“Obviously”? No. Especially given that most academic discussion on the subject is most coached in nuance - it more reflects your black and white worldview more than the complex truth of the matter.
Military occupation of a conquered adversary? Sure, that one a definite tick.
Cultural and ideological domination? Hardly, both nations have their own distinct cultural and ideological identities.
Economic exploitation? Japan was one of the biggest economic forces through to the mid-90s, and Germany has the largest GDP in Europe. One can’t argue with a straight face they were exploited - especially given how vanquished adversaries were treated prior to WW2.
Political control and loss of sovereignty? Strike three, unless you’re seriously going to try and insinuate that somehow neither Germany nor Japan have sovereignty?
True, the US has deployed military bases all over the globe, but that in and of itself is not “colonisation”. These bases exist with express permission from host nations - usually as part of a mutual defence pact.
Don’t believe that? Look at what happened in Afghanistan following the collapse of the provisional government.
Given their most recent acts of war (and war crimes) in Iran, inability to sufficiently defend their Gulf state “allies” from retaliatory strikes, and going fanatical support of the Zionist regime in Israel, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few more nations evict US military bases from their territories in the near future.
TL;DR - just because you don’t like something, doesn’t automatically make it “colonisation”. The world is a million shades of grey, so stop trying to call half of it black.
Beside, you literally wish for afghanistan “multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion” (your words). How is that not colonisation? Quit contradicting yourself
It’s not a contradiction to want to see Afghanistan restored to how it was pre-Soviet invasion; the US is arguably just as responsible as the USSR was for Afghanistan’s fall into religious fundamentalism, due to abandoning its reconstruction following the fall of the Soviet Union.
Undoing that level of cultural damage takes a long time, in order to ensure subsequent generations aren’t radicalised. So while it does suck, it would have taken at least another generation of occupation to shape a more democratic and progressive future for Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the US isn’t as good at nation building as it once was - it’s actually not as good at a lot of things, as it once was.
The debate is weather occupying afghanistan would have been justified. You say yes, I say no. Nor was it justified to occupy western europe after the war. Or japan.
I mean you want to colonise Iran so why on earth would I think you’re unbiased.
True, the US has deployed military bases all over the globe, but that in and of itself is not “colonisation”. These bases exist with express permission from host nations - usually as part of a mutual defence pact.
I want to colonise Iran? Be careful you don’t pull a hamstring jumping to those sorts of conclusions!
While I have no love for the Ayatollah and the IRGC, the US and Israel are the unprovoked aggressors in this conflict, and I look forward to their defeat and inevitable retreat from this war. I just hope that they are made to pay for the death and destruction they have caused over the past month.
As pointed out earlier in the chain:
Occupation ≠ Colonisation
See,I live in an area of Australia that has a large proportion of Afghani refugees; these people are my friends, neighbours and colleagues. Our children go to the same schools, play the same sports, and spend their free time together. We regularly catch up on weekends for birthday parties and barbecues.
These people did not arrive here because the US was occupying Afghanistan - they all fled just as the US pulled out. All they want is to live in a country where their sisters, wives and daughters were free to express themselves, for everyone to be free from persecution by religious zealots, and a chance of freedom to experience the sort of life their grandparents had up until the USSR invaded in 1979.
The US had already let down their parents generation once before, abandoning those „gallant people of Afghanistan” following the fall of the Soviet Union, by failing to follow through with their own Marshall Plan style reconstruction.
So when it comes to the US militarily occupying that same nation just some ~12 years later - yes, I think that seeing through the reconstruction of said nation to its pre-1979 state is the least the US should be responsible for. That the US quit and failed in this task, should be a black mark against the soul of the nation.
“Obviously”? No. Especially given that most academic discussion on the subject is most coached in nuance - it more reflects your black and white worldview more than the complex truth of the matter.
Military occupation of a conquered adversary? Sure, that one a definite tick.
Cultural and ideological domination? Hardly, both nations have their own distinct cultural and ideological identities.
