Just A Thought
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Well for the most part they seem to have gone into apologising for storming beaches around the world, the Suez crisis has largely been over looked by history and it would be interesting to hear more about it..
Still look at the bright side 400 odd years ago today Guy Fawkes was busily trying to blow parliament and was hanged for it, these days he would have been a national hero.
Still look at the bright side 400 odd years ago today Guy Fawkes was busily trying to blow parliament and was hanged for it, these days he would have been a national hero.
Last edited:
UnitedSomalia
Banned
The nationalization of the Suez canal was the right thing to do, a nation deserves to benefit from its own land, Suez belonged to Egypt and majority of the revenues were instead of going to lift the Egyptian people out of poverty and was going to Britain and France. Suez canal is just another example of Western exploitation of foreign assets and the lengths they would go to defend it. The incident has receded to the back pages of history, but it served to immortalize Gamal Abdul Nasser and show his charisma and strength of character he lead Egypt out of those dark days.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Let me see if I understand this...
- America and Britain refuse to fund the Aswan High Dam.
- Nasser throws a fit and nationalises the Suez Canal which was paid for by Britain and France (Britain purchased Egypt's shares in the canal)
- Nasser rejects about 20 proposals put forward to resolve the issue.
- Britain and France retake control of the canal via military action.
- Egypt turns over control of the canal zone to the UN.
Seems to me that Nasser was being a bit petulant and got bitten.
- America and Britain refuse to fund the Aswan High Dam.
- Nasser throws a fit and nationalises the Suez Canal which was paid for by Britain and France (Britain purchased Egypt's shares in the canal)
- Nasser rejects about 20 proposals put forward to resolve the issue.
- Britain and France retake control of the canal via military action.
- Egypt turns over control of the canal zone to the UN.
Seems to me that Nasser was being a bit petulant and got bitten.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Hey don't you know?
The Middle East was in perfect peace and harmony when only Arabs were around. Then the rest of the world suddenly popped out of nowhere and suddenly they became poor and couldn't stop fighting each other.
The Middle East was in perfect peace and harmony when only Arabs were around. Then the rest of the world suddenly popped out of nowhere and suddenly they became poor and couldn't stop fighting each other.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
To be far the middle east and a sizable chunk of Africa probably would have been better off without all the colonialism and interference that went with it.
That being said they need to suck it up and move or they will be still in the same position 1000 years from now.
Last edited:
UnitedSomalia
Banned
"To be far the middle east probably would have been better off without all the colonialism and interference that went with it.
That being said they need to suck it up and move or they will be still in the same position 1000 years from now."-Monty
You are right I agree with you Monty, the Middle East would have been a lot better without all the colonialism and interference and now that it is in the past people of that region need to move on. But I need to point out another thing also which is that its hard for people to move on when the West is still interfering and occupying parts of the Middle East while threatening other parts with invasions and bombings, such things only serve to bring back the memories of the colonialism of the past in which the wounds still simmer under the skin.
"Hey don't you know?
The Middle East was in perfect peace and harmony when only Arabs were around. Then the rest of the world suddenly popped out of nowhere and suddenly they became poor and couldn't stop fighting each other."-Redneck
You continuously amaze me in your line of thinking. The Arabs were living in peace amongst themselves, they were prosperous, Muslims had an empire which stretch continents from Turkey/Balkans to Middle East to North Africa. Colonialism laid the seeds of many of today's hatred in the Middle East whether you deny it or not its a historical fact. The British and the French asked the Arabs for their help in WW1 in defeating the Germans and Turks in return they would be left alone and be able to establish Arab nation. The Europeans turned around as soon as the war was over and stabbed the Arabs in the back, occupied from Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia. They turned around and instead of letting the Arabs build their own Arab nation they cobbled together different ethnicity within the same border thus denying them their aspirations and subjugated them to European colonialism.
What do you think the Europeans did? That they offered the Arabs free reign in their natural resources? That they let them establish their boundaries and nation after WW1? That they did not subjugate the Arab populace to the tactics of divide and conquer? Or do you believe that the Europeans and the Americans today are benevolent? Save me your self righteous beliefs and your lopsided views.
