- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Russians say the chemical attack was by the rebels, America says by Assad.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:13 am to cokebottleag
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:13 am to cokebottleag
the problem is just how we view conflict compared to how they view conflict
like take America...our "war values" are still based in the Revolutionary War but most recently WWII. when we "win", we try to mold the losing side into our values system (although the post-WWII division of Europe was pretty terrible, but we couldn't really do anything). we don't have this irrational belief against the common people who were our prior enemies
the Middle East (as well as other areas, like Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia) has been at war for so long with so many cultural and ethnic conflicts/oppression that they are just harder people. when one side "wins", they think of this as an opportunity to slaughter their prior enemies, regardless of the individual participation in the actual conflict. they still see victory in war as requiring of spoils and a license to exert dominion over the losing side
so like your average American thinks of this conflict and goes "well we just need a non-dictator to win and with US support, they'll develop institutions and create a better society for all" but in reality it's more "they will consolidate power and develop institutions and stability so that they can more easily exterminate all opposition and exact revenge for previous oppression"
like take America...our "war values" are still based in the Revolutionary War but most recently WWII. when we "win", we try to mold the losing side into our values system (although the post-WWII division of Europe was pretty terrible, but we couldn't really do anything). we don't have this irrational belief against the common people who were our prior enemies
the Middle East (as well as other areas, like Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia) has been at war for so long with so many cultural and ethnic conflicts/oppression that they are just harder people. when one side "wins", they think of this as an opportunity to slaughter their prior enemies, regardless of the individual participation in the actual conflict. they still see victory in war as requiring of spoils and a license to exert dominion over the losing side
so like your average American thinks of this conflict and goes "well we just need a non-dictator to win and with US support, they'll develop institutions and create a better society for all" but in reality it's more "they will consolidate power and develop institutions and stability so that they can more easily exterminate all opposition and exact revenge for previous oppression"
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
so like your average American thinks of this conflict and goes "well we just need a non-dictator to win and with US support, they'll develop institutions and create a better society for all" but in reality it's more "they will consolidate power and develop institutions and stability so that they can more easily exterminate all opposition and exact revenge for previous oppression"
Yeah, it's realpolitik vs naivete.
And the reason we think of WW2 as being this great win for the whole "everyone can live in harmony" is because we don't actually know much about what happened other than "Marshall Plan, we gave everyone money and they stopped hating each other". A better look is how Europe re-drew borders after the war and FORCABLY MOVED PEOPLE TO THEIR ETHNIC SIDE OF THE BORDER. A great example of this is the historical German city of Stettin, now Szczecin. In 1945 when the Polish/German border was drawn, Stettin was on the Polish side, even though it was entirely ethnically German. The soviets took all the Germans on the Polish side of the border and "ethnically cleansed" Poland of Germans. Then moved Poles into the old German areas.
This happened on many borders.
This is why I've been saying that multiculturalism is not a natural state for any nation. It is always a historical transition period between one of two stable outcomes: Balkanization or absorption of weaker cultures into a stronger one. Either way is the eventual end of multiculturalism.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News