Russia invades Georgia

[Matteo Martini]

Most people consider their countrymen to be worth more than anyone else's. It's natural.

Maybe, but they do not invade other countries (Iraq, Vietnam..) and cause deaths in the thousands for this reason.

It's not a very good explanation for why Americans are hated though. They're hated primarily because the rest of the world is jealous. It's always the way.

Jealous of.. what?
Of the nukes that America has?

 

[gumboot]

Maybe, but they do not invade other countries (Iraq, Vietnam..) and cause deaths in the thousands for this reason.

I don't think that "we're better than anyone else" is the primary reason for them invading. America supported the invasion of Iraq because it felt threatened by Iraq. You can argue the validity of Iraq's threat, the nature of threat, or even if the Americans should have considered them a threat at all, but it's irrefutable that's why they did it.

As for Vietnam... the USA never entered North Vietnam, so it would be the first case in history of an army invading a country without entering it.

Jealous of.. what?
Of the nukes that America has?

Well some might be, but no, I doubt that's a major factor. Money of course. It's always about money. Deep down inside even the most die hard communist is a capitalist pig. That's why humans sometimes disgust me so much.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Certainly the people at the top of the pile had things better off, but they always do. The Empire allowed trade though, and it allowed stability, so that people could do much better. Tax rates were much better controlled than they were elsewhere.

Is the control over tax rate an index of how happy a population is?

You're acting like people outside the Empire were living in some sort of magical wonderland of freedom and joy.

Putting words into my mouth

The reality is most people in those days were living in someone akin to slavery anyway, under the heel of a petty local war lord, starving to death, likely to be overrun and slaughtered at a moment's notice by the warlord the next valley over.

The fact that the Empire was better isn't so much a reflection of how good the Empire was, but how much worse it was to be outside the Empire.

Still to see evidence about all this

Then your studies in high school are mistaken.

Oh, good.
I have to learn about history of the Roman Empire from a guy from.. New Zealand?

This is incorrect. Roman slaves did have rights, and gained more rights as the Empire progressed. They even had the right to redress for wrongs committed against them by their master. Many Romans treated their slaves better than their own children.

From Encyclopaedia Britannica:
An owner could kill his slave with impunity in Homeric Greece, ancient India, the Roman Republic, Han China, Islamic countries, Anglo-Saxon England, medieval Russia, and many parts of the American South before 1830.
http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24164
You are living in the land of fairy tales, are not you?

Anyone who tried to rebel against anyone in those day got killed in a cruel way. Bringing up the Third Servile War just highlights your ignorance of slavery - Spartacus and his original followers were Gladiators, and Gladiators consisted of condemned criminals and prisoners of war. They were thought of as slaves, but they were essentially people sentenced to death. Spartacus was a former Roman soldier who had deserted and had been caught and condemned to death (like all deserters).

Good.
You are saying that "Anyone who tried to rebel against anyone in those day got killed in a cruel way" and then you claim that life as a slave was not so bad.
Pleeeeeeeeeeeease!!

Spartacus' army came from the lowest slave ranks (and it's not clear how many of them were even slaves) and slaves were treated much more harshly during the Republic than the Empire. Particularly, in those days the wealthy Roman land owners used slaves on the latifundia (farms).

Does not change my point one bit.

As for the motives of the slavers, it's not entirely known, but Kubrick's interpretation of Spartacus as a freedom fighter is wholly fantasy. The Slaves made not the slightest effort to free other slaves or bring reform - they simply raged across the country side pillaging, and almost certainly killed thousands of slaves themselves.

And that is a prove of.. what?
Slavery under the Roman was a decent condition?

Most of the slaves that were killed in what was a war were killed in battle, so there was nothing particularly cruel about how they died. They had ample opportunity to leave Italy, and some historians report that the army split and a large body did cross the Alps. Only about 6,000 were crucified,.

I like this sentence!!
Only about 6,000 were crucified
That makes a pair with the other one, only 2000 people died in South Ossetia

which was hardly an uncommon punishment to receive from the Romans, slave or not

Mostly for slaves, not for Roman citizens
Crucifixion was used for slaves, rebels, pirates and especially-despised enemies and criminals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

What you're ignoring, of course, is what happened in the years after this. Firstly, the use of slaves for farming stopped - the latifundia started using freemen in sharedcropping agreements. Secondly, slaves gained more and more rights over time - for example if a slave was mistreated by a master, that master could be forced to sell them. If a master killed a slave without justification it was considered murder. Slaves could appeal to a third party if mistreated by their owners. A slave that was abandoned became a freeman. And so on.

Which means that, during the years of the Republic, if a master killed a slave without justification it was NOT considered murder?

This makes no sense whatsoever in response to my point that Romans would voluntarily sell themselves in to slavery. How can choosing to do something be compared in any way whatsoever to rape? I'm merely highlighting that the modern concept of "slave" and the Roman concept of "slave" are simply not the same.

Maybe they were people who could not pay off their debts and had no other choice

Children were at the mercy of their fathers too. We're at the mercy of our employers.

Can your employer kill you?

"At the mercy of" does not mean "were mistreated by". Most Roman slaves (of the non condemned variety) were treated pretty well by their owners. An owner who didn't treat their slaves well could face bankruptcy very quickly.

??
Daydreaming at maximum level

I'm not saying anything remotely like that.

No, I'm not dreaming. You don't seem to have the slightest understanding of how Roman conquest worked. Examples like Carthage were the exception, not the rule. Monotheistic religions don't need to suppress foreign cultures, particularly not Roman religion which associated Gods with places. Most often they'd come along and go "We call the God of War Mars, what do you call him?" Or they'd say things like "What God lives in that River?" The Roman religion was based on numen and this by its nature recognised foreign Gods. Foreign Gods would even be followed by Romans - the Cults of Isis and Mithras were two of the most popular amongst Romans by the 4th Century and neither were Roman Gods.

You do not understand a heck about the Roman Empire.
It has been built over the blood, and over the tears of slaves.
It was not a non-profit organization for the development of the world.
Why do you think so many population fought to death against them in order not to surrender?

I'd find the experience fascinating. I'd rather live as a Senator's slave (during the Empire that is) than as a regular pleb, or god forbid a legionary. Perhaps you'd join me, and we could both learn a thing or two.

You go ahead.

 

[Matteo Martini]

(most American soldiers in Vietnam were conscripts, yet when in combat 98% fired their weapons at the enemy).

Up to a point.
I guess you would not have faced death penalty if you refused to go to Vietnam

 

[Matteo Martini]

I don't think that "we're better than anyone else" is the primary reason for them invading. America supported the invasion of Iraq because it felt threatened by Iraq. You can argue the validity of Iraq's threat, the nature of threat, or even if the Americans should have considered them a threat at all, but it's irrefutable that's why they did it.

Good excuse.
If a country feels "threatened" by another country (whether it is a real threat or not it does not matter) it is OK for them to invade/nuke the other country.

As for Vietnam... the USA never entered North Vietnam, so it would be the first case in history of an army invading a country without entering it.

They entered South Vietnam and made up a mess.
Call it as you like.

Well some might be, but no, I doubt that's a major factor. Money of course. It's always about money. Deep down inside even the most die hard communist is a capitalist pig. That's why humans sometimes disgust me so much.

BS.
Why nobody hates Norway?

 

[Cuddles]

OK, this thread is far too long for me to go through picking out posts, so here's a general warning. Everyone stop the personal attacks and insults and keep it on topic otherwise the whole thread will end up in AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Wire]

Also, some sources claim that the death toll of civilians in SO is 2000+: Moscow accused the Georgian armed forces of causing 2,000 deaths among civilians

I wouldn't hold much faith in Moscow's claims. International observers are only now reaching the area. (HRW).

