Why Do People Hate America

sovtek

Originally posted by BarryFry
Can you ABSOLUTELY guarantee that the middle-east, or anywhere else, would DEFINITELY be a better place if they had never been subject to western imperialism?

Profits we are not...but if I come over to your house and steal all your **** and continue to do so over several generations it's a fair bet that you will have been better off if I hadn't.
Furthermore if I hadn't stole from you and you weren't better off then I know I would'nt have been responsible for it.
It also would'nt be a guarantee that your mates would help you come kill me for something I hadn't done.

BarryFry

Profits? Do you mean prophets? Or was that a freudian slip?

It is interesting that for all the supposed ills of the western colonialists, it is transparent that the Lebanese and Syrians hate the Americans more than their previous colonial masters the French, the Libyans and Sudanese hate the Americans more than their former colonial masters the Italians, and the Palestinians, Iranians and Egyptians hate the Americans more than their former colonial masters the British.

Whether they are right to do so or not is another matter. What is transparent is that none of you were able to do what I asked, and think about the question with an open mind before posting a reply. And one of you is so ill-educated they don't know the difference between a "profit" and a "prophet".

It is often presumed by the narrow-minded that if event X did not happen then subsequent event Y could have been avoided and the world would have been a much happier place. What they don't take into account is that absolutely awful event Z could have taken place instead. For example, one of the few good things about Hitler leading the Nazi party was that it prevented Himmler or Goebbels leading it.

Before the advent of the Western Colonialists, the middle east was already a colony - an Ottoman (that's Turkish, Sovtek) one.

And that empire was fragmenting long before the advent of the west. So how would this have resolved itself? By all the various Arab tribes shaking hands with the Turks, agreeing not to exploit any strategic advantages or religious schisms, and peacefully and happily going about their ways?

Who can say that if it wasn't for the intervention of the western powers, with their artificial borders and imposition of infrastructure and order, the middle east would not be in a much worse state?

If you disagree, don't get emotional - QUANTIFY your argument.

The Afghans successfully withstood western interference for over a century. Did that unite them? Did that put them in a better position than they would have been otherwise?

Redleslie

Originally posted by BarryFry
It is often presumed by the narrow-minded that if event X did not happen then subsequent event Y could have been avoided and the world would have been a much happier place.

Maybe I'm being narrowminded but I've always thought that being alive is usually preferable to being robbed, raped and murdered.

DadaKopf

Before the advent of the Western Colonialists, the middle east was already a colony - an Ottoman (that's Turkish, Sovtek) one.

And that empire was fragmenting long before the advent of the west. So how would this have resolved itself? By all the various Arab tribes shaking hands with the Turks, agreeing not to exploit any strategic advantages or religious schisms, and peacefully and happily going about their ways?

The Ottoman empire gave a lot of autonomy to the regions it annexed. Yes, there was political antagonism but it was different. It was with the involvement of the West with Ataturk that increased political tensions because of the way he attempted to impose modernisation across the empire - which refers to my comments about the influence about Middle Eastern compradors. Western influence changed everything. I don't think we're in a position to say for better or worse.

Whether they are right to do so or not is another matter. What is transparent is that none of you were able to do what I asked, and think about the question with an open mind before posting a reply.

Can you tell the future? Do you own a crystal ball? Do you have a God's eye view of causality? If you do, fair enough, we'll believe everything you say but I think everyone responded to your question with the answer: "I can't predict the future". The same is said about the past. You can't reduce history to an objectively derived input-output function. History is interpreted. It's dumb of you to ask a question most sane people know can't be answered and derive a sense of superiority out of it. If you're so smart, how about you answer the question. Oh yeah, I forgot, you don't know because you asked us.

monument

Originally posted by BarryFry
It is interesting that for all the supposed ills of the western colonialists, it is transparent that the Lebanese and Syrians hate the Americans more than their previous colonial masters the French, the Libyans and Sudanese hate the Americans more than their former colonial masters the Italians, and the Palestinians, Iranians and Egyptians hate the Americans more than their former colonial masters the British.

What has their greater hate of the US to do with the "supposed ills of the western colonialists"?

As history shows, they have good reason to hate the US.

Originally posted by BarryFry
And one of you is so ill-educated they don't know the difference between a "profit" and a "prophet"

It looks as if you don't know your history very well.

Originally posted by BarryFry
Who can say that if it wasn't for the intervention of the western powers, with their artificial borders and imposition of infrastructure and order, the middle east would not be in a much worse state?

Hey, who can say the world won’t be a better place if WW2 ended differently!

Also... "imposition of infrastructure and order" - sorry, but what order?

sovtek

Originally posted by BarryFry
Profits? Do you mean prophets? Or was that a freudian slip?

Obviously...from the context...

And one of you is so ill-educated they don't know the difference between a "profit" and a "prophet".

And someone is obviously unaware of the general attitude in this board toward spelling/grammar mistakes.

Nevermind that its got no bareing on my arguement. :rolleyes:

dr_manhattan

Well hey, I've thought for 15 minutes, and though I may seem to be "entrenched in a left wing cliche", may I also point out that saying that very sentence entrenches you in a "right wing cliche", barryfry - I am a largely apolitical individual and my opinions on these matters are not part of a well thought out set of world order ideas.

However, as I said, I was brought up surrounded by the people who imposed this famous "infrastructuire and order" on the middle east: every person I know who worked for a foreign interest in the middle east in the 1960s (and we are talking about a dozen people here) was intensively debriefed by intelligence personnel from both the US and UK, and I have seen copies of the debriefings. Intimate personal details of ALL tribal and family based units in the area were carefully catalogued, and in the intervening years this information was used to spark conflicts all over the middle east.

As was said above, this is not a cospiracy, this has been admitted by the architects of what happened. Does it never strike anyone as strange that where all our resources come from just *happen* to be hotbeds of conflict?

Now, back to you somewhat ludicrous question: given that we had to borrow our mathematics, numerics and many of our philosophical tenets from the middle and far east, given that we exploited some very trusting rlationships with arabs, persians, turks and those further east, I think it's a question of what situation the "west" would be in if we had not exploited the east for all it was worth.

In a large portion of the world, people will mistrust you if you are white. I was brought up with the joking caution of "never trust a white man", and it is a phrase which I in many ways understand. Would you say that this mistrust is the same as the mistrust of the US?

because I've got to say, your attitude is betraying some of the essential notions of colonialist attitude. I realise you're not morally defending imperialism, but you seem to suggest that:

a) these poor rag heads just hate who they're told to hate
b) these poor rag heads needed good european savvy to sort their mad warlike countries out (yeah like europeans never fought like greedy little pigs, massacring each other for tiny little tribal gains - oops, sorry, when it's european it's not tribal, it's national or socio political, right?)

Fact is, only two continents have ever been left to sort their own **** out for themselves without the bullying and double dealing of foreign interests: North america and europe. White people fought each other to a standstill all over the world, and then carved up the rest at the expense of everyone else.

And your insinuation that these people "needed" this is bordering on a supremacist mentality: you may think this is a "leftist cliche", but to say that one culture somehow needs another in order to attain any civilised state is by definition supremacist.

As a parting example, let's look at the good old arms industry, which everyone in the west pretends is some kind of fair trade concerned with allowing helpless people defend themselves against each other. The arms trade practically IS colonialism - you trade the guns along trading routes to enforce your will, then comes to alcohol licensing, then comes the gems trade.

And every old munitions town (example birmingham) used to produce lousy quality weapons known as 'barter arms' - dangerous, low quality guns to be swapped with the "natives", often more dangerous to the user than the target. Inside little tricks and practices like this, between the lines of eurocentric history, is the true nature of what colonialism was, and still is (the term "neo colonialism" implies that we ever stopped - that's such crap, another sky news-ism just like "islamist")

Suggested reading: "guns, germs and steel"

later folks.

DadaKopf

Heh, cool, I've heard about that book in lectures but haven't got around to reading it yet. I will, though. It sounds great.

