ISIS: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!

[Husar]

Kage, unlike Husar, grasped the historical argument that is still the basis of international affairs today, and correspondingly accepted the logic of that argument.
[...]
Kage accepted that self-determination is indeed the basis of international affairs, and that deviations from such would be wrong. Husar recognised that accepting either model would deprive him of his correct conclusion, which is that Britain is in the wrong.

Go on, this is fun to read. I really like Kage, too.

[Kagemusha]

Go on, this is fun to read. I really like Kage, too.

"Raises up from a dusty corner of backroom". You summoned me and here i am. Uhm, self- determination. Yesshh..

In my opinion the events around the Kurdish referendum has been a travesty. We should look at the whole area in this context as just looking at Iraq does not give us any clear picture at this point, while lumping this affair as internal affair of Iraq has been an easy way to look at the issue. The factors at Iraq are the Iraq Shia government, which is backed by Iran, The past Isis disgruntled Sunni at central and Northern Iraq and the Kurds at Eastern and Northern Iraq.

To me it is rather lazy for the World to use rhetorics like the protection of integrity of state of Iraq, as there is no such thing anymore. The Shia government and Iran of course will do their utmost to hang into power in all Iraq, but if we look into the facts, such is not possible anymore. The Shia power is clear and solid in the South, but to control the central and the Northern Sunnis, without any radical change will only mean endless war. Iran is also worried about the aspirations of their Western Kurdish minority.
Turkey, another power in the area is worried about Iraqi Kurdistan, since creation of Iraqi Kurdistan might launch creation of Syrian Kurdistan and even Turkish Kurdistan.

The constant ethos of West has been that everything should be done in order to bring stability and peace to the area and create circumstances prolific for democracy. The closest thing for such can be found in Iraqi Kurdistan, where Kurdish have been harboring Assyrian, Turkmen and Jesidi minorities from Isis, while being the main antagonist of Isis from the total collapse of Iraq armed forces at Northern parts of the country back at 2014 until the start of the counter offensive of Government forces during 2016. The Kurdish region is also secular and the standing of women in their society is light years ahead of the rest of Iraq.

With these points. It should be a no brainer, which side the West should be supporting in Iraq, but it is not so. The rhetoric range from "stability" to "avoiding further fragmentation" to "defusing the situation". Aka simply rhetorics for rhetorics. Only clear cut supporter of Iraqi Kurdistan referendum was Israel, but while Iran, Turkey and Iraq goverment are having military manouvers at the borders of Kurdistan. One thing these countries and also the international community might be forgetting is that with the 93% support for the independency, battle tested armed forces and stabile internal situation, added the geography of the area. Pressing the Iraqi Kurdistan back to fold might be something more the other factions might be able to chew. And yes that is self- determination.

[Husar]

If you don't mind, Kage, now that everyone has read your excellent post, I'm just going to leave this here:

https://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedInd...3678086359339/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

'Why?' you ask?
Well, of course because I find it "hilarious" in my depravity and bias.

[Pannonian]

If you don't mind, Kage, now that everyone has read your excellent post, I'm just going to leave this here:

https://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedInd...3678086359339/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

'Why?' you ask?
Well, of course because I find it "hilarious" in my depravity and bias.

The Husarian equivalent of Godwin.

[Husar]

The Husarian equivalent of Godwin.

http://listverse.com/2013/03/12/10-w...ned-the-world/

http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5...ned_india_.pdf

The Indian trade was ruined through restrictive trade practices. During the early stages of
Industrial revolution, Indian goods then exceedingly competitive were levied 70 to 80 %
duties. Even later, the machine made British goods enjoyed 10 to 27 percent duty
advantage over Indian goods manufactured by traditional means. As the Indian finished
goods became less and less competitive, the policies slowly made India an agricultural
colony, and the exports of raw goods feeding the British Empire, rose as finished goods
exports fell. Impoverished masses from the Indian industrial centres rushed to villages to
agriculture. The landowners were already heavily taxed far in excess of previous foreign
rulers. Then the British changed the law, and allowed the new Œcapital holders’ to own
the land in India. The British bought lands for plantations, which were manned by Indian
slave labour. Thus even the agricultural export profits benefited only the British
plantation owners, and not the starving labourers. Let us look at the details of how this
was done. It was a deliberate policy of the Board of Directors of the East India Company,
since 1769. In the early nineteenth century the duty on Muslin and Calico was more than
27 and 71 percent ad valorem, respectively. Even then, British manufacturers were
unable to compete with Indian Manufacturers; hence Britain prohibited the import of
Calico cloths. Heavy protective duties -- 70 and 80 percent, respectively- were imposed
on the Indian silk and cotton goods in England. These ruined those industries in India,
while British goods were imported into India at nominal duty.

[...]

