|
| Thread: America is corrupted |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Sumsum
Adventuring Hero
|
posted October 05, 2016 12:26 AM |
|
|
markkur said:
I've always been a history-nut
Define history. You were talking about the past, but ALSO the present
Doesn't talking about the present make you a citizenship-nut ?
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 09:02 AM |
|
|
AlHazin said:
Actually analysts say the opposite, it is said that the time wi're living is the one with the fewer conflicts ever, comparing to the ages before. And that it's just the mediatization that sometimes makes one think that the world is on fire.
Which analysts, provide sources please.
|
|
Sumsum
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 09:11 AM |
|
Edited by Sumsum at 09:12, 05 Oct 2016.
|
Zenofex said:
AlHazin said:
Actually analysts say the opposite, it is said that the time wi're living is the one with the fewer conflicts ever, comparing to the ages before. And that it's just the mediatization that sometimes makes one think that the world is on fire.
Which analysts, provide sources please.
Right. You are either too young, or either too blind to see how many conflicts happen today. Not only the conflicts that happen in Africa, where 55% of their countries are leading a war, in politics war happen everyday, with new laws released, they are just obstacles for the enemies of the president or the current government, since when they come to power, it will be harder to change the law, and might not even make sense to the population resulting in a riot, etc.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 10:38 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:39, 05 Oct 2016.
|
Zenofex said:
AlHazin said:
Actually analysts say the opposite, it is said that the time wi're living is the one with the fewer conflicts ever, comparing to the ages before. And that it's just the mediatization that sometimes makes one think that the world is on fire.
Which analysts, provide sources please.
First one that pops in my head is Yuval Harari who started out as a military historian. (His works: Special Operations in the Age of Chivalry, 1100–1550;[4] The Ultimate Experience: Battlefield Revelations and the Making of Modern War Culture, 1450–2000;[5] “The Concept of ‘Decisive Battles’ in World History”;[6] and “Armchairs, Coffee and Authority: Eye-witnesses and Flesh-witnesses Speak about War, 1100-2000”.)
From the book Sapiens:
"International wars became rare only after 1945, largely thanks to the new threat of nuclear annihilation. Hence, though the last few decades have been an unprecedented golden age for humanity, it is too early to know whether this represents a fundamental shift in the currents of history or an ephemeral eddy of good fortune. When judging modernity, it is all too tempting to take the viewpoint of a twenty-first-century middle-class Westerner. We must not forget the viewpoints of a nineteenth-century Welsh coal miner, Chinese opium addict or Tasmanian Aborigine. Truganini is no less important than Homer Simpson.
Secondly, even the brief golden age of the last half-century may turn out to have sown the seeds of future catastrophe. Over the last few decades, we have been disturbing the ecological equilibrium of our planet in myriad new ways, with what seem likely to be dire consequences. A lot of evidence indicates that we are destroying the foundations of human prosperity in an orgy of reckless consumption."
There was a longer chapter about wars getting rarer after WW II but I couldn't track it down right away.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 10:58 AM |
|
|
@Samsum, who are you addressing exactly?
@artu, by "the times we are living" I understand the post-Cold War years. Maybe differences in perception. Due to MAD and the bipolar allignment of the world powers in general, the Cold War years are relatively stable with nothing like one entire region in turmoil. In terms of security, particularly in typically "safe" areas like Europe, the situation is certainly worse than in the 80s. The fact that we have not had a World War recently hardly justifies putting on the pink glasses.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 11:11 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:13, 05 Oct 2016.
|
Well, the original post that he (AlHazin) replied to specified the period as post WW II:
Markkur said:
I've always been a history-nut and after years of studying WWI and WWI and the build-up to both wars, what has hit me hard in the last decade is that with the end of WWII, is that the world never went back to true peacetime.
My quote directly talks about post WW II times, too, concluding the opposite. I would hardly define his cautious position as "putting on pink glasses." The thing is, wars were really much more common before.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 03:15 PM |
|
Edited by AlHazin at 15:32, 05 Oct 2016.
|
Well for the source, it was an analyst in the french TV channel of 24/7 news. Forgot his name sorry, it was years ago.
