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
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
424081 posts
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:13 am to
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"
Posted by cokebottleag
I’m a Santos Republican
Member since Aug 2011
24028 posts
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:28 am to
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.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram