The debate "Britain should recolonise India" was started by
January 8, 2017, 12:10 pm.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 49 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thereal posted 6 arguments, Blue_ray posted 2 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, Dad posted 1 argument, ProfessorX posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 12 arguments, Radhikadhawan posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 15 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 4 arguments, neveralone posted 38 arguments to the disagreers part.
shuhel_2005, ProfessorX, KrotoR, thereal, Blue_ray, R3HAB, emshanley, Dad and 11 visitors agree.
PoliticsAsUsual, PsychDave, Radhikadhawan, neveralone, dapollman, nidhi, MoCha, n0b0dysher0, Jpenksa, historybuff, LeftoverEye70, juniorsnow14, Brayden24, Fallaciae, Rajat, makson and 33 visitors disagree.
Indians cant solve their problems cause they are ALL retards and monkeys(less than humans). They fight for independence but when they get it, they fight like dogs for a bone. So uncivilized without the white man. Smh...
wow. I'm really hoping you're just a troll. because that was incredibly stupid and racist. look to your own corruption before condemning others for it.
Whites are superior to the dirty indians that live there. they got all that corruption going on without the white man...
yeah it's not like they do anything.
Meh, who needs houses anyway?
haha. there was a lot more to it than that my friend. not only were we suddenly taxed on tea but also paper and many more things. as well as being forced to allow ur soldiers to take whatever they want and sleep in our houses. but that is the past I'm quite happy where we stand now.
No one has claimed the UN is perfect, but it has a massively better record than the US on its own.
You're only a 'rebellious child' because you couldn't be bothered to pay for all that tea we gave you. And instead of being polite, you throw it in the sea. How ungrateful.
Why can't you be nice like your brother Australia?
(I know Australians are weird but still...)
actually we're a rebellious child who now lives for itself
no we shouldn't. the UK is doing pretty good.
By the way, America, you're adopted.
No you shouldn't, we're pretty much your dad.
The U.S should take over the U.K
I'm saying the UN is broken in places and I don't blame America for trying to do right. if it can be fixed I will happily take its opinion
And that is what organizations like the UN are for. Your logic is that you should be able to individually decide who need to die and kill them. The UN has balances to give other nations their input.
true we all needed to get in.
in these situations we do.
and did the US intervene? no. they did nothing.
I'm not saying the UN is perfect. they certainly need reform. but that does not give the US permission to invade whoever they want and topple governments they don't like.
and that is exactly what the UN already does. why do you keep using an example that has never happened?
when. genicide is happening we shouldn't need to talk about it. it should be stopped immediately first trying peacefully and if that doesn't work forcefully
both need reform.
So how would you change things? You haven't really given specifics, gust general "the UN is too slow". Would you still advocate policing the world, overthrowing governments and invading?
and the US has never done anything to stop genocide without UN approval. you need to stop using that argument. it just is not a reality.
we are talking about all the other times America has intervened in foreign countries. Iraq, Guatamala and Vietnam just to name a few.
again I would try peaceful means first but again when honey doesn't work what do u do? the UN does need to consider stuff but when genicide is happening they need to get involved.
The UN typically tries to make sure they aren't stomping their way in with an incomplete idea of what is going on. That takes time. While I wouldn't say the UN is perfect, your continued justification of US aggression shows WHY people around the world have a low opinion of the nation.
we do have a lot of power. though power should be used wisely so I agee back to what this is about.
true but sometimes the UN has ignored its job until people hear about it more and try to do something.
I don't recall anyone saying American hasn't done good things.
what I am saying is that you are not the world police. you have no more authority to intervene in foreign countries than other countries have to intervene in America. if you aren't alright with foreign governments interfering in America for their own good, then America should not do so to others.
this brings us back around to the actual topic. no country has the right to colonize or otherwise interfere in foreign nations. if such intervention is necessary then an international consensus should be possible. if you cannot get that consensus then you need to reevaluate whether you are doing the right thing.
besides peaceful talks. also JFK when he wasn't trying to overthrow Cuba.
look at the good we have done too. sure anyone could pick out the bad in any country but we have done good as well. also what about Obama? he seemed to want to stay out of everything.
decades of imperialism, murder, torture and chaos. generations of American leaders have followed the same contemptible path. they have yet to learn anything from their mistakes.
a nation is its people. we can learn.
we can change with the right people in office. people who want peace instead of war. but who are prepared to go to war if nessasary.
a nation is not a person! it isn't a living entity. it doesn't learn!
we humans learn when we are children, under guardian ship with no ability to act on our ignorance. a nation has no such learning curve because the people who create/run it already have. we are not ignorant of the history of our people. the human people, not just American, the whole thing.
there is no excuse for repeating the mistakes well documented, and clearly immoral. and the blaming of the tool is pure apologetic ignorance. (quote me in a separate thread 2nd ammendment people :)
though that depends on how long it takes to learn.
true we need to learn we are flawed. we all are against n why having good advisors is key and if the UN would get into situations they need to faster would be good. also to try peaceful solutions first.
