VitalSigns posted:Once again, there is a difference between anti-imperialism and pacificism. We've got a guy in here who can't seem to tell the difference between slavery in the Belgian Congo and the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. I'm not sure what your distinction has to do with it, since neither category is relevant, for example, to a genocide that takes place within your own borders (the problem to which I was alluding). You're not undertaking a directly anti-imperialist act if you stop German Jews being gassed in the same way you would be if you liberated the Belgian Congo Free State. Both seem to me to be reasonable criteria for military intervention of some kind. Edit: 
Disinterested fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:I'm not sure what your distinction has to do with it, since neither category is relevant, for example, to a genocide that takes place within your own borders (the problem to which I was alluding). You're not undertaking a directly anti-imperialist act if you stop German Jews being gassed in the same way you would be if you liberated the Belgian Congo Free State. Both seem to me to be reasonable criteria for military intervention of some kind. The USSR killed more Russians than Hitler killed Jews and that wasn't a reason to start world war 3. What is this hard-on for wars? Nobody in power gives a poo poo if Saddam is "killing his own people". That, and the rah rah USA flag-waving poo poo is just the excuse the rich and powerful use to trick the poor into dying for them. That you can look at the tyrants and mass murderers America buddies up with (and/or installs) and then say "oh but we should believe the politicians when they're very concerned with a genocide in one particular country" is astonishing. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:25
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The USSR killed more Russians than Hitler killed Jews and that wasn't a reason to start world war 3. Well, it might be if invasion of Russia had been possible, but it wasn't. Nobody is calling for nations to do things of which they are incapable. Stopping massive internal slaughters is a totally justifiable use of force. It's not just bluster or imperialism, or the property of the rich or right wing. Plenty of rich right wingers in the 20th century have been totally set against the use of force overseas for any reason, too. Think of the legacy of America First, Lindbergh, Father Coughlin, Pat Buchanan and also the British Cliveden set. Those people are just as creepy as any other sectional interest you'd care to mention. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Plenty of rich right wingers in the 20th century have been totally set against the use of force overseas for any reason, too. Think of the legacy of America First, Lindbergh, Father Coughlin, Pat Robertson and also the British Cliveden set
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
I don't know how people can cite Alexander the Great, whose will declared his intention to resettle most of the ethnicities in his empire, as a good conqueror by any means.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't know how people can cite Alexander the Great, whose will declared his intention to resettle most of the ethnicities in his empire, as a good conqueror by any means. Relative to other ancient empires? Sure. Judging him by modern standards is silly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:54
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Relative to other ancient empires? Sure. Judging him by modern standards is silly. That's above and beyond what other empires did, really. Only the Inca attempted something similar in scope.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Using World War 2 as an example of why nationalism and war are necessary is really odd, considering the conditions that created it were created by World War 1: the poster child for unnecessary war driven by national pride and imperial ambition, and colonialism was the main reason the war with Japan happened as it did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:24
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Using World War 2 as an example of why nationalism and war are necessary is really odd, considering the conditions that created it were created by World War 1: the poster child for unnecessary war driven by national pride and imperial ambition, and colonialism was the main reason the war with Japan happened as it did. Nobody mentioned nationalism in the context of that argument (though it is what the thread is about). I certainly didn't, so I don't know why you're bringing it up here. In fact, it could be argued that stating war is only permissible if: quote:It is to protect A from B, an aggressive power Contains an enormous implicit assumption about the value of nations and nation-states as ways of governing our behaviour (it is implicitly nationalistic, in a sense).
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's above and beyond what other empires did, really. Only the Inca attempted something similar in scope. The great empires did what everyone else did just better. They tended to be the most advanced and in conquering other nations(that had conquered their neighbors before) the great empires spread technology. Its almost like ancient empires conquering the world was the ancient equivalent of the internet. Hail...we bring you wikipedia. Marvel at our aquaducts. Even the mongols who were mostly just raping and burning got the west to meet the east technologically
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
You realise the Macedonians under Alexander were the barbarians, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:39
|
|
davidb posted:The great empires did what everyone else did just better. I must have missed the part where the Han Dynasty invaded Scythia, bringing the pear to Rome. Or Rome's counterattack, bringing asbestos to China.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Back To 99 posted:You realise the Macedonians under Alexander were the barbarians, right? No I do not realize. My understanding is that macedonians were basically greece. And greece is generally a civilization in high regard
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I must have missed the part where the Han Dynasty invaded Scythia, bringing the pear to Rome. Or Rome's counterattack, bringing asbestos to China. Hail wikipedia riding the wave of conquest
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:42
|
|
davidb posted:No I do not realize. My understanding is that macedonians were basically greece. And greece is generally a civilization in high regard 'Barbarian' is onomatopoetic, 'ba ba ba' is imitating the babble of a non-Greek speaker or an inept Greek speaker, and was often slung at Macedonians. The word may as well be 'moonspeakers' or some goony bullshit.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Nobody mentioned nationalism in the context of that argument (though it is what the thread is about). I certainly didn't, so I don't know why you're bringing it up here. Okay sure states aren't real after all and it makes little difference to the guy being shot whether the shooters wear his country's uniform or the uniform of the guys next foor, but earlier you said as a practical matter if the outcome would be horrible (like starting world war 3 to stop Stalin's purges) then we shouldn't do it. Now let's look at the history of American interventions to save people in South America or the Middle East or Asia from a "bad" government. Oh. Hmm. Well, okay those weren't so great before but this here Saddam guy sounds really bad, we have to take him out!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:'Barbarian' is onomatopoetic, 'ba ba ba' is imitating the babble of a non-Greek speaker or an inept Greek speaker, and was often slung at Macedonians. Interesting. I checked it out for myself and it seems greek city states used the term against other greek city states. So in mt view the term barbarian denotes a lower level of civilization between cultures. Romans might call germanics barbarians. And germanics would view mongols as barbarians. Since macedonians were equally advanced compared to other greeks i would not call them barbarians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:57
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay sure states aren't real after all and it makes little difference to the guy being shot whether the shooters wear his country's uniform or the uniform of the guys next foor, but earlier you said as a practical matter if the outcome would be horrible (like starting world war 3 to stop Stalin's purges) then we shouldn't do it. It's not just horror that's involved in warring against Stalin, it's the low chance of even winning. That's an even more relevant consideration today after nuclear proliferation. It's not like we could go to war with China, Pakistan, Russia or Israel to enforce minimal standards of conduct on them because they can tell anyone, no matter how powerful, to get hosed. quote:Now let's look at the history of American interventions to save people in South America or the Middle East or Asia from a "bad" government. Oh. Hmm. Well, okay those weren't so great before but this here Saddam guy sounds really bad, we have to take him out! Well, sure, that's a reasonable historical argument. Although you're applying a very dubious historical continuity to those events that isn't entirely applicable (the conservative groups that were pro-Iraq were famously against a lot of those Cold War policies you mentioned). All the same, I'm pretty sure legitimate arguments for intervention can be made. Does anyone think the Balkans in the 90's would have been better off without Western military involvement? I think it's more a question of making the process of intervention more considered and procedural. This is the sort of thing that the UN is supposed to be for, but is generally useless at, so you just have great power bungling and imperialism instead. davidb posted:Interesting. I checked it out for myself and it seems greek city states used the term against other greek city states. Then you checked it out badly. Greeks used it against non-Greek speakers and people they perceived to be uncouth or poor speakers of Greek. Athenians were king snobs. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
davidb posted:Interesting. I checked it out for myself and it seems greek city states used the term against other greek city states. Disinterested posted:Then you checked it out badly. Greeks used it against non-Greek speakers and people they perceived to be uncouth or poor speakers of Greek. Athenians were king snobs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
