Article comparing Britains role in Iraq now to its imperial days..

www.guardian.co.uk...


A very interesting piece it draws paralells between Iraq now and Kenya in the 1950s.
British soldiers were paied 5 shilling per Kenyan they killed and this was after WW2 where we were supposed to have dealt with attitudes like that. Seems not eh?

Never theless we are now in iraq trying to put down a popular uprising by some funny looking brown people, just like we are doing in iraq... exept now it no longer "our" empire... its the US.


Edit: a little extract from the article by Mark Curtis in the Guardian Tuesday October 26, 2004:

British ministers' claim to be defending civilisation against barbarity in Iraq finds a powerful echo in 1950s Kenya, when Britain sought to smash an uprising against colonial rule. Yet, while the British media and political class expressed horror at the tactics of the Mau Mau, the worst abuses were committed by the occupiers. The colonial police used methods like slicing off ears, flogging until death and pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight.

British forces killed around 10,000 Kenyans during the Mau Mau campaign, compared with the 600 deaths among the colonial forces and European civilians. Some British battalions kept scoreboards recording kills, and gave �5 rewards for the first sub-unit to kill an insurgent, whose hands were often chopped off to make fingerprinting easier. "Free fire zones" were set up, where any African could be shot on sight.

As opposition to British rule intensified, brutal "resettlement" operations, which led to the deaths of tens of thousands, forced around 90,000 into detention camps. In this 1950s version of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, forced labour and beatings were systematic and disease rampant. Former camp officers described "short rations, overwork, brutality and flogging" and "Japanese methods of torture".


[edit on 26/10/2004 by Corinthas]

And there is more good stuff here about how to conveniently label someone a terrorist so you can kill him without all the fuss:

Guerrillas resisting British rule were routinely designated "terrorists", as now in Iraq. Britain never admitted that it was opposing a popular, nationalist rebellion in Kenya. Similarly, leftwing Malayan insurgents fighting British rule in the 1950s had strong popular support among the Chinese community but were officially called "terrorists". In secret, however, Foreign Office correspondence described the war as being fought "in defence of [the] rubber industry", then controlled by British and European companies.

But under the banner of fighting communism, British forces were given free rein in Malaya. Collective punishments were inflicted on villages for aiding insurgents. A shoot-to-kill policy was promoted, tens of thousands of people were removed into "new villages" and used as cheap labour, and British soldiers had themselves photographed holding guerrillas' decapitated heads. The idea that the revolt was ended through "winning hearts and minds" is a myth; it was crushed by overwhelming force, such as massive aerial bombing.

Look at how britain was going to war under "the banner of fighting communism" wonder where the americans got the idea fro Viet-Nam for eh?

Americans take note... I can accept the fact that "my" country is/has been a blood thirsty war machine and I can accept it.

I don't like it, I am not proud of the past (and therefore not of my country) but I CAN ACCEPT IT!
I CAN PROUDLY SAY BRITAIN IS A BACKWARED HOLE, BENT ON CONQUER AND SLAUGHTER!

There I did it, can you say the same of the US?

Originally posted by Corinthas
Americans take note... I can accept the fact that "my" country is/has been a blood thirsty war machine and I can accept it.

I don't like it, I am not proud of the past (and therefore not of my country) but I CAN ACCEPT IT!
I CAN PROUDLY SAY BRITAIN IS A BACKWARED HOLE, BENT ON CONQUER AND SLAUGHTER!

There I did it, can you say the same of the US?

Me think not , the UK is not a 'a blood thirsty war machine' what ever gave you that idea. I'm guessing your opinions originate from Afganistan/Iraq. Just because we went to war doesn't mean we're all suddenly evil screaming warriors

i think he was aluding more to the past than the present. i can see his point in the past context, we did some really shi**ty things to some pretty poor countries. these days however i think we are perhaps more of the calming influence on the US' gung ho tactics.

mabye if the US had our history they would not be fighting the same wars they are 2 day.

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Me think not

, the UK is not a 'a blood thirsty war machine' what ever gave you that idea. I'm guessing your opinions originate from Afganistan/Iraq. Just because we went to war doesn't mean we're all suddenly evil screaming warriors

Did youeven bother to read the article? "Me think not"