Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Zangi]

Power vacuums are a scenario easily wished for and easier regretted.

There are many things that can easily be made to regret.  Its a question of how much you are willing to pay for a different brand of regret down the line. 
The Middle East is screwed up, but that is a long time coming specifically cause of intervention.

[Sergarr]

Roughly one-quarter of all prisoners on the planet are held in American prisons.

What the hell is this I don't even

[smjjames]

@frumple on moral component: Maybe the first Gulf War? Granted oil did have a percentage of involvement.

As for most everything that we've ever intervened in going south and not the way we'd have liked, you have to keep in mind the cold war mentality right up to the 80's plus politics.

I do agree that other countries need to take up the slack and we need to invest way more into our infrastructure and other things besides military.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Power vacuums are a scenario easily wished for and easier regretted.

There are many things that can easily be made to regret.  Its a question of how much you are willing to pay for a different brand of regret down the line. 
The Middle East is screwed up, but that is a long time coming specifically cause of intervention.

Influence =/= Intervention

Would you seriously argue that the middle east is worse off, or, not better off, than if they were totally ignored by the international community a-la post-WW2 middle east? The one with the power vacuum that led to huge wars between different nations for little more than kilometers of territory? That middle east? Because I have some news, the middle east has only increased in stability, GDP, economic development since the international world stopped leaving them to their own devices in the 80's. That's the fact. The middle east is better off because of third party investment and third party interest in stability, claiming otherwise is completely wrong.
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2010_26.pdf Might be a good first point to learn about this development.


An ignored developing region is a third world region.

[scriver]

Anyone else find it *extremely* weird that we have a country in the middle east, a monarchy, that has it's damned family name in it's title, Saudi Arabia... And we just roll with it? We even call the citizens "Saudi's" or "Saud's" or "the Saudi army"!

It's damned weird. It'd be like calling citizens of America "Obama's"... Or better, calling the British under the queen, "Windsors." 

I mean, I *get* that they're an absolute monarchy so basically everything *is* the Saudi's property, and I *get* that calling them Arabians could be confused, since everyone else in the area are "Arabs"... But it's still damned weird.

Naming countries after the dynasty/founder is an old custom. Apart from the Chinese dynasties example smjjames gave, we have lots of middle-eastern/north African countries (some of the most famous might be the Abbasid Empire, Tamerlane's empire, and the Ottoman Empire under it's other name - "the Osman Empire"), in Europe we have the Carolingian Empire and Lotharingia. Basically every conqueror-empire of the ancient and not-so-ancient world. Particularly because they tended to collapse when the founding dynasty died out or lost power.

[EnigmaticHat]

Power vacuums are a scenario easily wished for and easier regretted.

There are many things that can easily be made to regret.  Its a question of how much you are willing to pay for a different brand of regret down the line. 
The Middle East is screwed up, but that is a long time coming specifically cause of intervention.

Influence =/= Intervention

Would you seriously argue that the middle east is worse off, or, not better off, than if they were totally ignored by the international community a-la post-WW2 middle east? The one with the power vacuum that led to huge wars between different nations for little more than kilometers of territory? That middle east? Because I have some news, the middle east has only increased in stability, GDP, economic development since the international world stopped leaving them to their own devices in the 80's. That's the fact. The middle east is better off because of third party investment and third party interest in stability, claiming otherwise is completely wrong.
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2010_26.pdf Might be a good first point to learn about this development.


An ignored developing region is a third world region.

The international community has NEVER left the modern middle east to its own devices, not since they created it by chopping up the Ottoman Empire into colonies and then freeing them post WW2.  The period between the 50s and the 80s was rife with interference; the USSR trying to conquer Afghanistan, both sides trying to bring ME countries into their factions, the US funding extremist Muslim organizations because they opposed Soviet influence, the UK and France allying with Israel in order to stop Egypt from reclaiming the Suez Canal, the whole evolving situation surrounding Israel, probably a bunch of other shit I can't think of off the top of my head...

Also just because things have improved, doesn't mean it was because of foreigners.  You can't just assume that, or at the very least you can't expect us to agree with you unless you provide some evidence.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Also just because things have improved, doesn't mean it was because of foreigners.  You can't just assume that, or at the very least you can't expect us to agree with you unless you provide some evidence.

Of course, I should have to prove the HDI numbers have increased across the board since the 80's. Is the argument here still that the ME would be better off without international influence? Because I'm showing you how the middle east has improved in actual statistical ways since the international community, not Russia and the US in ham fisted military ways, began to get involved with the region. Unless you seriously believe that economic and societal development haven't been helped by the international community and especially the UN getting involved in the ME.

Is the middle east not better off now than it was before the 80s? How would it be better off without outside influence?

[Descan]

Anyone else find it *extremely* weird that we have a country in the middle east, a monarchy, that has it's damned family name in it's title, Saudi Arabia... And we just roll with it? We even call the citizens "Saudi's" or "Saud's" or "the Saudi army"!

It's damned weird. It'd be like calling citizens of America "Obama's"... Or better, calling the British under the queen, "Windsors." 

I mean, I *get* that they're an absolute monarchy so basically everything *is* the Saudi's property, and I *get* that calling them Arabians could be confused, since everyone else in the area are "Arabs"... But it's still damned weird.

Naming countries after the dynasty/founder is an old custom. Apart from the Chinese dynasties example smjjames gave, we have lots of middle-eastern/north African countries (some of the most famous might be the Abbasid Empire, Tamerlane's empire, and the Ottoman Empire under it's other name - "the Osman Empire"), in Europe we have the Carolingian Empire and Lotharingia. Basically every conqueror-empire of the ancient and not-so-ancient world. Particularly because they tended to collapse when the founding dynasty died out or lost power.

True, but... Why are we still doing it for the Saudi kingdom? Why are we calling the citizens "Sauds"?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because they still exist?

[EnigmaticHat]

Also just because things have improved, doesn't mean it was because of foreigners.  You can't just assume that, or at the very least you can't expect us to agree with you unless you provide some evidence.

Of course, I should have to prove the HDI numbers have increased across the board since the 80's. Is the argument here still that the ME would be better off without international influence? Because I'm showing you how the middle east has improved in actual statistical ways since the international community, not Russia and the US in ham fisted military ways, began to get involved with the region. Unless you seriously believe that economic and societal development haven't been helped by the international community and especially the UN getting involved in the ME.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.  Just because things have improved, doesn't mean the international community is responsible.  Also if you're going to take the utilitarian route that its only human quality of life which matters, you have to take the good with the bad; you can't just ignore "ham-fisted military ways" because that's a form of influence.  Also... the UN wasn't involved in the ME until the 80s?  What?  Officially creating Israel and partitioning Palestine?  The several peacekeeping missions?  Hosting Yasser Arafat and contributing to Palestine being recognized as a nation?  Where on Earth (OK, besides Korea) was the UN more involved prior to the 1980s?

So I'm asking for evidence that 1. the international community ignored the ME prior to the 80s (which is ludicrous, the international community ignores nobody, except maybe postage stamp states)  2. that they suddenly started in the 80s and how, and 3. that they are responsible for that HDI growth you keep referencing.

Edit: Wrote UK instead of UN :/

[Descan]

Because they still exist?

But we don't call the Ottoman citizens "Ottomans", we called them "Turks"...

[Frumple]

Is the middle east not better off now than it was before the 80s? How would it be better off without outside influence?

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure anyone was saying it would be better without outside influence. Investment, trade, all that stuff is pretty nice and there's certainly been some degree of just that. M'pretty down with that, personally -- hell, pretty much my entire ranting bits a lil'while ago was about getting foreign interactions in the region to be less lopsided and/or disruptive.

It's the, as you say, ham-fisted military bullshit along with all the cold war-style further bullshit and probably most of the latest round of "terror war" bullshit-in-the-year-20XX it could really have done without. I'd rather imagine it would have been better off without extremely, overtly, and often times intentionally disruptive foreign influence. Though that's kinda' tautological, I guess. Positive influence is positive, negative influence is negative. Investing in infrastructure good, blowing it up bad. Degree of simplification there, obviously, but the point gets across. I hope.

[Dutchling]

Because they still exist?

But we don't call the Ottoman citizens "Ottomans", we called them "Turks"...

Doesn't really work with Saudi Arabia since there's tons of Arabs living outside of it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because they still exist?

But we don't call the Ottoman citizens "Ottomans", we called them "Turks"...

I don't know about you, but I've never heard the Ottomans referred to as Turks.

[Descan]

Well, the Ottoman state was sometimes called "The Turk" or "The Great Turk" or something like that, but again, I wasn't and am not talking about the state, but the citizens. The guys on the ground? The people?

They were called "Turkish" or "Turks". Again, not talking about the state. The people. Not the state. The citizens, not the state.

And "Arabian" works just as well, though I'll admit that it could get confused with "Arabs" despite the difference.