That being said they need to suck it up and move or they will be still in the same position 1000 years from now."-Monty
You are right I agree with you Monty, the Middle East would have been a lot better without all the colonialism and interference and now that it is in the past people of that region need to move on. But I need to point out another thing also which is that its hard for people to move on when the West is still interfering and occupying parts of the Middle East while threatening other parts with invasions and bombings, such things only serve to bring back the memories of the colonialism of the past in which the wounds still simmer under the skin.
"Hey don't you know?
The Middle East was in perfect peace and harmony when only Arabs were around. Then the rest of the world suddenly popped out of nowhere and suddenly they became poor and couldn't stop fighting each other."-Redneck
You continuously amaze me in your line of thinking. The Arabs were living in peace amongst themselves, they were prosperous, Muslims had an empire which stretch continents from Turkey/Balkans to Middle East to North Africa. Colonialism laid the seeds of many of today's hatred in the Middle East whether you deny it or not its a historical fact. The British and the French asked the Arabs for their help in WW1 in defeating the Germans and Turks in return they would be left alone and be able to establish Arab nation. The Europeans turned around as soon as the war was over and stabbed the Arabs in the back, occupied from Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia. They turned around and instead of letting the Arabs build their own Arab nation they cobbled together different ethnicity within the same border thus denying them their aspirations and subjugated them to European colonialism.
What do you think the Europeans did? That they offered the Arabs free reign in their natural resources? That they let them establish their boundaries and nation after WW1? That they did not subjugate the Arab populace to the tactics of divide and conquer? Or do you believe that the Europeans and the Americans today are benevolent? Save me your self righteous beliefs and your lopsided views.
LeEnfield
Active member
Of course the Muslims never tried to set up an Empire outside their boundaries did they???. Under the Ottoman Empire they allowed for dissent protest and nationalism didn't they. When a country makes an agreement that another country can build and run some thing like a canal which cost billions of pounds to build, does that mean that they can tear up this agreement and seize all the assets when ever they like.
Now was not Nasser a tin pot dictator that had used his position in the army to depose the legal government of Egypt and impose his thoughts on the country. Did he not then try expand his influence across Africa by exporting terrorism. Just how many countries in the Middle East are free and democratic, and full range of law and order.
Now was not Nasser a tin pot dictator that had used his position in the army to depose the legal government of Egypt and impose his thoughts on the country. Did he not then try expand his influence across Africa by exporting terrorism. Just how many countries in the Middle East are free and democratic, and full range of law and order.
senojekips
Active member
Having sailed through the Suez canal a few times, I could tell you some horror stories of the way it is managed (I use the term loosely) and run.
Just quickly, companies are forced at huge expense, to employ about ten "hangers on" who do absolutely nothing, and must be locked out of the accommodation as they will steal anything that is not welded to the ship's structure. All brass fire fighting nozzles and any other attractive equipment must be taken off deck and locked away. These thieves are usually the Pilots kids or brothers in law, or relatives of some other petty port official. They serve no purpose and know nothing of ships or shipping other than where they can find things of value to steal. They will do this blatantly in plain sight and if you complain, the ship will incur serious penalties, delays and problems with officialdom. With the average "bare bottom charter costing $50,000+ per diem, it's easier just to let them have whatever they can get.
This is the way the Egyptians "run" the canal.
Just quickly, companies are forced at huge expense, to employ about ten "hangers on" who do absolutely nothing, and must be locked out of the accommodation as they will steal anything that is not welded to the ship's structure. All brass fire fighting nozzles and any other attractive equipment must be taken off deck and locked away. These thieves are usually the Pilots kids or brothers in law, or relatives of some other petty port official. They serve no purpose and know nothing of ships or shipping other than where they can find things of value to steal. They will do this blatantly in plain sight and if you complain, the ship will incur serious penalties, delays and problems with officialdom. With the average "bare bottom charter costing $50,000+ per diem, it's easier just to let them have whatever they can get.
This is the way the Egyptians "run" the canal.
Last edited:
I guess we see the kindliness that exists between the factions of the middle east today, without any encouragement whatsoever from the tiny slip of land that is now Israel. Only subjugation has ever maintained peace amongst them, and they impose this far more severely than anything from Europe. Look around the middle east at each regime. Peace- Hah!
Furthermore, we have the wonderful example of Africa, especially, where their expertise is in the devastating slaughter of their neighbours, men , women and children. Israel is being blamed for that I suppose?
Great job they are doing in Africa of looking after themselves; aid and more aid demanded from the west they curse so profusely from their UN mouthpieces. More money to fund more killing.
Let me say that the west would dearly love to be free of the yoke and the disaster of 'free Africa'. Congo - should the west walk away and leave it?
The reality? you have it, Africa and Arabia. Left to their own devices, and with a large lump of the world's financial muscle at their resource.
Just my opinion, of course.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Here is an interesting breakdown of the legacy of colonialism on areas of Africa, I suspect it will only be of interest to Perseus and UnitedSomalia though.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~sday/cneh-rche/pdfs/nunn.pdf
I do find it rather interesting that Europe in particular expects a 20-21st century nation to arise from cultures that were deliberately kept in 16th-18th century, the only places this has worked was in nations where immigration has overwhelmed the native populations (Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada etc.) and become dominant, other areas of the world such as South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East were little more than raped, pillaged and abandoned.
To date I can only think of India maybe Pakistan and China that have thrived post colonialism era with their native populations in control.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~sday/cneh-rche/pdfs/nunn.pdf
I do find it rather interesting that Europe in particular expects a 20-21st century nation to arise from cultures that were deliberately kept in 16th-18th century, the only places this has worked was in nations where immigration has overwhelmed the native populations (Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada etc.) and become dominant, other areas of the world such as South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East were little more than raped, pillaged and abandoned.
To date I can only think of India maybe Pakistan and China that have thrived post colonialism era with their native populations in control.
Last edited:
LeEnfield
Active member
The Gold Coast which is now Ghana was the fourth richest country in Africa when it got self rule, now it is one of the poorest. How did it get that way, well the reserves of cash were pillage by it's leaders, they bought some warships which were turned into floating gin palaces. Coffee was the main crop of the country which the government nationalised and then failed to spend any on fertiliser and they lost the lot.
Southern Rhodesia which is now Zambia was also a very rich country with good infrastructure, hospitals, schools, factories and many other businesses plus a very good agriculture set up which fed most of the surrounding countries. Now because a certain leader had some daft idea's every thing that was there has gone.
Now India, they took to many of the European ways like a duck to water, they were running their country in every thing but name before Independence. Their own political parties where in full control of nearly every aspect of running their country. Britain had brought the brightest of their people over to Britain and given them a good education and had gradually moved them into positions of power. So when we left every thing was there to run their country, and they wise enough not to tear down a system that they saw was working and working well. Even the English language was kept as the official language of government so that one Indian faction did not feel that another Indian faction had one over on them.
America still has many of the old British laws and their legal system is still based in the British one, in fact so many things are the same as Britain.
Whether a country does well or poorly when they get Independence is down to the people that they put into power rather than their Imperial masters
Southern Rhodesia which is now Zambia was also a very rich country with good infrastructure, hospitals, schools, factories and many other businesses plus a very good agriculture set up which fed most of the surrounding countries. Now because a certain leader had some daft idea's every thing that was there has gone.
Now India, they took to many of the European ways like a duck to water, they were running their country in every thing but name before Independence. Their own political parties where in full control of nearly every aspect of running their country. Britain had brought the brightest of their people over to Britain and given them a good education and had gradually moved them into positions of power. So when we left every thing was there to run their country, and they wise enough not to tear down a system that they saw was working and working well. Even the English language was kept as the official language of government so that one Indian faction did not feel that another Indian faction had one over on them.
America still has many of the old British laws and their legal system is still based in the British one, in fact so many things are the same as Britain.
Whether a country does well or poorly when they get Independence is down to the people that they put into power rather than their Imperial masters
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
The simple reality is that having money and knowing how to manage money are two completely different skills and training a few people to run a system that is alien to them while leaving the rest of the country a bunch of uneducated subsistence farmers is only ever going to lead to corruption and dictatorships which is exactly the problem these countries are faced with today.
