Merkel Is Getting Me All Hot And Bothered

[gaelic cowboy]

Which means that the importance of size and resources has been highly overstated. Q.E.D.

I did not say that size in and of itself was the key I said maritime trade was the key have you been reading the posts at all. Technically one could say that indeed it is not trade but logistics that is the key, Russia had bad logistics America did not for the reasons outlined repeatedly

On the point about size it merely gifted America with plenty resources and as continually stated they had the ability to use them effectively from early on.



Germany is also a land power but crucially it's goods can reach the sea also German logistics are better as it's river and later it's rail system was more integrated.

[rvg]

I did not say that size in and of itself was the key I said maritime trade was the key have you been reading the posts at all.

I have, and if maritime trade was the key, then Britain, not the U.S. would have been in the most advantageous position. Heck, we didn't even connect our two coasts via railroads until 1869 or so. What good is an extensive Pacific coastline when the bulk of the industry, population and wealth is on the other side of the continent?

[gaelic cowboy]

I have, and if maritime trade was the key, then Britain, not the U.S. would have been in the most advantageous position. Heck, we didn't even connect our two coasts via railroads until 1869 or so. What good is an extensive Pacific coastline when the bulk of the industry, population and wealth is on the other side of the continent?

Because while the railroads hadnt connect the heartland from east to west it was still conneted to the rest of the world by it's massive rivers which allowed trade from Southern ports over the sea. At first trade was mostly transatlantic in America but it's transpacific now and happily most the goods on the pacific coast are new economy ones too. Usually when global trade patterns change like that this it would cripple a nation that has bet it's long term future on one set of particular routes but this did not happen here.

Indeed Britain was in the more advantageous position initially but then Americas advantages were more longterm.
You had lots of resources and plenty with room of to expand with a connected heartland and a Pacific and Atlantic coastline to allow room for economic flexibility.

Allied with Britains need to defend disparate colonies for resources and the later crippling of Britain in war it is easy see why America is now the boss of Britain.
They say one of the reasons they unleashed the Tans in Ireland was because large numbers of British troops were tied down in the new colonies it had seized from the Turks after WW1.

This diastrous policy in essence shows how weak Britain really was even at the imperial core, they lost a part of there core terroritry because they tried to hold some desert abroad.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Our national character influenced our size.

[rvg]

Because while the railroads hadnt connect the heartland from east to west it was still conneted to the rest of the world by it's massive rivers which allowed trade from Southern ports over the sea. At first trade was mostly transatlantic in America but it's transpacific now and happily most the goods on the pacific coast are new economy ones too. Usually when global trade patterns change like that this it would cripple a nation that has bet it's long term future on one set of particular routes but this did not happen here.

But if we're comparing the contemporary situation, Russia has the same: both Atlantic and Pacific ports and a very good network of railroads.

Indeed Britain was in the more advantageous position initially but then Americas advantages were more longterm.
You had lots of resources and plenty with room of to expand with a connected heartland and a Pacific and Atlantic coastline to allow room for economic flexibility.

Lack of a Pacific port isn't that big of a deal really, especially in this day and age.

Allied with Britains need to defend disparate colonies for resources and the later crippling of Britain in war it is easy see why America is now the boss of Britain. They say one of the reasons they unleashed the Tans in Ireland was because large numbers of British troops were tied down in the new colonies it had seized from the Turks after WW1.

What's wrong with prioritization?

This diastrous policy in essence shows how weak Britain really was even at the imperial core, they lost a part of there core terroritry because they tried to hold some desert abroad.

IMHO conduct of the Tans, rather than the fact that they were irregulars, that is to blame for the loss of Ireland.

Our national character influenced our size.

Good point.

[gaelic cowboy]

But if we're comparing the contemporary situation, Russia has the same: both Atlantic and Pacific ports and a very good network of railroads.

For gods sake man were not comparing the contempory situation in the slightest this is long term trade global patterns etc etc. And Russia does not have an atlantic port and it's pacific ones are far fom the industrial heartland. The port of Murmansk in the Arctic is also not suitable as it is also far from the industrial core. The Black Sea is choked by the Turks a Nato power both today and historically an enemy. It's Baltic port is restricted in it's use by it's European enemies and to be honest it's not my fault they were too stupid not to make peace with them and pursue trade.

It's also not my fault they attempted effectively to isolate themselves through communism which on an already backward country merely meant for all there prowess they were and still are bunched in the end.

Lack of a Pacific port isn't that big of a deal really, especially in this day and age.

Again you miss the point that a pacific port gave you flexibility for "Today" ie a longterm advantage and you still need a port on the pacific for the new economy for export of actual products even today.

What's wrong with prioritization?

Nothing but they had too many priorities thats the point.

IMHO conduct of the Tans, rather than the fact that they were irregulars, that is to blame for the loss of Ireland.

None of this is mutually exclusive

[gaelic cowboy]

Our national character influenced our size.

Not mutually exclusive though is it character influences size and size influences character.

America had room to grow so people develop ideas of growth prosperity and freedom, these allow/help people to aggressively conquer the old west.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not mutually exclusive though is it character influences size and size influences character.

America had room to grow so people develop ideas of growth prosperity and freedom, these allow/help people to aggressively conquer the old west.

I think geographical history is a bit too popular right now, I think it's easy to be misleading because the explanations are easy to grasp.

[gaelic cowboy]

I think geographical history is a bit too popular right now, I think it's easy to be misleading because the explanations are easy to grasp.

I never once used that term of geographical history it is a discredited theory and for good reason it was used to justify all manner of evil.

I am talking about trade and the various advantages from geography that the USA had historically and currently.

I place no moral judgement on Americas size today or historically and I do not place a moral judgement on why they made it big.

Merely I understand how it was possible to profit from it and to maintain it.

[rvg]

For gods sake man were not comparing the contempory situation in the slightest this is long term trade global patterns etc etc.

You seem to have no problem jumping between centuries.

And Russia does not have an atlantic port and it's pacific ones are far fom the industrial heartland.

Both Baltic and Black Sea belong to the Atlantic basin.

The port of Murmansk in the Arctic is also not suitable as it is also far from the industrial core.

That's where railroads come in handy.

The Black Sea is choked by the Turks a Nato power both today and historically an enemy. It's Baltic port is restricted in it's use by it's European enemies and to be honest it's not my fault they were too stupid not to make peace with them and pursue trade.

Once Russia actually obtained its Baltic ports after crushing the Swedes, they had no problem with trade, nor did they have to fear blockades.

It's also not my fault they attempted effectively to isolate themselves through communism which on an already backward country merely meant for all there prowess they were and still are bunched in the end.

They did have a damn good space program... So much for backwardness.

Again you miss the point that a pacific port gave you flexibility for "Today" ie a longterm advantage and you still need a port on the pacific for the new economy for export of actual products even today.

The Pacific is not a lake, you know. You don't have to have a port there to trade in the region.

None of this is mutually exclusive

Of course. I'm just pointing out a possible alternative explanation.

[gaelic cowboy]

You seem to have no problem jumping between centuries.

You started the need to be proven on landbased trade which is an old pattern I explained martitme trade makes more money.
Later land based trade can catch up through trains but not as much as newer ships can trade.

In the future the pattern will change again beyond sea trade and into the internet even for manufactured goods. We will desing them on PC's transmit the to a printer and bang I have my new I-POD

It remains to be seen how that will affect the globe but obviously it will be profound.

Both Baltic and Black Sea belong to the Atlantic basin.

Please were not talking some technical geographic term here were talkin about how both choked by enemies and restricted in terms of trade both historically and even currently.

That's where railroads come in handy.

never said they didnt have them but what use are they to Russia who would want there rubbish products, instead there most likely for resource extraction from siberia. Basically It's not my fault they never developed the skills to trade high quality goods through using there natural advantages.

Once Russia actually obtained its Baltic ports after crushing the Swedes, they had no problem with trade, nor did they have to fear blockades.

Really so they could just sail past Germany, Denmark and the UK no problem through the Denmark straits.

They did have a damn good space program... So much for backwardness.

Did I say they couldnt be powerful for a while and that they couldnt send a rocket to space no I didnt. And they were and are still backward in developmental terms America historically could put colour tellys in every house Russia could hardly make black and white ones at the same time.

Now Russia is resource based which is a sensible strategy for a country that has a relatively primitive industrial base compared to it's size.

The Pacific is not a lake, you know. You don't have to have a port there to trade in the region.

So what RVG I did not say you have to have a port there I said you can need a port even for new economy products today and you have actually got one. Just because Software is the now biggest part of the new economy does not mean America does not and did not export actual new economy goods.









