Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Irans best ally ?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Poll Question: which country in the world is the best allied of Iran’s dictatorship
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
3 [7.89%]
7 [18.42%]
5 [13.16%]
1 [2.63%]
4 [10.53%]
5 [13.16%]
13 [34.21%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Irans best ally ?
    Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 16:14
Originally posted by Land of Aryan

Originally posted by Dampier

Originally posted by Land of Aryan

Originally posted by Mullah Ganstar

What do you think?

In my opinion it is England.


England,
No thanks, this is worst ally that a country may has

 

Any reason for that?

 

And Iran has no real allies- let me assure you England (or rather the UK) is in no way allied to Iran, if anything we are oppossed over the current N-weapons debate.


look at what UK did in other countries, Indian is best sample
& for us, UK has worst face in Iran
check who Separated Afghanestan, Bahrein, Balochestan, Golsten treaty, Soleimanie now in Iraq, 1919 treaty, Reuter treaty, Tobacco & coup againest mossadegh& & &...
& so we considered IR as English clown

 

India is a sucess story...

Iraq I'll agree is wrong- it should have been divided into 3 back in 1918.

As for Afghanistan- we never ruled that, we kept it divided to stop it raiding India- it was and still is unrulable.

 

Then look at the good things Britain did- America (fundamentally an Anglo Empire), Africa (before we were forced out in an anti colonial backlash- otherwise they might be doing well....just look at Zimbabwe...), South Africa, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore etc.

Britain broke slavery, kept Napoleon and to a degree Hitler from domination.

And Iran? Somewhere led by a nutter who screams out how he wants to kill the Jews is a perfect example....I respect Iranians but Britain suffered, as do all Empires failures amidst triumphs. The UK is currently attempting peacekeeping and drug monitering in Afghanistan (despite the damned politicans) and helping Iraq ( a political not economic or religous war for us, we wanted to free Iraq and we WERE lied to about the war.)

the UK is a positive force amidst many evils.

Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Afghan Empire

Joined: 26-Jan-2006
Location: Afghanistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1515
  Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 16:18

@ tekmonkey: pakistan, ain't it?

Dear tekmonkey,
I assure you one thing and that is never ever trust Pakistan, they are the ones who motivated and supported Taleban against US and when US got in the battlefield the first country who showed its linear assistance to US was Pakistan.

There is a saying about a person who tells the thief to steal a house and tells the owner of the house to keep awaken. And pakistan does the same act all the time, though the people of Pakistan are very cordial and linear in relations with Islamic countries such as Afghanistan and Iran but still you shall never trust the government.

Originally posted by Land of Aryan


look at what UK did in other countries, Indian is best sample
& for us, UK has worst face in Iran
check who Separated Afghanestan, Bahrein, Balochestan, Golsten treaty, Soleimanie now in Iraq, 1919 treaty, Reuter treaty, Tobacco & coup againest mossadegh& & &...
& so we considered IR as English clown

I totaly agree with Land of Aryan,
Trust your worst enemy but British. That's a saying very popular around and they are the ones who strikes at your back and who don't dare to get infront of you.

It's better fighting two enemies rather than fighting one and having Britian as your ally.

As far as the topic is concerned, I really don't think Iran has any ally at all so they shall be prepared and don't be fooled as Afghans were by Pakistan, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia.



Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 16:33
Hang on when has Britain betrayed Afghanistan.....umm, Britain would rather not be in Afghanistan (stupid politicans...). Is there a reason for this distrust of Britain (bar the obvious- that Britain kept Afghanistan seperated (as if it wasnt already!) during its colonial years so Afghanistan would not keep attacking then British India?
Back to Top
Behi View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2268
  Quote Behi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 17:05
Iraq I'll agree is wrong- it should have been divided into 3 back in 1918.

As for Afghanistan- we never ruled that, we kept it divided to stop it raiding India- it was and still is unrulable.


Iraq, Ungorgiven sin, yeah?? it's not very late, you can do it now.

You were really kind, but who would raid to india??
God bless Gandi &
Mossadegh & Mandela, They couldn't Recogniza your kindness, & obviously Mandela was unreasonable" Britain broke slavery "

the UK is a positive force amidst many evils.

Exactly, it's ~200 years that this divine angel lives among all evil nations in Earth.

Thank you UK for all of your kindness, we are all ungrateful


Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Afghan Empire

Joined: 26-Jan-2006
Location: Afghanistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1515
  Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 17:40

Originally posted by Dampier

Hang on when has Britain betrayed Afghanistan.....umm, Britain would rather not be in Afghanistan (stupid politicans...). Is there a reason for this distrust of Britain (bar the obvious- that Britain kept Afghanistan seperated (as if it wasnt already!) during its colonial years so Afghanistan would not keep attacking then British India?

Well dear I didn't mean the betrayal of Britain to Afghans.... hahaah they even couldn't had dared that neither could had they dared to face Afghans in the BattleField for the 4th time.

What I wanted to say is the betrayal of Britains to their linear and Vassal India, first the britain used them fight against Afghanista, then took away what they wanted from them and at the end divided the country in to two pieces so that they never become a power and ask for what the britains had taken from them. That's a betrayal dear, I ment this not with Afghans.

 



Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 22:48

britian is the most blood stained country on this earth. still to this day i would rather trust iraq under saddam hussein than britain.

britian is the most hated country in iran. even more than the USA. many iranians will tell you that they like america but if you ask them about britian, get ready for a long discussion.

im not to fond of britian either frankly.



Edited by Iranian41ife
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 05:48

Wowsers.....

Umm, I'm not sure where all this hatred comes from. Britain caused less death, torture etc than the Romans..by far. Same goes for Han, Persian and other Empires.

For most bloodstanined- umm, China?

Mandela had nothing to do with Britain...we botcotted S. African goods then. Gandhi got what he wanted and we didnt defeat him the definative way- namely by killing himas we could have. We were just as peaceful and everything was solved.

India is a world power so obviouslty we didnt do that much damage then did we?

This seems more like old colonial hatered than rational thought.

Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 22:06

Dampier

It is a fallout of colonial misappropriation and divide and rule policies. The problem is that those divisions were along unnatural fault lines. Giving rise to many conflicts and unresolved disputes persistent to these days.

If Britain is the most bloodstained, i am not entirely sure. I sense national biases in those sentimental remarks by some fellow members.

 What i think is the cause of this universal hate is that Britain is a victim of its own success as a colonial master, where it has managed to disaffect the consciouses of far more varied and dispersed people than any other. It was the last of the nations in the colonization game and the most successful.

Even in India, US and Indies I believe the British were the last to arrive after the dutch and French.

It was a mixed bag and the way things were handled i suppose depended on who was in office and the region.

Below r members of the commonwealth alone.

Antigua and Barbuda Flag of Antigua and Barbuda Jamaica Flag of Jamaica St Vincent and the Grenadines Flag of St Vincent and the Grenadines
Australia Flag of Australia Kenya Flag of Kenya Samoa Flag of Samoa
The Bahamas Flag of The Bahamas Kiribati Flag of Kiribati Seychelles

Flag of Seychelles

Bangladesh Flag of Bangladesh Lesotho Flag of LesothoA7-4DDA-B42A-86BD3E595730}_Lesotho.gif" vspace=2> Sierra Leone Flag of Sierra Leone71-0FE4860D98F8}_Sierra-Leone.gif" vspace=2>
Barbados Flag of Barbados Malawi Flag of Malawi Singapore Flag of Singapore
Belize Flag of Belize Malaysia Flag of Malaysia Solomon Islands Flag of Solomon Islands
Botswana Flag of Botswana Maldives Flag of Maldives South Africa Flag of South Africa
Brunei Darussalam Flag of Brunei Darussalam Malta Flag of Malta Sri Lanka Flag of Sri Lanka
Cameroon Flag of Cameroon Mauritius Flag of Mauritius Swaziland Flag of Swaziland
Canada Flag of Canada Mozambique Flag of Mozambique Tonga Flag of Tonga
Cyprus Flag of CyprusB0D}_Cyprus.gif" align=left vspace=2> Namibia Flag of Namibia Trinidad and Tobago Flag of Trinidad and Tobago
Dominica Flag of Dominica Nauru* Flag of Nauru Tuvalu Flag of Tuvalu
Fiji Islands Flag of Fiji Islands New Zealand Flag of New Zealand Uganda Flag of UgandaB6EB21}_Uganda.gif" vspace=2>
The Gambia Flag of The Gambia Nigeria Flag of Nigeria United Kingdom Flag of United Kingdom
Ghana Flag of Ghana Pakistan Flag of Pakistan United Republic of Tanzania Flag of United Republic of Tanzania12DC9EAD25}_United-Repoublic-of-Tanzani.gif" vspace=2>
Grenada Flag of Grenada Papua New Guinea Flag of Papua New Guinea Vanuatu Flag of Vanuatu
Guyana Flag of Guyana St Kitts and Nevis Flaf of St Kitts and Nevis95CD}_St-Kitts-and-Nevis.gif" vspace=2> Zambia Flag of Zambia
India Flag of India St Lucia Flag of St Lucia  



Edited by malizai_
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857
  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 04:05
Originally posted by Gharanai

@ tekmonkey: pakistan, ain't it?

Dear tekmonkey,
I assure you one thing and that is never ever trust Pakistan, they are the ones who motivated and supported Taleban against US and when US got in the battlefield the first country who showed its linear assistance to US was Pakistan.

There is a saying about a person who tells the thief to steal a house and tells the owner of the house to keep awaken. And pakistan does the same act all the time, though the people of Pakistan are very cordial and linear in relations with Islamic countries such as Afghanistan and Iran but still you shall never trust the government.

Gharanai,

I see what you're saying, but the Pakistani government isnt really doing anything other governments wouldnt do.

In the 80s, the Pakistani government supported Afghan against the Soviets, because it was in its interests to do so. Pakistan couldnt have made a bit of difference in the decision of the US to invade Afghanistan - neither can it do anything if the US decide to invade Iran. It risks self destruction (and also destruction of the foreign troops), which is just not a price worth paying for another country. 

I agree with your comments basically, but what the Pakistani government has done is no different to what other governments have done (for example Daoud Khan's government in the 70s trying to instigate a rebellion in West Pakistan).

Also, Taliban were supported by many countries in the beginning including Karzai - they have all switched allegiances since so it certainly wasnt only Pakistan.

Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Afghan Empire

Joined: 26-Jan-2006
Location: Afghanistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1515
  Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 13:57

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Gharanai,

I see what you're saying, but the Pakistani government isnt really doing anything other governments wouldnt do.

In the 80s, the Pakistani government supported Afghan against the Soviets, because it was in its interests to do so. Pakistan couldnt have made a bit of difference in the decision of the US to invade Afghanistan - neither can it do anything if the US decide to invade Iran. It risks self destruction (and also destruction of the foreign troops), which is just not a price worth paying for another country. 

Well dear TeldeInduz,
I guess you are right, any country would had done the same, but the problem with me is that I as an Afghan know men by his tongue (words), so to me the Pakistani government shouldn't had firstly presented their sympathy toward Taleban, telling them that in case of any sort of attack on them they (Pakistan) would support them.

Second you mentioned the words, "which is just not a price worth paying for another country."
In reply I would like to say that if today their is a country named Pakistan, that is because the Afghan.

If we go back to the history, we will find that almost all of the muslims of sub-continent were troubled, dishonored and killed by Marathas in 18th century, the only ones who replied the call of help were Afghans. As we all know that Azrat Shah Wali-ullah did ask Ahmad Shah Abdali to help and save them from Marathas.

So my point is that then did that action of Ahmad Shah Abdali (where thousands of Afghans lost their lives) worth the price or not?

I guess you will go with the answer that Ahmad Shah Baba captured land and money so that was the price, if you are thinking the same then I would like to remind you that beside those rewards we also made the Indians (which were than a big power) our enemy and that costed us too much latter when they allied the British and attacked Afghanistan, tough those attacks were not success but still we lost lives, lives of our brothers.

Now I guess there are 2 main options available.

  1. Pakistan is a country which could never be trusted of its words and shall never be chosen as an ally.
  2. Ahmad Shah Abdali had lost his mind to support the muslims of sub-continent (Now Pakis) because it didn't worth the price.

So now tell me which option do you go with ???

I agree with your comments basically, but what the Pakistani government has done is no different to what other governments have done (for example Daoud Khan's government in the 70s trying to instigate a rebellion in West Pakistan).

Well dear,
I don't think what Daud Khan did was the same as what Pakistan is doing right now. Daud Khan wanted to instigated a rebellion in his own country, and what Pakistan is doing is with a foreign country.

I wish you got what I ment...

Also, Taliban were supported by many countries in the beginning including Karzai - they have all switched allegiances since so it certainly wasnt only Pakistan.

Well dear as far as Taleban are concerned, I tell the Pakistan Government one think and that is; "Be prepared", the only aim of Taleban right now is to get back to the government (mmmmmm will with support of forein countries as usuall), but the moment they are in power they will take the revange.

Now that USA has changed their stance with Pakistan, I guess there is an open space for what I mentioned and the only way that the USA would strike Pakistan is by "Taleban".

 

 

 



Back to Top
kingofmazanderan View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 265
  Quote kingofmazanderan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 16:38

I probly has no real aly. 

 

Dampier how in the world could China be the most blood stained country in world.

I Agree the British have done some awful things in thier time.  Espesially in Africa.

My dad also tells me they purposly got almost all of China adicted to opium so they would make a profit.

In my opinion the British and the Americans are the governments that should be less trusted by any country in the Middle East.

Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857
  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 17:06

Thanks for the informative reply Gharanai

 

Originally posted by Gharanai

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Gharanai,

I see what you're saying, but the Pakistani government isnt really doing anything other governments wouldnt do.

In the 80s, the Pakistani government supported Afghan against the Soviets, because it was in its interests to do so. Pakistan couldnt have made a bit of difference in the decision of the US to invade Afghanistan - neither can it do anything if the US decide to invade Iran. It risks self destruction (and also destruction of the foreign troops), which is just not a price worth paying for another country. 

Well dear TeldeInduz,
I guess you are right, any country would had done the same, but the problem with me is that I as an Afghan know men by his tongue (words), so to me the Pakistani government shouldn't had firstly presented their sympathy toward Taleban, telling them that in case of any sort of attack on them they (Pakistan) would support them.

 

Yeah, but the point is that even Karzai was supportive of the Taliban in the beginning along with Western countries and other countries. They all eventually turned their backs on them for one reason or other. The Pakistani government was no different. Could you provide me with a link where the Pakistani government said they would support the Taliban against any sort of attack?

Second you mentioned the words, "which is just not a price worth paying for another country."
In reply I would like to say that if today their is a country named Pakistan, that is because the Afghan. 

Pakistan was formed at the insistence of Jinnah (whether it was a mistake is up to each individual to decide, I dont think it was). Afghan government did not help create Pakistan - the Afghan/Pathan people are an important part of Pakistan and Pakistan could only have been formed with their consent (which I believe some referendums were held, but each province had voted for the Muslim League in the 1946 elections).

If we go back to the history, we will find that almost all of the muslims of sub-continent were troubled, dishonored and killed by Marathas in 18th century, the only ones who replied the call of help were Afghans. As we all know that Azrat Shah Wali-ullah did ask Ahmad Shah Abdali to help and save them from Marathas.

Yes, true, the Sikhs in this case combined with the Marathas in the West to devastate the Muslims.