By 1850, India, which had for centuries exported cotton goods to the whole world, was
importing one-fourth of all British cotton exports. In any technology revolution, old
methods must make way for the new ones. But during the industrial revolution, which
was taking place in Britain, the resulting ruin of the millions of artisans and weavers in
India was not accompanied by the growth of new forms of industry in India. The old
populous towns like Dacca, Surat and Murshidabad (which Clive in 1757 had described
as Œextensive, populous, and rich as the city of London) and the like were in a few years
rendered desolate under the ŒPax Britannica’. The population of Dacca, the Manchester
of India, decreased from 150,000 to 30,000! In 1890, Sir Henry Cotton wrote, „ less than
a hundred years ago, the whole commerce of Dacca was estimated at ten million rupees
and its population at 200,000. In 1787 Dacca’s muslin exports to England amounted to 3
million rupees; in 1817 they had ceased altogether. The arts of spinning and weaving∑.
have now become extinct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ev...ined_the_World

[Pannonian]

http://listverse.com/2013/03/12/10-w...ned-the-world/

http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5...ned_india_.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ev...ined_the_World

A German lecturing a Briton on the evils of empire. What did you guys do with your last empire, may I ask?

[Sarmatian]

A German lecturing a Briton on the evils of empire. What did you guys do with your last empire, may I ask?

Can I lecture both of you? Our empire collapsed in the 14th century, after lasting a whopping 25 years.

[Kagemusha]

If you don't mind, Kage, now that everyone has read your excellent post, I'm just going to leave this here:

https://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedInd...3678086359339/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

'Why?' you ask?
Well, of course because I find it "hilarious" in my depravity and bias.

Thank you for the compliment Hus.

About this matter...I am not sure i want to dive into this can of worms. Maybe the question concerning issues like this is: How long we have to carry the burden of our ancestors? Is Pannonian´s job to defend what British did at India during 19th century based on their 19th century values, or should our US members still feel bad about the treatment of American natives? Is such relevant at all?

[Pannonian]

Thank you for the compliment Hus.

About this matter...I am not sure i want to dive into this can of worms. Maybe the question concerning issues like this is: How long we have to carry the burden of our ancestors? Is Pannonian´s job to defend what British did at India during 19th century based on their 19th century values, or should our US members still feel bad about the treatment of American natives? Is such relevant at all?

More relevantly, does the history of India mean that we were wrong to intervene in Iraq because it added to the sum of human suffering, and correspondingly wrong to not intervene in Syria because it added to the sum of human suffering? Constructive criticism accepts the unavoidable fact that people will make errors of judgement, and establish guidelines that all know and will operate by. Since WWI, the basic guideline has been self determination, the ability to choose one's government and form of government free from outside interference, with the corresponding inference that empires should be disestablished and colonies made independent. The British empire is gone, and India is independent, and there are diplomatic relations between Britain and its former colonies. So why does Husar bring up India when I'm arguing that we have no business interfering in the affairs of other countries?

I point you to Orwell's observation of Communist apologists, who operate by the guideline that Anglo-America is wrong, and will twist their perception of reality to support that argument. Start with the conclusion, then find an argument to support that conclusion.

[Husar]

Thank you for the compliment Hus.

About this matter...I am not sure i want to dive into this can of worms. Maybe the question concerning issues like this is: How long we have to carry the burden of our ancestors? Is Pannonian´s job to defend what British did at India during 19th century based on their 19th century values, or should our US members still feel bad about the treatment of American natives? Is such relevant at all?

As spmetla said, it is relevant in the context that the present is a result of the past. I never said Pannonian should feel guilty about any of that, just that he can't blame everything entirely on the Indians, Africans or whoever of today. Their views, behavior etc. are a result of what their parents did and taught them and that was partially a result of what colonialism did to them. All we can do is try not to repeat those mistakes of the past and perhaps let those wounds heal.
Denying any wrongdoing on the other hand just leads to more rejection on the other side, especially when our behavior today perpetuates some of the injustices created in and left over from the past.

I don't feel personally guilty for WW2, why would I expect the British to feel personally guilty for Colonialism?
If De Beers (or Shell, or another Western Corporation) still exploits a post-colonial world order in order to exploit African countries and transfer all the profits to the accounts of rich European "landowners" and we are somehow okay with that while we blame Africans for being so poor, that's a different story...
If the poor Africans were to murder everyone at DeBeers and their local supporters because that's the only way for them to profit from the diamond trade as a people, we'd probably call them terrorists instead of saying it's self-determination.

Think about things like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/he...king-laws.html

Alarmed about rising smoking rates among young women, Namibia, in southern Africa, passed a tobacco control law in 2010 but quickly found itself bombarded with stern warnings from the tobacco industry that the new statute violated the country’s obligations under trade treaties.