How many crimes have to build up before the US stops being a young offender? This isn't a case of learning as we go, it is ignoring history and making the same mistakes because they hurt other people, not us. Some mistakes I can understand. Arming insurgents fighting Russia in Afghanistan seemed like a good idea. It was helping people defend their homes from am invader, and it hurt an enemy. It did backfire eventually, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Other mistakes are harder to justify. Why invade Iraq? Why overthrow a stable government and throw and entire region into chaos? It didn't seem like a good idea at the time, which the rest of the world said. Bush lied to the public to justify attack. Once he had demolished the government, there was no exit strategy. Saying "we are a young country and still learning" only works if you can show evidence of learning.
no but there's two problems with this. a) America is young and has gained power quickly. we will learn but yes we do do wrong. but we have also done good.b) I would personally forgive but still punish. but that's under diff. motives.i also accept when we have done wrong and would definitely take the advice of other nations but sometimes the UN has been known to completely ignore it's duty to places. now America has probably done the same so I would say reform both.
pause. I would first run everything in my power to do it peacefully first. but what do u do when honey doesn't work?
I am just one man. I don't wish to represent anyone but myself. I don't like representing parties because once u do that people suddenly think u will agree with all their ideas. I can only say I agree with my own and a lot of them agrees with conservative.gay people Muslims? also I would of preferred somone besides Trump but it didn't happen so.they do get human rights but also they have broken the law. true.
This is a terrible defence. If a criminal asked to have all of their crimes excused because they could change, without ever actually showing any effort to, would you exonerate them? The US has overthrown legitimate governments, killed men, women and children because they couldn't tell friend from foe, and invaded nations due to political and economic gains. The starting point of showing that "we can change" would be to accept that the past behavior was wrong. The next step would be to stop doing it by not ignoring the rest of the world when it says America is doing the wrong thing. That's why the UN exists.
You want to invade, bomb and otherwise destabilize other nations to make sure they don't start a war with you. That sounds an awful lot like you haven't learned a thing from the US attacking, overthrowing, destabilizing and bombing foreign nations who refused to do as they were told. Invading to prevent a war is an oxymoron. You cannot prevent a war through violent action.
Finally, while I recognize that you cannot speak for all conservatives, you are their representative in this debate. If you disagree with the rest, feel free to make that clear. If not, why try to hide from criticism with equivocation? The conservatives of America are currently being represented by Trump, who advocated war crimes, and the alt right. Conservatives are attacking gay people Muslims. They are dismissing police shootings of unarmed black children as unimportant and disregarding the human rights of millions of illegal immigrants. The most extreme viewpoints are increasingly gaining attention and following, which is coloring the view of the all conservatives. If you disagree with this portrayal of your views, you have every right to explain where you differ from them, but don't try to pass it off with a blanket "I can't speak for everyone." We know that going in, we just want you to speak for yourself and explain how you can, if you do, agree with these positions.
thanks for ur input but there's more to it than that. as all these things are complicated and of course u would obviously try to work something out first. no one is saying to just go to war with a country. as always I would love to avoid war but if their has to be a war I wouldn't want to be the first one hit. or I would like to stop it before it even starts. now on American conservatives. a) I do not represent every conservative in America and I'm sure theirs people who agree and disagree on both sides. b) u haven't represented British conservatives in any good light whatsoever if one person could possibly be the head of that party.
oh so if the usa dows it then they can "change that" and deserve a second chance but if any other country does it they need to be invaded? makes perfect f***ing sense. literally the conservatives in the usa are an intellectual disgrace for comservatives all over the world...
that doesn't mean we couldn't change that.
but as I already pointed out. the US has never intervened in a country without UN support to stop genocide. when the US intervenes without UN support it is always for less noble reasons. generally it is for money or power.
true going in without properly knowing the situation is bad. but in some situations it's obvious u need to go. like mass genocide.
no but if it's abuse or sexual assault u can get the police and they can take care of it. if such a situation was happening would u not at least tell the police?
