Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 162

Thread: Qatar vs all others

  1. #91
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,306

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Out of that list, Somalia was half Italian (which the former British bit wants independence from), Cameroon half French (as CamFranglais is the language of choice), Indonesia used to be called the Dutch East Indies, so the British rule there lasted as long as the British rule in Vietnam (aka French Indochina).
    Yeah, I thought it was longer in parts of Indonesia, but it was just a few years. Not a valid example, I agree. I stand by all the others, though.

    I'm sure I could find even more if I look it up, this was just off the top of my head. And those are countries which were partly or in full under British colonial rule. If we move into "under British influence", we could add some really messed up countries, like Afghanistan.

  2. #92
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,702

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    Yeah, I thought it was longer in parts of Indonesia, but it was just a few years. Not a valid example, I agree. I stand by all the others, though.

    I'm sure I could find even more if I look it up, this was just off the top of my head. And those are countries which were partly or in full under British colonial rule. If we move into "under British influence", we could add some really messed up countries, like Afghanistan.
    Afghanistan wasn't that much under British influence after one of our expeditions got annihilated there. It was more a case of denying Russian influence. On Indonesis: we excelled ourselves in SE Asia as we imposed order using Japanese troops, handing over to the other Europeans once they'd arrived to take over. With the US promising freedom and democracy, we managed to piss off yet another lot of locals whom we'd not previously had any business with, using troops whom we'd demonised as inhuman oppressors. The only additional thing we could have done to piss people off would have been to co-opt Unit 731, but the Americans got there first on that count.

    I'll have to admit that I don't know much about the African countries on your list. My knowledge of the former British empire mainly extends to the Test playing cricketing countries, and even that is mainly centred on their cricket. So I can tell you that Jamaica has a fantastic cricketing history, Guyana's capital Georgetown rains perpetually, Trinidad & Tobago have a large population of Indians, etc.

  3. #93

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian
    Afghanistan wasn't that much under British influence after one of our expeditions got annihilated there.
    It's always fun to reference this (preface):

    After returning from some months spent 'embedded' in an infantry battalion in Helmand province, Afghanistan, in 2007, Dr. Duncan Anderson recounted a conversation with local fighters. One of them refused to believe that the British army's deployment there was anything more than (an entirely honourable) revenge for the costly defeat of the Berkshire Regiment at Maiwand in July 1880; and another asked, in honest puzzlement, who - while all these British warriors were in Afghanistan - was doing the fighting back home in Britain?
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  4. #94
    Ni dieu ni matre! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,278
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Greyblades shows that British exceptionalism has not died yet.

    Some British like to spin the independence of its territories as a humanitarian kindness, granted after sharing the burdens of two world wars.
    The British administrative state was 1. too weak and 2. too ineffective to really govern those states. Hence why they were able to 1. break away in the first place and 2. wanted to break away.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Idaho 


  5. #95
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,706

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Latin speaking states and English speaking states?
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    the Roman successors, which claimed cultural and spiritual descent from the original even as they were cut loose.
    Two mutually exclusive definitions of a successor state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Afghanistan wasn't that much under British influence after one of our expeditions got annihilated there.
    Dr. Watson wouldn't agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  6. #96
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,119
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Greyblades shows that British exceptionalism has not died yet.

    Some British like to spin the independence of its territories as a humanitarian kindness, granted after sharing the burdens of two world wars.
    The British administrative state was 1. too weak and 2. too ineffective to really govern those states. Hence why they were able to 1. break away in the first place and 2. wanted to break away.
    Up until 1939 the British empire was fully capable of rule. We had only spent 50 years in Africa outside of the cape and the ivory coast and were only in the early stages of building up the infrastructure of the middle African colonies. British traditions and values had only begun to be instilled in the locals.

    India had been directly British for around 100 years, 200 if you count the east india company. It was in the later stages of industrial development and had a British educated middle and upper classes, ghandi himself studied law in London, but the lower classes were still largely distinct from the British.

    When the second world war came around the British state was essentially bled dry of men and materials and made indebted to america for the foreseeable future. At the end it was inevitable that British rule could not continue in India. As the Indians and Pakistanis were considered, if not ready for self governance under pre-war conditions, close enough that it would not be a complete regression, Britain let them go without real resistance and for around 30 years until Pakistan's descent into Islamism they were both proven successful.

