So does that mean the British descended nations have a general right to make war against other nations?

To Peter Hume.

I think that the civilised world does have a perfectly legitimate right to interfere in the internal affairs of primitive, dysfunctional states. And if that means going to war, to get rid of a poisonous and an entirely self interested regime, especially one which is both a threat to the civilised world and one in which the king, dictator or "President for Life" is mass murdering his own people to stay in power, then so be it.

When it came to Imperialism, that was as inevitable as the next sunrise. It was inevitable, that on this planet, and on any other planet inhabited by intelligent beings, there was going to come a time when the advanced civilisations were going to explore their planet, and impose their authority upon those of their own species who were still enduring a primitive existence.

This happened on our planet, and the British were the very best of the conquoring nations who spread civilisation. Could I remind you that with the wihdrawal of Imperial forces worldwide, many former colonies have reverted to barbarism? You only have to look at how the Somalis behave to understand why it was always necessary for advanced societies to bring barbarian societies into the civilised world. In Rhodesia, they are all now starving to death.

Libya is another example. It was formerly 'The Barbary Coast" who's galleons filled with Christian slave oarsmen continualy pirated European ships. Of course it was the right thing to do, to destroy a pirate administration and set up a colonial government. Today, this same country has a dictator who has bombed European airliners and is now massacring his own people, causing another influx of "refuges" into the West.

It is still appropriate for the West to invade Libya. It is in our self interest, and in the interests of the enslaved people of Libya that we do so.

Smacks of white man's burden to me.

Yes, anyone has a right to use force to stop anyone who is enslaving or subjugating others.

But they don't have a right to aggress against or subjugate others to do it, and that it is the whole problem with states doing it. It is a complete furphy that states represent the greater good, that they are this selfless and indispensable organisation, and that the poor schmucks whom they expropriate to pay for their military adventures have no right to the fruits of their own labour.

If you want to fund an army to get rid of the Saddams and Gaddafis of this world, I think you have every right to do so. But it is a complete furphy to paint the Obamas and Blairs and Gillards of this world as being on the side of right, for no other reason than that they are the heads of British-descended democracies. The majority can err as much as the minority, and the crimes, frauds and abuses of Obama, Bush, Howard, Blair, and co. against their subject populations are none the less for being done through the agency of political states.

The western democracies, led by the USA, have evolved a culture of perpetual war, and it is the modern democracies who developed total war. These are ever bit as offensive to the values of civilisation and common humanity as slavery or cannibalism- they have certainly killed tens of millions more.

The whole Anzac hoop-la cannot be justified in terms of the defence of Australia, and is part of a wider pattern of unjustified worship of arbitrary government power that has reduced, not increased the values of civilisation in general, and the freedom of the Australian people in particular. It has gone hand in glove with indoctrinated support of big government that is now responsible for thoroughgoing violations of our freedom and property on ten thousand fronts, and a culture and industry of government provoking conflicts in civil society which it then intervenes in to settle in its own favour.

The British descended secular democracies are the model for successful and prosperous states, states which bestow upon their populations individual rights and freedoms that have never been known before in human history. I would have thought that you would be proud of that, and that you would like to see such a successful political and economic system spread.

Far from developing “a culture of war”, the western democracies usually lag far behind the military dictatorships. The history of war in the 20th Century, usually consisted of the democracies providing under funded armies of brave young men armed with inadequate numbers of obsolete weapons, fighting against totalitarian armies lavishly supplied with every modern whiz-bang.

I find your logic contradictory, when you imply that it is OK to “get rid of the Saddams and Ghaddafi of this world”, then criticize the democracies when they do just that. The democracies found it necessary to go to war to “get rid of" a lot of totalitarian crazies, and the world is a better place for having done so. The folly of ”peace-at-any-price” tendencies, meant that we failed to get rid of Kim il Sung in North Korea, and country now has got nuclear weapons and ICBM’s, and is threatening to sell them to terrorists.

The Turks were the descendents of the Mongols, probably the most psychotic people to ever arise. The religious doctrines of Islam, which justified making war on non believers, really struck a chord with the Turks natural inclinations towards aggression, genocide,and the constant expansion of their empire. For 600 years, the Turks were a serious threat to the continued existence of the Christian Europe. They had subjugated the entire Middle East, and were pressing into Austria and Persia.

The one good thing to come out of WW1, was that the Turks were defeated and the Ottoman Empire destroyed. You should be proud that Australians were involved in that. It was a pity that we did not retake Constantinople as well.

Had the Ottoman Empire survived, they would certainly have thrown in with Nazi Germany, and we would have lost the war.

"The British descended secular democracies are the model for successful and prosperous states, states which bestow upon their populations individual rights and freedoms that have never been known before in human history."

Like, for example, Zimbabwe or Uganda?

LEGO,

Gawd...can't wait for your book.
I'd love to read how the British went round sprinkling fairy dust on the cultures and populations it eradicated and enslaved.

Will you include a chapter on the destabilisation to countries caused by colonisation - and perhaps one on the marvellous modern arms industry that supplies the despots with their weapons?

Accurate historical reflection will reveal that British imperialism was, in many instances, more brutish and barbarous than the cultures it sought to subordinate.