Imagine that, they talk about things before jumping into action half cocked. That's a terrible idea. Who wants to consider the consequences of their actions first?
If I don't agree with how someone is raising their kids, I can't break into their home and force them to do it differently. Why do you think you should on an international level?
how effective is that though? I mean they talk about taking action more than they actually do it. sometimes they even ignore cases that they should of gotten involved in.
if the UN sanctions a mission then it is an entirely different story. then you are acting as part of a consensus.
America however enjoys acting all on their own and often ends up making everything worse.
no I'm 18. that's why we have the UN. also why u have a council of advisors. also as a side note I do believe some things are absolute good or evil but that's for a different debate.
are you 12? because that is painfully naive. right and wrong are not absolutes. you can do something that seems right and cause a much greater evil. nothing in life is that simple, especially invading other countries.
it shouldn't be complicated. it should be really simple. if something happing that is wrong u should stop it.
I really don't see how this is so complicated for you. if no one wants you to intervene, then you are wrong to intervene. end of story. maybe you don't understand the details of the situation. maybe your view of right and wrong is different than theirs. maybe your attempts to help will only make it worse.
you don't have the right to intervene unilaterally.
we had that same idea before hand. it was called containment. it made a modern day witch hunt with suspicion for ur very neighbors political thoughts.
so because it requires u to take action u would not do what is right?
The difference is that you are not attacking another nation, you are defending a nation you are allied with. How is this concept difficult for you?
u have a lot of anger towards America. let's play a scenario shall we. let's say we are back right when Hitler attacks Poland. let's say the allies decided America should stay out of the war. would u say we should stay out? because if so Hitler would of won.
what's the difference between one country and several as long as it's the right thing to do?
it was corrupt government ruled by the evil 'Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti' (full name)
what about IRAQ?
the US had no intention of entering the war. you only entered because Japan attacked you. then Germany declared war on you. you invaded Germany because you had no choice. don't fool yourself into thinking you had some high minded reasons.
yes the US is part of the world. when the world decides on action America is more than welcome to help. they are not welcome to invade countries on the own initiative.
yes and no. at the time we just got out of a war. just like Canada. we just saw how brutal war was so in a way I can understand why they chose not to get in at first. but we eventually did. I wish we got in in the beginning but we didn't. but we did it for more than Germany declaring war. they were practically saying they were going to do that from the start.
is the us not part of the world?
Somalia was a UN mission. the US didn't decide to intervene, the world did.
you didn't intervene against Germany. they declared war on you.you would have happily sat back and done nothing.
can you name any countries America has invaded to stop genocide? America invades countries for money and power. if you tell yourself otherwise you are deluding yourself.
idk. I don't know about how bad russai is right now would need to look more into it. though if let's say russai was doing mass genocide and we could take it out fast and quietly before they could shoot off a nuke or harm others then yes. if they arnt doing genocide or harming their or other people in any way then no.
So by your logic, should America invade Russia?
I'm not really talking about the past. more about learning from it. their are situations everyone agrees where their is a corrupt gov. like when they do mass genocide or world domination. gov. everyone believes is bad.
Not really a good comparison because not all of the governments that have been overthrown were corrupt, they just didn't like America. You are assuming your views are right, so anyone who doesn't follow them is corrupt. If no one has asked for your help, you are stealing their country. What would you think if Russia overthrew the American government and installed a puppet regime? Their population believes that the American government is corrupt, so by your logic they should be doing so and are right to.
not exactly. I'm not saying we just invade and take over countries. we would be like Hitler then. I'm saying if their corrupt or doing genocide then we need to take them down.
I would say above situations would be better.
yeah I agree if it was a car breaking down. but this kind of situation I'm talking about is more like a person mowing people down in their car.
If you believe you have the right to invade foreign nations and take them over, how exactly do you feel you have the moral high ground?
If someone asks you for help, helping them is moral. If someone doesn't ask you for help, invading and demanding they do what you tell them us not.
Since international politics seems hard to grasp let's break down your belief on an individual level. If someone's car broke down and they ask you to help jump start it, it is morally acceptable to do so. If you feel someone isn't driving properly, it is not moral to carjack them. Even if you give them a driving lesson at gunpoint, you are still not in the right.
them wanting us to help isn't my point. let's say the allies didn't want us to help. let's say it was going down the same track with them getting their butts kicked. would it have been wrong in ur mind for us to join? because it is pretty obvious that if we didn't Hitler would have won.
then your history class was wrong. or you misunderstood. Japanese pilots would have either been Shinto or Buddhist. Nirvana is a state of mind, not something you can get to with violence. Shinto has some mythology about the afterlife but it holds very little importance. Shinto focuses on this world.