 

[moon1969]

Dmitry Medvedev will not give up that easily. In Russia a leader is not viewed as good or bad, a leader in Russia is viewed as weak or strong. The hole situation is also a major challenge to the leadership of Mikheil Saakashvili.

 

[PogoPedant]

BS.
Why nobody hates Norway?

Cause we're lovely and beautiful and generous and humble and intelligent.

 

[Darth Rotor]

"Crash the ecnomy (of geni's country, UK, with high price of oil.

Yours as well, be it Italy or Japan.

AFAIR, the major political force in Pakistan is linked to Islam.

That would be only natural, as most Pakistanis are Muslims. Pakistan refers to itself officially as "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan." (See its formation out of the British empire on the Sub Continent for why that makes sense.)

Whether they are radical or not I do not know,

We have the internet. The political lines should not be characterized too simplistically, but there seems to be a highland lowland split in how Islam spread and settled into the various parts of what we call Pakistan. A modern outcome of that is a significant density of Islamist sentiment in the highlands.


Provinces:
1. Balochistan 2. North-West Frontier Province (NWFP)(Include tribal areas)
3. Punjab 4. Sindh
Territories:
5. Islamabad Capital Territory 6. Federally Administered Tribal Areas
7. Azad Kashmir 8. Northern Areas

A quick summary from Wiki, not to be considered exhaustive:

Most of them follow Madhab, the schools of jurisprudence (also 'Maktab-e-Fikr' (School of Thought) in Urdu).Nearly 79% of Pakistani Muslims are Sunni Muslims and The great majority of Sunni Muslims in Pakistan belong to the Barelvi sub-sect which is especially strong in the countryside of the Punjab and Sind where the bulk of the population resides and the feudal social structures are still intact.
Nearly all Pakistani Sunni Muslims belong to Hanafi school.By one estimate, Muslims in Pakistan are divided into following schools:
the Barelvis 70%, Deobandis 20%, Ithna Ashari 9%, Ahle Hadith 1%, Ismailis 3%, Bohras 0.25%, and other smaller sects.

Nearly 20% of pakistani are Shi'a Muslims. --snip--. 5 % Christian, Hindu, Sikh, etc.

Radical Islamic themes will crop up more often in some schools of Islam than others, but the Barelvis (70% of the population) seem less inclined in that direction. Once you cross into the northerwestern highlands, it is more appealing, the radical, actually reactionary, version of Islam.

purely they are not pro-America, considering that the vast majority of the Pakistani is definitely not pro-America

Aye. Politics makes for strange bedfellows due to circumstances that call for collective aims of one sort or another. There is not need for a country to be "pro American" in order for America to work with them. See France for an example . . .

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

You too have not changed so much.. the good ol` DR!!
Good seeing you too again.

BTW, noted that you did not address the point

What point? Cricket bats don't have points.

Everybody dislikes American as you are so smart and brilliant while the rest of the world is crap.

What in the name of San Genarro is that supposed to mean?

Remember that Iran is getting nuclear power, and you can not do anything to stop them, and Musharraf is getting impeached, and after him there will be an Islamic goovernment (Pakistan has some 50 nukes around)

OK, pay attention: for the past two years I have expressed a studied indifference to Iran getting nuclear weapons and nuclear power, on this series of forums. "You can do nothing" isn't something I am exercised about, though plenty of EU governments seem to be more concerned than you, as is the US government. I am not George Bush, so try not to talk to me as though I am.

The impeachment of Musharraf is fine with me. It means Pakistan's political system is working well enough.

and after him there will be an Islamic goovernment

Your crystal ball gazing is noted, and rejected. See my post above, with the maps, for why I find your brief sound byte of little use.

That Pakistan has nukes merely makes things more interesting, especially for India. George Carlin, the comedian, once noted that combining centuries old hatreds with nuclear weapons was bound to be entertaining. Lethally so, perhaps, in the case of India and Pakistan. They may both be playing the deterrent game.