Economic exploitation? Japan was one of the biggest economic forces through to the mid-90s, and Germany has the largest GDP in Europe. One can’t argue with a straight face they were exploited - especially given how vanquished adversaries were treated prior to WW2.
Political control and loss of sovereignty? Strike three, unless you’re seriously going to try and insinuate that somehow neither Germany nor Japan have sovereignty?
True, the US has deployed military bases all over the globe, but that in and of itself is not “colonisation”. These bases exist with express permission from host nations - usually as part of a mutual defence pact.
Don’t believe that? Look at what happened in Afghanistan following the collapse of the provisional government.
Given their most recent acts of war (and war crimes) in Iran, inability to sufficiently defend their Gulf state “allies” from retaliatory strikes, and going fanatical support of the Zionist regime in Israel, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few more nations evict US military bases from their territories in the near future.
TL;DR - just because you don’t like something, doesn’t automatically make it “colonisation”. The world is a million shades of grey, so stop trying to call half of it black.
Beside, you literally wish for afghanistan “multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion” (your words). How is that not colonisation? Quit contradicting yourself
It’s not a contradiction to want to see Afghanistan restored to how it was pre-Soviet invasion; the US is arguably just as responsible as the USSR was for Afghanistan’s fall into religious fundamentalism, due to abandoning its reconstruction following the fall of the Soviet Union.
Undoing that level of cultural damage takes a long time, in order to ensure subsequent generations aren’t radicalised. So while it does suck, it would have taken at least another generation of occupation to shape a more democratic and progressive future for Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the US isn’t as good at nation building as it once was - it’s actually not as good at a lot of things, as it once was.
The US never was good. They never built a nation any more than the brits built australia. They colonised it.
Ah yes because white liberal democracy are actually at the forefront of progress /s
You mean the colonial government?
So did congo. I guess algeria wasn’t colonised by france because they still had “their own distinct cultural and ideological identites”?
Gish-gallop.
The topic of debate was whether US colonised West Germany and Japan following WW2.
I’ll take your pivot as your concession.
This ain’t highschool debate club sweetie.
The debate is weather occupying afghanistan would have been justified. You say yes, I say no. Nor was it justified to occupy western europe after the war. Or japan.
I mean you want to colonise Iran so why on earth would I think you’re unbiased.
Ah yeah like egypt and the UK?
I want to colonise Iran? Be careful you don’t pull a hamstring jumping to those sorts of conclusions!
While I have no love for the Ayatollah and the IRGC, the US and Israel are the unprovoked aggressors in this conflict, and I look forward to their defeat and inevitable retreat from this war. I just hope that they are made to pay for the death and destruction they have caused over the past month.
no sorry, my bad. You wanted to colonize afghanistan. I was just a few hundred miles off
As pointed out earlier in the chain: Occupation ≠ Colonisation
See,I live in an area of Australia that has a large proportion of Afghani refugees; these people are my friends, neighbours and colleagues. Our children go to the same schools, play the same sports, and spend their free time together. We regularly catch up on weekends for birthday parties and barbecues.
These people did not arrive here because the US was occupying Afghanistan - they all fled just as the US pulled out. All they want is to live in a country where their sisters, wives and daughters were free to express themselves, for everyone to be free from persecution by religious zealots, and a chance of freedom to experience the sort of life their grandparents had up until the USSR invaded in 1979.
The US had already let down their parents generation once before, abandoning those „gallant people of Afghanistan” following the fall of the Soviet Union, by failing to follow through with their own Marshall Plan style reconstruction.
So when it comes to the US militarily occupying that same nation just some ~12 years later - yes, I think that seeing through the reconstruction of said nation to its pre-1979 state is the least the US should be responsible for. That the US quit and failed in this task, should be a black mark against the soul of the nation.
Did that occur to you that the people who fled with the occupiers might not be a representative set of the population?
Every decolonisation had their set of traitors fleeing.