← Back to context

Comment by coldtea

14 hours ago

>The UK doesn't have some imperialist policy of land grabs

It has centuries of exactly that at a global scale, and continued post-war neo-colonial land grabbing and pressuring, plus eager participation in all the imperialist games of its larger brother.

I mean, just mentioning "Tony Blair" is enough...

What land did Tony Blair grab? You can disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq without making the exaggerated claim that this was part of some kind of long-term imperialist occupation. The UK currently has fewer military personnel in Iraq than it has in, say, Germany. And Britain doesn’t control the Iraqi government.

  • >What land did Tony Blair grab? You can disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq without making the exaggerated claim that this was part of some kind of long-term imperialist occupation.

    Yeah, just a few decades years, to secure oil deals and/or keep control of the region. No biggie.

    That this can be said with a straight face about invasions to two countries that created civil war, suffering, hundreds of thousands of deaths, displacement, etc, is telling of the ever-present colonialist mindset.

  • I think something Brits don't fully understand is the extent of our vassalage under the US.

    We do, as you rightly note have quite the history of a policy of imperialist land grabs, now we just play a support function to somebody else's empire.

    • Ok, but you can say the same for the US. It also has vastly more troops in Germany than Iraq, and it also does not control the Iraqi government. And the less said about Afghanistan the better. So where is the land grab?

      4 replies →

[flagged]

  • >The British empire has been completely wound down, other than a handful of small overseas territories.

    Just because Britain couldn't afford it anymore. And after bloodshed, in India, Kenya, Cyprus, Malaysia, and elsewhere. Not out of the bigness of their heart.

    And the post-colonialism never ended. The same grabby hands get everywhere they can get.

    And why exactly are those "small overseas territories" unquestionably retained? "No biggie, just an island here, an island there, and island there, some land in here"

    • I really would have expected a much more reasoned approach from the likes of you Mr coldtea.

      Historically I’ve found your comments informative, well thought out, and entertaining.

      Here’s the Wikipedia article on the BOTs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories

      I’m willing to acknowledge those locales probably remain British territories, at least some of them, as an spect of projecting force, in addition the to historical quirks.

      I probably don’t know enough.

      And, ultimately, it would be nice if everyone got along and was generally content to stay in their lane.

      Would the former British colonies be doing better or worse had they never been colonised? Quite possibly better. We’ll never know. At least some of the former colonies have failed spectacularly. That’s probably a good enough reason to never try any of that again.

      I’m trying to steelman your arguments here Mr coldtea. Not only that, I have also raged against what happened in a similar manner from time to time.

      2 replies →