Shah Wali Ullah also made efforts for the political uplift of Muslims of India. He wrote to Ahmad Shah Abdali to help the Muslims of India in crushing the Marhattas, who were a constant threat to the crumbling Mughal Empire. In 1761, Ahmad Shah Abdali, in response to Shah Wali Ullah's call, inflicted a crushing defeat on the Marhattas at Panipat. Shah Wali Ullah was responsible for awakening in the community the desire to regain its moral fervor and maintain its purity. He was laid to rest in 1762. His sons and followers ably continued his work and noble mission.

 

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P064 

So my point is that then did that action of Ahmad Shah Abdali (where thousands of Afghans lost their lives) worth the price or not?

Yes, it's a fair point. But you should also remember the Marathas and the Sikhs were not a superpower with destructive weapons capabilities. The Sikhs and Marathas had the callousness to slaughter Muslims and steal their property, but they were not a superpower. That was a case of more or less equal powers warring, but in 2001, Pakistan was having an aggresive India on one side of it, America on another side demanding another thing insisting you're "with or against", and there's the Russians. Basically three superpowers had legitimized their position and Pakistan did not have the sympathy vote.

Wars are of course fought differently nowadays, Pakistan especially has different terrain to Afghan, perhaps more alike to Iraq, but with the distinction that Pakistan would be seen as more capable of responding, so in this way genocide could be justified more easily, especially following the imediate 2001 anti Muslim psychosis that was created.

Would I hope that Pakistan would fight a more or less equal power 1 on 1 for the sake of Afghan,  sure I would, but when 2 superpowers, 1 rising power and an international anti Muslim psychosis were created, that could have led to genocide, a lot more than a thousands of deaths, but millions of deaths. Which one would I have preferred, the fall of the Taliban or millions of deaths, I'd choose the fall of the Taliban. Noone else was willing to help Pakistan also at the time.

I guess you will go with the answer that Ahmad Shah Baba captured land and money so that was the price, if you are thinking the same then I would like to remind you that beside those rewards we also made the Indians (which were than a big power) our enemy and that costed us too much latter when they allied the British and attacked Afghanistan, tough those attacks were not success but still we lost lives, lives of our brothers.

The Marathas were a power, but not a superpower and not as destructive as what modern warfare is.

Now I guess there are 2 main options available.

  1. Pakistan is a country which could never be trusted of its words and shall never be chosen as an ally.
  2. Ahmad Shah Abdali had lost his mind to support the muslims of sub-continent (Now Pakis) because it didn't worth the price.

So now tell me which option do you go with ???

1. I dont agree, though Pakistan will do things that are in its own interests.

2. Ahmad Shah Abdali I think was strong enough to fight the Marathas and if you like, right was on his side.

I think option 3, that Ahmad Shah Abdali was capable of winning against the Marathas is a better choice, though at great cost to the Afghans, something which I think is lost on some ignorant Pakistanis, but for the most part all the Pakistani history sites tell of the sacrifice of Abdali's Afghans. Pakistan though could not face off the countries that had designs on Afghanistan. I count US, Russia (Northern Alliance) and India in those at least along with a free for all couldnt care less about "collateral damage" type of war.

I agree with your comments basically, but what the Pakistani government has done is no different to what other governments have done (for example Daoud Khan's government in the 70s trying to instigate a rebellion in West Pakistan).

Well dear,
I don't think what Daud Khan did was the same as what Pakistan is doing right now. Daud Khan wanted to instigated a rebellion in his own country, and what Pakistan is doing is with a foreign country.

I wish you got what I ment...

 

No, Daoud Khan wanted internal rebellion and he also wanted to create a Pashtunistan out of Pakistan when he was in office. He supported the Baloch uprising and he also tried to instigate rebellion in NWFP. He was backed by the Soviets.

Also, Taliban were supported by many countries in the beginning including Karzai - they have all switched allegiances since so it certainly wasnt only Pakistan.

Well dear as far as Taleban are concerned, I tell the Pakistan Government one think and that is; "Be prepared", the only aim of Taleban right now is to get back to the government (mmmmmm will with support of forein countries as usuall), but the moment they are in power they will take the revange.

Now that USA has changed their stance with Pakistan, I guess there is an open space for what I mentioned and the only way that the USA would strike Pakistan is by "Taleban".

I cant see it happening

Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 18:14
Originally posted by kingofmazanderan

I probly has no real aly. 

 

Dampier how in the world could China be the most blood stained country in world.

I Agree the British have done some awful things in thier time.  Espesially in Africa.

My dad also tells me they purposly got almost all of China adicted to opium so they would make a profit.

In my opinion the British and the Americans are the governments that should be less trusted by any country in the Middle East.

I can assure you Britain ahd nothing to do with the opium....i have no idea where that could have come from...

Britain has done awful things in Africa (show me any nation with an empire that hasnt...) but compare to many of our successors- S. Africa in apartheid, Zimbabwe being the most obvious examples. Africa is a sad, sad story...

China is most blood stained due to sheer numbers to have died under governement supervision (Mao killed 70 million i believe and classics like the Great Wall werent cheap either..)

Pakaistan rember had several sections of its security and intelligence fvorces involved in Afghanistan, from what i hear (fairly reliable) Pakistani border forces arent exactly guarding certain areas all that diligently to foreign fighters in Afghanistan.

Britain is a victim of its sucess and times- coming in the industrial revolution it could spread so far. However various Chinese dynasties, the mongol Empire, Soviet Russia and many, many others are worse in general treatment. In fact thetre are countries today like that (Saudi Arabia where owning a Bible gets you executed, where rape of Non Arabs [have a look at their immigration story..] is unpunished etc) which seem much worse than poor, democratic Britain, a country which has not in the last half century  been any worse than and better than most.

Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 18:52

no, britain is definetly the most blood stained.

and yes, the british did get millions of chinese addicted to opium on purpose!

and then when the chinese destroyed a british opium ship the british decided that they were going to start a war and destroyed the entire chinese navy.

that was called the opium war.

they even did stuff like that to the irish.

the america's, africa, asia, europe, etc... "Great" britian is the most blood stained nation in the world, and is rich today because of its imperial past, which did not end till the 1970's!

britain needs to get of the world stage, they are a disgrace to the terms "freedom" in my opinion, knowing the fact that they are still trying to be an imperial power.

dampier, you have to admit your nations past. you nation, britain, is one of the more evil empires to have ruled, just look in the history book. the french nor the spanish could even come close to the amount of suffering the british have caused in the world.

dont get me wrong, many empires have done bad things, including iran, but when it comes down to it, the british empire leaves all the other ones in the dust in terms of brutality, imperialism, and blood spilled.

britian and its policies can be directly linked to many of the most horrible things that have happened in the past 500 years, from the native americans to the chinese to the africans.



Edited by Iranian41ife
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857
  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 19:00

Originally posted by Dampier

from what i hear (fairly reliable) Pakistani border forces arent exactly guarding certain areas all that diligently to foreign fighters in Afghanistan.

Well, if anyone else wants to station their troops on the border, I'm sure they would be allowed to do so from the Afghan side. It's not a very easy task.

Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 22:27
Originally posted by Iranian41ife

the french nor the spanish could even come close to the amount of suffering the british have caused in the world.

I am sorry but the french and spanish did their best or worst upto their capacity. the british were more capable and also had the bigger empire.

But there are new kids on the block now, u wait another 50 yrs and the americans would have surpassed all. they r writing their bloody history now. No wonder the baghdadis call bush the new halagku.

Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Afghan Empire

Joined: 26-Jan-2006
Location: Afghanistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1515
  Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 14:09

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Pakistan was formed at the insistence of Jinnah (whether it was a mistake is up to each individual to decide, I dont think it was). Afghan government did not help create Pakistan - the Afghan/Pathan people are an important part of Pakistan and Pakistan could only have been formed with their consent (which I believe some referendums were held, but each province had voted for the Muslim League in the 1946 elections).

Well first of all thanks for those wonderful and informative replies and afterward:

Afghans didn't help Pakistan during its creation because Afghans lost their own regions and never wanted to fight a muslim country (as if it was India if not then some other time Afghans would had taken it back whether by force or diplomatic solutions). So sharing your own country with someone else doesn't sound good.

Yes, true, the Sikhs in this case combined with the Marathas in the West to devastate the Muslims.

Shah Wali Ullah also made efforts for the political uplift of Muslims of India. He wrote to Ahmad Shah Abdali to help the Muslims of India in crushing the Marhattas, who were a constant threat to the crumbling Mughal Empire. In 1761, Ahmad Shah Abdali, in response to Shah Wali Ullah's call, inflicted a crushing defeat on the Marhattas at Panipat. Shah Wali Ullah was responsible for awakening in the community the desire to regain its moral fervor and maintain its purity. He was laid to rest in 1762. His sons and followers ably continued his work and noble mission.

Well Said !

Yes, it's a fair point. But you should also remember the Marathas and the Sikhs were not a superpower with destructive weapons capabilities. The Sikhs and Marathas had the callousness to slaughter Muslims and steal their property, but they were not a superpower. That was a case of more or less equal powers warring, but in 2001, Pakistan was having an aggresive India on one side of it, America on another side demanding another thing insisting you're "with or against", and there's the Russians. Basically three superpowers had legitimized their position and Pakistan did not have the sympathy vote.

While thinking as a Pakistani, I would like to say that Pakistan did the best to survive and that was a great decision, but as an Afghan I would never forget that they did betray, I mean first promising helping and then stepping backward (you did ask for the link but right now I am extreamly sorry that I couldn't provide it but as I get it I will do so). So while you are in interest of making a new friend you shouldn't forget the other friends and making a new friend over the blood of the old one, is not something done by we AFGHANS.

Would I hope that Pakistan would fight a more or less equal power 1 on 1 for the sake of Afghan,  sure I would, but when 2 superpowers, 1 rising power and an international anti Muslim psychosis were created, that could have led to genocide, a lot more than a thousands of deaths, but millions of deaths. Which one would I have preferred, the fall of the Taliban or millions of deaths, I'd choose the fall of the Taliban. Noone else was willing to help Pakistan also at the time.

Well you shouldn't forget that we too fought a world super power in order to stop them from stepping toward South Asia (where the first target would had been Pakistan), so you could not make that as an excuse, because we fought Russians with lesser resources than Pakistan had at the time of American invasion and if you say that Afghans had Americans at their back then, Pakistan could had also take those advantages from China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, as I am sure that they too don't like Americans in the areas near to them.

I am sure you remember that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan declared that they will stand against any aggression of USA toward Afghanistan, and once that Pakistan switched sides all those other countries also backed up.

So the over all result is that you have to agree that Pakistan DID betray and does not deserve to be allied.

*** something which may help and show that Pakistan could not be trusted: Click Here    

The Marathas were a power, but not a superpower and not as destructive as what modern warfare is.

Well I guess I have answered this one by giving the example of Russia but also you should know that Marathas were allied (a true alliance) by Sikhs and Rajputs, and you should remember that Sikhs and Rajputs then were something more than only a POWER.

No, Daoud Khan wanted internal rebellion and he also wanted to create a Pashtunistan out of Pakistan when he was in office. He supported the Baloch uprising and he also tried to instigate rebellion in NWFP. He was backed by the Soviets.

You said NWFP and Balochestan, and we Afghans don't count those areas as a foreign but our own and I think every president has the right to do what ever is better for his own country.

I cant see it happening

Well no one in the world even guess that the super power USSR who defeated the mighty German forces, could be defeated by a small number of nomadic people called Afghans. I guess the same case is here once again with some people.



Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 15:00
Originally posted by Iranian41ife

no, britain is definetly the most blood stained.

and yes, the british did get millions of chinese addicted to opium on purpose!

and then when the chinese destroyed a british opium ship the british decided that they were going to start a war and destroyed the entire chinese navy.

that was called the opium war.

they even did stuff like that to the irish.

the america's, africa, asia, europe, etc... "Great" britian is the most blood stained nation in the world, and is rich today because of its imperial past, which did not end till the 1970's!

britain needs to get of the world stage, they are a disgrace to the terms "freedom" in my opinion, knowing the fact that they are still trying to be an imperial power.

dampier, you have to admit your nations past. you nation, britain, is one of the more evil empires to have ruled, just look in the history book. the french nor the spanish could even come close to the amount of suffering the british have caused in the world.

dont get me wrong, many empires have done bad things, including iran, but when it comes down to it, the british empire leaves all the other ones in the dust in terms of brutality, imperialism, and blood spilled.

britian and its policies can be directly linked to many of the most horrible things that have happened in the past 500 years, from the native americans to the chinese to the africans.

 

OK, prove to me Britain has managed to kill 70million people this last century, that what Mao managed to cause just at home, not counting Tibet and various wars.

Britian is in no way the most blood stained...as i pointed out many civiliations have a huge head start on us and have kept at it. We have not racked up the biggest death count, as pointed out the number of deaths linked to China are much, much larger.

I am not an expert and know very little about the Opium wars so I'll concede that to you.

As for the Irish- why oh why to people still whinge about that? Obviously bad and not nice but other nations had simialr, in fact much worse occurances. For example Oliver Cromwell killed less than half the number of people that would usually be killed in a similar area in any of the then current European wars, the potato famine was not just in Ireland, in fact in 1848 the overthrow of the French monarch had direct links to a potato famine. The only trouble is Ireland has not much of a history on the international stage so has to nurse its history. All of Europe has suffered much worse at various points but as they have had all kinds of exciting things happen after they have let them slip back. Though interestingly America never admits anything to do with allowing various Americans to fund a known vicious, mafia like terrorist network- the IRA. Before you mention the old 'get the British out of Ireland', if Britain leaves N. ireland it goes bad for the N. irish Protestans, if we stay we are condemned by the world. The IRA for that matter are criminals.

What was our last imperialistic act then in the 1970s?

I'm amazed you havent mentioned the Falklands war as Imperialistic. Everyone eventually does despite the fact that much like say Gibralter the vast majority of the population wants to remain British...

How or in what manner are we still trying to be an imperial power today? Iraq or Afghanistan perhaps? Both are symptons of our Prime Minister sucking up to Bush, not Imperialism. Britain gave up imperialism WW2.

As for the world stage- we ahve the power to help- should we use that power? If we do we're 'Imperialistic', if we dont we're 'abandoning' others. How about Bosnia- if we hadnt gone in it would have been much worse- then compare to Rawanda where we didnt go in and it got very bad, which was right? Power is a double edged blade.

France and Spain have probably caused less bloodshed but then their Empires were never as great and large. Thats just demographics.

Past 500  years- 500 years ago we were a neo-medieval kingdom with very little power outside Europe. Britain only became a major power after 1812-5. And what did we have to do with the Native Americans? Very little, that was an American event. Native Indians fought for France, Britain and America and each nation also killed them bu t wholesale extermination on the largest scale was entirely American. China we did cause trouble but you can hardly argue we destroyed it- just look at it now. As for Africa, that less to do with us than with the current bad government, what do you want us to do, go in there and get rid of those leaders. That requires force- so Imperialism apparently.

Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 17:29
Originally posted by Dampier

OK, prove to me Britain has managed to kill 70million people this last century, that what Mao managed to cause just at home, not counting Tibet and various wars.

Britian is in no way the most blood stained...as i pointed out many civiliations have a huge head start on us and have kept at it. We have not racked up the biggest death count, as pointed out the number of deaths linked to China are much, much larger.

ok wow, the british government was a little bit more merciful to its own people than mao was, but what about other people?

british imperial policy is the direct cause of many of the problems in the middle east and africa. those conflicts have killed millions, and ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF BRITISH IMPERIAL POLICY. not to mention all the millions killed during british imperialism.

 

Originally posted by Dampier

As for the Irish- why oh why to people still whinge about that? Obviously bad and not nice but other nations had simialr, in fact much worse occurances. For example Oliver Cromwell killed less than half the number of people that would usually be killed in a similar area in any of the then current European wars, the potato famine was not just in Ireland, in fact in 1848 the overthrow of the French monarch had direct links to a potato famine. The only trouble is Ireland has not much of a history on the international stage so has to nurse its history. All of Europe has suffered much worse at various points but as they have had all kinds of exciting things happen after they have let them slip back. Though interestingly America never admits anything to do with allowing various Americans to fund a known vicious, mafia like terrorist network- the IRA. Before you mention the old 'get the British out of Ireland', if Britain leaves N. ireland it goes bad for the N. irish Protestans, if we stay we are condemned by the world. The IRA for that matter are criminals.

british and scottish atrocities in ireland are well recorded. i suggest you do a google search.

Originally posted by Dampier

What was our last imperialistic act then in the 1970s?

i said the british empire was still existent in the 1970's, with holdings in asia, africa, and south america.

Originally posted by Dampier

I'm amazed you havent mentioned the Falklands war as Imperialistic. Everyone eventually does despite the fact that much like say Gibralter the vast majority of the population wants to remain British...

ofcourse it is imperialistic, whether the people want it or not. the same with puerto rico. they like being part of the US, but that still doesnt change that it was acquired with imperialistic visions, and is still an off shoot of those visions.

if iran were to capture the island of hawaii (just for an example) and then after hundreds of years, the hawaiian people, after being brainwashed, manipulated, and only knowing one form of government, choose to stay with iran, does that make it right?

not at all. however, if the people want it, then so be it.

Originally posted by Dampier

How or in what manner are we still trying to be an imperial power today? Iraq or Afghanistan perhaps? Both are symptons of our Prime Minister sucking up to Bush, not Imperialism. Britain gave up imperialism WW2.

britian did not give up imperialism in WW2, infact, after WW2 france, britian and other nations tried to regain many of their lost imperical posessions.

Originally posted by Dampier

As for the world stage- we ahve the power to help- should we use that power? If we do we're 'Imperialistic', if we dont we're 'abandoning' others. How about Bosnia- if we hadnt gone in it would have been much worse- then compare to Rawanda where we didnt go in and it got very bad, which was right? Power is a double edged blade.

France and Spain have probably caused less bloodshed but then their Empires were never as great and large. Thats just demographics.

Past 500  years- 500 years ago we were a neo-medieval kingdom with very little power outside Europe. Britain only became a major power after 1812-5. And what did we have to do with the Native Americans? Very little, that was an American event. Native Indians fought for France, Britain and America and each nation also killed them bu t wholesale extermination on the largest scale was entirely American. China we did cause trouble but you can hardly argue we destroyed it- just look at it now. As for Africa, that less to do with us than with the current bad government, what do you want us to do, go in there and get rid of those leaders. That requires force- so Imperialism apparently.

helping people was the same justification that imperialists used to make their empires.... like the british.

and regarding the native americans, it was policies used during british colonialism in the area that lasted through to the americans.

over all, the dead during british imperialism and the dead resulting from british imperialism add up, and in my opinion, they add up to the most.

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2006 at 14:58
Originally posted by Iranian41ife

Originally posted by Dampier

OK, prove to me Britain has managed to kill 70million people this last century, that what Mao managed to cause just at home, not counting Tibet and various wars.

Britian is in no way the most blood stained...as i pointed out many civiliations have a huge head start on us and have kept at it. We have not racked up the biggest death count, as pointed out the number of deaths linked to China are much, much larger.

ok wow, the british government was a little bit more merciful to its own people than mao was, but what about other people?

british imperial policy is the direct cause of many of the problems in the middle east and africa. those conflicts have killed millions, and ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF BRITISH IMPERIAL POLICY. not to mention all the millions killed during british imperialism.

 

Originally posted by Dampier

As for the Irish- why oh why to people still whinge about that? Obviously bad and not nice but other nations had simialr, in fact much worse occurances. For example Oliver Cromwell killed less than half the number of people that would usually be killed in a similar area in any of the then current European wars, the potato famine was not just in Ireland, in fact in 1848 the overthrow of the French monarch had direct links to a potato famine. The only trouble is Ireland has not much of a history on the international stage so has to nurse its history. All of Europe has suffered much worse at various points but as they have had all kinds of exciting things happen after they have let them slip back. Though interestingly America never admits anything to do with allowing various Americans to fund a known vicious, mafia like terrorist network- the IRA. Before you mention the old 'get the British out of Ireland', if Britain leaves N. ireland it goes bad for the N. irish Protestans, if we stay we are condemned by the world. The IRA for that matter are criminals.

british and scottish atrocities in ireland are well recorded. i suggest you do a google search.

Originally posted by Dampier

What was our last imperialistic act then in the 1970s?

i said the british empire was still existent in the 1970's, with holdings in asia, africa, and south america.

Originally posted by Dampier

I'm amazed you havent mentioned the Falklands war as Imperialistic. Everyone eventually does despite the fact that much like say Gibralter the vast majority of the population wants to remain British...

ofcourse it is imperialistic, whether the people want it or not. the same with puerto rico. they like being part of the US, but that still doesnt change that it was acquired with imperialistic visions, and is still an off shoot of those visions.

if iran were to capture the island of hawaii (just for an example) and then after hundreds of years, the hawaiian people, after being brainwashed, manipulated, and only knowing one form of government, choose to stay with iran, does that make it right?

not at all. however, if the people want it, then so be it.

Originally posted by Dampier

How or in what manner are we still trying to be an imperial power today? Iraq or Afghanistan perhaps? Both are symptons of our Prime Minister sucking up to Bush, not Imperialism. Britain gave up imperialism WW2.

britian did not give up imperialism in WW2, infact, after WW2 france, britian and other nations tried to regain many of their lost imperical posessions.

Originally posted by Dampier

As for the world stage- we ahve the power to help- should we use that power? If we do we're 'Imperialistic', if we dont we're 'abandoning' others. How about Bosnia- if we hadnt gone in it would have been much worse- then compare to Rawanda where we didnt go in and it got very bad, which was right? Power is a double edged blade.

France and Spain have probably caused less bloodshed but then their Empires were never as great and large. Thats just demographics.

Past 500  years- 500 years ago we were a neo-medieval kingdom with very little power outside Europe. Britain only became a major power after 1812-5. And what did we have to do with the Native Americans? Very little, that was an American event. Native Indians fought for France, Britain and America and each nation also killed them bu t wholesale extermination on the largest scale was entirely American. China we did cause trouble but you can hardly argue we destroyed it- just look at it now. As for Africa, that less to do with us than with the current bad government, what do you want us to do, go in there and get rid of those leaders. That requires force- so Imperialism apparently.

helping people was the same justification that imperialists used to make their empires.... like the british.

and regarding the native americans, it was policies used during british colonialism in the area that lasted through to the americans.

over all, the dead during british imperialism and the dead resulting from british imperialism add up, and in my opinion, they add up to the most.

The Middle East and Africa have always had problems- to pin those on Britain is a little unfair. As for troubles in Africa- look how succesful S. Africa is campared to the rest- whats different there, strong government. Many African states have more resources- it is government after imperialism, not imperialism itself that has caused trouble. Imperialism has caused trouble but i have no doubt Africa would be worse rather than better without Imperialism. I'm also not certain you can say million were killed during the Empire in Africa and the Middle East. In particular Britain lacks involvement with the Middle East- Iraq, Palestine and the Suez Canal are about all. And you cannot trace millions as a direct result, it was their governments and leaderships which have let them down. Tank for example Zimbabwe (its a good one). All its troubles come from itself not from Britain- its Mugabe bulldozing cities and shooting dead farmers. In the Middle East well- we can perhaps be blamed for Iraq (though again strong government would solve problems) in that we made what should be 3 states into 1. You could also i suppose blame Israel vs. Palestine on Britain but again- that Arab hostility not anything Britain had to do with it. blaming problems on imperialism is something common in Europe- first we were told imperialism was awful and we had to pull out and now everything that happens is our fault too. By that reasoning should i blame Rome and Parthia for the current state of Armenia? Or even should i start calling out about how Britain was ruined by Roman imperialism. Its nonsense, more than that its just blame culture, find someone big and blame them. We made mistakes and I'll admit to that but not to the level you're talking, moreover imperialism brought benefits.

Scottish atrocities in ireland- the Scots are descended from raiding Irish! Moreover i didnt say atrocities didnt happen, I'm just saying that was common. Such things have happened in every country, everywhere until recent years. Assyria used to cut off peoples head and stack them  in piles but I dont see many whinging about it now...As mentioned Britain has not had a great track record (perhaps i should mention Irish Dark Age atrocities in England?) but its better than many.

The Falklands lacks Imperialism, theres nothing there to exploit bar geography. The people are richer, happier and better off than  most. And self determination means its their choice. Many smaller places instinctively look to join bigger places. After all why else does a country come into being- because one village needs another, and they get another after its seen how succesful this resource pooling is...I would hardly say the people of the Falklands have been "brainwashed" or "manipulated". And surely they had a type of government before, a way of life, for far longer than the tiny amount of time Britain has held it- so why did they get rid of it? According to your logic they should still be with it.

After WW2 very little Imperialism took place, attempts were made mostly to secure or hold onto territory, no real attempts were made to gain new possessions. Suez Canal is a prime example of an attempt to hold onto something while the defense of Indo China by the French was an attempt to a) hold on  and b) keep the communists out. Britain has had few major wars since- Korea (defending another country) and the Falklands War(defending our own country).

As for helping people you havent answered my question- is it right. You call it a "justification", how about when it was to help people? Its an unanswerable question, as mentioned- you take the bad (your negative somments about "justification") with the good (helping people). Not all 'imperialism' is  about exploiting others. More than that people in the past lived by different rules to today- if the American captured Fallujah and killed, enslaved or ransomed  everyone who wouldnt convert to Christiantity what would you think- but Saladin did so after Hattin.

For the Native Americans can you give me an example of British organised genocide and exploitation? I have no doubt there is at least one case- but thats like saying Rome should be blamed for killing everyone in the rebel Boudicca's army in Britain or that Nazi Germany was inspired by Nero's anti-semitism? It was Americas choice.

Conclusively I'd like to point out that with all your arguments I can claim tha actually Iran and Iraq have killed the most- modern man was born there so everything he has done can be blamed on them and their country.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.