|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 30, 2009 07:19 PM |
|
|
How do you define "aggressor"? I mean, provoking "the other side" into becoming the aggressor is - or has at least been - a big part of diplomacy and an "art". War - with only a few exceptions from warring people like the Vikings or the Mongoles, is more often than not only the last step in a chain of event that may have been interruted at any point with a bit of goodwill.
There are of course those wars that are meant to be wars. Germany invading Russia in WW2; Alexander "the Great" conquering half the world; the Romans doing the same. That's cases of "expansion politics", where simply a side deeming themselves strong enough tried to expand.
War isn't fought only with weapons either. It's not war or peace, but there are a lot of nuances in the relations between countries. Today, if as a people or country or culture you try to protect it by limiting "free trade" or don't allow foreign corps to buy majority shares of your national industry and so on, you are already "provoking."
Then there are the cases of people fighting against national domination. Basques, Ulster, Palestine and others in Africa. Old Clan feudes like in Africa; religious clashes.
I would like to hear a reason why group violence should NOT be an acceptable option. Humanity is not united. If 15% of the world population is starving, part of it to death, and on the other hand another part of he world is wasting food like there was no tomorrow, then there IS already war.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 07:44 PM |
|
|
@JJ
The reason part of the world is starving is not because the rest of the world is starving it. Of course there can be natural disasters that cause starvation. But if you look at those starving countries they are ruled by warlords or dictators who are living in affluence. Often time when organizatinos try to send in aid the aid will be intercepted and sent to the supporters of the warlord or simply burned. The warlords want to keep the people in poverty to better enable them to keep their power.
The solution is to remove the warlords. If the oppressed Africans would lay aside their tribal rivalries and unite they could overthrow the warlords even if they possess inferiro weapons.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 07:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The solution is to remove the warlords. If the oppressed Africans would lay aside their tribal rivalries and unite they could overthrow the warlords even if they possess inferiro weapons.
Yeah sure tell that to people in Burma...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 08:10 PM |
|
|
The immediate step would be to replace the corrupt government with an uncorrupted government, but the long term issue is to keep it uncorrupted, and having an outsider do it for them won't work. People would rather be governed poorly by native rulers than governed well by outsiders. It's a politically incorrect fact that Africa was better governed by the colonial powers, but there was inevitably unrest because of it. You can't fix things by battling through every corrupt country on the planet; at some level you need to let them fix things on their own.
I know all the theorycrafters here will talk about some dreamy hypothetical international peacekeeping army that they can summon like Voltron to make everything better, but I'm talking about real life as it is right now.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 10:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's a politically incorrect fact that Africa was better governed by the colonial powers, but there was inevitably unrest because of it.
Ok, the people were exploited and suppressed very equally, I'll give you that. Maybe with the exception of those who were sold into slavery.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 31, 2009 12:39 AM |
|
|
By no means do I approve of colonialism or slavery. I think Africa is always going to be impoverished until they get rid of the warlords. Former colonialism has nothing to do with it.
Here are more politically incorrect facts:
1) Slavery existed in Africa before European colonialism began
2) Slavery still exists in Africa.
3) Warring tribes often sold tribes they conquered into slavery.
4) America did not invent slavery.
5) White people (as far as we know) did not invent slavery.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 31, 2009 02:13 AM |
|
|
Ok that's nice but my post had nothing to do with approving of colonialism. My point was that colonialism was indeed still better than a lot of the dictatorships around right now.
@Joker: I had in mind the last few decades of colonialism, not the slave trade and such way back in the day. For all of colonialism's faults, in the later decades European-run government helped progress Africa in many ways- truth- and the same could be said if countries were to do the same to impoverished places today, but there's no reason not to expect unrest to result from such occupation, which goes back to my idea that locals need to be the primary solvers of local problems, even if it may take some time.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2009 07:25 AM |
|
|
The trouble is, they haven't got a chance anymore. Colonialism made sure that the colonies - or better: their resources - were exploited. You may say that their riches were stolen. All betterments that came into the colonies were based on that - on the necessity of creating a certain infrastructure for the exploitation and a certain "work support" from locals to do the harder work: mining, for example.
Of course with colonialism came organized religion as well with its mission to bring those poor heathens enlightenment.
Of course that basic structure didn't change automatically when colonies got their independence. Their riches were still exploited by foreigners, by foreign corporations, so "solutions" had to be found. In many countries, especially in Africa, colonialism in practise never ended, except that the colonial powers were gone and those took their place who had worked with them - after all they COULD run things...
That's one reason why Africa was so "vulnerable" for communism.
Colonialism didn't really "rule". It worked more or less like Roman rule. The colonial powers of course build a couple of administration centres and so on, but they left the basic structure of a region the way it was; they changed only what was necessary for exploitation. The "rule" had a different purpose that had nothing to do with country development. Sure, there were "mission schools" and so on, but that didn't came from their "rule".
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 31, 2009 10:03 AM |
|
|
Most of Africa's resources are still untapped and your summary is not what I learned, but whatever. It's somewhat off topic since I just needed to throw in an example.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2009 10:55 AM |
|
|
Your point is that myocardial infarction was better than cancer - or maybe vice versa - which isn't much of a point, since both may require pretty invasive - violent - measures to correct what is wrong. Which was actually the point here.