I feel now I need to reiterate something here and this will really be the last reply on this subject cos I sick of doing so at this stage.

America grew rich because of various natural advantages in terms of resources size and logistics that it had histroically, this does not preclude that there can be no other strategies in the pursuit of wealth and geopolitical power.

Merely it means that these are the patterns America can follow and did follow, this does not mean however that these advantages are eternal or that they have any moral significance.

[rvg]

never said they didnt have them but what use are they to Russia who would want there rubbish products, instead there most likely for resource extraction from siberia. Basically It's not my fault they never developed the skills to trade high quality goods through using there natural advantages.

You keep saying how important trade was and how Russia suffered because it had no infrastructure to deliver its goods. When I show that it in fact did have the sufficient infrastructure to conduct trade, then you say that it doesn't matter because commodities were no good. So what is it, lack of infrastructure or lack of proper goods to sell?

Really so they could just sail past Germany, Denmark and the UK no problem through the Denmark straits.

Sure. Who would dare stop them?

So what RVG I did not say you have to have a port there I said you can need a port even for new economy products today and you have actually got one. Just because Software is the now biggest part of the new economy does not mean America does not and did not export actual new economy goods.

So, what if tomorrow the Indian Ocean becomes a trade hotspot? Does that mean that Iran or Pakistan will suddenly turn into economic miracles just because they have ports there? [/QUOTE]

[gaelic cowboy]

You keep saying how important trade was and how Russia suffered because it had no infrastructure to deliver its goods. When I show that it in fact did have the sufficient infrastructure to conduct trade, then you say that it doesn't matter because commodities were no good. So what is it, lack of infrastructure or lack of proper goods to sell?

Can it not be both at the same time today in earlier time RVG first it was lack of infrastructure then later it was lack of goods. Lack of goods was influenced by the earlier lack of infrastructure which limited development. In the earlier centuries there was hardly any difference in Russia or the West but as the years roll by that becomes less and less the case.

And the volga flows to one place not the ocean remember

Sure. Who would dare stop them?

Back then even Denmark could do it with a couple of rowboats, and later in the soviet period who wanted the rubbish consumer products anyway barring weapons they had/have nothing to trade but resources.

So, what if tomorrow the Indian Ocean becomes a trade hotspot? Does that mean that Iran or Pakistan will suddenly turn into economic miracles just because they have ports there?

If they make the right choices then yes they could indeed, but I guess they wouldnt due to there historical bias.

[gaelic cowboy]

Can we stop this please RVG allright it's getting tiresome.

[rvg]

...

[rvg]

Can we stop this please RVG allright it's getting tiresome.

FUSHTA!

[gaelic cowboy]

delete

[Husar]

My response is the same, I think you're the one who's confused.

For the record the statement about "understanding history like we do in Europe" is that "we r old skool" mentality that Americans are so sick and tired of, and why you've been getting the responses from others like you have. We have our own collective history from the founding of our nation to before, up to now. Just because it doesn't stretch back thousands of years doesn't make it any less meaningful or comprehensive, or give us less perspective. In that regard, Europeans do need to get over themselves.

And you need to get over yourselves and stop hijacking threads about Merkel and Germany and turning them into "Britain vs Scotland", "America vs Terrorism" "America vs America" and whatnot!

I'm sick and tired of your "we r all that matters" mentality that turns every thread about my glorious nation into a thread about your nation and it's the reason why you get responses like this one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And you need to get over yourselves and stop hijacking threads about Merkel and Germany and turning them into "Britain vs Scotland", "America vs Terrorism" "America vs America" and whatnot!

I'm sick and tired of your "we r all that matters" mentality that turns every thread about my glorious nation into a thread about your nation and it's the reason why you get responses like this one.

!

Hey, we spent pages on Islam in Europe!

We got bored, mostly because there are no Muslims in the argument to actually provide the opposing position. The closest we have is Hax, and he's a Dutch Buddhist.

[CountArach]

Please remain calm people. Can we get back to the topic at hand?

[Husar]

!

Hey, we spent pages on Islam in Europe!

We got bored, mostly because there are no Muslims in the argument to actually provide the opposing position. The closest we have is Hax, and he's a Dutch Buddhist.

All I remember is that I wrote a reply and next thing I noticed was the thread was three pages longer and somehow about "Scotland vs the american Civil War" now.
Being a Conservative myself I would like to conserve the original topic and if these pinko progressive thread hijacking terrorists from Scotland and america think they can take over our thread, I'll defend it with my god-given second forum rule right!