And you forgot to say something very important: Europe didn't get to where it is today without generations after generations of theft and war. To say that Europe is the zenith of anything is a myth.

Who are we to offer advice to anyone, least people we don't genuinely understand, nor want to understand? No, European (and American) elites want to control.

Faolan

Ouch. As an American, I find much of this sentiment very disheartening. Not to mention rather unfair to the general populace. Truth be told, many Americans are arrogant, but that does not me all of us--or even most of us are. One thing I find very frustrating in any society, including my own, is when people look at a government and judge the rest of the nation on what they see. It irritates me to no end. Now, I'm not saying that you're doing this, but it still makes me mad when I see statements like "The Americans are arrogant" or "The Americans are greedy." Maybe that's why I try not to get involved in politics--I think I would lose all faith in humanity.

dr_manhattan

Just to say, faolan -

as far as my 2 cents is concerned, europe is to blame just as much as america for these 'reasons people hate america' - in many ways europe hides behind a certain brashness in US foreign policy, and profits immensely by doing so - we may not send the aircraft carriers but we sure as hell reap the privileges.

So in this sense my posts have been mainly directed towards europeans (in the sense that white americans are largely of european extraction) and the imbalance between the east and the west.

So yeah, to sound a cliche, a lot of my friends are american, and it gets on my nerves that they are treated as directly responsible for their county's wrong doings. However, this thread is about why people hate *america*, misguided or not, and not why people hate *americans* - which, to be honest, they don't. People love american culture, that much is obvious: in many countries where george bush's effigy is burned on a regular basis, michael jackson is idolised.

I think personally that us melanin deficient folks have to realise that the majority of white people living in the west, whether conscious of it or not, are greedy and arrogant. The colour TV sets and computers that MOST of the world do not have are proof of this. We may love the world, but because of the way it was set up by our ancestors, we are ripping it off blind:

If our ancestors had had respect for other cultures, and not wanted such a fast buck, who knows: maybe everyone in the world would have a colour TV - or maybe every 10 people would share one, and we wouldnb't be all so hot to stuff our pockets and set up burglar alarms and put people in jail... just maybe.

Either way, no disrespect intended to the people that brought us so much in terms of a dream of freedom. Just disrespect to those who exploit that dream to line their already overfilled pockets.

I'll stop ranting now ;-)

Redleslie

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
We may love the world, but because of the way it was set up by our ancestors, we are ripping it off blind:

I think you might want to open an Irish history book there.

monument

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
as far as my 2 cents is concerned, europe is to blame just as much as america for these 'reasons people hate america'

As Redleslie said you might want to look at a history book - this time focus on the US’s involvement in world history since WWII.

monument

Originally posted by Faolan
Ouch. As an American, I find much of this sentiment very disheartening. Not to mention rather unfair to the general populace. Truth be told, many Americans are arrogant, but that does not me all of us--or even most of us are. One thing I find very frustrating in any society, including my own, is when people look at a government and judge the rest of the nation on what they see. It irritates me to no end. Now, I'm not saying that you're doing this, but it still makes me mad when I see statements like "The Americans are arrogant" or "The Americans are greedy." Maybe that's why I try not to get involved in politics--I think I would lose all faith in humanity.

I know what you mean, however general statements like "the Americans are arrogant" can often generally or partly – but not totally – be true.

"The Americans are greedy" could be something to do with the US’s - larger then other countries - greed based system.

Any way I’m sympathetic to any one who is generalised in this way, and personally I think such general statements should be avoided.

Goodshape

Just watched 'Brave New World' on UTV - OK film based on a very good book - it basically sums up why I hate America.

The media. The constent buy-buy-buy of life... the bigger the better, the celebrity gossip, the 'culture' that looks ever so suspiciously like just another product to buy.

I'd like to say that the American's I've met have proven me wrong, but the majority of them have been just as annoying and 'American' as you'd expect;

An encounter that comes to mind is a girl I met in Amsterdam, some rich-kid from LA I gathered. She ranted to me and a friend for a good half hour about having to wait in a hospital for treatment on a sprained wrist. She simply couldn't fathom why she, with all her money, had to actually wait to see a doctor "in America, if you got the money, you got the service".

If I wasn't so stoned I may have gotten violent tbh. I've never met anyone so ignorant.

Speaking of ignorence though, this obviously doesn't apply to every American I've met and I refuse to judge a nation of people on what I can only assume are a few rich assholes who's daddy's can afford to send them to to europe...

The way they handle politics worries me most. 'Vote for the guy who's winning' seems to be the key for these preliminaries. fcuking retarded if you ask me.

dr_manhattan

Ok, first off, enough of the "I met an american and they were an asshole" crap, right? Totally irrelevant. As I said, this thread is about why people hate *america* not *americans* and anyway, who cares who you met? I've met enough ignorant, annoying irish people to last me a lifetime, so what?

What's so wrong with saying "where I come from, if you have the money, you get the service?" If an african or eastern european said the same thing, I doubt the reaction would be so revolted - because we're preapared to allow for some things but not others. Everybody knows cash runs the US of A, so why is it ignorant to say it does? Is it ignorant to say "if this was ireland, you wouldn't get **** because our health system is ****ed"? At least she was telling the truth.

Now, as to this "read an irish history book" - which I'm presuming is back to the "oh us irish were opressed, we didn't have an empire, therfore we are different to our european brethren" (unless of course you'd like to actually make a post rather than a smartass aside, redleslie, it's hard to be sure what you mean) -

And as for history "since WW2" - READ WHAT I POSTED - my father was a trnaslator in the middle east for nigh on 20 years (since ww2, do the math). He did not work for america or americans. Himself and his colleagues were still used to gather information there. This information was used against the people of Oman, Saudi, Iraq, Syria and Egypt.

Simply put: Are britain, france and germany the USA? No, they are not. Have they helped wreck the middle east? Yes they have. Have we been economically supported by them? Yes we have. STOP WHINGING and realise where we live - and who we are.

These "history books" that you all recommend I read: what language are they written in? Irish? Arabic? Farsee? Hebrew? What's that? Oh no, that's right, they are written in ENGLISH, the same language spoken by... the UK and the US. Wierd, huh? Which would mean that they might ahve a slanted perspective maybe sorta kinda, no?

Simply put: If you think that we're any less privileged than any other white people just because of the famine or percieved opression, then fair enough. Continue to live in your fairy world: you can get great pleasure over making english people feel guilty and generally play your ethnic opression card.

However, in the real world, irish people have murdered just as many natives in the name of colonialism as any other european nation: just because we never had an empire doesn't mean our ancestors didn't help set up everyone else's: and the irish were everywhere. Playing 'holier than thou' with americans may make you feel good, but it's bull**** at the end of the day. We shelter under the murderous umbrella that shelters the west, and we should know this rather than decieve ourselves by using the irish sea as some dissociative factor.

Why not talk to maoris sometime about how much they like irish surnames? Or the Autralian Aborigines? They LOVE irish people: because we were so understanding of them and their needs. Or african americans? Once we got out of our own hell, we were quick to cash in on other peoples, and our reputation for violence and utter ruthlessness precedes us. Just because there was no irish empire overseas doesn't mean that our country has not profited immensely from being right next to all the countries that DID have an empire.

I'm sick of this "hey we're different" routine: if we're so different, how come I get mails from friends in south africa wondering why, after such solidarity was shown with the ANC during the 80s, black south africans are being run out of ireland because of their skin colour? Why haven't we helped out our post-colonial brethren all over the world? Why is it that instead we've sat back on our fat asses and reaped the benefits of America and Britain AND Europe's generosity?

And answers such as "that's a small minority" or "that's only some of us" will NOT do. Irish people were at one point ignorant enough to use the term "blacks of europe" to define themselves - and in a way it does: it shows that we will go to any lengths to highlight what a hard time we have had, especially if it means exploiting the situations of those who are worse off. And then ppiss all over those worse-off people.

