Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 68

Thread: the President o f Europe

  1. #41
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoop View Post
    Countries acting out of self interest is a given, actions to secure the interests of other people are very rare. The US is well ahead even with all their mistakes. Don't believe it were americans who colonized half the world, but after WO2 they did pressure european countries to leave their colonies. So policy-wise they have done a lot better than european countries. Also, France still likes to meddle in Africa, they havent stopped.
    What?

    Europe has made a lot better, longer and more sustainable changes around the world. All of eastern Europe has changed massivly, every part of their lives, nothing is the same. Even Turkey who is not a member is embracing ideas the EU puts on it, and so do surrounding countries.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  2. #42
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by Neitzluber View Post
    Some go even way farther back.
    Look at Greece and Turkey...
    There's that, but i was referring more to the Ottoman empire and their hand in the current Arabic/Israeli dispute.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  3. #43
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    They go further back. Many of the geopolitical disputes go back to pre colonial days and are rooted in ancient tribal conflicts.

    Look at Iraq. I know American's would claim that it is all Europe's fault that there are troubles there. Well that is because they dont know the history of the region. While Iraq is a new idea, having a country in the area called Iraq is not. In fact that is where civilization got started. But the conflict is not rooted in colonial issues, but tribal/religious issues that go back far far back in time... long before the European colonial powers carved up the region.

    In Africa most conflicts are between tribes and not countries. The only "colonial era" issues is that the countries were formed after the colonial powers left, and do not take into account tribal boundaries, but the conflicts themselves are not per say because of the countries colonial past. That saying I dont deny that it has some influence on events, but at the core it is far older conflicts we are talking about. The Congo and Rwanda are classic examples.

    The only "colonial" conflicts I can put my finger on are those in South and Central America. They are for the most part not tribal, or natives vs colonialists (although some are), but because Spain did not define the borders well enough when it left its colonies.

    So blame Europe's colonial past for what it actually got wrong, not for what already existed in the area before they got there.
    European Colonialism had a devastating impact on Africa, not to mention the Middle East, South/Central America and the Eurasia region. The tribal conflicts you talk of, from what i know of, have very little relevance with old old conflicts. Most modern day tribal conflicts are as a result of Rebels trying to get their greedy hands on the diamonds and all the other resources the Europeans left behind. But they certainly where not around before the days of colonialism, and if anything, current day boarder disputes between tribes, rebels and the government was because the Europeans didnt define them strongly enough before they took up and left. The Middle East, Cyprus, and Africa are perfect examples of the faults of European colonialism, and the indian boarder dispute with China.

    I remember a friend visiting Palestine once and this man showed him property and legal documents dated from the Ottoman era, there another lot that really screwed things up for everybody.

    Around the world today, intractable conflict is found in many areas that were once colonized or controlled by Western European or Soviet powers (i.e., Africa, the Balkans, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, South America). The source of many of these protracted conflicts, in large part, lies in past colonial or Soviet policies, and especially those regarding territorial boundaries, the treatment of indigenous populations, the privileging of some groups over others, the uneven distribution of wealth, local governmental infrastructures, and the formation of non-democratic or non-participatory governmental systems.

    Western colonial expansion began during the 15th century when Spanish and Portuguese explorers conquered "new" lands in the West Indies and the Americas. It continued for over 400 years, and ended with the start of the first World War. By that time western powers such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Portugal and Spain, spurred on by their competitive desire to acquire new lands and resources.

    Intractable conflicts are found in many areas that were once colonized or controlled by Western European or Soviet powers such as Africa, the Balkans, and Southeast Asia. Most of these conflicts such as the one in Kashmir, Chechnya, and Cyprus are large and complex, and involve multiple issues ranging from human rights to good governance. Imperialist practices and policies, especially those concerning boundaries, ethnic rivalry, the uneven distribution of resources, human-rights violations, and lack of good governance can be found at the heart of protracted problems. For this reason, it is vital that those wishing to transform or resolve protracted conflict, acknowledge the past, and take into account the effects past imperialist policies continue to have on today's post-colonial and post-Soviet societies.