    The african colonies on the other hand were most certainly not ready, still tribal in places with little in the way of a self sustainable middle class so they were retained for as long as it was able. Both sides in the cold war were actively pressuring the colonial nations to release their subjects so it became impossible to maintain rule. So one by one they were released and one by one they collapsed into corruption, anarchy and dictatorships.

    The only subsequent African success, that I am aware of, was from South Africa and Rhodesia which were short lived and run by the ex colonists, when both surrendered rule to the hands of the natives they declined. Rhodesia went quickly, south Africa was held back from the brink for a time by the influence of the thoroughly westernized Mandela, but as he died and Zuma took over Rhodesia's fall has started to repeat itself.

    As for the middle east, we were in Israel for 25 years, Iraq for ten years, barely 5 for Persia, a 70 year protectorate of Egypt and we left without making much of an impact, Israel was dumped in the lap of the Jews and the rest largely reverted straight back to the semi medieval states they had been before.

    The trend is clear as day; the longer the British stayed, the more they invested in the colony and most importantly the more the locals emulated their colonial overlords the better off the immediate successors have become.

    By dismissing this and those that acknowledge it as exceptionalism ACIN exhibits the western political left's zeitgeist; a continuous denigration and redefining of western history and a loathing of it's culture once encouraged in the cold war by the soviets and currently maintained by champagne socialists.

    History isn't black and white. The man who says the empire was irredeemable is as wrongheaded as the man who says the empire was beyond reproach.

    Whoever taught you, husar, showtime and samaritan about our empire has spun this far farther than I have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    His knowledge of British colonial rule starts and ends with Hong Kong.

    Somalia, Egypt, Ghana, Uganda, Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Tanzania, Jamaica, Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, India, Guyana...

    His knowledge is rather limited in general, so don't be too surprised when he drops a line like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Out of that list, Somalia was half Italian (which the former British bit wants independence from), Cameroon half French (as CamFranglais is the language of choice), Indonesia used to be called the Dutch East Indies, so the British rule there lasted as long as the British rule in Vietnam (aka French Indochina).
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    Yeah, I thought it was longer in parts of Indonesia, but it was just a few years. Not a valid example, I agree. I stand by all the others, though.

    I'm sure I could find even more if I look it up, this was just off the top of my head. And those are countries which were partly or in full under British colonial rule. If we move into "under British influence", we could add some really messed up countries, like Afghanistan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Afghanistan wasn't that much under British influence after one of our expeditions got annihilated there. It was more a case of denying Russian influence. On Indonesis: we excelled ourselves in SE Asia as we imposed order using Japanese troops, handing over to the other Europeans once they'd arrived to take over. With the US promising freedom and democracy, we managed to piss off yet another lot of locals whom we'd not previously had any business with, using troops whom we'd demonised as inhuman oppressors. The only additional thing we could have done to piss people off would have been to co-opt Unit 731, but the Americans got there first on that count.
    Samaritan do you ever tire of accusing people of ignorance on subjects you yourself know nothing about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Roman successors - do you mean contemporarily, or the modern world? The former, the Eastern Empire is the obvious successor, along with the various Gothic and Frankish fiefdoms. Certainly important in European history, but not appropriate to discuss in our terms of "successful state". The latter, we could just as well call Egypt, Turkey, Russia and the UK Roman successors if we're going by even the most distant cultural relationship.
    HRE and ERE, those states which was able to reach major historical significance and physical dominance over large portions of humanity by emulating Roman culture, lawmaking and building off their foundations. As of now Britain only has one successor that can rival them in significance, perhaps two if India continues to rise but not quite yet.

    Heck it can be argued that america is technically a successor state of both British and Roman empires.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 06-15-2017 at 12:00.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  7. #97
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,706

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Up until 1939 the British empire was fully capable of rule.
    Including Ireland?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Samaritan do you ever tire of accusing people of ignorance on subjects you yourself know nothing about?
    He can at least spell names correctly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  8. #98
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,119
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    Including Ireland?
    We're still there arent we?

    We had the capability, we could have put Ireland under an iron boot with ease, but by then we had become sympathetic, we didn't have the will to revive Cromwell.

    He can at least spell names correctly.
    Well that's something I guess.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 06-15-2017 at 12:08.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  9. #99
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,702

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    Two mutually exclusive definitions of a successor state.
    Could you explain why they're mutually exclusive?

  10. #100
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,678

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Could you explain why they're mutually exclusive?
    In general, they are really cruel

  11. #101

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    The trend is clear as day; the longer the British stayed, the more they invested in the colony and most importantly the more the locals emulated their colonial overlords the better off the immediate successors have become.
    Could it be that the contemporary successes (as well as failures) of longest-held colonies has less to do with wise British dominion and more to do with pre-existing and continuous local characteristics and conditions, including those which brought the Empire to seek to gain them, and to manage to hold them for such a long time? And why is South Africa not a Dutch/Boer story more than a British one?


    HRE and ERE, those states which was able to reach major historical significance and physical dominance over large portions of humanity by emulating Roman culture, lawmaking and building off their foundations. As of now Britain only has one successor that can rival them in significance, perhaps two if India continues to rise but not quite yet.

    Heck it can be argued that america is technically a successor state of both British and Roman empires.
    Why was HRE a successor, but not the Carolingian kingdom? They both claimed Roman heritage and continuity - as did many others in Medieval Europe. What is the special thing?
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  12. #102
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    725

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    As for the middle east, we were in Israel for 25 years, Iraq for ten years, barely 5 for Persia, a 70 year protectorate of Egypt and we left without making much of an impact, Israel was dumped in the lap of the Jews and the rest largely reverted straight back to the semi medieval states they had been before.
    That's UKIP levels revisionism. In Persia, Britain is directly responsible for turning the country back into the medieval era. It sucked the wealth of the nation (tobacco), forced it to give Herat to Afghanistan and more importantly established tribal fiefdoms in Fars and Khuzestan, autonomous from Tehran, ruled by backward nomands and letting the British milk the oil for nothing.

  13. #103
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,702

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Could it be that the contemporary successes (as well as failures) of longest-held colonies has less to do with wise British dominion and more to do with pre-existing and continuous local characteristics and conditions, including those which brought the Empire to seek to gain them, and to manage to hold them for such a long time? And why is South Africa not a Dutch/Boer story more than a British one?
    Parliamentary democracy is generally held to be preferable to presidential democracy as a governmental form for new democracies, as presidential democracy tends towards dictatorship. I was just reading up on one of Sarmatian's examples of basket cases that Britain left behind, Jamaica, and their political wranglings, with their own localised issues, is pretty similar to the UK's. I recommend reading up on Michael Manley for anyone wanting to learn about post-colonial West Indian politics. And I recommend reading Michael Manley for anyone wanting to learn about West Indian cricket.

  14. #104
    Intifadah Member Drish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Kebabylon
    Posts
    816

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    …the rest largely reverted straight back to the semi medieval states they had been before.
    That is an obnoxious statement given the British involvement in crushing the constitutional revolution and later usurping Mosaddegh.

    I know plenty of Iranians who frown at the “death to America”™ and “death to Israel”™ crap the regimes likes to make people shout, but a lot of people genuinely still dislike Britain for its past actions in Iran.
    "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr."


    I only defended myself and the honor of my family - Nazanin

  15. #105
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,678

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Still the fattest in the universe and surroundings,.

  16. #106
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,306

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Samaritan do you ever tire of accusing people of ignorance on subjects you yourself know nothing about?
    I'm not accusing anyone. I'm just warning people in advance not to take you seriously. Otherwise they would have to spend some time discussing stuff with you before they reach the same conclusion. Tiresome, but saves time in the long run.

    Member thankful for this post:



  17. #107
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,119
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    How could anyone take your warning seriously when you yourself are demonstratably ignorant and frequently wrong about the matters you say I am wrong about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drish View Post
    That is an obnoxious statement given the British involvement in crushing the constitutional revolution and later usurping Mosaddegh.

    I know plenty of Iranians who frown at the “death to America”™ and “death to Israel”™ crap the regimes likes to make people shout, but a lot of people genuinely still dislike Britain for its past actions in Iran.
    I stand by my statement, you exited british occupation to the same as you entered: with a Shah and his government.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 06-15-2017 at 15:27.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  18. #108
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,306

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    How could anyone take your warning seriously when you yourself are demonstratably ignorant and frequently wrong about the matters you say I am wrong about?
    Because you do most of the work yourself and people here tend to take me more seriously. You're arrogant, self-righteous and ignorant. I'm just arrogant and self-righteous.

  19. #109
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,678

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    I'm not accusing anyone. I'm just warning people in advance not to take you seriously. Otherwise they would have to spend some time discussing stuff with you before they reach the same conclusion. Tiresome, but saves time in the long run.

    Nowtht is what they call passive'agression. Greyblads did nothing wrong

  20. #110
    Ni dieu ni matre! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,278
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post

    When the second world war came around the British state was essentially bled dry of men and materials and made indebted to america for the foreseeable future. At the end it was inevitable that British rule could not continue in India. As the Indians and Pakistanis were considered, if not ready for self governance under pre-war conditions, close enough that it would not be a complete regression, Britain let them go without real resistance and for around 30 years until Pakistan's descent into Islamism they were both proven successful.

    The african colonies on the other hand were most certainly not ready, still tribal in places with little in the way of a self sustainable middle class so they were retained for as long as it was able. Both sides in the cold war were actively pressuring the colonial nations to release their subjects so it became impossible to maintain rule. So one by one they were released and one by one they collapsed into corruption, anarchy and dictatorships.
    So in other words, the British administrative state was too ineffective to convince the colonies of the positive change they brought. And the state was too weak to resist external pressures demanding they give up the territories.

    That's a whole lotta words to type just to spin what I already said into some romantasized fantasy of what could have been, with a dash of rhodian supremacy mixed in.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

    Member thankful for this post:



  21. #111
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,119
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    Because you do most of the work yourself and people here tend to take me more seriously. You're arrogant, self-righteous and ignorant. I'm just arrogant and self-righteous.
    If you aren't ignorant. why don't you ever make the attempt to actually prove me wrong instead of making unsupported proclamations towards my supposed lack knowledge?

    Try debating me for once instead of hiding behind your group's consensus.

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    So in other words, the British administrative state was too ineffective to convince the colonies of the positive change they brought. And the state was too weak to resist external pressures demanding they give up the territories.

    That's a whole lotta words to type just to spin what I already said into some romantasized fantasy of what could have been, with a dash of rhodian supremacy mixed in.
    The British administrative state was only ineffective due to being reduced by war and hindered by outside powers. I contend that a British empire not reduced by war and not pressured by the cold war would have produced stronger states.

    I produce verifiable examples and trends in an attempt to engage in debate and all I get in response is unsubstantiated accusations of spin and supremacy.

    Stop screaming "wrong-think" like an unsupervised lobotomite and put some fucking effort into your arguments.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  22. #112
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,456

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    The British administrative state was only ineffective due to being reduced by war and hindered by outside powers. I contend that a British empire not reduced by war and not pressured by the cold war would have produced stronger states.
    Oh cry me a river. The development of the African countries was also only ineffective due to being reduced by war (you know, people in red coats coming to make war) and hindered by outside powers (you know, foreign people in red coats trying to force their culture upon them).

    You didn't ever consider that these wars and outside influences might be a natural consequence of Britain's imperial ambitions and the failure to deal with them a purely British problem? You just seem to assume that British world hegemony is somehow God's gift to the greatest country on earth and all the other powers not liking it are obviously inspired by the devil and trying to keep the world a worse place than godly Britain could have made it. *insert facepalm smiley here*
    Last edited by Husar; 06-16-2017 at 16:21.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  23. #113
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,702

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    Oh cry me a river. The development of the African countries was also only ineffective due to being reduced by war (you know, people in red coats coming to make war) and hindered by outside powers (you know, foreign people in red coats trying to force their culture upon them).

    You didn't ever consider that these wars and outside influences might be a natural consequence of Britain's imperial ambitions and the failure to deal with them a purely British problem? You just seem to assume that British world hegemony is somehow God's gift to the greatest country on earth and all the other powers not liking it are obviously inspired by the devil and trying to keep the world a worse place than godly Britain could have made it. *insert facepalm smiley here*
    Wars have been going on around the world before Britain entered the scene, and after Britain left the scene. Eg. in southern Africa, the Zulus would have achieved a regional hegemony had they not encountered the Europeans (more specifically, the British). Compare with the Comanches in Texas, who'd carved out a sizeable hegemony until the US imposed itself. It's not just Europeans who had imperial ambitions. They were just better at it, beating their non-European imperial competitors. The British Commonwealth is basically a collection of regional hegemons using common Anglo-descent administrative and cultural links to foster regional alliances. So you have South Africa lording it over southern Africa, Nigeria doing the same in western Africa, etc.

  24. #114
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,706

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Could you explain why they're mutually exclusive?
    In one you speak of language as a key factor to trace succession by, in another it is the cultural and spiritual issues. Judging by the first Moldova is the successor of the Roman empire, judging by the second it is not (rather a USSR successor).
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  25. #115
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,702

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    In one you speak of language as a key factor to trace succession by, in another it is the cultural and spiritual issues. Judging by the first Moldova is the successor of the Roman empire, judging by the second it is not (rather a USSR successor).
    In their immediate passing, language was a key factor in determining succession, as it's the language the old imperial bureaucracy used. In many cases, even the old structures of government themselves persist (senates from the Roman empire, parliaments from the old British empire).

    As for cultural and spiritual: I'm talking about how the successors keep up the spirit of the old empire, long after the empire's passing. The goths allowed some of the trappings even of the old republic to remain after they'd taken over, and the old Roman way of life persisted for a while where the locals could. Even if we discount wholesale examinations of culture, you can still see archaic English in use in America and India, not used in England itself since the 18th century and Edwardian times respectively.

  26. #116
    Ni dieu ni matre! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,278
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    The British administrative state was only ineffective due to being reduced by war and hindered by outside powers. I contend that a British empire not reduced by war and not pressured by the cold war would have produced stronger states.

    I produce verifiable examples and trends in an attempt to engage in debate and all I get in response is unsubstantiated accusations of spin and supremacy.

    Stop screaming "wrong-think" like an unsupervised lobotomite and put some fucking effort into your arguments.
    So a state that doesn't go to war would have more resources to improve internal processes? Blowing my mind here.

    But seriously, what are you even arguing here. My point was that the British state lacked the necessary structure and power and thus could not hold onto its territories if it wanted to.
    Your argument is that this is true, but only because war had depleted the state.

    We are actually in complete agreement here and I stated so in my last post. The only reason you continue to reply is because I throw in a quip or two about British exceptionalism and now you feel compelled to make responses against phantom interlocutors.

    Why am I not engaging you in an honest debate? because there was no debate to begin with, we agree on the broad strokes I just outlined. But because you are thickheaded and eager to rush into what you perceive is a leftist attack on your national pride, you blindly start spewing garbage on the internet. Talk about wrong-think, you can't even digest the content of an internet post if it means reconciling your views with a "champagne socialist" .

    Ignore that last sentence, wrote this in a bad mood.
    Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 06-17-2017 at 07:13.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  27. #117
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,306

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    If you aren't ignorant. why don't you ever make the attempt to actually prove me wrong instead of making unsupported proclamations towards my supposed lack knowledge?

    Try debating me for once instead of hiding behind your group's consensus.
    I did try debating you in the past, it was pointless. You ignore all rational arguments and cling to your preconceived notion of the world. Sometimes (rarely) you present some anecdotal evidence. You either unable or unwilling to consider factors that disprove your badly thought out hypotheses, that are often influenced by your parochialism.

    Case in point - you've produced a single example of well run colony, and when you were presented with 10-15 examples that contradicted your hypothesis, you tried to weasel your way out of it.

    On top of all that, you're irritating and have a bad personality. You're barely better than a troll. You try to hide your ignorance behind strong words and strong opinions, going for flash instead of substance, but even that doesn't work as you don't have enough charisma to pull off flash.

    Look at ACIN. He was a little troll when he came but he grew, both personally and intellectually, over the years. He now makes insightful comments that are on topic. You, on the other hand, appear to have regressed, because instead of admitting to yourself that you actually have to make an effort and broaden your knowledge to contribute, you withdrew back to your little bubble.

    Hopefully that answers your question.

  28. #118
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,456

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Wars have been going on around the world before Britain entered the scene, and after Britain left the scene. Eg. in southern Africa, the Zulus would have achieved a regional hegemony had they not encountered the Europeans (more specifically, the British). Compare with the Comanches in Texas, who'd carved out a sizeable hegemony until the US imposed itself. It's not just Europeans who had imperial ambitions. They were just better at it, beating their non-European imperial competitors. The British Commonwealth is basically a collection of regional hegemons using common Anglo-descent administrative and cultural links to foster regional alliances. So you have South Africa lording it over southern Africa, Nigeria doing the same in western Africa, etc.
    Well, then perhaps he should stop whining about how others ruined Britain's glorious plans. These others were behaving just like Britain after all and if they made Britain fail, then Britain just wasn't good enough.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  29. #119
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,702

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    Well, then perhaps he should stop whining about how others ruined Britain's glorious plans. These others were behaving just like Britain after all and if they made Britain fail, then Britain just wasn't good enough.
    I'm not going to disagree with you on that. Britain's empire was done, and anything else I might say is just banter.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  30. #120
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,706

    Default Re: Qatar vs all others

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    Look at ACIN. He was a little troll when he came but he grew
    The sentence is of a dubious value if it was meant to be a compliment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO