilling to consider factors that disprove your badly thought out hypotheses, that are often influenced by your parochialism.

On top of all that, you're irritating and have a bad personality. You're barely better than a troll. You try to hide your ignorance behind strong words and strong opinions, going for flash instead of substance, but even that doesn't work as you don't have enough charisma to pull off flash.

Strange, that is almost exactly what I think of you.

You are a man who exhibits a frequent lack of comprehension. You leave point after point unaddressed, constantly retreating from meeting challenges and instead insinuate base motivations by your opponent which has not been exhibited or even alluded to. You lecture on subjects you are clearly lacking expertise in and attempt to hide your bare bones grasp, at times even outright ignorance, behind condescension and antagonism.

Case in point, in response to the statement that Britain produced the best successor states you decide to insinuate my knowledge of the empire is limited to Hong Kong, despite the myriad times I have learned about and exhibited prior knowledge when discussing the various parts of the empire on this very forum; my knowledge of colonial Ireland, India, South Africa and Gibraltar, to name a few, have been enhanced by this very board.

You follow by presenting a list of colonies, presumably to exhibit the failed states produced by colonial rule. This would be largely irrelevant as the failures do not discount the near unparalleled success of America and the dominions, but your ignorance of the empire's history has resulted in you presenting pre-independance success stories as failures.

Nigeria was the model colony; prosperous, educated middle class, developing political identity. Uganda was also prosperous under the British, to the point of being relatively unaffected by the great depression. Ghana, the gold coast colony, was highly profitable, it was built up by the British significantly and it was in all respects a successful colony, lasting 10 years before being taken over in a coup. These nations were entirely successful under British rule and had they remained under it for a few more decades they might have reached the levels of the dominions.

You even presented fairly successful independents as failures; Guyana left as a republic that never actually fell and continues to this day, India is the same and is now the worlds biggest democracy set to rival china as the next great power Jamaca left the empire prosperous and while it only stayed economically successful up until the mid 80s it's still standing.

That you lump them in together with the abject failures of Kenya and Burma let alone the mistake of Pakistan shows a lack of awareness so blatant it seems almost like it's intentional, yet you have the gall to call my knowledge limited?

Look at ACIN. He was a little troll when he came but he grew, both personally and intellectually, over the years. He now makes insightful comments that are on topic. You, on the other hand, appear to have regressed, because instead of admitting to yourself that you actually have to make an effort and broaden your knowledge to contribute, you withdrew back to your little bubble.

I've long stopped considering you as a reliable judge of other orgahs; when I look at ACIN and several others on this forum I notice that they have made a significant downgrade in insight since last year.

People I once considered moderate now jump on every chance to attack their political opposites, ones I considered wise now spend their time shouting propaganda into the void.

I try not to instigate but I am hardly innocent of joining in.

South Africa and the former Rhodesia were only "successful" if they were judged by their very small white minority populations. Even then, it took massive subsidies from the apartheid era government to keep up the veneer of prosperity.

Rhodesia failed, and what came after turned bread basket to famine.

[Husar]

You seem to assume they would have developed anywhere close to our level by now without our influence, or at all.

This is delusional; constant progression is not the automatic "natural" state of humanity, we spent 186,000 years before we started farming, from there it took 14,000 for us to reach where we are now and we only really spent 600-800 of those with any degree of constant advancement. To say the Africans would have developed on their own is to believe in some form of human predeterminism' that humanity cannot help but advance, the very idea is ridiculous when you consider the periods of Japanese and Chinese isolation.

Europe became what it did through what could be explained as anything from a fluke of circumstance and geography to some sort of genuine superiority, whatever floats your boat but the point remains it only developed in Europe, nowhere else. Without European influence Africa would still be what has been for 10000 years; kingdoms and tribes selling their people as slaves to foreigners for weapons to use to capture more slaves.

At best maybe they'd one day go through the same millennia long process of bloodshed and toil that produced Europe as it is today, but more likely they would continue wallowing in medieval stagnancy forever. The only way the continent would have been properly modernized in any reasonable time frame was through the process of colonialism.