It is clear that many conflicts exist and are not taking a pacification way, that's for sure, but if you compare today's situation to what it was in any age, you'll still find it more peaceful.
As for the 80s safety, I don't agree that much. In the cold war period, there were communist terrorist organizations, I may cite Action Direct in France, along with the basque "resistance" for independance from France or Spain, such organizations don't exist anymore, they tend to dissapear and not getting replaced. Even the FARC have stopped war against the Colombian government, Tamoul in Sri Lanka. Same goes for Africa, conflicts are less terrible than what they were. Even in RDC where human life is not that precious to government, the situation is hard yeah, but it is nothing compared to the Zaïrisation that the country passed through some decades ago.
I'm convinced that in Europe and the world globally the situation is getting safer. Now if you think I'm wrong the only way to know is to compare numbers.
Again, what the media shows is not always true, or it might be, but the degree differs, they tend to amplify, or minimize. And for that I might be certain cause we've been raised in a way to never trust them.
@Edit : Please check this, it's in french and german, not english sorry. If I have time I could try to translate if you want.
http://ddc.arte.tv/nos-cartes/l-etat-de-la-guerre
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 03:41 PM |
|
|
|
I find it pretty simplistic to determine that the world has become "safer" because there are less wars than before (which is only true if you pick, rather arbitrarily, a certain historical period and name it "before"). You know it very well that a single war nowadays can be hundreds of times more destructive than a hundred wars a century ago if it ever starts (when World War I began, everybody thought that Austro-Hungaria will crush Serbia in a month and that will be all, just as a reminder how easily something can be gravely underestimated). The overall security of Europe has been visibly deteriorating for the last several years while the roots for that situation can be traced several decades back, sometimes even as far as the colonial times. And I'm not talking only about the occasional terror attacks, they are only the tip of the iceberg. There is no solution for any of the conflicts in the Middle East anywhere near the horizon, no real policy how to handle the emmigrants and refugees arriving in Europe, no common, let alone efficient policy toward Russia, zero attention toward the problems in Africa which already start spreading outside of the continent, the US has two dangerously bad candidates for the presidential office.... Frankly you don't have to take the role of a doomsayer to see that things are not really developing very well. If anything, the media is silent about at least as many issues as it is vocal about others.
|
|
Sumsum
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 04:34 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
@Samsum, who are you addressing exactly?
Was adressing AlHazin. My bad for the double quote 
____________
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 04:35 PM |
|
|
AlHazin said:
Actually analysts say the opposite, it is said that the time wi're living is the one with the fewer conflicts ever, comparing to the ages before. And that it's just the mediatization that sometimes makes one think that the world is on fire.
The world was close to all-out nuclear war several times after the end of WWII and it was mutual-destruction that kept us from another huge war. However, I was not talking Peace w/o major wars or numbers of dead -stats, I was talking about true Peace without spending the masses money on spying, weapons of war. interventions, etc. That is no Peacetime world...to me.
And as far as mediatization,...I think the word Propaganda didn't need replacing. State-Owned news or Person-owned-that- m/l controls the State are all the same. Truth is generally out of sight unless it supports a State/Elitist requirement...whatever that may be.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 04:40 PM |
|
|
Sumsum said:
markkur said:
I've always been a history-nut
Define history. You were talking about the past, but ALSO the present
Doesn't talking about the present make you a citizenship-nut ?
You can call-yourself a present-nut if you wish. History-nut is just slang for someone that enjoys the study of History a great deal. However, if I am all about now than I only care about the Present...which by the way is both "this time" and "a gift" since I did not earn it.
|
|
Sumsum
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 05:17 PM |
|
|
markkur said:
You can call-yourself a present-nut if you wish. History-nut is just slang for someone that enjoys the study of History a great deal. However, if I am all about now than I only care about the Present...which by the way is both "this time" and "a gift" since I did not earn it.
Well, that's nice :3
____________
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 05:54 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
You know it very well that a single war nowadays can be hundreds of times more destructive than a hundred wars a century ago if it ever starts.
It can, but it isn't. America just uses drones and no american casualty. As for the populations, to really be able to say that, we need numbers.
Zenofex said:
There is no solution for any of the conflicts in the Middle East anywhere near the horizon, no real policy how to handle the emmigrants and refugees arriving in Europe...
Middle East problems were created, and I will avoid to go deeper in that subject. As for refugees in Europe, European countries are not taking the most of them. Great Bretain only received 8000 refugees from the syrian war since 2011, Jordan received 455000. So no, Europe is not getting invaded or anything, cause it's Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan that take the most of them, evidently the media won't show you images of these migrants going to these country, it will just show you a ship full of refugees and lets you understand what they want you to and begin your psychose.
Zenofex said:
Frankly you don't have to take the role of a doomsayer to see that things are not really developing very well. If anything, the media is silent about at least as many issues as it is vocal about others.
Possible. It just tends to serve a lord or another.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 06:02 PM |
|
|
AlHazin said:
As for refugees in Europe, European countries are not taking the most of them. Great Bretain only received 8000 refugees from the syrian war since 2011, Jordan received 455000.
Dude, what are you talking about? Germany took 1 million. France is taking 150 000 (middle east origins) EVERY year, and this for 25 years consecutive and translate it as "regular immigration" to hide the truth. The word "refugee" should be banned as it hijacks the analysis, 95% of those people are coming in Europe for the welfare.
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 06:05 PM |
|
Edited by AlHazin at 18:10, 05 Oct 2016.
|
Salamandre said:
AlHazin said:
As for refugees in Europe, European countries are not taking the most of them. Great Bretain only received 8000 refugees from the syrian war since 2011, Jordan received 455000.
Dude, what are you talking about? Germany took 1 million. France is taking 150 000 (middle east origins) EVERY year, and this for 25 years consecutive and translate it as "regular immigration" to hide the truth. The word "refugee" should be banned as it hijacks the analysis, 95% of those people are coming in Europe for the welfare.
The numbers I gave are given by France. Didn't invent them.
Edit : The numbers are just for the syrian war since 2011.
|
|
Sumsum
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 06:20 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
EVERY year, and this for 25 years consecutive and translate it as "regular immigration" to hide the truth. The word "refugee" should be banned as it hijacks the analysis, 95% of those people are coming in Europe for the welfare.
Well, they are not just gonna sit on their lazy butts all day, like the people who were born here do. They are not gonna stay and relax like mostly every EDCs' citizens nowadays. And if they do, for how long ? I live in the UK, and a lot of people I know have lived on benefits for up to a year, before they were forced to work or leave.
And to be honest, most of the immigrants, at least here, are stacked up in a place. Barely 1% out of the GB's 80 Million Citizens are immigrants. And to be honest, out of all these bad decisions that Britain takes (E.G Leaving EU, although even if you spend 250M/week you will receive more in infrastructure, education, NHS etc), Britain has made their words heard, and no-one is allowed to stay on benefits for long. If France didn't adopt this system yet, kind of bad, and Germany has some of the most influential and powerful people (E.G Angela Merkel) which might as well put pressure on the immigrants to work. So it doesn't matter if they come for welfare it's pointless.
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 06:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It can, but it isn't. America just uses drones and no american casualty. As for the populations, to really be able to say that, we need numbers.
Really now, drones? Drones hit what, training dummies? Whatever. The conventional weapons are far more destructive than during World War II but it's not them I'm talking about.
Quote:
Middle East problems were created, and I will avoid to go deeper in that subject.
So? How does that change the fact that they need to be resolved to have anything resebling stability in the region and beyond.
Quote:
As for refugees in Europe, European countries are not taking the most of them.