Continue reading the main story
FEATURED COMMENT

barbara8101 Philadelphia
What is really under discussion in this article is whether tobacco companies have a right to kill people. In my view, that sums it up.
270 COMMENTS
“We have bundles and bundles of letters from them,” said Namibia’s health minister, Dr. Richard Kamwi.

Three years later, the government, fearful of a punishingly expensive legal battle, has yet to carry out a single major provision of the law, like limiting advertising or placing large health warnings on cigarette packaging.

I fully expect Pannonian to say that if they're independent countries, it is their fault for signing the trade treaty, completely ignoring that they're desperate to regain any kind of industry and don't have the same education standards whereas we employ lawyers they probably couldn't even afford to write and negotiate these contracts.
My point is we should know better if we're educated and moral people. If we just exploit them because we can, then we're not morally superior in any way.

[Pannonian]

As spmetla said, it is relevant in the context that the present is a result of the past. I never said Pannonian should feel guilty about any of that, just that he can't blame everything entirely on the Indians, Africans or whoever of today. Their views, behavior etc. are a result of what their parents did and taught them and that was partially a result of what colonialism did to them. All we can do is try not to repeat those mistakes of the past and perhaps let those wounds heal.
Denying any wrongdoing on the other hand just leads to more rejection on the other side, especially when our behavior today perpetuates some of the injustices created in and left over from the past.

I don't feel personally guilty for WW2, why would I expect the British to feel personally guilty for Colonialism?
If De Beers (or Shell, or another Western Corporation) still exploits a post-colonial world order in order to exploit African countries and transfer all the profits to the accounts of rich European "landowners" and we are somehow okay with that while we blame Africans for being so poor, that's a different story...
If the poor Africans were to murder everyone at DeBeers and their local supporters because that's the only way for them to profit from the diamond trade as a people, we'd probably call them terrorists instead of saying it's self-determination.

Think about things like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/he...king-laws.html



I fully expect Pannonian to say that if they're independent countries, it is their fault for signing the trade treaty, completely ignoring that they're desperate to regain any kind of industry and don't have the same education standards whereas we employ lawyers they probably couldn't even afford to write and negotiate these contracts.
My point is we should know better if we're educated and moral people. If we just exploit them because we can, then we're not morally superior in any way.

So how does that translate into a set of guidelines for how states should behave towards areas of conflict like Syria? I've already accepted that Britain were in the wrong over Iraq, despite opposing it at the time, and that we should abandon the tenets of neoconservatism and revert to the default of self determination and non-interference. Which, BTW, you've declined to agree should be a default. I don't claim to speak for other countries, as I believe in practising what I preach, and since I preach non-interference, then I don't have the right to say what other countries should do. I'm ok with Kage's example of self determination, and if they can make their statehood work, good luck to them. But I'd like Britain to stay well clear of affairs in the ME, whatever moral or humanitarian arguments people may want to poke at us, along with references to an empire which they constantly remind us we no longer have.

[Husar]

So how does that translate into a set of guidelines for how states should behave towards areas of conflict like Syria? I've already accepted that Britain were in the wrong over Iraq, despite opposing it at the time, and that we should abandon the tenets of neoconservatism and revert to the default of self determination and non-interference. Which, BTW, you've declined to agree should be a default. I don't claim to speak for other countries, as I believe in practising what I preach, and since I preach non-interference, then I don't have the right to say what other countries should do. I'm ok with Kage's example of self determination, and if they can make their statehood work, good luck to them. But I'd like Britain to stay well clear of affairs in the ME, whatever moral or humanitarian arguments people may want to poke at us, along with references to an empire which they constantly remind us we no longer have.

Since every conflict is different, I don't think there can be a guideline. In general I prefer your standard of non-interference over playing the white man's burden game of trying to fix everything with force. However, if you government began to slaughter you, I might decide that it would be better to come to your aid.

The big problem is that even though we live in the information age, it can be hard to decide who is the "innocent" side in a conflict and when it is appropriate to help one side and when it isn't. You and I probably have worse information than our governments though and the biggest problem here is when governments decide based on what's best for their own strategic resource situation regardless of human lives or similar.

If you go with the guideline approach, you might end up being "right" in 50% of cases and wrong in the other 50% regardless of the guideline you choose. At least if you discuss an issue with a genuine concern for the people affected, you can claim you tried your best instead of hiding behind a standard MO while real humans actually get slaughtered by the millions in some cases.

About Syria in particular I can only say that it seems really hard to decide with my knowledge, it's a very complex issue and I won't claim to know what is or would have been best. Some problems cannot be solved in a satisfactory way, but it may already help to try and support/shelter the civilian population as best as possible. The government usually has experts and intelligence services to help with such decisions. Of course if they just represent corporate interests...