______________________________
Yehuda Ben-Moyshe
I think I can answer why the Mongols, the Spanish, and the British, hell, even the French were able to hold their conquered empires for long periods of time… because they had the ability to fight without white gloves. They were allowed to be ruthless in waging their wars and used the “scorched Earth” tactics, if deemed necessary. Nowadays, our military is afraid of liberal outcry every time an insurgent gets shot, or a village gets bombed. Soldiers and officers are constantly investigated, and critical articles are multiplying in the media, hindering our military efforts. In short… give the military the freedom to win… and they will.
Barbara-Marie Drezhlo
Not so. The Mongols were known for their religious tolerance in an age of unbridled religious passion (“The Great Yassa“, anyone?). In any case, the British and French colonial empires in Africa only dated from the 1880s… India was mainly ruled through subservient satraps… Spain only lost its American Empire because the Ibero-Spanish refused to share power with local creoles. In short, the above assertion is crank and without foundation. I wonder if Mr Ben-Moyshe is an apologist for the Israeli occupation of Palestine… that would explain his outburst, wouldn’t it?
Yehuda Ben-Moyshe
Right off the bat… I’m not apologising for anything. Besides, there is no such country as Palestine, so, Israel isn’t occupying anything. Let’s not go off on a tangent from the original discussion to start a new never-ending argument. You’re entitled to your opinion; I have mine, end of story. Coming back to the original point, your eloquent reply is pretty much nonsense, if you consider the original article. What does the religious tolerance of the Mongols have to do with the fact that they ruled half the known world for several hundred years? How does quoting the supposed reasons for the demise of their colonial rules negate the fact that England and France DID hold vast colonial empires for a few decades at least? England ruled through subservient satraps? Great! Why can’t America do the same? Hell, we can’t even control Karzai, and he is a cockroach, compared to Saddam or Qaddafi. Come to think of it, Afghanistan IS a special case… NOBODY ever could hold on to it, not Alexander the Great, not the Mongols, not the mighty British, and certainly not my compatriot Russians. America is in a pretty exclusive club here, even in its failure. Read up on your history, if you can’t bring yourself to take a raving Zionist/imperialist’s word for it.
Barbara-Marie Drezhlo
“There’s no such country as Palestine”… hmm, you should tell that to the UN! They’ve seated a Palestinian delegation. Apparently, they don’t have the same sterling sources that you do. The Mongols didn’t “rule half the known world for several hundred years”… do go back to page one, dear. As far as holding vast colonial empires went, the champs were the Dutch, not the French and English (the VIC did hold the Indies for several hundred years, that’s a fact… again, mostly through native intermediaries). Cecil Rhodes makes fine Boy’s Own Paper reading… but rather more equivocal history. Besides, my memory tells me (I’m in my sixth decade) that the French DID use torture in their attempt to hold on to Algeria. In short, your argument expired at the starting post even before the race began. In any case, “Liberal” means anti-traditional, anti-regulation, and anti-government… that’s US Republicanism in its full glory. Don’t use “liberal” as a synonym for “left“… it’s not only false, it’s ridiculous.
Yehuda Ben-Moyshe
Tell it to the UN? You make me laugh, woman! UN is a discredited hypocritical body without balls that pretty much nothing depends on nowadays. It makes no decisions of any value or consequence, at least in serious matters. I might as well tell the Boy Scouts. If you give any weight to it… I understand where your political naïveté comes from. As far using torture… not only the French used it, but the Dutch, the Spanish, and whoever else HAD TO. That’s what fighting with gloves off means, if the situation calls for it. As far as equating liberal with left… not me, darling. I hail from the country on the extreme left, I KNOW first hand what left can mean in full colour. Liberal, in the scope of this particular discussion, means not having the guts or the vision to go all the way to achieve your objective, in case of war or foreign politics. That’s why our objectives are not always achieved, of late.
Barbara-Marie Drezhlo
The objectives of the right in the West aren’t met because they’re beyond the reach of our abilities. It’s expensive to wage war at a distance. Not even the USA has the means to do so for long. Guts? Note well that none of those who used torture were in the end successful. Your definition of “liberal” isn’t only idiosyncratic; it’s useless, as it’s only a figleaf for your own prejudices. You seem to say that violence is not only necessary, but also laudable. As a former serving member of the forces, that’s a position taken by no serving officer of any standing or intelligence. It’s a stance of loudmouth civilians who fancy themselves “tough” and “practical”, but are neither (in spades). You smell like a Likudnik… and to you, having “vision” means smashing a rifle butt into a Palestinian’s face. That’s why Israel has to face terrorism… people don’t like that very much. The world is distressingly grey… it’s not black n’ white. I know… I haven’t spent my life at a tea party (social or political). It takes all kinds… and some have access to a computer. This IS a Left venue, after all!
******
Do note that my rightwing interlocutor is long on wind, short on fact. He NEVER cites fact in support of his argument. That’s why it’s futile to argue with Righties. They’re not “arguing”, that is, opposing one fact with another, they’re “fighting”, fair or foul, it doesn’t matter, as long as they “win”. They’re amoral brutes for whom “winning is the only thing” (as they’re wont to say). They favour a brutish and nasty society where there’s no protection or no regulation, so that all are at the mercies of the most ruthless amongst us.