Let me tell you I'm foaming at the ears right now!

So basically my point was that

a) the issue is exaggerated, I don't even get why people have a big problem with Salafists handing out free korans, should we also ban the Marlboro Baptist Church from handing out free bibles? I also think that we can have Islam here as long as it's not a radical Islam that wants to take over and/or convert us all violently.

b) does it really reflect that much on Merkel when a close ally from her party says something like this? Is it not possible that people in the same party have different views on one subject?
And can we learn from this that americans assume other political systems are just like theirs, where every politician is "gleichgeschaltet" (aligned) to the official party view via corporate identity and the removal of his free will and individuality? Also is that a good thing or does it make america's two parties communist?

[gaelic cowboy]

a) the issue is exaggerated, I don't even get why people have a big problem with Salafists handing out free korans, should we also ban the Marlboro Baptist Church from handing out free bibles? I also think that we can have Islam here as long as it's not a radical Islam that wants to take over and/or convert us all violently.

b) does it really reflect that much on Merkel when a close ally from her party says something like this? Is it not possible that people in the same party have different views on one subject?
And can we learn from this that americans assume other political systems are just like theirs, where every politician is "gleichgeschaltet" (aligned) to the official party view via corporate identity and the removal of his free will and individuality? Also is that a good thing or does it make america's two parties communist?

A: I was always under the impression Salafist were exactly the kind of nutjobs who did want to take over that your against.

B: Only if she refuses to use the party whip on him in another case with simmilar tone.

[Hax]

Salafism has traditionally been a non-political movement; it's prone to confusion with radical Islamism and takfiri jihadism. The nutjobs you see saying things like "Sharia 4 Britain/Belgium/wherever) belong to this takfiri jihadi movement which has very little in common with Islamism or Salafism; the roots to this movement lie in the Wahhabism made popular (or infamous, rather) by the likes of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, which also differs from the Wahhabism used in the state ideology of Saudi-Arabia.

So all these terms ranging from (radical) Islamism to Salafism and Wahhabism are generally used together without clarifying what the differences are between these three, so I could do that now:

Salafism started as a reform movement in the 19th century by the (relatively) progressive Mufti of Egypt by the name of Muhammad Abduh (which I referred to earlier in this thread, I think). It basically focuses on removing layers of misplaced traditions that become identified with Islam, for example the niqab, and returning to the first generations (ar. Salaf) of Islam. So here you see a liberal reform movement being interpreted in roughly two ways:

1) Rashid Rida's intepretation that basically necessitates the existence of an Islamic state in order for the Muslim community to live prosperously and peacefully.
2) Ali Abd al-Raziq's interpretation that seperates religion and state on Islamic terms, which was a radical break with the general conception of how Islam should function in daily life (he also used a very interesting line of reasoning in order to support his claims). In contrast to Rida, who was largely self-educated and was not linked to any formal institute, Abd al-Raziq was a scholar at al-Azhar University, and after his book was published he was immediately kicked out.

Raziq's view is not the dominant one right now, so let's not focus on that. Rida wrote after the fall of the Caliphate, which was a shocking experience and led him to formulate his ideas on the Islamic state. He was a major influence on Hassan al-Banna, who never met him in person, but would later go on to found the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He also influenced Sayyid Qutb, whose book "In the Shadow of the Qu'ran" (which I own in its Dutch translation, but have not read so far) and general philosophy laid the basis for the Salafism we're seeing today in countries. Keep in mind that Qutb went to America as an educational inspector and was shocked by what he saw there; his philosophy and life-style is kind of a reaction to that, too.


Wahhabism is a different brand of Islam altogether: it was founded by this guy called Abd al-Wahhab who lived in Saudi-Arabia and was purportedly disgusted by what he saw as a return to pagan, pre-islamic traditions (such as worshipping Sufi saints and visiting their shrines). His followers basically started converting other people to their form of Islam by use of force. At some point, the Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud entered in a pact with Abd al-Wahhab, thus tying Wahhabism to the Saudi royalty forever. What happened then is pretty interesting: using Islamic texts, he was able to formulate this concept of baya, roughly meaning that all his subjects had to swear an oath of loyalty to the ruler which could not be broken (unless the ruler reverted from Islam). This met with heavy resistance from some of the Wahhabis, who were then violently cracked down by the new regime.

In this way, Wahhabism, which had started off as a revolutionary movement (that, like Salafism, emphasised a return to the fundaments of Islam but unlike Salafism was political in nature) was institutionalised and made a part of the Saudi state. Here, Wahhabism split, particularly over the ideas what ba'ya meant and to what degree an Islamic ruler could go before he'd become a non-believer: some people were of the opinion that if a ruler erred, the people could only give him advice and that armed rebellion against a ruler constituted a worse sin. The people who were of the opinion that if a ruler became a tyrant (or even worse, a non-believer) armed rebellion was justified and in fact a religious duty.

So I'm still definitely talking about Wahhabism here, just in two different forms. We can call the group that supports violent rebellion or warfare against infidel states as takfiri jihadists (here they are!). That's people like Osama bin Laden. Historically, this split came to be when Ibn Saud entered into an alliance with two infidel states, Egypt and England. Takfir means "declaring someone a non-believer" in Arabic; it has the same root as "kafir" (non-believer) and "kufr" (disbelief).

Additionally, Wahhabis are (in my opinion) a crazy bunch: they have no qualms in destroying tombs of Muhammad's companions in order to satisfy their idea of orthodoxy. In fact, Wahhabism has proven more dangerous to Islam than any outside threat.

Islamism shares elements with Wahhabism in that it seeks the creation of an Islamic state, but uses a completely different approach to achieve it: it acknowledges "modern" elements (such as democracy, (religious) pluralism, women's rights and minorities) and uses Islamic terms in order to express these (respectively: shura, ikhtilifât and dhimma). As a sidenote, the term "dhimmi" has been appropriated by Bat Ye'or and her intellectual comrades, but it's explained differently in Islamist terms. You can distinguish "moderate" and "radical" Islamism here: moderate Islamists seek to achieve the Islamic state through democratic means and implement it purely on a governmental level; within the radical Islamist paradigm, the state should implement Islam into the daily lives of their subjects.


To summarise, there are quite some differences between Islamism, Salafism and Wahhabism: Salafism is originally a non-political movement and Salafis are mostly concerned with how they can implement the fundaments of Islam into their own lifes. It might be interesting to know that initially, Salafist preachers were against the protests at Tahrir square (remember, you can't displace a ruler if he's formally a Muslim) and told the protesters to go home.

Wahhabism is implemented in two ways; within the Saudi state, in which it is definitely a part of the Saudi state, but subordinate to it (in the sense that loyalty is to the ruler) and outside it, in the form of (takfiri) jihadism, which is totally okay with killing other Muslims (which they regard as non-Muslim) and other people alike.

Islamism is a political movement that diverges once again, on the field of moderate Islamism and radical Islamism: the state should implement shari‘a law (but the answer to the question how is often vague and/or ill-defined), they just disagree on to which extent shari‘a should play a role.



So that's that; I'm actually following a course on this subject right now and to be honest, I've based most of what I just wrote on two articles that we read and dicussed during a class I attended last week, which I could send people if they're interested. Now I have to get back to a drill on how to negate sentences in Arabic that I have to hand in next week. My life is really hard.

[gaelic cowboy]

I think in some ways the removal of the Caliophate was the worst thing that happened in Islam in a long while.

Or at least it seems that way for Islam in the levant and maghreb to my mind.(of course replacing an Islamic colonial power with the UK an France didnt help)



Plus them Takfiri's will never admit it but listening to there statements that dont deal with sexual politics or religion etc etc and can you get the sense there drawing on socialist ideals wrapped up in islamic theology.

Most there economics if they have any and I only ever seen one or two statements were bat crazy (they could be lies of course)

of course that's the same with any secret liberation movement I suppose

[Strike For The South]

WAIT! WAIT! I have something to say about Russia

[Kralizec]

And can we learn from this that americans assume other political systems are just like theirs, where every politician is "gleichgeschaltet" (aligned)

Godwin!

Seriously, I don't even understand what the comparison is supposed to mean...

[Tellos Athenaios]

B: Only if she refuses to use the party whip on him in another case with simmilar tone.

Germans aren't into whips, that's more of an Anglo-Saxon thing to go for. Whips are rarely needed anyway if you manage a party properly.

@Kralizec: well his post was just a joke, I take it. None of it seemed in any way serious.