davidb posted:No I do not realize. My understanding is that macedonians were basically greece. And greece is generally a civilization in high regard Yeah, there's these things called books. They have a lot of information in them! Information about things like the Macedonians being a poor and peripheral monarchy well to the north of the core of Hellenic civilization, considered a land of backwoods Thracian goat-herders by the Hellenic (the Greeks' term for themselves) polis-dwellers to the south. How they were a pariah state after the Second Persian War, when they joined the kingdoms and city-states that submitted to Xerxes, who only drifted back into amicable relations with the Hellenic cities to the south when the Athenians needed their lumber for shipbuilding during the Peloponnesian War, and even then were looked at as a weak and servile petty kingdom by poleis that valued their natural resources. That condition only changed in the time of Alexander's father, Philip II, who applied military and administrative reforms to the kingdom based on what he observed as a boy hostage surrendered by his father to Thebes. The royal standing army built by Philip's reforms and the Macedonian gold mines he had developed to pay the troops managed, over decades of campaigning, to bludgeon or intimidate the Greek city-states into acknowledging Macedon as not just a part of Hellenic civilization but hegemon of the Hellenic world--because Philip would slaughter their people and burn their cities if he refused. At the time of his death only Sparta, a much reduced power since its defeat by the Thebans at the Battle of Leuctra, refused submission to Philip's Pan-Hellenic League. So, essentially, you don't know what you're talking about. Luckily, there's books! You can correct your ignorance! I recommend Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography, which explores the topic of Macedonian history in accessible but scholarly detail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
davidb posted:So in mt view the term barbarian denotes a lower level of civilization between cultures. Romans might call germanics barbarians. And germanics would view mongols as barbarians. In other words 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
Wikipedia says greek city states used the term barbarians against other city states. So pretty much anyone you didnt like could be called a barbarian. And the word wasnt limited to usage by greeks. Romans and others used the word too shaping its meaning
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:All the same, I'm pretty sure legitimate arguments for intervention can be made. Does anyone think the Balkans in the 90's would have been better off without Western military involvement? Highly respected academic Noam Chomsky does
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:19
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Highly respected academic Noam Chomsky does I like Chomsky but he aint exactly batting 1.00. See also: him attacking people who claimed the Khmer Rouge was committing atrocities as pawns of the United States' propaganda machine.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
zeal posted:
Never claimed to be an expert on greek history so no thanks Ill skip those books got better things to do. So yeah...how about those barbarians
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
davidb posted:Never claimed to be an expert on greek history so no thanks Ill skip those books got better things to do. So yeah...how about those barbarians Cool, wallow in your voluntary ignorance! It's always nice to know ahead of time when someone's opinions can be discounted as half-baked nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
davidb posted:Never claimed to be an expert on greek history so no thanks Ill skip those books got better things to do. So yeah...how about those barbarians Hey everyone in this thread, can I suggest putting this guy on ignore? Thread will be better if nobody pays attention to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
It's very hard to imagine a better use for davidb's time than reading some books given the quality of his posting.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Not an expert on Greek history here but let's copy Alexander, I bet an Empire like his is the perfect recipe for centuries of unity and stability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
davidb posted:No I do not realize. My understanding is that macedonians were basically greece. And greece is generally a civilization in high regard Modern greeks love to tout it very much because of their baby ego trip about Macedonia being somehow laying a claim to Alexander (which the Macedonian slavs didn't give a poo poo about until the greek nationalists started acting like children). The Macedonians were basically model barbarians who adopted greek mannerisms and culture and so were higher on the totem pole than, say, Thracians or Dacians. As far as I care, the Albanians have probably as much of a claim to the ancient macedonians as the Greeks; both are tenuous anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Hey everyone in this thread, can I suggest putting this guy on ignore? Thread will be better if nobody pays attention to it. Stop fooling around your not going to put me on ignore. Even if you did your curiosity would have you checking what i wrote and why people were arguing with me  zeal posted:Cool, wallow in your voluntary ignorance! It's always nice to know ahead of time when someone's opinions can be discounted as half-baked nonsense. So having a thorough background in greek history is a prerequisite to having a discussion? I mean, feel