And if anyone even DARES to mention ireland's per capita charity contribution, I will throw up. We are a nation of smug hypocrites, and it's time we grew up and realised that, if we were on the side of the oppressed, then it may be possible that we would currently actually *be* oppressed.

rant over.

bonkey

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Ok, first off, enough of the "I met an american and they were an asshole" crap, right? Totally irrelevant.

Which then gets followed, halfway down through the post about how bad the irish people have been throughout history.

Its relevant, or it isn't dr_manhattan.

By saying its not relevant, and then launching into a long rant about exactly what you said is not relevant is hardly the basis for a strong argument.

Either stance on its own is perfectly valid (and compelling), but the two together are just self-contradictory.

jc

dr_manhattan

My point was pretty evident, I think: and was mainly about how our country is supported by these governments.

If you want to ignore the point of the post and discount it as self contradictory, then fair enough: however I'll point out the fact that I'm not justifying hatred of irish people, I am not saying that anyone *should* hate the west, what I am trying to illustrate is that this anti american sentiment can just as easily pointed at any other western country.

it's just that because the US administration is so undisguised in its greed, we can easily sit in its shadow and call it vulgar.

bonkey

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
If you want to ignore the point of the post and discount it as self contradictory, then fair enough:

The point of your post is exactly what you told other people was irrlevant in the same post.

Look, you basically said "we're talking about the country, not the people". Then you turned around and in the same post said "look at what the people of your own country have done...." to show how we are no better.

Either point is valid, but the two points together are in direct contradiction with each other.

Sorry for trying to point out how you could strengthen your argument.....

t's just that because the US administration is so undisguised in its greed, we can easily sit in its shadow and call it vulgar.

Like the anti-globalisation movement targetted Nike when all of the major footwear manufacturers were using sweat-shops, I think its at least partly a case of "try to convert the player who is both the biggest current offender, and who could actually sway the others should it change its act".

jc

dr_manhattan

"Then you turned around and in the same post said "look at what the people of your own country have done...." to show how we are no better."

or, to show that the flawed logic of slagging off americans for their arrogance could be as easily used to slag us off. Don't worry, I take your point, but I'm not sure I was as directly self contradictory as you say.

Anyways:

"try to convert the player who is both the biggest current offender, and who could actually sway the others should it change its act"

Fair enough, and I agree as regards this - read my earlier posts, I believe america has to change first. But in the same way as those other players in the sweatshop market have no right to get holier than thou about Nike, I find it very hard to listen to europeans slagging off america: next to 85% of the world, our attitude and wealth *is* vulgar. And in many ways, those in the WTC payed for more than just american crimes - do you get me?

Also, the analogy doesn't stand up 100% because Nike does not maintain a global defence network that keeps all the other sweatshop users in a stable situation at the expense of others: nor does it keep the world in a state whereby exploitative labour is the easiest route (okay, to a degree it does, but not with aricraft carriers)

As I say, check back - I am not an american apologist. I just dislike holier than thou attitudes, and have grown tired of american friends of mine being patronised and treated as ignorant by irish people who, IMHO, can be just as ignorant, arrogant and wealthy.

Because resting on laurels of never having had an empire and being the "cool" western nation is just lazy, IMHO. And for people to say america has a system based on greed is plain hilarious: these days, face it, capitalist ideology drives the whole world, and point at the US and saying they are greedy is like the (admittedly slightly less back) kettle calling the (admittedly extremely back) pot black.

See what I mean?

Redleslie

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
These "history books" that you all recommend I read: what language are they written in? Irish? Arabic? Farsee? Hebrew? What's that? Oh no, that's right, they are written in ENGLISH, the same language spoken by... the UK and the US. Wierd, huh? Which would mean that they might ahve a slanted perspective maybe sorta kinda, no?

Quite a few post colonial states use English as their primary language. What's your point?

Simply put: If you think that we're any less privileged than any other white people just because of the famine or percieved opression, then fair enough. Continue to live in your fairy world: you can get great pleasure over making english people feel guilty and generally play your ethnic opression card.