Getting rid of the warlords and dictators is requiring "war" as well, be it a civil war, or a war to "help" from outside. Dictators don't generally have the habit to simply retire, so I don't really see the point here.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2009 01:32 PM |
|
|
|
For dictators, we need something like Nuremberg Trials.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 31, 2009 03:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Your point is that myocardial infarction was better than cancer - or maybe vice versa - which isn't much of a point, since both may require pretty invasive - violent - measures to correct what is wrong. Which was actually the point here.
Getting rid of the warlords and dictators is requiring "war" as well, be it a civil war, or a war to "help" from outside. Dictators don't generally have the habit to simply retire, so I don't really see the point here.
The point is that people would rather be governed poorly by native rulers than governed well by outsider rulers. People don't like being controlled by some distant force that isn't part of their culture.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted July 31, 2009 05:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For dictators, we need something like Nuremberg Trials.
Ironically, no dictators were in Nuremberg trials  ...
____________
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 31, 2009 11:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
For dictators, we need something like Nuremberg Trials.
Ironically, no dictators were in Nuremberg trials ...
That's because they all were either dead, or on the Winning Side.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2009 12:14 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 00:16, 01 Aug 2009.
|
who agrees with that concept of nations?
I read some people say if their nation got attacked they would defend it.
personally I don't care more about my nation than about any other nation. are people from one nation likely to be very different from people from another nation which has opposite ideas? you'll find everywhere people who are like you and people who are very different from you.
also, calling a nation evil is stupid. maybe a few of the guys ruling it are evil, but the whole nation isn't.
btw, I don't like nationalism (is it like patriotism?), regionalism, etc...
sounds like racism to me.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 01, 2009 02:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
who agrees with that concept of nations?
I read some people say if their nation got attacked they would defend it.
now don't get me wrong, I am no patriot and I don't like Romania myself, but if there was a country that had the "ideas" as you put it, but which made me fond of it, then yes I would defend it. Doesn't mean that the nation necessarily has to be the one I was born into, which is why patriotism is blind in my opinion.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 01, 2009 03:34 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 03:37, 01 Aug 2009.
|
@ Fauch
If my nation were attacked by an aggressor nation I would be a fool not to defend it. Why would I want to live under the boot of an oppressor? Why would I want my children and grand children to live as slaves of an oppressive state? I like freedom. I don't want to be oppressed. Freedom is worth defending. Freedom is won and preserved through sacrifice.
You say pepole everywhere are basicly the same. Do you really think living under Hitler or Stalin would be the same as living under a free democratic society? No offense, but perhaps you should study some history and try to attatch some faces to the names of the many millions they murdered. Living under the rule of one nation is NOT the same as living under the rule of any other nation.
Click
When someone calls a nation evil they are talking about the actions of the nation obviously. If a nation is trying to do things like take over the world that is an evil thing to do.
Patriotism is not racism. Patriotism is being glad I live in a country that doesn't grind its citizens under an iron boot and wanting to keep it that way.
Racism is thinking you are better than others and hating others because of the color of their skin.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 01, 2009 04:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
War sucks because no one likes it, even the winners, even those who survive.
War, is it needed???!?!??!?!??!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!!!!!!!!!!
I'm pretty sure the winners like the war more than the alternative, which would be to get bombed.
And yes it is needed, if you look realistically, not Utopian mentality. Like I said before, sometimes force is the only option with humanity.
I think my reference to the "is it needed?" joke fell a bit flat here.
Suffice it to say I wasn't serious 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 01, 2009 11:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If my nation were attacked by an aggressor nation I would be a fool not to defend it. Why would I want to live under the boot of an oppressor? Why would I want my children and grand children to live as slaves of an oppressive state? I like freedom. I don't want to be oppressed. Freedom is worth defending. Freedom is won and preserved through sacrifice.
What would you have done if Alexander the Great and his army knocked at your borders then?
Well, with the exception of wars of uniting.... its all a good cause to defend.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2009 12:59 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 13:13, 01 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
who agrees with that concept of nations?
I read some people say if their nation got attacked they would defend it.
now don't get me wrong, I am no patriot and I don't like Romania myself, but if there was a country that had the "ideas" as you put it, but which made me fond of it, then yes I would defend it. Doesn't mean that the nation necessarily has to be the one I was born into, which is why patriotism is blind in my opinion.
in that case, it's the ideas you defend, not really the nation.
Quote:
@ Fauch
If my nation were attacked by an aggressor nation I would be a fool not to defend it. Why would I want to live under the boot of an oppressor? Why would I want my children and grand children to live as slaves of an oppressive state? I like freedom. I don't want to be oppressed. Freedom is worth defending. Freedom is won and preserved through sacrifice.
no one forces you to live in a given country, there are a lots of place in the world where you could live.
also, what makes you think the agressors would necessarily oppress you?
Quote:
You say pepole everywhere are basicly the same. Do you really think living under Hitler or Stalin would be the same as living under a free democratic society? No offense, but perhaps you should study some history and try to attatch some faces to the names of the many millions they murdered. Living under the rule of one nation is NOT the same as living under the rule of any other nation.
the fact that people are living differently doesn't mean they are thinking differently.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