free to discount what i say but i dont think you needed my greek history hole to do that. Didnt i give you ample reason before hand? Agnosticnixie posted:Modern greeks love to tout it very much because of their baby ego trip about Macedonia being somehow laying a claim to Alexander (which the Macedonian slavs didn't give a poo poo about until the greek nationalists started acting like children). The Macedonians were basically model barbarians who adopted greek mannerisms and culture and so were higher on the totem pole than, say, Thracians or Dacians. I havent read any books about greece vs macedonia. What i have read paints a picture of greek city states with macedonia on the greek peninsula(very small corner of the world). With macedonia just barely north. Alexander was trained by aristotle. Just seems like separating macedonia from the rest of greece and calling them barbarians. Is like northerners calling rednecks from southern america barbarians. I dont get what your saying about greek ego trip...what did they do? Try to lay claim to alexander like he wasnt from macedonia? When you say macedonians were model barbarians who adopted greek culture. Those two things clash. Can they be model barbarians with greek culture? Or are we going further back in history to make the barbarian claim? Because far enough back and greece are barbarians compared to sumerians. And i dont mean barbarians in the strict bababa greek way. But barbarians the way germanics were to romans
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:What's your opinion if for example a European democracy turns to fascism. Kill them until they stop. Not joking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Kill them until they stop. Not joking. Hey, the hongerwinter was just the price to be paid for bringing you German art, literature, and technology through the benevolent and uplifting institutions of empire and conquest. "Hey we bring you civilizing knowledge of wonders such as Panzers, boiled cabbage, and the letter 'y'. Marvel at our ligatures and Bach's sonatas. Well we'll be taking that food now, thank you!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
zeal posted:Cool, wallow in your voluntary ignorance! It's always nice to know ahead of time when someone's opinions can be discounted as half-baked nonsense. that dude literally called all muslims "camel fuckers" like 2 pages back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
davidb posted:So having a thorough background in greek history is a prerequisite to having a discussion? I mean, feel free to discount what i say but i dont think you needed my greek history hole to do that. Didnt i give you ample reason before hand?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What is this hard-on for wars? Nobody in power gives a poo poo if Saddam is "killing his own people". That, and the rah rah USA flag-waving poo poo is just the excuse the rich and powerful use to trick the poor into dying for them. That you can look at the tyrants and mass murderers America buddies up with (and/or installs) and then say "oh but we should believe the politicians when they're very concerned with a genocide in one particular country" is astonishing. Cargo cult level poo poo. People have heard so many fake humanitarian justifications for war that they think those justifications apply in cases where war would bring no benefit to US hegemony.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Your Weird Uncle posted:that dude literally called all muslims "camel fuckers" like 2 pages back. You could almost say that the Muslim Empires got Europe's foot in the door... or even that the traditional (or at least basic, chapter-by-chapter high school history) view of pre-modern history as a bunch of isolated empires and states in bubbles sometimes tangentially interacting, and spontaneously generating themselves and spreading their enlightened view of civilization without outside influence, is bullshit, and the world has always been interconnected. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
I think the most important factor in maintaining world progress is stability and governmental centralization, and despite what anyone might say about the stabilizing or destabilizing effect of the US as the world superpower, US hegemony is antiquated and I hope a more multi-polar 21st century that requires international cooperation, and the failure of nationalism to deal with global crises like global warming will facilitate the rise of world government.That doesn't really say anything about how to deal with the problems of global capitalism, but I'm really getting beside the point here. Really, US hegemony was useful when it acted as a counterweight to Soviet influence, but now it's just getting in the way. The current kerfuffle in Russia is a good example of this, because if you take a good look into how Putin got into power in the first place and why Russia is being so aggressive, it becomes apparent that tit-for-tat aggressive action against Russia driven by old US Cold War animosity actually retrenches Putin and Russians into anti-Western sentiments in a vicious circle that started with the US getting pushy and expanding its NATO boundaries into former Soviet territory. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:US hegemony was useful when it acted as a counterweight to Soviet influence Not disagreeing with your overall argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:But is that not something we can only say in hindsight, as the lucky survivors of what may as well have been the end of the human race? The US is suffering collective PTSD from the Cold War, and many corporations make a handsome business on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 12:32
|
|