Japan has a history of suicidal self sacrifice for duty and honor. they faught to the death because they felt it was honorable and courageous to do so. not because they thought they'd get to a heaven they didn't even believe in.
and the insults are honest questions. you seem to be putting real effort into your answers being stupid that I have to wonder if it isn't intentional. you are comparing the modern world where you interfere and cause chaos in countries that don't want you there, to WW2 where the world was begging you to help and you turned your back on them. the two situations are completely unrelated. hence why I question if you are being intentionally stupid.
arnt u history buff? history 101 man. even my colledge classes says they did it because a) yes it was honorable and b) they were told if they do they will go straight to heaven.
hey the insults. what people do when they don't actually have a defense. yeah they did want our help but even if they didn't are u saying it would have been wrong? if so then this is stupid. we all agree Hitler needed to be stopped. we should have definitely got in sooner. but we didn't and the allies payed the price.
do you read anything at all before you write these things? being a kamikaze pilot was seen as honorable. it had nothing to do with going to heaven. you are completely wrong.
are you trying to be stupid, or can you just not avoid it? I said you don't have the right to interfere in sovereign nations unless they want your help. Poland most definitely wanted help. so did Czechoslovakia for that matter. but America ignored the calls for help. now you have gone to the other extreme. interfering all over the world when no one wants you to.
tell that to the kamakazi pilots who believed that doing so would allow them go to their heaven.
does that not bother u? u wouldn't do the right thing just because people don't agree with u? I can't do that. I see abuse I'm stepping in. if I see mass murder I'm stepping in. if I see a corrupt gov that is killing it's people I'm stepping in. I don't stand on the sidelines. that is how Hitler came to power and going by ur philosophy he would of became a worldwide power.
they did not think he was a god. they thought he was descended from Amaterasu, the sun goddess?. he was not literally a god. and the emperor, while in theory he had absolute power, in practice he allowed the imperial diet (parliament) to make decisions.
and yes. absolutely you should do nothing when you aren't wanted there. you do not have the right or authority to interfere with other sovereign states. you can provide assistance if they want it.
exactly they thought he was a God. also do u not think they like the freedoms we gave them?
so I should do nothing when something is wrong? so when a person is being abused by ur logic we can't help them.
if a culture sees their leader as a god, they've probably been lied to. having insufficient or fake information does not allow for a real decision. if we could topple north Korea while guaranteeing no nuclear fall out, it would be mostly seen as a good thing, even for the people of n.korea many of whom reportedly also view their leader as something like a god.
American policing of the world is not popular until it is threatened. I can both attack and defend it. although we have committed both crimes and innocent mistakes in the developing world, we have kept the developed world (europe) from sliding back into their old ways of killing each other. and a war of developed powers can have consequences that reach much farther than terrorizing the local poor. I remember towards the end of the American presidential campaign when the leader of a Scandinavian country wrote a letter praising American leadership and the unprecedented length of peace it brought to notoriously violent europe.
japan did not want the Constitution you forced on them. they revered the emperor as a semi godlike figure and you stripped him of his power. you banned them from having a military. do you really think they were happy about that?
that second paragraph is a perfect representation of one of America's main problems since WW2. You think you have the right or obligation to interfere where you aren't wanted. if some other country interfered in America like you do in other countries it would cause a war. you try to act like you have the answers to their problems and often just make it worse. You do not have the right to intervene anywhere in the world. you are not the world police.
Britain is a western nation. they are halfway around the world from India. and if they were trying to rule over India against the will of the Indians then that would make them dictatorial. I don't know how that confused you.
"cram a Constitution down their throat and fix the problem." I believe if u try to cram something down someones throat they need to not want it. we gave them freedoms which they wanted how is that wrong?
I don't think anyone will love me for anything. I believe that if I see something wrong then I will do everything I can to fix or help them. by not doing so u get people like Hitler. which history tells us.
I didn't say there was a fast answer. also I'm not even sure about India exactly. which is why I asked about why Britian needed to colonize them. "western imperialism.""by dictatorial regimes halfway around the world" this is about Britian and India. so there not halfway around the world or dictators or Western.
America did help Japan. but Japan's main problem wasn't corruption, it was that they had pretty well a military dictatorship. so you were able to cram a Constitution down their throat and fix the problem.