So far it has taken less than half of the refugees from Syria alone to seriously shake the EU and make the populists shine all across Europe at the expense of the moderate politicians, the latter being unable to offer any solutions and relying on overused slogans to cover that inability. It's not the number that is important, it's the fact that it takes so little to wreak havoc in an international union built for decades. Any sort of "anti-" radicalization in Europe can only have very bad consequences and the more the emmigrants are, the higher the chances are for something like that to happen. That doesn't even take Africa into account.
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 07:10 PM |
|
Edited by AlHazin at 19:11, 05 Oct 2016.
|
Zenofex said:
Quote:
It can, but it isn't. America just uses drones and no american casualty. As for the populations, to really be able to say that, we need numbers.
Really now, drones? Drones hit what, training dummies? Whatever. The conventional weapons are far more destructive than during World War II but it's not them I'm talking about.
Numbers.
Quote:
Middle East problems were created, and I will avoid to go deeper in that subject.
So? How does that change the fact that they need to be resolved to have anything resebling stability in the region and beyond.
They won't be solved cause sometimes, problems serve nations' interests. Fake problems are known have no solutions, they just have to stop being created.
Quote:
As for refugees in Europe, European countries are not taking the most of them.
So far it has taken less than half of the refugees from Syria alone to seriously shake the EU and make the populists shine all across Europe at the expense of the moderate politicians, the latter being unable to offer any solutions and relying on overused slogans to cover that inability. It's not the number that is important, it's the fact that it takes so little to wreak havoc in an international union built for decades. Any sort of "anti-" radicalization in Europe can only have very bad consequences and the more the emmigrants are, the higher the chances are for something like that to happen. That doesn't even take Africa into account.
Weakness of european political unity isn't caused by the emmigrants, is it? That an internal european problem. If europeans countries wanted to close border to non-choosen immigration they'd have done it, you are not going to tell me that countries lost total sovereignty or something. No one's naive, every country has diffrent needs and acts accordingly.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 07:16 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
So far it has taken less than half of the refugees from Syria alone to seriously shake the EU
No, is not about Syrian refugees, but about a crazy immigration politic the big employers lobbies preached during decades, to keep wages low. Or this immigration being almost unidirectional, from Africa toward Europe, today the conflicts between two secular cultures are at top as the "multiculturalism" lost its original sense, the recent polls which literally shake the french show that several millions of Muslims (30%, yet the total numbers are constantly hidden as the fact of counting them is criminalized) would prefer to replace the republican laws by Sharia laws, and also that more than 50% of the youth issued from this immigration is radicalized. This is scary when you put in equation the carnage (300 killed) only a few of them were able to carry in the last year.
The Syrian refugees are the last drop which lighted the fire, because then people realized that the nightmare they already lived for years is only the beginning. And no, the politicians allowing this are not "moderate", they are irresponsible. Moderate doesn't mean ignoring the laws, or polls show that less than 2% of the people denied from asylum rights are actually sent back. So basically everyone remains in, no matter he is a refugee for real or not.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 05, 2016 07:58 PM |
|
|
AlHazin said:
Numbers.
What numbers?
Quote:
They won't be solved cause sometimes, problems serve nations' interests. Fake problems are known have no solutions, they just have to stop being created.
I though we were talking about how (un)safe the world is nowadays, not how politics work.
Quote:
Weakness of european political unity isn't caused by the emmigrants, is it? That an internal european problem. If europeans countries wanted to close border to non-choosen immigration they'd have done it, you are not going to tell me that countries lost total sovereignty or something. No one's naive, every country has diffrent needs and acts accordingly.
You are not following, are you? The fact that a small number of emmigrants compared to what the EU can handle managed to destabilize it so much that politicians and analysts who say that the whole union is in peril are no longer considered clowns speaks volumes. The issues which created that internal instability existed for many years but remained under the surface during the times of economic prosperity, as it usually happens (that's also to Sal, I know that these things did not appear overnight). For the last few years Europe has been leaning toward fragmentation, not unity and that decreases the overall security. I can't see how this makes the world a safer place.
|
| |
|
|
