Shady Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 correct, all of today's major international issues stem from western imperialism/colonialism, generally sticking our greedy noses in other people's business and f***ing things up for centuries...and now the we express disbelief and outrage at behaviour that we're ultimately responsible for... Sounds like Iran, sticking their greedy noses in the business of other countries. Actually openly arming and funding terrorist groups in other countries. Groups that are meant to destabilize the very countries their operating in. But they get a pass from you and your ilk. Quote
GostHacked Posted September 14, 2012 Author Report Posted September 14, 2012 Sounds like Iran, sticking their greedy noses in the business of other countries. Actually openly arming and funding terrorist groups in other countries. Groups that are meant to destabilize the very countries their operating in. But they get a pass from you and your ilk. So why did the west openly fund and arm the rebels with known terrorist Al-Queda members among them? And now those same rebels are attacking the US embassies. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria........ Quote
Moonbox Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 well there's an ethnocentric bias...western europe has been unstable for an equal length of time... your views are very biased towards your own culture look at it from another perspective and you'll see we're no different... I'm not sure how much of a student of history you are but they're incredibly different. Nationalism has, more or less, existed in Europe for hundreds of years. An Englishman has been an Englishman, a Frenchman a Frenchman, a Spaniard a Spaniard and a German a German for centuries. Borders have been re-written more based on marriage than anything, and wars fought more over which member of the family was entitled to what than anything else. By the 11th-12th century most of Europe had stablized under ethnic and cultural boundaries we still see today. The 'wars' fought over that period in Europe were relatively minor squabbles between members of a feudal class who were trained to do nothing but fight and were just plain bored. Famous battles like Agincourt were merely squabbles compared to the giant civilization destroying Seljuk, Cruader or Mongol invasions of the Mid-East. Those wars wiped the slate clean and often COMPLETELY changed everything. Nationalism in the Mid-East is maybe 100 years old now, and poorly defined at that. long periods of peace? well that makes it a much more stable region than europe... See above. your views are very biased towards your own culture look at it from another perspective and you'll see we're no different... Mine are based on a passing knowledge and intense interest in the last 2000 years of history. I'm not sure what yours is based on. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) First of all I think your point is very valid, and energy needs to be part of the discussion. But I also thinks its wrong, and its actually a part of our broken mindset. We assume that all this intervention is necessary to keep the oil flowing, but the truth is the countries over there, even the ones we hate are more than happy to sell us oil because thats how THEY maintain THEIR standard of life. It's not that simple though. A shock to the oil supply can have a HUGE impact on the entire world's economy. The world's economic powers aren't comfortable with uncertaintity in the oil supply. Desert Storm was a direct reaction to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. The US's message (even to its former ally) was DON'T ROCK THE BOAT. Not only was the interruption of the oil supply not okay, but one of the major players swallowing up its neighbours was even scarier. The world doesn't want one player holding too much influence over prices and supply either. correct, all of today's major international issues stem from western imperialism/colonialism, generally sticking our greedy noses in other people's business and f***ing things up for centuries...and now the we express disbelief and outrage at behaviour that we're ultimately responsible for... Except imperialism is all the Middle East has known for the last 3000 years. Edited September 14, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) pls delete- double post Edited September 14, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
wyly Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 I'm not sure how much of a student of history you are but they're incredibly different. Nationalism has, more or less, existed in Europe for hundreds of years. An Englishman has been an Englishman, a Frenchman a Frenchman, a Spaniard a Spaniard and a German a German for centuries. Borders have been re-written more based on marriage than anything, and wars fought more over which member of the family was entitled to what than anything else. By the 11th-12th century most of Europe had stablized under ethnic and cultural boundaries we still see today. The 'wars' fought over that period in Europe were relatively minor squabbles between members of a feudal class who were trained to do nothing but fight and were just plain bored. Famous battles like Agincourt were merely squabbles compared to the giant civilization destroying Seljuk, Cruader or Mongol invasions of the Mid-East. Those wars wiped the slate clean and often COMPLETELY changed everything. Nationalism in the Mid-East is maybe 100 years old now, and poorly defined at that. See above. Mine are based on a passing knowledge and intense interest in the last 2000 years of history. I'm not sure what yours is based on. a student of history you're not,you're knowledge is superficial coloured by a strong ethno- centric bias... europe stabilized since the 11th-12th centuries germany was still a patchwork of nations in the mid 19th century,far from unified...the "unified" austrian empire had expanded and shatteredinto multiple states after WWI...Italy was divided into multiple nations until 1861...the turks weren't out of the balkans "unified" states until WW1...france wasn't unified until the 14th century...the basque and the catalan still don't see themselves as spanish, go tell a scot they're actually english, the dutch and the flemish(belgium) were still warring in the 19th century I guess you weren't around to tell them they were the same nationality(they are but it's religion that divided them)...europe has been at war nearly continuously for thousands of years, only since WW2 has there been a relative period of peace in europe(other than the relatively minor bosnian conflict)...your bias is one of euro-superiority that is not supported in historic fact... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
dre Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 It's not that simple though. A shock to the oil supply can have a HUGE impact on the entire world's economy. Right, and our intervention causes most of the big shocks that have effected prices. We dont make oil cheaper with our policy over there we make it a lot more expensive. Wait till we bomb Iran and youll see what I mean. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Moonbox Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) a student of history you're not,you're knowledge is superficial coloured by a strong ethno- centric bias... europe stabilized since the 11th-12th centuries germany was still a patchwork of nations in the mid 19th century It was all under the Holy Roman Empire (mostly Germanic) and was that way for 900 years. Prussia, Bohemia, Austira, Wallacia (sp?) etc were all germanic, spoke German, and shared the same sovereign. You'll note my post stated: By the 11th-12th century most of Europe had stablized under ethnic and cultural boundaries we still see today What's more is that most of Europe was all under heavy influence of the Pope for much of that time, although there were plenty of problems related to that as well. europe has been at war nearly continuously for thousands of years, only since WW2 has there been a relative period of peace in europe(other than the relatively minor bosnian conflict)...your bias is one of euro-superiority that is not supported in historic fact... As I already mentioned, Europe's wars were petty compared to what was seen in the Middle East. Care to offer any recent (ie last 1000 years) European comparisons to the Seljuk conquests, the Crusades, the Mongol invasion, the Timurids or the Ottomans? Entire civilizations were obliterated and cities razed to ashes. Populations were subjugated for hundreds of years. Ways of life were wiped out. This happened over and over and over again in the Mid-East. Edited September 14, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 Right, and our intervention causes most of the big shocks that have effected prices. We dont make oil cheaper with our policy over there we make it a lot more expensive. Wait till we bomb Iran and youll see what I mean. Well that's more a matter of a BS securities market and the tendency for commodities exchanges to go haywire at the merest sign of trouble. Libya accounted for like 2% of the world's oil supply. The rebellion last year caused more than a 2% hike in price. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 Right, and our intervention causes most of the big shocks that have effected prices. We dont make oil cheaper with our policy over there we make it a lot more expensive. Wait till we bomb Iran and youll see what I mean. Why don't you get smart and buy some oil stocks then? Lots of oil in Canada. Oh wait, Obama opposed the pipeline. Quote
wyly Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) It was all under the Holy Roman Empire (mostly Germanic) and was that way for 900 years. Prussia, Bohemia, Austira, Wallacia (sp?) etc were all germanic, spoke German, and shared the same sovereign. You'll note my post stated: By the 11th-12th century most of Europe had stablized under ethnic and cultural boundaries we still see today the holy roman empire was not an empire but in name only...literally hundreds of warring kingdoms, princedom, city states, etc at constant war none of whom shared any nationalistic feelings toward each other...linguistically they were germanic but so is english and swedish, the germans of the HRE didn't speak the one language, todays' german has only become the dominant language fairly recently in historical terms, saxon was not understood by barvarians, no other germans understood frisian of the north west the HRE consisted of at least five different "german" languages maybe more ... Frisian, Old Frankonian,Old Alemannic,Old Bavarian, Old Saxon,Old Thuringian and Lombardic all languages of the HRE, old Sachsisch...a saxon had as much chance of understanding bavarian as I do ...pan-german nationalism is historically a relatively recent event...as was italian nationalism...What's more is that most of Europe was all under heavy influence of the Pope for much of that time, although there were plenty of problems related to that as well. and most of the ME was under the influence of islam so what...As I already mentioned, Europe's wars were petty compared to what was seen in the Middle East. Care to offer any recent (ie last 1000 years) European comparisons to the Seljuk conquests, the Crusades, the Mongol invasion, the Timurids or the Ottomans? Entire civilizations were obliterated and cities razed to ashes. Populations were subjugated for hundreds of years. Ways of life were wiped out. This happened over and over and over again in the Mid-East.the holy roman empire was the net result of a major conquest by one man, charlemange...he subjgated other germans, the french, hungarians, italians, czechs, catalans, basque, brittains, croats, poles he oblitered entire nations conquering most of western europe...but the empire fell apart on his death and the wars resumed...the hundred years was a petty? the Napoleonic wars were a petty? ww1 and 2 were petty the crusades in spite of it's infamy and lasting repercussions was petty...the mongol invasion was very short term and petty...the Ottomans didn't do much but control large swaths of territory for a very very long period of time during which the region was relatively peaceful while europeans were busy slaughtering each other... Nationalism has, more or less, existed in Europe for hundreds of years.wow hundreds of years, that's so much more impressive than the turks 900 yrs of nationalism, iranians/persian 2500 yrs of nationalism or the eygptians 5000yrs of nationalism... Edited September 14, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Argus Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 europe has been at war nearly continuously for thousands of years, only since WW2 has there been a relative period of peace in europe(other than the relatively minor bosnian conflict)...your bias is one of euro-superiority that is not supported in historic fact... The middle east, and for that matter, the far and near east, have been at war for thousands of years too. I think the point he was trying to get across was that for much of European history wars were generally affairs between and among the nobility. Europeans of the middle ages didn't develop the habit, as they did in the east, of slaughtering the entire populations of large cities when they were conquered so they could pile their heads up in large stacks. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
wyly Posted September 14, 2012 Report Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) slaughtering cities was not a muslim tradition that was unprofitable, captives were generally sold...it was the christians of the crusades who slaughtered entire cities, charlemange( a christian) took great pleasure in beheading saxons by the thousands...mongols would as well when there was resistance or rebellion but they weren't from the middleast...and then can anyone match the barbarity of the christian germans of ww2... Edited September 15, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Shady Posted September 15, 2012 Report Posted September 15, 2012 slaughtering cities was not a muslim tradition that was unprofitable, captives were generally sold...it was the christians of the crusades who slaughtered entire cities, charlemange( achristian) took great pleasure in beheading saxons by the thousands...mongols would as well when there was resistance or rebellion but they weren't from the middleast...and then can anyone match the barbarity of the christian germans of ww2... The crusades were just a response to Muslim aggression. It was blowback for Muslim's butting their noses into other people's affairs. Quote
GostHacked Posted September 15, 2012 Author Report Posted September 15, 2012 The crusades were just a response to Muslim aggression. It was blowback for Muslim's butting their noses into other people's affairs. Care to answer why the west is arming funding the same rebels/terrorists that are now attacking the western embassies in the Middle East and Africa? Quote
wyly Posted September 15, 2012 Report Posted September 15, 2012 Care to answer why the west is arming funding the same rebels/terrorists that are now attacking the western embassies in the Middle East and Africa? are they?...i seriously doubt the west is intentionally arming it's enemies, weapons are easily acquired...in libya where the consulate was attacked, the government armories were looted by anyone and everyone during the revolution, they weren't armed by the west... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
GostHacked Posted September 15, 2012 Author Report Posted September 15, 2012 are they?...i seriously doubt the west is intentionally arming it's enemies, weapons are easily acquired...in libya where the consulate was attacked, the government armories were looted by anyone and everyone during the revolution, they weren't armed by the west... It may not be intentional, however what is going on now is hardly surprising. It's called blowback for a reason. Quote
Moonbox Posted September 15, 2012 Report Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) the holy roman empire was the net result of a major conquest by one man, charlemange...he subjgated other germans, the french, hungarians, italians, czechs, catalans, basque, brittains, croats, poles he oblitered entire nations conquering most of western europe...but the empire fell apart on his death and the wars resumed... Charlemagne was 1200 years ago. His cultural impact on most of Europe would have been akin to Napoleon's or Hitler's (ie flashes in the pan). You have to go back to the Romans to find the sort of century-spanning subjugations that happened over and over again in the Middle East. the holy roman empire was not an empire but in name only...literally hundreds of warring kingdoms, princedom, city states, etc at constant war none of whom shared any nationalistic feelings toward each other... The nobility bickered over territory and succession. Very little changed. , the germans of the HRE didn't speak the one language, todays' german has only become the dominant language fairly recently in historical terms, I was responding to your claims of Germany still being fractious in the mid-19th century. Language was a dog's breakfast all over Europe through the middle ages. You could go to the next town over (in France, Spain or wherever) and not understand what anyone was saying, such was the impact of the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages. It took hundreds of years for language to finally homogenize. and most of the ME was under the influence of islam so what... Because the nobility, for a long time, listened to what the Pope said and Europe was largely held peaceful for that time. The wars of the European Middle Ages were petty compared to the wars of Antiquity and what was going on around the rest of the world. Sure, there was lots of fighting, but it was the result of a bored and useless feudal class that didn't know how to do anything BUT fight. The elite in Europe mostly couldn't read and spent their childhoods training for war. One of the reasons the First Crusade happened was because Pope Urban wanted to find an outlet for the bickering nobility. They just wanted to fight. They didn't care who they fought against really and the idea of fighting in the name of their religion had great appeal. So they went, levelled cities in the name of Christianity and slaughtered everything they encountered along the way. the hundred years was a petty? Absolutely. In terms of scale and lasting repercussions it was as petty as it gets. You had a bunch of French and English nobility squabbling over who was in control of what, and large periods of inactivity and siege were broken up by tiny battles like Poitiers, Crecy, Agincourt and Formigny, which, although romanticized and made famous, were puny affairs in terms of numbers. The English army at Agincourt was less than 10000 strong and that was one of the bigger battles of that conflict. Compare that to battles in Antiquity, or battles that were happening in the Middle East and the rest of the world, where numbers would peak over 100,000 easily... the Napoleonic wars were a petty? ww1 and 2 were petty No. Interestingly, however, these were the first industrial-scale conflicts the world had ever seen and were stoked by the flames of nationalism. Is it a coincidence that the belligerents were all the same? Germany/Austria (or Prussia/Austria), Russia, Britain, France? Hmmm... the mongol invasion was very short term and petty... If you think that then you really don't know anything about it. The Mongol invasion devastating and its occupation, under different names and rulers, lasted for hundreds of years. Look up the Chagatai Khanate or the Timurids. In any case, those conflicts were absolutely catastrophic for the mid-east. Timur's campaigns in Persia etc wiped out 5% of the WORLD's population. The Mongol invasions were worse, and the Mid-East campaigns were some of the bloodiest. Genghis Khan brought 200,000 warriors to Khwarazmia in a campaign of vengeance. The Mongol invasions wouldn't be matched in death toll until World War II, which required 1940's urban populations and industrialized weapons of indiscriminate slaughter. You don't know what you're talking about. wow hundreds of years, that's so much more impressive than the turks 900 yrs of nationalism, iranians/persian 2500 yrs of nationalism or the eygptians 5000yrs of nationalism... You have a case with the Turks, but the Persians and the Egyptians? Nope. They've spent the vast majority of the last 1500 years under the yoke of one despot or the other and haven't been self-determining for about 1000 years. I'm not sure what your problem is with what I'm saying. The Middle-East experienced large scale invasions and imperialism throughout its ENTIRE history. It was conquered, subjugated and held for hundreds of years, collapsed and was re-conquered over and over and over again. This didn't happen in Europe. The two regions have VERY different histories. Edited September 15, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
wyly Posted September 15, 2012 Report Posted September 15, 2012 It may not be intentional, however what is going on now is hardly surprising. It's called blowback for a reason. but what we're seeing may look impressive on tv but it's really minor, a couple hundred religious extremists protesting embassies, these aren't governments doing the rioting... 99.9999% of muslims may be offended by the video's but they're are not taking part in embassy protests... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted September 15, 2012 Report Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) Charlemagne was 1200 years ago. His cultural impact on most of Europe would have been akin to Napoleon's or Hitler's (ie flashes in the pan). You have to go back to the Romans to find the sort of century-spanning subjugations that happened over and over again in the Middle East. charlemange is responsible for the borders of modern wetern europe, france, germany were the result of Frankish inheritance customs... had charlemange divided his empire differently among his sons our history would've been changed entirely ...then there the was begining of feudal system...charlemange establishment of universities....the establishment of the divine right of kings as a result of charlemange's rescue of the papacy from political oblivion and then the resulting conflicts and schisms(Herny VIII) and seemingly endless wars that resulted from that....and most european royal linages have some link to his dynasty...charlemange shaped the entire history of western europe like no one else...that 1200 yrs far exceeds any lasting effect of the romans, Edited September 16, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted September 15, 2012 Report Posted September 15, 2012 You have a case with the Turks, but the Persians and the Egyptians? Nope. They've spent the vast majority of the last 1500 years under the yoke of one despot or the other and haven't been self-determining for about 1000 years. I'm not sure what your problem is with what I'm saying. The Middle-East experienced large scale invasions and imperialism throughout its ENTIRE history. It was conquered, subjugated and held for hundreds of years, collapsed and was re-conquered over and over and over again. This didn't happen in Europe. The two regions have VERY different histories. you're making a point of constant warfare and turmoil and lack of national identity which is bs...empire's provide long periods of enforced peace even though it comes with forced subjugation, Pax Romana, pax Britannica, or pax anything ottoman, mongol whatever...the ottoman supplied 400 years of calm far more the the europeans ever experienced in the last 500 years...and being part of an empire does not erase nationalistic identity, the armenians, kurds, arabs, Bedouins, Palestinians, Berbers, Egyptians never lost their identity and revolted at the first opportunity, 400 yrs of continuous turkish occupation never erased their nationalism...several hundred years of a similar occupation by Britain never erased the nationalism of their colonized states... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted September 15, 2012 Report Posted September 15, 2012 I was responding to your claims of Germany still being fractious in the mid-19th century. Language was a dog's breakfast all over Europe through the middle ages. You could go to the next town over (in France, Spain or wherever) and not understand what anyone was saying, such was the impact of the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages. It took hundreds of years for language to finally homogenize. na you claimed germans all spoke the same language and were the same nationality, they didn't...the german languages didn't homogenize they went extinct... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted September 15, 2012 Report Posted September 15, 2012 Absolutely. In terms of scale and lasting repercussions it was as petty as it gets. You had a bunch of French and English nobility squabbling over who was in control of what, and large periods of inactivity and siege were broken up by tiny battles like Poitiers, Crecy, Agincourt and Formigny, which, although romanticized and made famous, were puny affairs in terms of numbers. The English army at Agincourt was less than 10000 strong and that was one of the bigger battles of that conflict. Compare that to battles in Antiquity, or battles that were happening in the Middle East and the rest of the world, where numbers would peak over 100,000 easily... If you think that then you really don't know anything about it. The Mongol invasion devastating and its occupation, under different names and rulers, lasted for hundreds of years. Look up the Chagatai Khanate or the Timurids. In any case, those conflicts were absolutely catastrophic for the mid-east. Timur's campaigns in Persia etc wiped out 5% of the WORLD's population. The Mongol invasions were worse, and the Mid-East campaigns were some of the bloodiest. Genghis Khan brought 200,000 warriors to Khwarazmia in a campaign of vengeance. The Mongol invasions wouldn't be matched in death toll until World War II, which required 1940's urban populations and industrialized weapons of indiscriminate slaughter. You don't know what you're talking about. I have from a good medieval historian who lives with me that military numbers were vastly exaggerated by chroniclers of the day to justify their defeats or exaggerate the victories...the enemy was always a vast multitude and the home side victor had but a few... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Shady Posted September 15, 2012 Report Posted September 15, 2012 It may not be intentional, however what is going on now is hardly surprising. It's called blowback for a reason. You're the only one calling it so-called blowback. It's not blowback at all. It's an excuse to act radical, because that's how they act when "offeneded." Everyone else in the civilized world doesn't seem to have a problem. Quote
Moonbox Posted September 16, 2012 Report Posted September 16, 2012 and being part of an empire does not erase nationalistic identity, the armenians, kurds, arabs, Bedouins, Palestinians, Berbers, Egyptians never lost their identity and revolted at the first opportunity, 400 yrs of continuous turkish occupation never erased their nationalism...several hundred years of a similar occupation by Britain never erased the nationalism of their colonized states... I'm not sure you understand what nationalism means... Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.