The responsibility for these problems lay squarely with Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Germany, Spain (are there any Spanish speaking colonies that have made it into the "first world") and every other nation that for the past 500 years has sought to pass on its enlightened ways to foreign cultures and then when the resources ran out packed up and buggered off.
This of course does not absolve these countries of responsibility for their failure and you can only blame colonialism for the immediate aftermath of independence, the continued failure of these nations is now purely of their own making.
Last edited:
Current Example:- UN Report.
Human Rights in Somalia
..............................................................................................
More than 15 years of civil war and the absence of a central government, have left the rights of the Somali population in the hands of Sharia Courts and clan-based local authorities with militia powers. Clan rivalries and the inefficiency of institutions that might otherwise establish a consistent rule of law, have exposed Somalia's civilian population to human rights abuses without effective legal recourse. In this context, the question of impunity is considered to be at the core of the ongoing conflict in Somalia.
Ongoing conflict
Recent fighting between the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (ARPCT) and the Sharia Courts, in Mogadishu and other towns, has added to the loss of civilian lives and increased the number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) who remain without assistance and protection. The parties to the conflict have also been recruiting children off the streets and from schools, to fight in their militias.
Gender-based violence
There have been regular reports of gender-based violence against women, particularly among IDPs; as well as deliberate killings and cases of torture perpetrated with total impunity by clan-based militias. Minority groups, including Bantus, continue to face discrimination because their rights are not guaranteed by national institutions.
Absence of codified law
Somalia's Judicial systems are not based on codified law. They rely on a combination of traditional and customary law, the Shari’a law and the penal code of the government that existed before 1991. In some cases, elders deliver a form of justice by applying compensation, regardless of the civil secular code or the Sharia. Somalia's judiciary also suffers from a serious lack of trained judges, basic equipment, and training and legal reference materials.
Local clan-based Shari’a courts in parts of southern Somalia are seen as the only alternative to the inefficiency of the judiciary. In Puntland and Somaliland, local officials interfere with legal matters in the absence of judges.
Humanitarian access
Somalia is currently experiencing a severe drought. Although help has begun to reach vulnerable populations, access for humanitarian workers and emergency food and other supplies is a major concern. The random establishment of militia checkpoints to extort money from humanitarian agencies and non governmental organizations (NGOs), has seriously jeopardized the work of local and international organizations, especially in the South. Frequent attacks by freelance militia on NGOs continue to disrupt food distribution. In Mogadishu, the recent heavy fighting between the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter Terrorism and the Sharia Courts, cut humanitarian supply lines to civilians in desper
LeEnfield
Active member
Monty............Not every one can get a top degree so Britain chose the brightest they could find to educate to highest level, still schools were set up to educate the general population. Now we did not bugger off as you put it when the resources ran out, for if this was the case we would still be running the many of the oil rich countries in the Middle East which all came under Britain's control, and the oil fields were found and developed by Britain. Are you also suggesting that south Africa has run out of Gold fields and diamond mines.
When Gandhi decided to keep English as the language of Government and the the basic English system of Government, he said "Well if we keep things as they are and it goes wrong we will just blame the English for it all". The same thing applies the colonies that have failed due to poor leadership and greed by their political master. As far as they are concerned it is not their fault it gone tits up it is all the fault of their former Colonial masters, it does not seem to matter that they have looted the countries treasury and shipped the wealth of to Switzerland and stashed in their private accounts, that is also the fault of their former Colonial masters
When Gandhi decided to keep English as the language of Government and the the basic English system of Government, he said "Well if we keep things as they are and it goes wrong we will just blame the English for it all". The same thing applies the colonies that have failed due to poor leadership and greed by their political master. As far as they are concerned it is not their fault it gone tits up it is all the fault of their former Colonial masters, it does not seem to matter that they have looted the countries treasury and shipped the wealth of to Switzerland and stashed in their private accounts, that is also the fault of their former Colonial masters
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Zimbabwe being a case in point, South Africa is also going the same way.
Mugabe still blames Britain for his total inept mishandling of the country. A country that was once the bread basket of the world, is now a basket case.
Mugabe is rated as the 7th richest man in the world.
I would include Singapore and Botswana
Last edited: