I know I risk opening a can of worms, but I think certain things have to be said.

Quote Originally Posted by PainSister View Post
Excuse me? Are you suggesting North Korea really (for example)...I mean, REALLY, has no worse a record on human rights than the UK or USA? Please can I suggest you take a read of the many, many reports written by Amnesty International. As to this repulsive part of your statement "apart from the obvcious genocide"... What do you mean, apart from the obvious genocide...no, no no...thats the entire point surely!?!
I was taught as a child that to kill one person is like to kill all of humanity. Every country has a right to protect their citizens, but to wage a war of reasons and information that was fake or incorrect is a major crime against humanity in my opinion. Civilians die in wars, and thats what happened in Viatnam, and again now in Iraq, and for what? Oil? Influence in the Middle East? Finishing what daddy Bush didn't? Now before anyone claims that I'm saying that the soldiers are murderers, I'm not, I'm saying that the people in control are definitly not innocent. Does unjustyingly killing less people make one country better over another?

Quote Originally Posted by PainSister View Post
Without the British "Empire" there would be no "India" today...just couple dozen warring statelets, poor, still awash with cultural slavery and discrimination...weak and probably dominated by Russia or China. Yes, im sure Indians would be in a much better place without the modern liberal democracy the British Empire left as a legacy. Oh...and the railroads, modern industry and concept of a United India through education funded by British Univerisites.
The British did a lot in terms of economical/education progress for the world, but to say that India would be a couple of dozen warring statelets without Britains involvment is quite presumptious. China during it's history were broken up into many different warring states, and a few European countries till World War II were usually in some conflict or another.

Listening to the stories from my grandparents, a British ruled India was not a good India for them. Britain colonized India not to influence the locals in the 'British' way of non-slavery (which was abolished over a century after India was colonized), or democracy, they came to become richer, straight and simple.

Maybe you're right, maybe India (or the land) would have been a few warring states, or a huge country plagued by civil war, or maybe India would perhaps be a country not seperated by religion that actually is better than what exists today as India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. Who knows? The Moghols were doing pretty well during the 15th century, building stadiums, houses, schools, the Taj Mahal.


---


And on back to the discussion of the whole torture business, it's completely pathetic to see humanity still at a stage were torture is still something that's common, not only in Iraq and US, but most nations of this world