Ireland is a post colonial state like a lot of other states. Like a lot of other post colonial states, its people were massacred, robbed and subject to laws designed to keep them poor. Take the penal laws for example: An Irish catholic was forbidden to receive education, forbidden to enter a profession, forbidden to hold public office, forbidden to engage in trade or commerce, forbidden to own a horse of greater value than five pounds, forbidden to purchase land, forbidden to lease land, forbidden to vote, forbidden to keep any arms for his protection, forbidden to attend mass, and forbidden to educate his child. Amongst other things. How stating simple historical facts like this can be perceived to be some kind of ploy to make every English person hang their heads in shame is beyond me, especially since the English working class had plenty of their own problems to attend to at the time.

However, in the real world, irish people have murdered just as many natives in the name of colonialism as any other european nation:

Where did you get this "fact" from?

just because we never had an empire doesn't mean our ancestors didn't help set up everyone else's:

My understanding of Irish history is that most Irish people were too busy trying not to starve to death and/or planning hopeless rebellions to worry about things like empire building. Many Irishmen served as cannon fodder in the british army sure, career opportunities being somewhat limited at the time, but rather a lot of "natives" served in the armies of their colonial masters too. Are they all guilty of empire building then?

Ireland has never had the independence, political cohesion or military strength required to be an imperial world power. Why oh why is this so difficult to understand?

We shelter under the murderous umbrella that shelters the west, and we should know this rather than decieve ourselves by using the irish sea as some dissociative factor.

Guilty liberal whinging. And innaccurate guilty liberal whinging to boot.

Why not talk to maoris sometime about how much they like irish surnames? Or the Autralian Aborigines? They LOVE irish people: because we were so understanding of them and their needs. Or african americans? Once we got out of our own hell, we were quick to cash in on other peoples, and our reputation for violence and utter ruthlessness precedes us.

Erm, I'm afraid you'll have to prove that there was some kind of central Irish authority that had a policy of sending armies around the world to subjugate people and exploit their resources.

Just because there was no irish empire overseas doesn't mean that our country has not profited immensely from being right next to all the countries that DID have an empire.

Whether or not Ireland or any other post colonial state profited from being in the British empire is arguable.

I'm sick of this "hey we're different" routine: if we're so different, how come I get mails from friends in south africa wondering why, after such solidarity was shown with the ANC during the 80s, black south africans are being run out of ireland because of their skin colour?

We have xenophobes and bigots here yes, in my experience they're mostly of the "I'm not racist but I'm opposed to multiculturalism" type. It's unfortunate, but such is life.

And answers such as "that's a small minority" or "that's only some of us" will NOT do. Irish people were at one point ignorant enough to use the term "blacks of europe" to define themselves -

That term was used by a fictional character in a Roddy Doyle book I believe.

dr_manhattan

okay, this is totally off topic, and should go under a topic "the irish are totally guilt free and are the best people in the world". Your post above is avaialble as a 12" remix in every pub in the land.

And to be honest I can't be arsed aarguing with it: you win, ireland is just as opressed as Haiti, South Africa, Mexico, the Maoris, the native americans, and the middle east... We are the greatest nation of blame free people in the world, we do not suck cash from larger nations (that they steal from others) and then whinge that they are evil. We are great for surviving the poxy famine, and deserve all the self praise that we get:

"Guilty liberal whinging. And innaccurate guilty liberal whinging to boot."

So, Ireland does not benefit from being sheltered by Europe and the US? So, if Ireland was, say, in eastern europe or north africa, Ireland would be just as prosperous as it is now? With it's tiny army and utter inability to govern itself? Surrounded by other unstable nations?

And I am being inaccurate? Okay then.

yeah, sure I'm a guilty liberal. And you are a broken record. I ifnd it ironic that you spend a paragraph whinging about our colonial times, and then accuse me of whinging.

And as a prting note:

"That term was used by a fictional character in a Roddy Doyle book I believe."

That "term", or more accurately, expression, came from the signs in london and elsewhere on bars which said "no dogs no blacks no irish". It used to be a staple among the migrant workforce in london and hamburg, which is all I can personally attest to.

