david starkey - ''people don't like being liberated''

[cm1179]

anyone else watching question time?

a question was asked about syria and whether we should intervene and the mess that libya was

david starkey replied by saying a countries people do not like being liberated by others and used the liberation of france by uk and the us as an example and how 'we' got no thanks from the french for doing so.

his reasoning was that the only people who can liberate a country are the country's people itself.

is he bonkers or does he have a point?

i don't know much about the bloke but a quick google search has returned some 'interesting' results, one of which was titled 'david starkey - the whites have become black' (in relation to the tottenham riots and not the point of post, just a point of relevance in my feelings he may be a little bit on a different wave length)

back to the post, the thought of the possible fact that the only people who can liberate a country are the people itself is one i have not given much thought to before and am pretty open minded about why it may be the best possible method.

 

[Ahleckz]

He's an incredibly sensible man who is prepared to say things that are controversial but he actually gets straight to the issue.

He's rather brash, his outburst after the bloke suggested we apply economic pressure to China & Russia demonstrated that, but at least he isn't concerned about party politics and offending people.

He's a great person to have on QT and is someone who is worth listening to.

As for the question, of course it's true. That's why Iraq failed, as will Afghanistan. All you do when you are liberating is stripping a group of people from their tyranny and putting in place a system which they do not know, did not ask for and likely do not want.

 

[HamZilla]

The best analogy I can give is if you are walking around town and see some people arguing or fighting. You randomly pick a side and try to be a hero. What you get for your effort is both parties now arguing/fighting with you for not minding your own business especially as you knew neither party.

 

[cm1179]

The best analogy I can give is if you are walking around town and see some people arguing or fighting. You randomly pick a side and try to be a hero. What you get for your effort is both parties now arguing/fighting with you for not minding your own business especially as you knew neither party.

but isn't it a case of we know both parties and our decision on who to help out is based on this? basically decided on who we can get the most from long-term?

 

[Skeptic]

Since I saw him behave like a petulant child on 'Jamie's dream school' I've less time for him. I think he is a bit of a fool.

 

[cm1179]

He wasn't taking any prisoners, tonight. He has a habit of speaking without thinking about how it's going to sound, though... as was evidenced tonight (so sometimes stuff he says sounds more controversial than it is, or slips of the tongue get him loads of criticism).

the chap (whose name escapes me) from the football organisation came across very well. ok he was playing it a bit safe but i was surprised and even thought he must've had a heads up on the questions!

 

[Ahleckz]

but isn't it a case of we know both parties and our decision on who to help out is based on this? basically decided on who we can get the most from long-term?

However, in liberation we rarely know both sides or at the very least what one side (the liberatees) will become. In Syria, we don't know what we're dealing with (militarily from the ruling leaders, nor is the opposition particularly well formed like it was in Libya). We are now seeing in Iraq that the people who we went to save from tyranny are now aligning themselves in such a way that it is likely tyranny will come back.

the chap (whose name escapes me) from the football organisation came across very well. ok he was playing it a bit safe but i was surprised and even thought he must've had a heads up on the questions!

Clarke Carlisle. He's been on a few times, and in footballing terms he's very well educated. Straight A's at GCSEs, and a couple of A Levels I believe. He's a good addition, though he was touting general trade union nonsense. I thought he was somewhat out of depth on a few questions and didn't really add that much to the debate.

 

[stockhausen]

In response to the original comment "People don't like being liberated", I believe that most people simply want to be left to get on with their lives with the hope that things will get easier / better.

In the case of Syria, I suspect that we are seeing a VERY one-sided view of what is going on there. In order to secure control over oil, the US and UK are on a mission to gain control over the Middle East. Israel wants to become the exclusive regional power and to eliminate any opposition to its expansion plans. Iran wants to keep Syria on-side.

I find it inconceivable that the US, UK, Israel and Iran are not knee deep in the brown and smelly stuff, enthusiastically stirring things up in Syria. A vicious, autocratic, undemocratic dictator (Assad) is entirely predictably reacting in the only way he knows. Most Syrians, who are innocent bystanders in all this, probably just want it all to stop.


ps - QT is entertainment, not serious debate.

 

[robfosters]

Call this an uneducated opinion, but I would have thought while people may not like being liberated, they do like the threat of death to them and their children being halted.

 

[GAC]

was funny when starky smacked dimbleby down when he was trying to say starky claimed we shouldnt have had d-day.

getting sick of the way the bbc is trying to be a political channel of late. just look at the idiot who was on this week next, gallerway and his kissing up to yet another tinpot leader in kercher and then suggesting we should send him over to sort the problem out.

 

[Freakbro]

Haven't seen this weeks QT yet, but generally I find Starkey an obnoxious and odious little man who just seems to rant on every subject.

 

[atpbx]

This is the same argument I have with calling people who live in afghanistan and Iraq "insurgents" who fight against our troops, when they were born there, and have lived there all their lives.

They were called the resistance in france in WW2.

 

[[TW]Fox]

This is the same argument I have with calling people who live in afghanistan and Iraq "insurgents" who fight against our troops, when they were born there, and have lived there all their lives.

They were called the resistance in france in WW2.

I am not sure the French resistance went around bombing other French people in markets etc though?

 

[Conanius]

I am not sure the French resistance went around bombing other French people in markets etc though?

A minor detail. Stop undermining his point. Next you'll be saying you can't remember the French resistance bombing innocent civilians in another country.

 

[atpbx]

I am not sure the French resistance went around bombing other French people in markets etc though?

The point isnt how they go about making their case.

 

[atpbx]

A minor detail. Stop undermining his point. Next you'll be saying you can't remember the French resistance bombing innocent civilians in another country.

I cant remember any afghans or Iraqis doing it either of the top of my head.

 

[[TW]Fox]

The point isnt how they go about making their case.

I rather think it is!

 

[stockhausen]

I am not sure the French resistance went around bombing other French people in markets etc though?

I believe that the French resistance executed thousands of perceived collaborators, during and after the war?

There is another significant difference between Afghanistan and the French during WWII and that is that there isn't (and wasn't) the same tribalism in France as there has been for centuries in Afghanistan. I don't think that this tribalism is a product of our war in Afghanistan.

 

[atpbx]

I rather think it is!

See the above post.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I believe that the French resistance executed thousands of perceived collaborators, during and after the war?

Thats unacceptable as well then - but even if thats true, there is a difference (however unacceptable it is) between executing perceived collaborators and bombing regular joes in market places a-la Iraqi insurgents.

Many of whom are *not* Iraqi.