That’s Satan’s vision… and I oppose it. I’m not alone…
BMD
Voices from Russia 
24 October 2013. A Colloquy Between Me and an Interlocutor in the Commboxes at “The Nation”
Tags: Alexander, Cecil Rhodes, French colonial empire, history, Israel, Mongol, Palestine, political commentary, politics, Russia, Russian, United States, USA, West
______________________________
Yehuda Ben-Moyshe
I think I can answer why the Mongols, the Spanish, and the British, hell, even the French were able to hold their conquered empires for long periods of time… because they had the ability to fight without white gloves. They were allowed to be ruthless in waging their wars and used the “scorched Earth” tactics, if deemed necessary. Nowadays, our military is afraid of liberal outcry every time an insurgent gets shot, or a village gets bombed. Soldiers and officers are constantly investigated, and critical articles are multiplying in the media, hindering our military efforts. In short… give the military the freedom to win… and they will.
Barbara-Marie Drezhlo
Not so. The Mongols were known for their religious tolerance in an age of unbridled religious passion (“The Great Yassa“, anyone?). In any case, the British and French colonial empires in Africa only dated from the 1880s… India was mainly ruled through subservient satraps… Spain only lost its American Empire because the Ibero-Spanish refused to share power with local creoles. In short, the above assertion is crank and without foundation. I wonder if Mr Ben-Moyshe is an apologist for the Israeli occupation of Palestine… that would explain his outburst, wouldn’t it?
Yehuda Ben-Moyshe
Right off the bat… I’m not apologising for anything. Besides, there is no such country as Palestine, so, Israel isn’t occupying anything. Let’s not go off on a tangent from the original discussion to start a new never-ending argument. You’re entitled to your opinion; I have mine, end of story. Coming back to the original point, your eloquent reply is pretty much nonsense, if you consider the original article. What does the religious tolerance of the Mongols have to do with the fact that they ruled half the known world for several hundred years? How does quoting the supposed reasons for the demise of their colonial rules negate the fact that England and France DID hold vast colonial empires for a few decades at least? England ruled through subservient satraps? Great! Why can’t America do the same? Hell, we can’t even control Karzai, and he is a cockroach, compared to Saddam or Qaddafi. Come to think of it, Afghanistan IS a special case… NOBODY ever could hold on to it, not Alexander the Great, not the Mongols, not the mighty British, and certainly not my compatriot Russians. America is in a pretty exclusive club here, even in its failure. Read up on your history, if you can’t bring yourself to take a raving Zionist/imperialist’s word for it.
Barbara-Marie Drezhlo
“There’s no such country as Palestine”… hmm, you should tell that to the UN! They’ve seated a Palestinian delegation. Apparently, they don’t have the same sterling sources that you do. The Mongols didn’t “rule half the known world for several hundred years”… do go back to page one, dear. As far as holding vast colonial empires went, the champs were the Dutch, not the French and English (the VIC did hold the Indies for several hundred years, that’s a fact… again, mostly through native intermediaries). Cecil Rhodes makes fine Boy’s Own Paper reading… but rather more equivocal history. Besides, my memory tells me (I’m in my sixth decade) that the French DID use torture in their attempt to hold on to Algeria. In short, your argument expired at the starting post even before the race began. In any case, “Liberal” means anti-traditional, anti-regulation, and anti-government… that’s US Republicanism in its full glory. Don’t use “liberal” as a synonym for “left“… it’s not only false, it’s ridiculous.
Yehuda Ben-Moyshe
Tell it to the UN? You make me laugh, woman! UN is a discredited hypocritical body without balls that pretty much nothing depends on nowadays. It makes no decisions of any value or consequence, at least in serious matters. I might as well tell the Boy Scouts. If you give any weight to it… I understand where your political naïveté comes from. As far using torture… not only the French used it, but the Dutch, the Spanish, and whoever else HAD TO. That’s what fighting with gloves off means, if the situation calls for it. As far as equating liberal with left… not me, darling. I hail from the country on the extreme left, I KNOW first hand what left can mean in full colour. Liberal, in the scope of this particular discussion, means not having the guts or the vision to go all the way to achieve your objective, in case of war or foreign politics. That’s why our objectives are not always achieved, of late.
Barbara-Marie Drezhlo
The objectives of the right in the West aren’t met because they’re beyond the reach of our abilities. It’s expensive to wage war at a distance. Not even the USA has the means to do so for long. Guts? Note well that none of those who used torture were in the end successful. Your definition of “liberal” isn’t only idiosyncratic; it’s useless, as it’s only a figleaf for your own prejudices. You seem to say that violence is not only necessary, but also laudable. As a former serving member of the forces, that’s a position taken by no serving officer of any standing or intelligence. It’s a stance of loudmouth civilians who fancy themselves “tough” and “practical”, but are neither (in spades). You smell like a Likudnik… and to you, having “vision” means smashing a rifle butt into a Palestinian’s face. That’s why Israel has to face terrorism… people don’t like that very much. The world is distressingly grey… it’s not black n’ white. I know… I haven’t spent my life at a tea party (social or political). It takes all kinds… and some have access to a computer. This IS a Left venue, after all!
******
Do note that my rightwing interlocutor is long on wind, short on fact. He NEVER cites fact in support of his argument. That’s why it’s futile to argue with Righties. They’re not “arguing”, that is, opposing one fact with another, they’re “fighting”, fair or foul, it doesn’t matter, as long as they “win”. They’re amoral brutes for whom “winning is the only thing” (as they’re wont to say). They favour a brutish and nasty society where there’s no protection or no regulation, so that all are at the mercies of the most ruthless amongst us.
That’s Satan’s vision… and I oppose it. I’m not alone…
BMD