It's wild how the analyses of these apparent successes always stops at whatever year bad things stopped (?) happening.
African countries vs. Western countries? Hmm I wonder what happened there? It's probably nothing
World War 3
- Thread starter Crezth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- on pay tv world war 3
African countries vs. Western countries? Hmm I wonder what happened there? It's probably nothing
Snowygerry
Deity
It's wild how the analyses of these apparent successes always stops at whatever year bad things stopped (?) happening.
African countries vs. Western countries? Hmm I wonder what happened there? It's probably nothing
We start around the 11th century here, when the Ghent recovered from the Viking raids and became second largest, wealthiest city (state) North of the Alps.
It has been one long continuous improvement since...
But it is true that any history always starts from an arbitrary point in time to create a coherent narrative that suits the writer.
Last edited:
Ghent did so well as a city state that Belgium has been an uneasy alliance of city states ever since ^^We start around the 11th century here, when the Ghent recovered from the Viking raids and became second largest, wealthiest city (state) North of the Alps.
It has been one long continuous improvement since...
But it is true that any history always starts from an arbitrary point in time to create a coherent narrative that suits the writer.
Snowygerry
Deity
We always shaped the political world around us, yes. first in the county of Flanders, the Burgundians, Charles V, the 17 provinces, the current nation state of Belgium is just afterthought really, historical accident de parcours.
But the Eu is no doubt our political masterpiece, we never expected it to be such a success when it started it was just the Benelux, look at it now
But the Eu is no doubt our political masterpiece, we never expected it to be such a success when it started it was just the Benelux, look at it now
Last edited:
Snowygerry
Deity
It used to be the centre of the world, the colonies have risen in importance and financial power in recent centuries you're right,
but nothing lasts for ever, they'll screw up in their time
but nothing lasts for ever, they'll screw up in their time
Zardnaar
Deity
Last time they did you got a world War out of it.
Much as people hate US hegemony they keep the wars down and trade lanes open.
The current world order formed after WWII. Why would I start analysing from before that?It's wild how the analyses of these apparent successes always stops at whatever year bad things stopped (?) happening.
African countries vs. Western countries? Hmm I wonder what happened there? It's probably nothing
African countries can also be happy as the US assisted with the breaking up of the colonial empires.
Furthermore, holding grudge against other peoples because of what happened a hundred or more years ago is stupid. No currently existing entity or person is responsible for the long past.
Last edited:
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,219
oh , man ... It's this easy .
use this
hide this
and it's the fault of CFC because them both are thumbnails and 600 pixels wide ... (Overall growth is 2% per year for Victoria , 2.5% for Elizabeth)
and let the Commies grumble over some Economist article from 1847 or whatever when people of Cork petitioned for wages that could feed their families . If that happened , everybody would marry and breed "like a rabbit in a warren"
use this
hide this
and it's the fault of CFC because them both are thumbnails and 600 pixels wide ... (Overall growth is 2% per year for Victoria , 2.5% for Elizabeth)
and let the Commies grumble over some Economist article from 1847 or whatever when people of Cork petitioned for wages that could feed their families . If that happened , everybody would marry and breed "like a rabbit in a warren"
The current world order formed after the fall of the USSR in the late 80s and early 90s. Why would anyone start analysing from before that?
My point is your definition is pretty arbitrary at best, and that what is is always based on what was - it never stops being relevant. Focusing on what you see are the good things while conveniently ignoring all the bad is a puddle-deep attempt at historical analysis.
Nobody said anything about holding grudges buddy, you made that one up. But the human timeline is tens of thousands of years (up to couple of million anthropologically).
Insisting "a hundred years or more" is the magical cutoff is therefore just wishful thinking. There are people alive that are that old
(edited a few times for tone and grammar)
Last edited:
I would say that focusing only on the negatives, while not acknowledging the positives is actually THE problem we are facing today. Some of those nations, which want to break the current order are actually the ones who benefitted most from it (e.g. China).
My post was not an actual long historical analysis (it's actually quite the honor that you expect this from me), but I wanted to add the positives to contrast what H4run said.
I guess I can write as many caveats like: "The US has done a lot of awful things as well (where should I start, South America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam war etc.).", trying to signal I acknowledge the sins of the West/US, you will still categorize me into your little silo and will give a low quality knee-jerk reaction you just demonstrated.
And as I said, holding grudge for something which happened a 100 years ago is stupid. If I did this, I would hate the Russians (this is actually true today, but only since 2014), the Austrians, the Germans, the French etc. Responsibility is not transferable between generations.
Nobody is
And it's a puddle-deep analysis. The most successful states are successful because most of their overt bloodletting is further in the past than some other states you want to compare them to. Modern Britain isn't successful because of the ancient Roman's road networks, but modern Britain most definitely one-hundred percent can base a fair amount of its success on the British Empire, slavery, colonialism, workhouses, and all of that jazz.
Recognising things the US has done in the past century is actually pretty irrelevant to what I'm attempting to discuss, and if you think I'm putting you into any "silo", that's an assumption you're making. You should probably avoid them, because I'm doing nothing of the sort. But I appreciate that you have to resort to these claims, to then consider my reaction to be a "knee jerk", rather than a considered appreciation of world history stretching back a few hundred years
As I said, nobody said anything about holding a grudge. Working out responsibility is not the same as holding as grudge. As for responsibility "transferring", it doesn't "transfer". But it impacts. Being raised by someone who is violent, for example, will permanently affect you as an individual. The responsibility is on that person. But the acts the child consequently ends up doing aren't then made in a vacuum. Things transfer. The same applies to communities and even countries at large. If a country practised ostracising everyone who wasn't white for X generations, the generation that repealed that doesn't get to claim it didn't benefit from the previous X generations of racial segregation.
Like I said - a puddle-deep analysis. And sure, we all have limited time and I'm not going to demand anyone writes an essay. But if you're going to make a sweeping claim about "successful states", I'm free to call you on it. That's discussion, bay-bee.
Last edited:
EnglishEdward
Deity
I agree.
This is straight out not true and shows a very plain and idealized view of how the world works. If this was the case, China would be on the same standard of living as Korea or Japan, South Africa would be much higher up today and Russia would be a scientific and economic powerhouse. There are multiple factors that define success, history and distance from bloodshed is only one component.
With regards to Britain you got it backwards. Britain was successful as a country and thus could create the British Empire, which in turn compounded the success even more (and led to decline later on).
Oh definitely. The question is, should this generation pay for the sins of the previous generations or not. To people who never experienced being opressed in the first place.
Well, then if you take this much effort to write page long counter-points, maybe you could do it without insults?
Why would South Africa be much higher up today? Do you know what it's like in South Africa?
They don't stop rolling taxis at red lights because people can allegedly nick the wheels. Inequality is still very much a thing there. The impact of apartheid is still very much felt, despite it being "in the past".I'm not saying history has to be fair, or nice. I'm not saying that Britain was uniquely bad; all colonial powers were equally terrible in a bunch of ways. And yes, Western nations didn't necessarily have a monopoly on any of this. But the cause-and-effect of colonialism was and is a huge driver of multi-generational inequality.
And no, Britain was able to get in on colonialism when the going was good. When manifest destiny was still a thing. When we literally still had a hereditary, fully-powered monarchy. I'm talking the Tudors, yeah? Far more than a hundred years ago, but still relevant to how we were eventually able to form an Empire (and that's before we get into monarchies intermarrying, inheriting titles and lands, etc. That's not "success", that's "playing Crusader Kings, but in real life").
Depends what you mean by "pay". We keep switching arguments here. Is it grudges, is it "payment", or is it "responsibility"? They're all pretty different things.
Is it "unfair" if I have to redress issues introduced by dead people I have no relation to? Technically, I guess. Should I still do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do? Yes. And I think that's the problem with the perception of a lot of this stuff. People say "I shouldn't be at fault for something I didn't do", and technically, that's true. But shouldn't you want to make it better, if you can? Why shouldn't we owe it to society to make things better?
Are you happy keeping things the same? Maybe that's a better question. Because that, then, absolutely, can be criticised.
What insults? You're the one who talked about "silos" and the like. That's opining (negatively) on my behaviour; my motivations. I did nothing of the sort (well, I responded a bit in kind I guess). I just called your claim for what I think it is. Are you seriously saying that me saying that I think your argument is shallow is . . . an insult? You said "holding grudges for a hundred years is stupid". Should I consider that an insult? Where's the line here, exactly? Are you able to separate criticism of the argument from criticism of the poster?
There's some difference between a change taking place in centuries, and one which happened in little over one decadeIt used to be the centre of the world, the colonies have risen in importance and financial power in recent centuries you're right,
but nothing lasts for ever, they'll screw up in their time
Responsibility is synonym to payment. If you are responsible, then you should compensate. It doesn't make sense to be responsible, don't change anything, then send thoughts and prayers.
The problem is that making things better has a cost, which either society is willing or not willing to pay. It's not just flowers and rainbows and let's make everything better. Plus, the definition of "better" is also questionable. Better for whom? How? Your argument is pretty basic here.
So calling people buddy and bay-bee is how you show off mutual respect. And by calling their argument puddle-deep I guess you definitely didn't want to express disdain. Regarding silos, no. I wanted to express that probably if someone else wrote what I wrote you wouldn't have been this aggressive.
Your argument is so incorrect and is based on misinformation that it constitutes an inter-generational sin for which normally the writer and his/her offsprings should pay for centuries. Here, I'm only expressing my view on your argument, not on you as a person.
Going back to the topic. In short, the US-led system has much more positives than negatives and even if there are challengers they don't have a vision to sell to the rest of the world. I don't see this changing systemically anytime soon and as such I think WW3 is quite unlikely.
It's pretty simplistic on purpose, because to go into any detail requires far more of a wall of text to do any one thing justice. If you want to focus down, be more specific.
Making things better absolutely has a cost. Aren't we always going on about how much better, richer, more productive, etc, etc, that our glorious Western nations are compared to other countries across the world? Kinda feels like we could pay that cost if we wanted to. Which is why it comes back down to wanting to, and all the ways that "making things better" is demonised as some kind of blood money payment to people who don't need it, or something.
We should make things better, and we should therefore use some of our GDP to achieve that. "better" is "better". It's not questionable. It doesn't come at a cost to anybody except those doing the choosing. If a government says they have no magic money tree for policies that would make live better for poor people, but then magically find hundreds of millions of pounds for policies they want to pursue, at no cost to tax or inflation . . . that's a choice. There is a money tree. The government just don't want to shake it for the aforementioned policies that would benefit poor people.
And at the end of the day, if your argument against things that affect taxation or inflation are "I don't want to give up a tiny percentage of comfort to make the world a better place", then just make that argument. If your argument isn't that, then let's delve into the things that taxation could solve? I don't get the argument of "making things better has a cost". Yes, and?
It's stuff like this that make the OP so, so worth it. The banality of individuality mapped onto a greater society where everything is transactional, and nothing is for the greater good. That's why another world war is probably inevitable, in my opinion. Because everything has to be quid pro quo. There's no faith, no mutually-assured success. Politics is increasingly cutthroat and people are out to get as rich as possible, as fast as possible. These are the material conditions that lead to conflict, and not continued "peace" (not that the current world is really that peaceful).
It's actually my idiolect bleeding through. The fact that you're taking it as condescension, or disdain, is definitely not something I want, but also something I can't control without going fully-formal with my typing. It's very much a guessing game. Like, I edited "baby" to "bay-bee" so you'd get the pronunciation, and hopefully assume I therefore didn't mean it literally. I was wrong, and that's something I'll bear in mind when discussing things in future with you.
All of this is quite funny though. How much care should I take to avoid unintentionally offending you? Perhaps you have more in common with us woke-y lefties than you would normally admit to?
Cool. How is it incorrect? What misinformation is it based on?
This argument is pretty basic too. See the problem with keeping things short?
What "vision" would convince you that there is a worthy challenger to an apparently US-lead hegemony? How are you, as a person, convinced of something?
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,219
did ı say ı was funny ? Short , bald and fat , ı will get people giggling in seconds . And most of my CFC stuff is naturally an endless series of rants . Like this morning or so when ı ended up in some store for an usb for the tablet . No longer buying them at the same rate when ı was going to webcafes but hey ı DO digital hoarding and stuff . Because ı am unlikely to be able to afford or whatever the guys run the beam emitting price reader thing and say 200 . Leave the shop , decide to return and buy . One of two guys at the counter say something like 236 . Remember , 200 was a kind of random number because there was no need to bother (with me) and he might have misread the 236 at first because checking the monitor sideways he made a mistake and the price was 282 . Oh-kay . And the third guy also makes a mistake and gives me one 50 liras in return , instead of two . Tax the idiot or something . See , the big city nearby is discussing my love life again but ı can't tell it is 11 now , the number of women ı have had affairs with or whether they re-discovered one of the 10 . See , anything goes with r16 .
as such ı really wasn't surprised to see the blog that dispenses Pentagon's lies have a piece on a friendly fire incident that took place on September 22, 1987 . You know , two or three days after my Phantom picture on the first page of this thread . To cut it real short , there are "intelligence reports" that hostile powers to US are training F-4 pilots for kamikaze missions against US interests . Fighter pilots on USS Saratoga find it hilarious and take it as a joke . There is a replacement pilot , Tim Dorsey , who arrives late and misses much of the context for this particular joke . It is exercise time and contrary to the claims of the blog that dispenses Pentagon's lies , Display Determination series were not limited to joyrides between USAF and USN but were instead basically promises to fight across the Mediterranean in case of WW III to a position to launch attacks into the "soft underbelly" of the Soviet Union . ı think it was Display Determination 86 as the only time ı saw the Tomcat in the flesh when two overflew the airfield nearby , possibly on a TARPS mission , reconnaisance and all . And real slow , too . Will be the kid without the shirt on top of the house , if anyone still has the photos .
anyhow , Dorsey is set to launch on a defensive patrol thing which will then involve mock combat against F-16s at the end of the flight . Instead he is launched on a seperate heading and intercepts Vodka 51 , an USAF RF-4C , refuelling from an USAF tanker . Dorsey refuels from the same tanker , starts trailing the Phantom , lets it close to within sight of the carrier and proceeds to shoot it down for good . In defence of the USN , institution and all , all the references have Dorsey's back seater in shock , who failed to notice that Dorsey had armed the master switch and would fire weapons for real . Frontseat of the Tomcat had gone to war , backseat was still in exercise .
there have been people to explain it was some honest mistake . A guy who misunderstood , ergonomics were poor , the backseater should have been more attentive and so on . A majority who comment on it simply think Dorsey should have never been let into a fighter cockpit . There's no one who says the Saratoga aircrews were all briefed for but definitely ordered not to .
it is all a Bettino Craxi thing . Who telephoned Kaddafi that he would be bombed within the hour or so . Kaddafi was angry , he had to react anyhow so he had two Scuds fired in the general direction of a USN "spying base" in Sardinia or Sicilia or whatever . It was Craxi's turn to look like angry , so , he almost declared war on Libya , risking the oil profits of Italy . You getting the drift ? Yes , Somebody or Someone , somewhere in Egypt , somehow in a Phantom cockpit , policing the sky so that the clash of 1981 will not be repeated and so on . Like agreed from Reagan down because USSR is going down or something , no need for distractions NOW!
dorsey would have been dishonourably discharged . It was a year after the release of Top Gun the movie , his father was then the captain of USS America and had once commanded VF-121 , the parent organization of the original NFWS and obliquely blamed for shooting down his wingman in Vietnam . See , things get weirdly mixed up in all directions . Dorsey should have been dishonourably discharged , because intentionally destroying an USAF aircraft because he was explicitly told he couldn't fire on others .
apparently after his resignation (much later) he has starting selling cars to US Servicemen with "bad credit cards" , charging 30% more per sale .
dorsey never flew a combat aircraft again , went into Intelligence which utterly spooks the online commentators who define him as an idiot , would have been an Admiral but the Senate rejected to discuss his promotion in 2012 , considering the pilot of the Phantom whom he shot down underwent 32 operations over the years . USS Saratoga of course went one better and intentionally accidentally hit a Turkish Destroyer in 1992 . Everytime Ankara tried to buy those Egyptian Phantoms on the cheap because they were already paid for , you know by Kaddafi sometime and somehow , Egyptians would find an excuse . My late father repaired the house of a retired non-com who was in a team which went Egypt and he said the Egyptians held no flight records for the planes so that they would have to be deemed risky and would have required full inspections immediately . It was only 1999 or so when Egyptians started fully using them because Ankara had chosen Israeli firms for modernization and there was no way Mubarak would have sent his 30 planes to Israel for the same treatment ...
yes , ı have no doubts that the Israelis immediately noticed Jeremy Boorda . He was noted in the article for giving bad marks to Dorsey without a reference that he was the first Jew to be the Commander of the US Navy and was basically forced to commit suicide because the Clinton Administration would not release how the first of his V Devices was pinned on him by Elmo Zumwalt while the second was approved by Holloway , Zumwalt's replacement . It is going to be interesting times , them Democrats and their loyal Jewish voters and all . Oh , we are discussing the enlightened rule of the world by the US , right ? Stay sharp , folks . People are watching this space .
as such ı really wasn't surprised to see the blog that dispenses Pentagon's lies have a piece on a friendly fire incident that took place on September 22, 1987 . You know , two or three days after my Phantom picture on the first page of this thread . To cut it real short , there are "intelligence reports" that hostile powers to US are training F-4 pilots for kamikaze missions against US interests . Fighter pilots on USS Saratoga find it hilarious and take it as a joke . There is a replacement pilot , Tim Dorsey , who arrives late and misses much of the context for this particular joke . It is exercise time and contrary to the claims of the blog that dispenses Pentagon's lies , Display Determination series were not limited to joyrides between USAF and USN but were instead basically promises to fight across the Mediterranean in case of WW III to a position to launch attacks into the "soft underbelly" of the Soviet Union . ı think it was Display Determination 86 as the only time ı saw the Tomcat in the flesh when two overflew the airfield nearby , possibly on a TARPS mission , reconnaisance and all . And real slow , too . Will be the kid without the shirt on top of the house , if anyone still has the photos .
anyhow , Dorsey is set to launch on a defensive patrol thing which will then involve mock combat against F-16s at the end of the flight . Instead he is launched on a seperate heading and intercepts Vodka 51 , an USAF RF-4C , refuelling from an USAF tanker . Dorsey refuels from the same tanker , starts trailing the Phantom , lets it close to within sight of the carrier and proceeds to shoot it down for good . In defence of the USN , institution and all , all the references have Dorsey's back seater in shock , who failed to notice that Dorsey had armed the master switch and would fire weapons for real . Frontseat of the Tomcat had gone to war , backseat was still in exercise .
there have been people to explain it was some honest mistake . A guy who misunderstood , ergonomics were poor , the backseater should have been more attentive and so on . A majority who comment on it simply think Dorsey should have never been let into a fighter cockpit . There's no one who says the Saratoga aircrews were all briefed for but definitely ordered not to .
it is all a Bettino Craxi thing . Who telephoned Kaddafi that he would be bombed within the hour or so . Kaddafi was angry , he had to react anyhow so he had two Scuds fired in the general direction of a USN "spying base" in Sardinia or Sicilia or whatever . It was Craxi's turn to look like angry , so , he almost declared war on Libya , risking the oil profits of Italy . You getting the drift ? Yes , Somebody or Someone , somewhere in Egypt , somehow in a Phantom cockpit , policing the sky so that the clash of 1981 will not be repeated and so on . Like agreed from Reagan down because USSR is going down or something , no need for distractions NOW!
dorsey would have been dishonourably discharged . It was a year after the release of Top Gun the movie , his father was then the captain of USS America and had once commanded VF-121 , the parent organization of the original NFWS and obliquely blamed for shooting down his wingman in Vietnam . See , things get weirdly mixed up in all directions . Dorsey should have been dishonourably discharged , because intentionally destroying an USAF aircraft because he was explicitly told he couldn't fire on others .
apparently after his resignation (much later) he has starting selling cars to US Servicemen with "bad credit cards" , charging 30% more per sale .
dorsey never flew a combat aircraft again , went into Intelligence which utterly spooks the online commentators who define him as an idiot , would have been an Admiral but the Senate rejected to discuss his promotion in 2012 , considering the pilot of the Phantom whom he shot down underwent 32 operations over the years . USS Saratoga of course went one better and intentionally accidentally hit a Turkish Destroyer in 1992 . Everytime Ankara tried to buy those Egyptian Phantoms on the cheap because they were already paid for , you know by Kaddafi sometime and somehow , Egyptians would find an excuse . My late father repaired the house of a retired non-com who was in a team which went Egypt and he said the Egyptians held no flight records for the planes so that they would have to be deemed risky and would have required full inspections immediately . It was only 1999 or so when Egyptians started fully using them because Ankara had chosen Israeli firms for modernization and there was no way Mubarak would have sent his 30 planes to Israel for the same treatment ...
yes , ı have no doubts that the Israelis immediately noticed Jeremy Boorda . He was noted in the article for giving bad marks to Dorsey without a reference that he was the first Jew to be the Commander of the US Navy and was basically forced to commit suicide because the Clinton Administration would not release how the first of his V Devices was pinned on him by Elmo Zumwalt while the second was approved by Holloway , Zumwalt's replacement . It is going to be interesting times , them Democrats and their loyal Jewish voters and all . Oh , we are discussing the enlightened rule of the world by the US , right ? Stay sharp , folks . People are watching this space .
Last edited:
Similar threads