India is already a democracy. your problem, and America's problem in general, is that you think you can force change on people. you the think they will love you for it.
there is no fast, simple answer for India's problems. and if you tried to force solutions on them from on high they would hate you for it. it would turn into a bloody, violent, nightmare as they faught off western imperialism. humans don't like being told what to do in general. they like being told what to do by dictatorial regimes halfway around the world even less.
idk. I would definitely prefer to fix instead of "buy" a new one. then again it is about how the people feel about it. idk now but at first it was a little unsteady when we stayed in Japan until we gave them a bunch of freedoms. then they thought America was great.
I was trying to point out that if the situation were reversed you would be strongly opposed, not that I think any country should colonize another.
colonization is not likely to fix corruption. and it is guaranteed to cause alot of problems.
what's wrong with India that England should recolonize it?
by the way I'm not saying America should colonize canada. u have ur own corruption to deal with probably I'm just trying to show how that's two sided.
it needs to be modified definitely as almost all gov. does. so u are alright with India trying to colonize America but not America taking over Canada?
so your government should be overthrown? maybe if India colonized America they could clean up some of your corruption.
or modified. our Constitution even says so.
can u be more specific?also the land isn't stolen. it's part of war. we have done a lot of good in Japan for sure. we shouldn't have took Hawaii like we did, idk about the other two haven't got much into their history.
I never said we did it out of benevolence. on Japan we did it out of war. Hawaii sadly out of overthrowing their gov.. I said how we should. any corrupt gov. should be overthrown.
so you believe in fairy tales? countries don't do that, ever. ask the areas that are still trying to get rid of American military bases today if America ever stopped occupying Japan. Or ask Hawaii, or Puerto Rico, or the Philippines if America just let their colonies go without trying to suppress them first. when Americans steal land, they kill to keep it.
this idea that the west acted of out benevolence is a fantasy. it never happened. they acted out of greed.
territory. we can put bases near other nations so we can have a faster response and a bigger presence
I don't know anything about he British specifically but not all of them are bad. like when America practically took over Japan. we gave them many freedoms they didn't have before. but for the most part we left them so they could rule themselves.
simple I don't think exploiting people for money and power is good. I do believe in toppling corrupt gov. and helping them get a better one then leave when we think they don't need our help anymore. that way their is no void
they are one and the same. they used their colonies to make money. the money gave them power. what other form of power do you think colonies gave them?
they exploited the people and the natural resources of their colonies to fund whatever it was they were trying to do. they generally funded bloody wars and lavish palaces.
and what part of exploiting people for money and power makes you think that it would be a good thing for the people they are exploiting?
I'm not sure about this example but during the time of imperliasm it was used to get power. money obviously played a part but power was the focus
you are arguing that a people should be ruled against their will by foreigners "for their own good". that is incredibly naive.
colonialism was never about helping the locals. it was about economically exploiting them. the colonial powers took their land used them to make money.
have a look at
this is what happens when people rule over those they have no connection to in order to make money. the critical points are slavery, torture, and borderline genocide. and this was during the late 19th and early 20th century. it's not even that long ago.
they willed to commit crimes, they did not will to be born.
oh really? what happened to free will?
imprisoned people are imprisoned because of their actions, not their birth.
"and the moral problem is that colonialism is wrong" are you stupid lmfao? you basically just said "its wrong because its bad" LOL. Why is colonialism wrong? you say controlling people against their will is abhorrent but we are already doing that when we imprison people so wheres the abhorrency there?
yes, the british are superior to them. do you want me to give an even longer list of the attrocitied that indians did to their own people and still do today? if you want me to, just say so since i dont expect your small liberal brain to know.
and the moral problems are that colonialism is wrong. ruling other people against their will out of a sense of superiority is abhorrent.
you're joking right? you actually think the British are somehow superior to indians? would you like me list off the atrocious things the British and the other colonial powers did to the people in the areas they colonized?
what 'moral problems' do you speak of?
historybluff, it doesnt matter how much they outnumber them by. its not about number, its about intellect. indians outnumbered the british back then as well. look at india though, its a mess of corruption. they need some good old fashioned british justice to develop the nation like britain and other more developed countries.
well even if we bypass the moral and legal problems with it, they outnumber British by like 18 to 1. it would not go well.
I think thereal is out of its senses
No nation should colonize another. It is not a good policy and only sets up future conflict.
the era of colonialism is over. it's only down hill for the west from here on out. in 100 years India might be colonizing Britain.