@ egslim: nuclear weapons have not taken war off the table. From 1945 to present, conventional war has done a booming business all over the globe, as has the non traditional, and conventional, forms of rebellion, insurgency, and so on. All the nukes did was take a particular option of industrialized slaughter and makes its cost, and its opportunity cost, prohibitive.

As to hard and soft power, hard power has generally been, over the course of history, the second or third option. Your pretense that the relationship between the two has changed is empty: the richest nations, who have the most advanced means of industrial age slaughter to hand are also the ones who have the most to lose, and so continue with the general historical pattern of war/force as a last resort after soft power is attempted.

This hard power: it's bloody expensive when chosen, no matter your century. Of course soft power is more often the tool used, it's a cost benefit winner in most cases. Having recourse to hard power, be it latent or an over threat, also opens options when applying suasion to achieve an end.

DR

 

[geni]

Maybe, but they do not invade other countries (Iraq, Vietnam..) and cause deaths in the thousands for this reason.

Err yes we did. Heck we invented Iraq. We were killing kurds before sadam was born. Vietnam? French Indochina. You don't think france got that without some killing.

Jealous of.. what?
Of the nukes that America has?

Power and influence mostly.

 

[geni]

And Iran can bomb the strait of Ormutz today and send the price of oil to 300USD-400USD a barrel.
That will crash your economy.

It would make a dent in it yes but the UK produces more oil that most western contries.

AFAIR, the major political force in Pakistan is linked to Islam.
Whether they are radical or not I do not know, surely they are not pro-America, considering that the vast majority of the Pakistani is definitely not pro-America

Pakistan Peoples Party is islamic yes but not fundimentalist (their leader has been a woman at times). Their politics are fairly standard less wing stuff.

 

[geni]

Again.
You were replying to my post:

2000+ deaths in South Ossetia
2900+ deaths on Sept. 11
I do not see much difference.
Do I?

Go back and look at the post that was repying to.

 

[Tailgater]

Matteo,

If you want to go through your usual 911, Iraq, and US talking points points that are about as refreshing from you as a gas station bathroom, get a thread already. This ones taken.

ETA: "it's all about the oil man!!"

 

[Whiplash]

That makes a good explanation about why Americans are so much hated.

A great many Americans don't give a damn, and shouldn't.

 

[geni]

You mean that we have to be afraid of an invasion of South Korea to Japan (or the other way around) on the issue?

Japan would argue that south korea had already invaded.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's the Middle East, the Gulf, the Hindu Kush and the Sea of Japan sorted out then. Meanwhile, back in the Caucasus ...

It appears the Russians have got a grip in Gori and are working alongside Georgian police to maintain law and order. Which is a good thing. US military boots are on the ground in a purely humanitarian role, something which the Russians are encouraging. Plans are being made for the Russian withdrawal in an orderly manner; you can't rush these things, comrade.

The US threats of Russia's diplomatic isolation remind me of a famous newspaper headline : "Fog in Channel, Continent Isolated."

 

[geni]

US military boots are on the ground in a purely humanitarian role, something which the Russians are encouraging.

Yes and no they seem to be a little jumpy about what exactly has is being shipped.

 

[dudalb]

That's the Middle East, the Gulf, the Hindu Kush and the Sea of Japan sorted out then. Meanwhile, back in the Caucasus ...

It appears the Russians have got a grip in Gori and are working alongside Georgian police to maintain law and order. Which is a good thing. US military boots are on the ground in a purely humanitarian role, something which the Russians are encouraging. Plans are being made for the Russian withdrawal in an orderly manner; you can't rush these things, comrade.

The US threats of Russia's diplomatic isolation remind me of a famous newspaper headline : "Fog in Channel, Continent Isolated."

Why do you have such a love affair for Putin.guy?