The Boers resisted fiercely, but the British eventually overwhelmed the Boer forces, using their superior numbers and external supply chains and concentration camps as well as the controversial scorched earth tactic. The Treaty of Vereeniging specified full British sovereignty over the South African republics, and the British government agreed to assume the £3,000,000 war debt owed by the Afrikaner governments. One of the main provisions of the treaty ending the war was that ‘Blacks’ would not be allowed to vote, except in the Cape Colony.

And Jay includes India in his list but exlcudes Pakistan. I was just setting the record straight.

I believe South Africa belonged to the Dutch, hence “Afrikaans”.

And you have to include India if you want to talk about Pakistan. You know, India? The homeland of Ghandi, the posterboy of peace?

You also omitted Zimbabwe (Rhodesia). Certainly a “model” former British colony if ever there was one.

If I were a Bush humper right now, I’d seriously be worried that Irony was waiting outside to beat the sh*t out of me.

But for the most part, being a former English colony is a far better harbinger of success and independence than, say, a French colony – take a look at some of the places that were compelled to pay homage to the Tricolor, such as Viet Nam and the Ivory Coast.

Jay forgot to mention one specific former British protectorate that you’d think would have some direct bearing on his point. It’s called
Iraq.

In Iraq, we avoided the magnitude of destruction such as inflicted during World War II. We did the minimal damage we could to the society and infrastructure,[hilarious] and now are attempting to graft democracy and freedom and independence on top of them. It seems less cruel and expensive in the short term, but will it succeed? And will it last? Only time will tell.

Then one poem and dozen verbose paragraphs later he writes:

The use of force – the kind of force applied to the Taliban and Saddam’s regime – should only be for the most intransigent, belligerent cases, and only then as a last resort. Also, it should be only used when it is likely to achieve the goals.

Some critics of the war in Iraq wonder why, if Saddam was “fair game,” why not Iran and North Korea? The answer is simple: it wouldn’t work as well in those nations.

So only time will tell if our ambit in Iraq will work, it’sanybody’s guess right now, but it was the right thing to do because it was so obvious from the outset that we were “likely to achieve the goals.”

What a moron. And ya, fact, it is indeed scary.

From today’s crock: from the outset, the independence of that “colony” is the primary goal.

See? Isn’t that a hoot? Jay is such a complete moron that he’s not aware that the primary goal in Iraq was never to bring them “democracy.” It was to create a true free-market economy, which has been the Neocon wet dream for some time now. What part of Iraqi independence required writing into their Constitution that foreign (read: US) corporations can set up shop there, exploit the resources and labor, and then export every cent of revenue without paying any taxes to Iraq?

How is that helping to get them back on their feet? It’s more like bending them over.

The rest of his Opus (and pretty much everything else he writes) is the same. It’s funny because he’s so stupid.

Oh, and I’ve apparently been blocked from his site, so if he ever claims that he never deleted a single post, you’ll know he’s a lying piece of shit, as well.

Hey Save, let’s invade Pakistan, Syria and Iran, then we’ll never be able to leave those places too! It’ll be awesome.

I find myself wondering if part of the reason Ronald Reagan was such a better president than Bill Clinton was because in his younger days, Reagan had been a lifeguard. One of the first things lifeguards are taught is to first protect themselves, to not needlessly endanger themselves, when attempting a rescue. A lifeguard who doesn’t obey that rule not only doubles the number of people endangered, but has converted himself from an asset to a liability. Clinton didn’t seem to grasp that, flailing about in the seas of international conflicts, while Reagan carefully chose his battles.

Yes, indeed, Reagan chose his battles well. Invading Grenada: What awesome Resolve! We kicked their fucking asses! That one really put us back on the map of respected world powers. Especially since it happened just two days after the Beirut marine barracks bombing in 1983. Yup, truly a judicious and magisterial choice of how and when to use US military power: Always to distract from bigger failures.

we should just completely ignore that Al Qaeda and those sympathetic with them have been able to kill over 2,600 Americans in Iraq.

Good job, Oliver. You just proved why we shouldn’t leave Iraq. We’ll make a neocon of you yet!

Yes, indeed, racism gets in the way of knowing who we need to kill. Again, fantastic analysis, Jay.

“Secondly, I chose those racist terms very deliberately. Those were words and phrases that were very common at the time — casually, prior to Pearl Harbor; venomously, after. Our racist attitudes towards the Japanese (which was rather nicely mirrored by them at the time) was a large factor in the impact of Pearl Harbor; our prejudices simply could not let us concieve of them planning and pulling off an attack that successful. I chose to echo those words to make the point as forcefully as I could, as well as a subtle (apparently too subtle) dig who call Muslim terrorists terms like “ragheads” and “sand niggers” and the like. It lets people give vent to their fury, but blinds them to the larger realities and prevents them from seeing the real picture. Worse than being hateful, worse than being ignorant, racism and bigotry like that is arrogant and self-destructive.

Sorry you missed it. Guess I should work on being less subtle.

That’s it? THAT’S your explanation? You’re sorry WE missed it?

Oh, now I get it. So the “ragheads” and “sand niggers” aren’t like subhuman animals incapable of thought, they are dangerous, crafty subhuman animals who are the greatest threat known to the history of human civilization. What breathtaking insight.

Jay, it’s pretty clear you were struggling to make some ironic point but what it actually was was anybody’s guess. Your clarification just makes it all so much more stupid.

I gather the title of your epic, ‘White Man’s Burden’, has some other ironic little twist as well. You know, because it’s not like that phrase has any racist implications either. And it certainly isn’t like the United States ever sought to be a world power based on such a paternalistic world view, it’s not like we ever went to war against
Spain or anything.

Again, what a tool.

Your “point” in using gutter language was very badly couched, so the fault lies not with the reader. Nice try, though. Reminds me of Pee Wee Herman falling off a bike: “I meant to do that.”

Al Qaeda is a SUBSET of the enemy. The terrorism didn’t start with the first WTC attack, and it won’t end with the death or capture of Bin Laden.

Secondly, I chose those racist terms very deliberately. Those were words and phrases that were very common at the time — casually, prior to Pearl Harbor; venomously, after. Our racist attitudes towards the Japanese (which was rather nicely mirrored by them at the time) was a large factor in the impact of Pearl Harbor; our prejudices simply could not let us concieve of them planning and pulling off an attack that successful. I chose to echo those words to make the point as forcefully as I could, as well as a subtle (apparently too subtle) dig who call Muslim terrorists terms like “ragheads” and “sand niggers” and the like. It lets people give vent to their fury, but blinds them to the larger realities and prevents them from seeing the real picture. Worse than being hateful, worse than being ignorant, racism and bigotry like that is arrogant and self-destructive.

Sorry you missed it. Guess I should work on being less subtle.

J.