    Granted alot of conflicts pre-date the colonialist era, but id say the worst disputes and the majority of disputes are because of the lovely Europeans. So no point being a European Colonialist apologist, because you do not have my sympathies.
    Last edited by kaya'08; 11-28-09 at 12:41 PM.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  4. #44
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: the President o f Europe

    I agree with Kaya here. Old European capitalism(colonialism) robbed and rubbled Africa, and is still doing it, the difference now is that American capitalism is doing the same, and China has joined in.

    Europe is no longer colonial in the same way, but still use capitalism to rob Africa of any oppertunity to enjoy any economic prosperity, just like the US is robbing them, just like China is doing the same, just like all capitalist socities have their living standards on the back of African suffering.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  5. #45
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    European Colonialism had a devastating impact on Africa, not to mention the Middle East, South/Central America and the Eurasia region. The tribal conflicts you talk of, from what i know of, have very little relevance with old old conflicts. Most modern day tribal conflicts are as a result of Rebels trying to get their greedy hands on the diamonds and all the other resources the Europeans left behind. But they certainly where not around before the days of colonialism, and if anything, current day boarder disputes between tribes, rebels and the government was because the Europeans didnt define them strongly enough before they took up and left.
    On Africa I disagree fully. Almost every conflict in the region has at its core a tribal aspect. Sure they are fighting over resources and land, but when you look at who is on each side, you more than often see tribe vs tribe. Angola, Sudan, Congo, Nigeria, Somalia, and so on. Even the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea is based on tribal issues going back centuries before the Europeans came around. They were fighting back when the Ancient Egyptians ruled the known world.

    The Middle East, Cyprus, and Africa are perfect examples of the faults of European colonialism, and the indian boarder dispute with China.
    Yes the forced formation of Israel is a European and American idea that screwed up the region I agree.

    However the rest I disagree. I have already explained Africa, and concerning the India/China dispute. When India was formed China was in utter chaos and civil war. How exactly could the British "set the border" and not come in conflict with China? They had no one to negotiate with not to mention no GPS

    As for Cyprus. Yes the Ottomans invaded the island and lost it to the Brits centuries later. The Brits gave the island independence for only to have the Turks invade yet again. But the island of Cyprus goes back to ancient times as you should know, and has been independent and ruled under the Romans. Point is, it was not the "colonial" powers that divided the island.. it was the Turks with their invasion in 1974. So blaming colonial powers for the ills of Cyprus today is a bit lame. Guess we have to blame the Romans or even god for destroying the first Cyprus kingdom back in the day with a massive tidal wave...

    I remember a friend visiting Palestine once and this man showed him property and legal documents dated from the Ottoman era, there another lot that really screwed things up for everybody.
    And? Palestine was under Ottoman rule for a long time and before that the Madurks and before that the Crusaders and before that.. you get the picture. How exactly did it "screw" up the region? The area called Palestine/Israel has not been an independent nation for centuries. Do you really expect that those ruling over the area did not have administrative documents? How can it be the fault of the Ottomans that the Israelis refuse to accept such documents? I understand that it could be the fault of the Europeans and US for allowing the formation of Israel, but else I cant see any blame for colonial powers (recent as in within the last 500 years) in that conflict.. it goes back several thousands years after all...

    Western colonial expansion began during the 15th century when Spanish and Portuguese explorers conquered "new" lands in the West Indies and the Americas. It continued for over 400 years, and ended with the start of the first World War. By that time western powers such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Portugal and Spain, spurred on by their competitive desire to acquire new lands and resources.
    That is how things were done for god sake back then, and had been done for centuries before that. No country on this planet has not at one time or another not acted like a colonial power and grabbed land. Turkey did it, Egypt did it, China did it, USA did it, France did it.. heck even the Danes and the Vikings did it. Until WW2 it was the way to expand ones global reach, and gain imports.