The British Empire alongside the French, German and Portuguese, whether through intent or by accident were the only source of progression in the continent and their influence would have eventually produced states of the caliber of India, maybe even the dominions. Cut short as it was we instead got half baked nations with insufficient education and cultural appreciation of democracy to prevent usurpation. Most of the eventual democracies have had to undergo their own periods of conflict and oppression to learn themselves what could have been taught, saving so much blood and tears.

That's a whole lot you pulled out of your arse there and still managed to miss the point.
You're applying a double standard when you say Britain would have been glorious without the foreign invaders holding it down and at the same time claiming that other nations would have been stagnant without it. In fact you say yourself that European nations may have developed in the first place due to the constant mutual interference. In that case no outside influence was holding Britain back, it was instead developing Britain further. Unless of course you want to claim that British exceptionalism led the nation to greatness all on its own. In which case the same could just as well be true for Africans.

The rest of the argument is complete shite because technological progress does not have to be imposed by colonizing, it can also be shared by trade, like it was done in Japan and even Africa before the colonization. The problems African states seem to have now to use that effectively are a lack of stability and rigid political traditions since their former colonial overlords completely disturbed their development in that regard. That they had somehow planned to give them new stability and failed is not an excuse. If someone slips on the banana peel you dropped, you won't get away with claiming that you planned to pick it up after thinking about how to do it for two weeks.

[Pannonian]

That's a whole lot you pulled out of your arse there and still managed to miss the point.
You're applying a double standard when you say Britain would have been glorious without the foreign invaders holding it down and at the same time claiming that other nations would have been stagnant without it. In fact you say yourself that European nations may have developed in the first place due to the constant mutual interference. In that case no outside influence was holding Britain back, it was instead developing Britain further. Unless of course you want to claim that British exceptionalism led the nation to greatness all on its own. In which case the same could just as well be true for Africans.

The rest of the argument is complete shite because technological progress does not have to be imposed by colonizing, it can also be shared by trade, like it was done in Japan and even Africa before the colonization. The problems African states seem to have now to use that effectively are a lack of stability and rigid political traditions since their former colonial overlords completely disturbed their development in that regard. That they had somehow planned to give them new stability and failed is not an excuse. If someone slips on the banana peel you dropped, you won't get away with claiming that you planned to pick it up after thinking about how to do it for two weeks.

There is little indication that Africa would have significantly developed without European intervention, and most evidence points against this. Most of what we now recognise as the modern world developed among the Eurasian axis (see Jared Diamond), with other cultures developing a regional hegemony at best. And let's not forget that even these regional hegemonies, when trading with globalised European powers, weren't exactly ethically pleasant by present day standards (the slave trade, anyone?).

There's no point in pointing fingers at Britain and saying that it's all Britain's fault. Britain did little different from what any of her contemporaries did within their ability, and in retrospective has left behind a better legacy than her contemporaries managed. Certainly not perfect by any means. But good enough that the world can afford to perch on their ivory towers to preach about what Britain has done wrong. Just about the only reason why other countries haven't done as much wrong as Britain is because they weren't in a position to do so. Other countries, trying to catch up on the business of empire building, did try emulate Britain. Nearly all of them are hated far more than Britain is (check out the generation of Indians who were young adults in the 1940s).

[Gilrandir]

Europe became what it did through what could be explained as anything from a fluke of circumstance and geography to some sort of genuine superiority, whatever floats your boat but the point remains it only developed in Europe, nowhere else. Without European influence Africa would still be what has been for 10000 years; kingdoms and tribes selling their people as slaves to foreigners for weapons to use to capture more slaves.

There is little indication that Africa would have significantly developed without European intervention, and most evidence points against this. Most of what we now recognise as the modern world developed among the Eurasian axis (see Jared Diamond), with other cultures developing a regional hegemony at best.

I heard a theory that civilization moves on faster in lands of moderate climate. People in the places where it is too hot don't have to try hard to get provisions, so they don't have to move faster. People in the places where it is too cold just can't overcome the severe nature and devote all their time on the struggle to survive.

[Pannonian]

I heard a theory that civilization moves on faster in lands of moderate climate. People in the places where it is too hot don't have to try hard to get provisions, so they don't have to move faster. People in the places where it is too cold just can't overcome the severe nature and devote all their time on the struggle to survive.

Diamond's theory is that the east-west Eurasian axis allowed packages of crops and animals to move swiftly along a generally similar climate, whereas the north-south American axis allowed only so much movement before climate changed drastically. Similarly for the north-south African continent. European colonisation of the other continents allowed the Eurasian technological advantages to colonise these previously isolated areas. So any of the Chinese, Arabs or Europeans could have used these advantages to colonise the world. In the end, for one reason or another, it was the Europeans (although the other two also had a go).

[Sir Moody]

I heard a theory that civilization moves on faster in lands of moderate climate. People in the places where it is too hot don't have to try hard to get provisions, so they don't have to move faster. People in the places where it is too cold just can't overcome the severe nature and devote all their time on the struggle to survive.

Your kind of on the right track - its an abundance of resources and "free" time which propagates development of civilisation - in cultures which struggle to "break even" in food production you see less development. This is the primary reason Southern Africa was mostly undeveloped when European interference began - due to the temperature the native crops yielded very little food and thus the tribes spent most of their time and energy farming.

The Zulus are a good example of how this plays out - prior to the arrival of the Dutch the Zulu and other tribes were not overly warlike - while there was conflict it was mostly bloodless as they couldn't afford the loss of farmers and so they developed tactics mostly involving skirmishing.

Then the Dutch arrived and brought with them European crops - they sold these crops to the local tribes in exchange for lands. The Local tribes began farming these crops which flourished producing an abundance of food which lead to a population boom and thus a reduction in the amount of labour required to keep the tribe fed.

With this newly acquired free time the Zulus pioneered a new set of tactics which emphasised close quarters fighting rather than skirmishing - they used these new tactics to brutally conquer the other local tribes and form their own Kingdom - without the abundance of manpower, which was a result of the abundance of food, the Zulu Kingdom would probably have never arose.

going back to your original statement, cultures which arose in moderate climates had far easier times producing food which leads to more free time to do other things - including developing a civilisation.

[Sarmatian]

The only mistake made was forcing us to end it early. We could have a world of hong kongs instead of a pile of zimbabwes.

Ok, I'll play ball. This was your original statement. Do you seriously want to have a discussion based on this or do you want to revise it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If there was any doubt this was a premeditated campaign, it's gone now.

http://www.wsj.com/video/saudi-arabi....html?mod=e2tw

Now that the main regional elite opposition (Qatar) has been ostracized, the Saudi line of succession is secured and no more dinosaur kings. Qatar will have no choice but to pay their fair share to the Trump administration and if they don't submit to the list of demands, there will be a forced bloodless regime change. The Americans at Al Udeid are the only thing preventing this from happening tomorrow.

If the Americans take a firm stance with the Saudis and Turkey starts to favor their relationship with the Saudis over Qatar, it will be over for the legitimacy of the Qatari royal family.

I can't see either America or Britain signing off on a toppling of the Qatari Royals. Both Great Powers have interests in the region outside of Audi Arabia and Britain has significant political interest in Bahrain. Whilst no Western Power like Qatar supporting Islamists I don't think there's a serious belief in the Foreign Office or the State Department that Qatar supports terrorists more than Saudi Arabia does. Add to this the fact that the current Emir is entirely British educated and I suspect the Anglophone powers at least prefer him as a partner to the Saudis themselves.

Regime change might also give Islamists another opportunity to gain a foothold in another oil-rich country. Britain has, for over a century, favoured theocratically sanctioned monarchies and incremental reform over regime change and Republicanism for this reason.

Installation of a Saudi client in Qatar might also signal Bahrain would be next and that really isn't going to fly with the US, UK or NATO bearing in mind CENTCOM is based in Bahrain as well as significant Royal Navy facilities which support operations East of Suez.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok, I'll play ball. This was your original statement. Do you seriously want to have a discussion based on this or do you want to revise it?

Last Christmas I discussed exactly this issue with a very attractive Columbian Academic.

I observed that, whilst we should not now endorse the doctrine of "White Man's Burden" which spurred on British Colonialism we should remember that the Foreign Office had long term plans for our Colonies to ultimately become independent and self-governing. For example, the 1919 Act for the Government of India was aimed at ultimately providing for an Independent Government a la Canada or Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govern...ndia_Act,_1919

Irrc it was assumed this would take about 40 years to set up in India - so Independence around 1960, or roughly a generation earlier later than happened historically.

This pattern of "early withdrawal" was repeated throughout our former Colonies as agitation and rebellion continued after WWII. It can reasonably argued that without WWII the transition from Empire to Commonwealth would have been managed more gradually and everyone, including Britain, would now be better off.

HOWEVER, and this is the essential point, a people have a right to self-determination and there are practical reasons why we were "thrown out early", not least of which was ill-use during WWII where the Colonies were either bled or neglected in order to defeat Hitler in Europe. So, on a purely practical level Greyblades may be correct that early withdrawal had a negative impact on many former colonies, but early withdrawal should not be something the locals should be blamed for. Rather, we should look at the circumstances which turned historically passive local populations actively hostile to Colonial Administration.

[Pannonian]

I can't see either America or Britain signing off on a toppling of the Qatari Royals. Both Great Powers have interests in the region outside of Audi Arabia

Bloody Germans have taken over the middle east.

[Husar]

There is little indication that Africa would have significantly developed without European intervention, and most evidence points against this.

That still doesn't make it the white man's burden to go there and develop it. And when I blame colonialism, it's not just Britain, Britain was just one of the pioneers and the largest offender. The German decision to get colonies was purely driven by greedy corporatist needs and monarchic arrogance wanting to accumulate greatness as the British role model that they wanted to catch up to.

If what Sir Moody says is even half true, trade with Europeans could have started their development just as well, but perhaps without having the Europeans to blame for all the atrocities as long as the trade would have been mostly kept to civilian things and not enormous arms deals...

I'm nowhere saying Africa would have been a wonderland, I'm saying because we didn't leave it alone, we may now be partially to blame for its current status. It might be even worse now without colonialism, but apart from that being pure speculation, at least we'd then not be to blame for it. I do admit that the line between meddling and "just trade" can be blurry sometimes, but with colonialism it seems pretty clear on which side of the line it is.

As for what could have been if WW1 hadn't happened, well, WW1 happened because of colonialism and the pursuit of power and glory. Maybe WW1 hadn't happened if Europeans hadn't put so much effort into this pursuit of glory around the world in the first place?
Or in other words, it sounds like blaming WW1 is putting the blame somewhere in the middle of a long chain of events where it happens to be convenient.

[Pannonian]

That still doesn't make it the white man's burden to go there and develop it. And when I blame colonialism, it's not just Britain, Britain was just one of the pioneers and the largest offender. The German decision to get colonies was purely driven by greedy corporatist needs and monarchic arrogance wanting to accumulate greatness as the British role model that they wanted to catch up to.

If what Sir Moody says is even half true, trade with Europeans could have started their development just as well, but perhaps without having the Europeans to blame for all the atrocities as long as the trade would have been mostly kept to civilian things and not enormous arms deals...

I'm nowhere saying Africa would have been a wonderland, I'm saying because we didn't leave it alone, we may now be partially to blame for its current status. It might be even worse now without colonialism, but apart from that being pure speculation, at least we'd then not be to blame for it. I do admit that the line between meddling and "just trade" can be blurry sometimes, but with colonialism it seems pretty clear on which side of the line it is.

As for what could have been if WW1 hadn't happened, well, WW1 happened because of colonialism and the pursuit of power and glory. Maybe WW1 hadn't happened if Europeans hadn't put so much effort into this pursuit of glory around the world in the first place?
Or in other words, it sounds like blaming WW1 is putting the blame somewhere in the middle of a long chain of events where it happens to be convenient.

Remember the slave trade happened without the Europeans getting involved in the interior. By the time Europeans (maybe not the barbaric Belgians) got stuck into the interior, the worst of the evils of imperialism was over. One rarely sees the African slave traders blamed though. It's always the Europeans.

[Sarmatian]

Concept of white man's burden and concept of holding Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans to the same standards don't really go well together.

[Pannonian]

Concept of white man's burden and concept of holding Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans to the same standards don't really go well together.

They're all the same. The people who did all that are all dead.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Concept of white man's burden and concept of holding Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans to the same standards don't really go well together.

That depends a great deal on your definition of White Man's Burden.

The strongest current in British thought was that we needed to civilise the "barbarians". Britain didn't really have an Imperial ideology until after we had an Empire, probably after the end of Company Rule in India. So we basically copied the Roman ideaology.

So "Britishness" is not an innate quality but a set of values, Parliamentary Democracy, fair play, quiet living - tea and cricket. At the same time "British Rule" was analogous to "Pax Romana", it had to be beneficial to the locals and the long-term goal was to make them British.

In essence, the "White Man's Burden" here is the burden of carrying on Roman Civilisation and ensuring its return to dominance.

[Montmorency]

That depends a great deal on your definition of White Man's Burden.

The strongest current in British thought was that we needed to civilise the "barbarians". Britain didn't really have an Imperial ideology until after we had an Empire, probably after the end of Company Rule in India. So we basically copied the Roman ideaology.

So "Britishness" is not an innate quality but a set of values, Parliamentary Democracy, fair play, quiet living - tea and cricket. At the same time "British Rule" was analogous to "Pax Romana", it had to be beneficial to the locals and the long-term goal was to make them British.

In essence, the "White Man's Burden" here is the burden of carrying on Roman Civilisation and ensuring its return to dominance.

But in its colonies during this last century Britain tended to empower conservative local elites who were conservative both in the general sense and in the sense of rejecting or holding at arm's length the culture of the colonizers. These locals went a long way in suppressing the nascent intellegentsia who were educated to Western norms and might agitate for things like "parliamentary democracy" and "fair play". I would think the British had more interest in extracting the resources within those colonies than converting their inhabitants to a new way of life of enlightenment and cosmopolitan comity.

[Pannonian]

But in its colonies during this last century Britain tended to empower conservative local elites who were conservative both in the general sense and in the sense of rejecting or holding at arm's length the culture of the colonizers. These locals went a long way in suppressing the nascent intellegentsia who were educated to Western norms and might agitate for things like "parliamentary democracy" and "fair play". I would think the British had more interest in extracting the resources within those colonies than converting their inhabitants to a new way of life of enlightenment and cosmopolitan comity.

Have a look at post-colonialist cricket literature for a reading on the cultural relationships you're talking about. A History of West Indies Cricket looks at cricket within the context of colonial and post-colonial societal relations, within a politic that exists culturally and as a cricketing entity, and was written by one of the giants of West Indian politics. Cricket within the (former) British Empire has a history of reflecting the relations between the rulers and the ruled, both British and native.

[Furunculus]

without having to read the original source, would you briefly elaborate on the point you are making?

[Pannonian]

without having to read the original source, would you briefly elaborate on the point you are making?

Are you asking me or Montmorency?

[AE Bravo]

I can't see either America or Britain signing off on a toppling of the Qatari Royals. Both Great Powers have interests in the region outside of Audi Arabia and Britain has significant political interest in Bahrain. Whilst no Western Power like Qatar supporting Islamists I don't think there's a serious belief in the Foreign Office or the State Department that Qatar supports terrorists more than Saudi Arabia does. Add to this the fact that the current Emir is entirely British educated and I suspect the Anglophone powers at least prefer him as a partner to the Saudis themselves.

Regime change might also give Islamists another opportunity to gain a foothold in another oil-rich country. Britain has, for over a century, favoured theocratically sanctioned monarchies and incremental reform over regime change and Republicanism for this reason.

Installation of a Saudi client in Qatar might also signal Bahrain would be next and that really isn't going to fly with the US, UK or NATO bearing in mind CENTCOM is based in Bahrain as well as significant Royal Navy facilities which support operations East of Suez.

While approval by these countries is beginning to seem less necessary, the regional consensus will provide external powers enough incentive to side with those who are willing to normalize relations with Israel and crack down on political Islam. Bahrain is a protectorate (Saudi), so the Saudis are not interested in regime change there. I don't see how the Emir's college education factors into the decision-making process of the British authorities or any western incumbent for that matter. Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood oppose the geopolitical vision of the west and Arab allies. As for the Anglophone powers preferring Tamim as a partner, you may be right about the American deep state and Britain but again, regional consensus will ultimately be how the decision will be evaluated.

I think you may have overlooked some of the details of a potential regime change. There is a prince in exile who failed a coup in 2005, the current Emir's father Hamad had gained power through a coup decades ago as well so the legitimacy of the Qatari throne is quite fragile. In the event of a regime change, he would become the ruler of Qatar.

Despite the political imprudence of this blockade, it's more likely that countries like Britain will side with those who are trying to get rid of elements in society that demonize the west. Qatar has doubled down on this attitude when backed into a corner.

[AE Bravo]

Bloody Germans have taken over the middle east.

Have you heard of Israel?

[a completely inoffensive name]

My argument was that the British empire produced the best colonial states, in response you called it exceptionalism, tried to associate my position with revisionism and said the "British administrative state was 1. too weak and 2. too ineffective to really govern those states."

In the context of the antagonism before it, I interpret it as an allegation that the British empire's failures was solely down to incompetence

Then you saw things that were not there simply because you were baited by the banter.

My arguments were was working under the premise that the native Africans were fully capable of meeting modern standards of self governance if only they had been under a sustained British administration for long enough to develop democratic traditions. I have never in any way implied that race that a factor in their capability to adopt the infinitely more advanced British culture yet you called my arguments Rhodian supremacy.

Cecil Rhodes was an Anglo Saxon race supremacist, you accuse me of blindly spewing garbage but you outright called me a goddamn Nazi!

A. Cecil Rhodes died 30 years before the Nazi's even took over Germany. Learn more history.
B. There is a difference between calling an argument 'Rhodian' or 'facistic', etc... and calling the individual those things. Get rid of the victim complex.

I've long stopped considering you as a reliable judge of other orgahs; when I look at ACIN and several others on this forum I notice that they have made a significant downgrade in insight since last year.

People I once considered moderate now jump on every chance to attack their political opposites, ones I considered wise now spend their time shouting propaganda into the void.

And in true narcissistic fashion, instead of asking yourself why you have moved so far away from everyone else, you ask everyone else why we have moved so far away from you.

That is the real reason why I don't even pretend to give you respectful responses. I couldn't care less if you disagree with me, everyone else does.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But in its colonies during this last century Britain tended to empower conservative local elites who were conservative both in the general sense and in the sense of rejecting or holding at arm's length the culture of the colonizers. These locals went a long way in suppressing the nascent intellegentsia who were educated to Western norms and might agitate for things like "parliamentary democracy" and "fair play". I would think the British had more interest in extracting the resources within those colonies than converting their inhabitants to a new way of life of enlightenment and cosmopolitan comity.

Is that really true?

You should look up the first Black President of Rhodesia.

Certainyl, since Independence we have tended to support local conservative elites, but as I already explained the British exit aborted whatever plans we had for many of our Colonies.

While approval by these countries is beginning to seem less necessary, the regional consensus will provide external powers enough incentive to side with those who are willing to normalize relations with Israel and crack down on political Islam. Bahrain is a protectorate (Saudi), so the Saudis are not interested in regime change there. I don't see how the Emir's college education factors into the decision-making process of the British authorities or any western incumbent for that matter. Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood oppose the geopolitical vision of the west and Arab allies. As for the Anglophone powers preferring Tamim as a partner, you may be right about the American deep state and Britain but again, regional consensus will ultimately be how the decision will be evaluated.

I think you may have overlooked some of the details of a potential regime change. There is a prince in exile who failed a coup in 2005, the current Emir's father Hamad had gained power through a coup decades ago as well so the legitimacy of the Qatari throne is quite fragile. In the event of a regime change, he would become the ruler of Qatar.

Despite the political imprudence of this blockade, it's more likely that countries like Britain will side with those who are trying to get rid of elements in society that demonize the west. Qatar has doubled down on this attitude when backed into a corner.

So far as I can see the Emir has never been to what the Americans term "College". He has, however, graduated from Sandhurst and you should not under-estimate the value of that to the British Military Establishment.

[Pannonian]

Have you heard of Israel?

Do they produce good cars too?