Roddy Doyle used it because it had ironic relevance to a soul band: Roddy Doyle satirised irish culture, he did not invent it. Though i can imagine how, from some perspectives, it may appear that he did.

dr_manhattan

oh and PS:

"We have xenophobes and bigots here yes, in my experience they're mostly of the "I'm not racist but I'm opposed to multiculturalism" type. It's unfortunate, but such is life."

Would you care to explain that to this woman?

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=24&art_id=vn20040113015532576C855235&set_id=1

So these people said "I'm not racist but I'm opposed to multiculturalism" and she left of her own volition? This would account for the attacks taking place almost daily here?

Or are you going to blame this on "the loyalists", or say that the north of Ireland doesn't count?

If you want more african articles on the same subject, just ask. You can say what you want, but please do not try and put an acceptable face on irish xenophobia, mkay?

Redleslie

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
And to be honest I can't be arsed aarguing with it: you win, ireland is just as opressed as Haiti, South Africa, Mexico, the Maoris, the native americans, and the middle east... We are the greatest nation of blame free people in the world, we do not suck cash from larger nations (that they steal from others) and then whinge that they are evil. We are great for surviving the poxy famine, and deserve all the self praise that we get:

Yet more guilty liberal whinging, a frankly baffling denial of some basic historical facts and ignorance of some others. Eg. Haiti became independent in 1804.

So, if Ireland was, say, in eastern europe or north africa, Ireland would be just as prosperous as it is now? With it's tiny army and utter inability to govern itself? Surrounded by other unstable nations?

They're really stupid questions you know.

bizmark

**** sorry lads i press reply by mistake....delete or ignore this

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Redleslie
My understanding of Irish history is that most Irish people were too busy trying not to starve to death and/or planning hopeless rebellions to worry about things like empire building.

Ireland gained her independence after World War I, when the European Imperial was pretty much over. Had she gained independences a hundred or even fifty years earlier, it is quite likely that she would have emulated the colonial ambitions of her European neighbours. Just look at Belgium.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
And to be honest I can't be arsed aarguing with it: you win, ireland is just as opressed as Haiti, South Africa, Mexico, the Maoris, the native americans, and the middle east... We are the greatest nation of blame free people in the world, we do not suck cash from larger nations (that they steal from others) and then whinge that they are evil. We are great for surviving the poxy famine, and deserve all the self praise that we get

Be still my bleeding heart... :rolleyes:

Some serious guilt issues going on here.

Redleslie

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Ireland gained her independence after World War I, when the European Imperial was pretty much over. Had she gained independences a hundred or even fifty years earlier, it is quite likely that she would have emulated the colonial ambitions of her European neighbours. Just look at Belgium.

I'm not disputing that at all Corinthian, just trying to stick with how things actually turned out. *If* for example the battle of Kinsale had gone the other way, it's said that Ireland might well have developed into a formidable ally of catholic Spain and France. That's for the history board though

TomF

Maybe someone has already pointed to this article, but in case not, I thought I would post a little from it. It is about changing the culture of the U.S. military to fight a very long-term war with the purpose of redirecting a whole civilisation to make the U.S. (and the rest of the world, perhaps) safer in the future. Whether something like this could be sustained in a democracy (the U.S.) which holds elections every 4 years that can completely change international policy is another question.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/021904A.html

"America faces the prospect of continuing conflict in the Muslim World. Future conflict may look like what we have encountered in Iraq, but on a much greater scale. Future pre-emptive interventions already under active discussion by the Washington establishment include Syria -- an Iraqi 'comparable' -- and Iran -- a conflict of incomparably greater magnitude. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are fragile and unstable, and Pakistan even more so.

It is almost certain that Americans will end up fighting in places that, like Baghdad and Kabul, once seemed unimaginable. Now they are not only imaginable but also imminent. We must come to terms with the true nature of the war, and realize that it is not about 'terrorism' but a deep struggle within Muslim identity over the very spirit of Islam."

Big Ears

yes iran is such a teroism filled country that when ireland went to play there in a soccer match all the players must have been killed , oh wait a minute no one was killed :eek: