Civilization, War, and so on.

[Pindar]

Are you equating being civilized with pacifism?

Hmmm. No. In my second post here I spoke of good and bad civilizations. A good one has not only progressed -- in what some of you have said like Stig, like treatment of their citizens, and so forth -- but also in the pursuit of peaceful international coexistences.

A "bad civilization" is one not pursuing peace and has low care activity for its citizens, etc., and even worse, is waging war.

So I guess what I'm saying is that a civilization can be high on the level of technological, financial, etc., progress, but civilization is also about a society it depicts, and aggression / war is the evil part, while peace is not.

It sounds like you conflate 'civilized' with 'civilization' and 'civilization' with 'nation'. This is not a normal approach.

So any nation engaged in war is a bad?

[Bijo]

It sounds like you conflate 'civilized' with 'civilization' and 'civilization' with 'nation'. This is not a normal approach.

So any nation engaged in war is a bad?

I don't like normal approaches

Anyway, I don't necessarily meant nation but more the general picture of it: a nation, or a country, or a state, a civilization, a people. Basically I still stand by what I said in the previous post(s) for now, though it might change.

To answer the question you asked... hmm, if I stand by what I meant, then the simple answer is probably that I must ask you about what exactly your question means. I was specifically referring to an aggressive "civilization" and being imperialist / expansionist, not just a nation / civilization / people etc. engaged in war.

But to quickly post as I fight my fatigue ....Legio kind of generally said what I mean. In that case my previous saying about "good" and "bad" could generally refer to englightened and not englightened.

[Stig]

i said wars CAN be good i didnt say they didnt come without a price and that they would always be good

Yes but is the price worth it.
What has WW1 brought us? Nothing more then WW2 I think, and millions of deaths.
What has WW2 brought us? Yeah Hitler is gone, but the price? 6 million Jews, Germany destroyed, loads of death soldiers.

Is the price worth it?

Vietnam brought us nothing, all Korea did was make sure that the small country we call South-Korea is communist as well. The First Gulf War did nothing at all. Somalia in the early nineties? nothing.

[ajaxfetish]

Yes but is the price worth it.
What has WW1 brought us? Nothing more then WW2 I think, and millions of deaths.
What has WW2 brought us? Yeah Hitler is gone, but the price? 6 million Jews, Germany destroyed, loads of death soldiers.

Is the price worth it?

Vietnam brought us nothing, all Korea did was make sure that the small country we call South-Korea is communist as well. The First Gulf War did nothing at all. Somalia in the early nineties? nothing.

World War I brought the end of several empires, ushering in a more politically modern Europe, not to mention flight, submarine, and armor technology, advances in chemicals and artillery, and so on. It brought the United States into the position of a major player on the world stage, at a time when our political leadership was fairly idealistic. It caused the birth of the prototype of the UN. It also deglamourized war, making it a much more serious undertaking for nations. Not all of these are necessarily good things, but they're not all necessarily bad either.

World War II, didn't cause the death of 6 million Jews; the Nazis did that. If anything, the war prevented more Jews and other Nazi target peoples from being killed. It also saw the birth of jet aircraft, atomic power, the superpower status of the US and Soviet Union, advanced rocket technology, etc., etc., and ended the Great Depression. What's more, there wasn't much choice about fighting World War II. It was either let Hitler be in charge of the world and do whatever he wanted, or else stop him.

Vietnam, I'll agree was pretty pointless and would have been better off never having been fought, though with the craze of communism rising, leaders at the time had a very skewed perspective and couldn't really figure that out.

I've no idea what you mean by saying the Korean War made South Korea communist as well. Last I checked they're avowed capitalists. Korea was a defensive action against an aggressor, like World War II, and ultimately just reaffirmed the status quo: communist north, capitalist (free) south.

The first gulf war was another defensive war against an aggressor, this time to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and ensure western access to gulf state oil, and it was a success ('nothing at all' doesn't quite cut it).

Was Somalia even a war? I thought it was a peacekeeping/humanitarian mission . . .

War doesn't just cause good things, and it definitely has a high price, but it's much more complicated and multi-faceted than the picture you paint. Is the price worth it? Hard to say, but some of those wars had to be fought. Allowing the Hitler's and Hussein's of this world to seize whatever territory they like and do whatever they like to the people there is unacceptable.

Ajax

[Stig]

World War I brought the end of several empires, ushering in a more politically modern Europe, not to mention flight, submarine, and armor technology, advances in chemicals and artillery, and so on. It brought the United States into the position of a major player on the world stage, at a time when our political leadership was fairly idealistic. It caused the birth of the prototype of the UN. It also deglamourized war, making it a much more serious undertaking for nations. Not all of these are necessarily good things, but they're not all necessarily bad either.

Is the ending of empires good then? Flight was invented before it ... by the Wright brothers to be exact. And those chemicals didn't really help us did they?

World War II, didn't cause the death of 6 million Jews; the Nazis did that. If anything, the war prevented more Jews and other Nazi target peoples from being killed. It also saw the birth of jet aircraft, atomic power, the superpower status of the US and Soviet Union, advanced rocket technology, etc., etc., and ended the Great Depression. What's more, there wasn't much choice about fighting World War II. It was either let Hitler be in charge of the world and do whatever he wanted, or else stop him.

Now you say superpowers are good, and you just said that empires were bad ???

I've no idea what you mean by saying the Korean War made South Korea communist as well. Last I checked they're avowed capitalists. Korea was a defensive action against an aggressor, like World War II, and ultimately just reaffirmed the status quo: communist north, capitalist (free) south.

A simple typing error. Even Stig is human you know. I'm not American, so I do make mistakes

The first gulf war was another defensive war against an aggressor, this time to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and ensure western access to gulf state oil, and it was a success ('nothing at all' doesn't quite cut it).

Erhh yes, and leaving him in command of Iraq, that sure was a good thing.

Was Somalia even a war? I thought it was a peacekeeping/humanitarian mission . . .

Ask the Somalians, they think differently about it.

[Redleg]

Is the ending of empires good then? Flight was invented before it ... by the Wright brothers to be exact. And those chemicals didn't really help us did they?

Are you so sure that they didn't help? Can you explain the rapid advance of medicine and the compounds used to aid patients? Do you realize that the rapid experimentation by the powers at war increased the capablities of aircraft? I am not saying that the capabilities of the aircraft would not have been increased without war, only that war speed up the process.

Then how about several of the compounds you use today? for instance plastic and syntic rubber. How about computers?

Now you say superpowers are good, and you just said that empires were bad ???

Actually that is not what was stated.

A simple typing error. Even Stig is human you know. I'm not American, so I do make mistakes

Nice recovery - however I am not statified with that answer. Where do you come up with the idea South Korea is communist? And the american comment seems to be an attempt at insulting another - where did the individual attempt to say being American is superior to all others?

Erhh yes, and leaving him in command of Iraq, that sure was a good thing.

No it wasn't a good thing. Study up on the politics of the first gulf war and come back to the discussion. A slight hint would to be look into what nations made up that collation of forces, how many nations supplied troops and how many, and then image your in one of the divisions from the following nations, French, Britian, and the United States, knowing that your supply line is solely dependent upon the good faith of the host nation.

Ask the Somalians, they think differently about it.

Many regret that the United Nations departed their country. Some are glad the United Nations departed their country so that they could continue with their war. And yes Somalia was initially a Civil War, but it turned into several different types of conflict over the last 20 odd years.

[Pindar]

I'm against the war in Iraq, but nothing more then that

So, this comment: "Well, war doesn't bring you anything good" should actually be read: "Well (the war in Iraq) doesn't bring you anything good"?

[Pindar]

It sounds like you conflate 'civilized' with 'civilization' and 'civilization' with 'nation'. This is not a normal approach.

So any nation engaged in war is a bad?

I don't like normal approaches

Anyway, I don't necessarily meant nation but more the general picture of it: a nation, or a country, or a state, a civilization, a people. Basically I still stand by what I said in the previous post(s) for now, though it might change.

To answer the question you asked... hmm, if I stand by what I meant, then the simple answer is probably that I must ask you about what exactly your question means. I was specifically referring to an aggressive "civilization" and being imperialist / expansionist, not just a nation / civilization / people etc. engaged in war.

But to quickly post as I fight my fatigue ....Legio kind of generally said what I mean. In that case my previous saying about "good" and "bad" could generally refer to englightened and not englightened.

Your position then is: any people engaged in imperialist expansion is unenlightened? Is that right?

[Bijo]

Redleg, I did not claim using military force always means imperialism. And I did claim the US has been being imperialist, and probably is right now (also by different means besides the military).


Pindar, forgive me for shoving aside your question. The whole point (at least I hope it got through) of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people. There are differences here and there, but ah -- how should I explain this -- ....I look at it "holistically" if that's the proper word. (I don't mean to go into too many details, for saving time.)

We can see this by the way the nation has behaved politically / militarily / etc. And besides that: I've visited this lovely country and what I saw most was people who were always angry, aggressive, arrogant, impulsive, greedy, and hostile. I look at American (foreign) policy and I see the same principle.

Sure there are nice American people -- for example here on the Org -- but it will take a hell of a convincer to convince me and to prove to me that in general the American nation is not aggressive, not hostile, and so on, both within (-- the society --) AND without (-- foreign politics). Basically, I think America has a bad civilization, and you can fill in the reasons -- the details -- yourself.
_________________________
By all means, no offence meant to anybody American in here
_________________________

"Sir, hello. Eh, I jst need to know where and--"
"I ain't no ******* guide, ya bastard!"

Either that answer or:
"......" *quickly walks away with head down*

That's only two examples

[Pindar]

Pindar, forgive me for shoving aside your question. The whole point (at least I hope it got through) of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people... Basically, I think America has a bad civilization, and you can fill in the reasons -- the details -- yourself.

So, you are basically wanting to say you are anti-american?

[Stig]

So, you are basically wanting to say you are anti-american?

Would anything be wrong with that?

[Papewaio]

Pindar, forgive me for shoving aside your question. The whole point (at least I hope it got through) of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people... Basically, I think America has a bad civilization, and you can fill in the reasons -- the details -- yourself.

So, you are basically wanting to say you are anti-american?

Not sure if pointing out perceived flaws in a relationship (tab A) makes one anti-the flawed object (slot B).

Mind you if the wife ever asks 'Do these jeans make me look fat' then ones response may will lead to one finding out the hard way that people tend to link tab A to slot B automatically.

[Redleg]

Redleg, I did not claim using military force always means imperialism. And I did claim the US has been being imperialist, and probably is right now (also by different means besides the military).

My comment was directed at gathering a better answer then this. Explain why you believe that the United States is engaged in Imperialism. What methods are being used by the Government of the United States to engage in Imperialistic policies? In your explanation how do you explain the huge trade imbalance that the United States is engaged in with China? In other words a simple belief that the United States is engaged in Imperialism does not equate to proving the premise.

Pindar, forgive me for shoving aside your question. The whole point (at least I hope it got through) of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people. There are differences here and there, but ah -- how should I explain this -- ....I look at it "holistically" if that's the proper word. (I don't mean to go into too many details, for saving time.)

Again what foundation in fact is such an accusation based upon? There are many different explanations for the different foreign policies of the United States? For instance are you attempting to classify Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somilia into aggressive foreign policy actions of an Imperialist nation.

We can see this by the way the nation has behaved politically / militarily / etc. And besides that: I've visited this lovely country and what I saw most was people who were always angry, aggressive, arrogant, impulsive, greedy, and hostile. I look at American (foreign) policy and I see the same principle.

All depends on what part of the nation you have visited and when. Sterotypes are the basic downfall of your arguement.

Sure there are nice American people -- for example here on the Org -- but it will take a hell of a convincer to convince me and to prove to me that in general the American nation is not aggressive, not hostile, and so on, both within (-- the society --) AND without (-- foreign politics). Basically, I think America has a bad civilization, and you can fill in the reasons -- the details -- yourself.
_________________________
By all means, no offence meant to anybody American in here
_________________________

"Sir, hello. Eh, I jst need to know where and--"
"I ain't no ******* guide, ya bastard!"

Either that answer or:
"......" *quickly walks away with head down*

That's only two examples

Pinder-san has summed up your position in my opinion. Your going to have to explain your postion a whole lot better or I will just have to assume that your basing a lot of your opinion on sterotypes. And sterotypes are always a bad thing to base one's opinion on.