    Intractable conflicts are found in many areas that were once colonized or controlled by Western European or Soviet powers such as Africa, the Balkans, and Southeast Asia. Most of these conflicts such as the one in Kashmir, Chechnya, and Cyprus are large and complex, and involve multiple issues ranging from human rights to good governance.
    Yes they are complex I agree, but blaming "Western European" countries for Cyprus is kinda bull****. It was not "Western European" nations that invaded the country and split it in two. As for Kashmir. That conflict goes back centuries. Did the British carving up of India and Pakistan help? Nope, but they also did not start the conflict. Again blaming the British for a conflict that pre-dates their colonial India is just lame. As for Chechnya. I pass on that since I know almost nothing of the area. I see it more as a religious conflict than anything else.. but yes the Russians are acting like colonial bastards.. but hey it is Russia.

    Imperialist practices and policies, especially those concerning boundaries, ethnic rivalry, the uneven distribution of resources, human-rights violations, and lack of good governance can be found at the heart of protracted problems.
    Oh I agree. The way that Europeans handled their colonies did not help. The British were especially arrogant in this area. Not educating the locals, or bringing them into the administration of the territory really screwed things up for the day when independence came. There was simply no technocrats, doctors and so on to run the country once the colonial administration left. On this front I fully agree the Europeans screwed up.

    But saying that the Spanish and Portuguese in South America and Central America often left their colonies in pretty good shape. Now this is mostly due to the fact that the "colonists" out numbered the local population many many times over (if there was any local population left).

    But again we need to take each case individually. In South America for example, there was very few pre-existing "countries" with borders to use as a template when the Europeans left. Hence we have those borders we have today. Since hence there has been conflict between the new countries in South America, conflicts based on resource and land hogging. How can this be the fault of the Europeans? After all those countries are inhabited by most Europeans..

    For this reason, it is vital that those wishing to transform or resolve protracted conflict, acknowledge the past, and take into account the effects past imperialist policies continue to have on today's post-colonial and post-Soviet societies.
    Of course and most European countries do this. We have special relationships with our former colonies allowing them special access to our markets and so on. We still provide aid and in many cases ensure democracy as much as possible. The only one that does not live up to its history of meddling in other peoples affairs is the US. I have yet to hear an American apology for putting Pinochett in power or the various CIA sponsored coups in central and south America.

    Granted alot of conflicts pre-date the colonialist era, but id say the worst disputes and the majority of disputes are because of the lovely Europeans. So no point being a European Colonialist apologist, because you do not have my sympathies.
    Some yes some conflicts but far from all.
    PeteEU

  6. #46
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    I agree with Kaya here. Old European capitalism(colonialism) robbed and rubbled Africa, and is still doing it, the difference now is that American capitalism is doing the same, and China has joined in.

    Europe is no longer colonial in the same way, but still use capitalism to rob Africa of any oppertunity to enjoy any economic prosperity, just like the US is robbing them, just like China is doing the same, just like all capitalist socities have their living standards on the back of African suffering.
    Bull****.

    Africa's problems are as much their own making as it is "outsiders". The lack of political stability is the number one issue for Africa and that political instability is more than often based on rival tribal conflicts with in the country. When Africa stops producing corrupt politicians that kill their own people while stuffing their own pockets with aid money, then Africa will start to come out of the dark ages.

    Most African countries have preferential access to the EU for one.

    That saying, yes outsiders do have an impact on Africa.. we sell them weapons, while wanting their diamonds and resources. There is money in keeping Africa a conflict zone. But that still does not change the fact that Africa also needs to step up to come out of the dark ages.
    PeteEU

  7. #47
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Obviously we have very different takes on what happend here, im not going to spend my time explaining everything to you, but i noticed a few comments i had to correct.

    As for Cyprus. Yes the Ottomans invaded the island and lost it to the Brits centuries later. The Brits gave the island independence for only to have the Turks invade yet again.
    The island of Cyprus was Ottoman sovereign and was only handed to Britain to pay off temporary debts. Naturally, when the Ottoman empire fell, the British receded power over the island. Now, after they left, rather than handing back to Turkey, the previous owner, they handed it to the Greeks and pushed for a sole Greek island after the revolution - which is exactly where the conflict began. The initial idea was to set up agreements and divide the island accordingly with its inhabitants. This became a dream after the EOKA campaign basically bought the UK to its knees, which is where the Zurich agreement comes from. Its this mistake which has led to the current divide on the island.


    But the island of Cyprus goes back to ancient times as you should know, and has been independent and ruled under the Romans. Point is, it was not the "colonial" powers that divided the island.. it was the Turks with their invasion in 1974.
    Rubbish, rather than dividing the island amongst its inhabitants the British unrightfully handed it over to the Greek Cypriot administration after a bitter war which killed tens of thousands of people and plunged the island into a bitter conflict when the Greeks revolvted against British rule. It was then when the Greeks began ethnically cleansing the British inhabitants and Turkish cypriot community of the island. Turkey invaded in 1974 to protect the rights of its diaspora after a Greek back coup led to the illegitemate Greek Cypriot rule over the entire island, effectively destroying the Republic of Cyprus which houses both communities established by Makarios and Dr Fazil Kucuk, and gave more power to the Greeks in political affairs - but hey, they went and messed that up too.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  8. #48
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    Obviously we have very different takes on what happend here, im not going to spend my time explaining everything to you, but i noticed a few comments i had to correct.
    Of course..

    The island of Cyprus was Ottoman sovereign
    Yes from 1570. The 1500+ years before that does not count? That the Romans and its descendents controlled the island for a longer period? That even before that there was human activity on the island, human activity that in part formed the future of ancient Greece? Where do you want to stop?

    Like it or not using ancient claims is just bull****. It is bull**** in Israel, and it is bull**** in Cyprus and every where else. It is nothing but an excuse to keep an ancient conflict going between sects, tribes or ancient peoples for no other reason than to have a conflict and an "enemy".

    and was only handed to Britain to pay off temporary debts. Naturally, when the Ottoman empire fell, the British receded power over the island. Now, after they left, rather than handing back to Turkey, the previous owner, they handed it to the Greeks and pushed for a sole Greek island after the revolution - which is exactly where the conflict began. The initial idea was to set up agreements and divide the island accordingly with its inhabitants. This became a dream after the EOKA campaign basically bought the UK to its knees, which is where the Zurich agreement comes from. Its this mistake which has led to the current divide on the island.
    If you wanted it back to Turkey, then what is your claim? That Turkey under the Ottoman Empire controlled the island from 1570 to 1878?

    Why not to the Greeks or the Italians? Since both controlled the Island before the Turks.

    As I said, ancient claims to a territory is just stupid since it is done selectively for political reasons.

    Rubbish, rather than dividing the island amongst its inhabitants the British unrightfully handed it over to the Greek Cypriot administration after a bitter war which killed tens of thousands of people and plunged the island into a bitter conflict when the Greeks revolvted against British rule. It was then when the Greeks began ethnically cleansing the British inhabitants and Turkish cypriot community of the island. Turkey invaded in 1974 to protect the rights of its diaspora after a Greek back coup led to the illegitemate Greek Cypriot rule over the entire island, effectively destroying the Republic of Cyprus which houses both communities established by Makarios and Dr Fazil Kucuk, and gave more power to the Greeks in political affairs - but hey, they went and messed that up too.
    No offence but your take of the historical facts is rather tainted by your Turkish background, but that is expected.

    Both sides were bastards and both sides did ethnic cleansing. But that conflict goes back to the Greek vs Ottoman Empire issues, and I would claim even further back to the old Byzantine Empire and its fall and even before that. It is not a "colonial" fault at all. Sure the Brits could have handled it better, but when it comes down to things, it is part of the age old conflict between Greece and Turkey going back to the Byzantine Empire and before.
    PeteEU

  9. #49
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Yes from 1570. The 1500+ years before that does not count? That the Romans and its descendents controlled the island for a longer period? That even before that there was human activity on the island, human activity that in part formed the future of ancient Greece? Where do you want to stop?
    No actually, they dont count.
    These are two very different situations.
    The Ottomans obtained Cyprus from the Byzantines first of all, not the Romans, with a fair contest of war. There was no revolt, there was no ethnic cleansing or opression: it was a war, man and man, sword and sword, blood for blood. The Greek's didnt even have that much to offer in the 70's leading up to the war. Instead they embarked on a mission to opress the island's minorities (hence the mass immigration of cypriots to Britain) and the British personnel on the island to unite the Island under Greece sovereign. It was Greek Cyprus fighting a civil war essentially against its own people with the backing of the mainland.

    Like it or not using ancient claims is just bull****. It is bull**** in Israel, and it is bull**** in Cyprus and every where else. It is nothing but an excuse to keep an ancient conflict going between sects, tribes or ancient peoples for no other reason than to have a conflict and an "enemy".
    Where the hell are you getting ancient claims from?
    The Turks liberated there opressed diaspora after an illegal Greek backed coup, does it not occur to you the Turks sat and bit there lip when all this was going on? Do you think ethnic cleansing began DURING 1974? It was going on for a good 30 years before that. Considering the Turks are a minority by far, i can bet your ass the fight was less than fair.

    If you wanted it back to Turkey, then what is your claim? That Turkey under the Ottoman Empire controlled the island from 1570 to 1878?
    Sorry i cant understand what your saying. And no cypriots dont want that. On the contrary they wanted peace (annan plan come to mind?) something the Greek cypriots rejected. Now, they are seeking a two state solution.

    Why not to the Greeks or the Italians? Since both controlled the Island before the Turks.
    Again, fair contest of war? I never heard of Ottomans wiping the Greeks clean and throwing a coup together. It was obtained with national force, and they arose victorious, do you think Denmark was yours before you came along? Of course not.

    As I said, ancient claims to a territory is just stupid since it is done selectively for political reasons.
    You have misunderstood, no ancient claims where made. This has nothing to do with historical claims, this has to do with the fact that the minority of Cyprus was severly opressed and it was Turkey's right as a gaurentee power to liberate the island. And she did just that.

    No offence but your take of the historical facts is rather tainted by your Turkish background, but that is expected.
    Im sorry, but that is offence. To correct your quote, id say you have been subject to severe Greek orthodox propaganda and whatever other crap the ECHR has made you believe. I no fully well the Turks are no better in the scheme of things, but just allow me to bring this point foward because it seems that when it comes to Cyprus, Turkey is the bad guy here.

    Both sides were bastards and both sides did ethnic cleansing. But that conflict goes back to the Greek vs Ottoman Empire issues, and I would claim even further back to the old Byzantine Empire and its fall and even before that. It is not a "colonial" fault at all.
    Of course, Taksim was just as bloody as Enosis, but one has to look at the conflict on the island and realize it was actually the Greeks who first took up arms and destroyed the Republic of Cyprus that the Turks where more than content with despite the fact that it was less than equal power sharing.

    Sure the Brits could have handled it better, but when it comes down to things, it is part of the age old conflict between Greece and Turkey going back to the Byzantine Empire and before.
    Whatever way you put it, European colonialism.
    Last edited by kaya'08; 11-29-09 at 10:25 AM.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  10. #50
    In a house by the river
    MetalGear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Denmark, Grena
    Last Seen
    05-16-11 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,233

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Kaya couldnt have put it better myself.

    Good going brother. It dont help the UN are a bunch of hypocritical idiots. Northern Cyprus is one of the most liberal majority Muslim nations there is. Unions can go on strike unlike Turkey, Northern Cyprus has a seperate state body ensuring the rights of the minority of Cyprus is protected aswell as the indivisual unlike Turkey, Northern Cyprus spends more money restoring Churches for Christians than it does on Mosques, something Turkey doesnt even do or allow Greeks to pray on the North to get back at them from Greek hostility, Northern Cyprus has almost an equal number of women politicians in Parliament than men, something Turkey is struggling with, and the government openly supports gay rights in the workplace and there is even debate to legalize gay marriage. And what does it get in return from the UN, the universal promoter of peace and stability? The embargo and the middle finger, when it should be recieving international praise and subsidization.
    Last edited by MetalGear; 11-29-09 at 10:44 AM.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •