Paris attacks - ongoing

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Atomkilla, Nov 13, 2015.

  1. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    We are talking here about a relatively short time frame though, like the last 50-60 years, more or less. Poverty, famines, epidemics etc. have been relatively common even in Germany, Britain and France 150 years ago, many of the things we see today one way or another in other nations.

    This incredible large garb we see today is relatively new. And I would say a lot of it has to do with the cold war and WW2. But that's just a guess. The world was divided for the most part between two super powers, and eventually, depending on which side you ended up, had a lot do with your future. See west and east Germany. The Soviets lost. So did many of their satelite states with them.

    That's why I feel this has more to do with luck. Again. In 150 years our children might be all trying to escape to Russia and China. Do you know it? I don't. History tells us that empires come and go. Some thousands of years ago you had the hellenistic period, Egypt, the Romans, the Ottomans, China and Mongolia, now the British Empire, France, Spain, And not long ago the Soviets and today the US. The ancient greek saw the other nations as savages and barbarians. And many other empires did as well.

    Things change, and almost every period had some society reign and controlling vast territories and leading with their culture at some point. Trough slavery, war, occupation, you name it. Sometimes for a short time, and sometimes for hundred of years. There is nothing that tells me we as culture would be something special really.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
  2. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    And if fortunes reverse for the west, it would be the result of government mis-management/poor choices. Rome didn't collapse becuase she was unlucky. She collapsed through corruption, hubris, infighting etc. These are all human decisions, not acts of god.

    Yes, for the average Joe, where they are born is random. Whether or not the nation they were born in is craptastic however, is a combination of internal AND external factors.

    You speak of war, then you also must speak of political maneuvers by shrewd politicians. You reference commanders and strategies. You think about decisions on how to effectively and efficiently prosecute said war and to achieve a favorable outcome.

    The fact that many empires nave risen and fallen speaks of not only opportunity, but what one DOES, when it comes a, knockin.
     
  3. Cimmerian Nights

    Cimmerian Nights So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2004
    It's not the people or luck, it's the model. Free markets, free speech, individualism, religious freedom, social liberties etc. It's not a roll of the dice. It's not to say the western model is the only model or best for everyone. But it's a better explanation for why than just luck. Look at North vs. South Korea since 1945 - same people, different model, vastly different results in every possible way.
     
  4. Riven326

    Riven326 First time out of the vault

    74
    Dec 2, 2015
    I disagree. You cannot seriously sit there and say that we are where we are today because of luck. It is just as ridiculous as saying that the Middle East owes it's many problems to bad luck.
     
  5. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Alright guys! Than tell me, what is it? What is this kind of will-power or incredible feat which decided that North-Korea is now traped in the Soviet-Stalinist system while the South is in the hands of the Americans. Which kind of divine power decided to have East Germany be on the Soviet side while West Germany remained under the watchfull eyes of the western Allies?

    This is all just geographical coinsidence. Nothing more. Nothing less. What if the US would have been the Communist state and Russia a capitalist democracy? Could it have been that West Germany was located on the "wrong" side of the fence? Or that we would see today a ruler like Kim Yong Ill actually in the South while the North was actually a democracy today? Maybe Poland and the Ukraine would be the leading nations in Europe and not Germany, France and Britain? And the Warsaw pakt might have won the Cold War instead of the NATO. Who knows! That's my point.

    Maybe it isn't luck. Maybe it is. What do I know. But for me, personally, it is a MUCH better explanation than, urgh, western ingenuity or will power, or what ever else is used those days. 70 years ago at least they have been uprfont about it and just plainly said that all black/arabs/asians have been untermenschen not capable of achieving anything. But this is racist today, so it's about ingenuity and will power ... what a load of bullshit in my opinion. It takes a lot of guts, ingenuity AND willpower to survive for years under conditions as you saw them in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places. I know a hell lot of tards here that could not even survive 5 min. under those conditions. Hell, most of them could not even kill a chicken or butcher a pig to save their live because the look of blood disgusts them. Willpower and ingenuity, my ass.

    If we trace down certain achievements to some particular smart individuals and politicans, that had enough intelligence to invent and create something, machines, concepts and ideas that helped to shape those societies and make us into global super powers. Than I can't help it but simply say, that those inventors, engineers and thinkers had the luck to be either born in those nations (Germany, US, France etc.) or to emmigrate there. A place that has seen for the most part a relative safety and stability for almost 70 years, due to the fact that the US and the Soviets came out as victors of WW2 and pretty much divided most parts of Europe between them. And keeping each other in check. Stability, is a very important factor. Not just today.

    Which is what you can also say about almost ANY other empire in the history of mankind that achieved a very high degree of prosperity and cultural peak. You can not exchange knowledge, invent a lot of new stuff, do highly theoretical research while you have a war outside your door, dealing with famines, extremism and who knows what else. That's simply not possible.

    We probably won't reach a concensus on this anyway, since it is not easy to find clear answers, no one of us is a historian or what ever. I just state my opinion. And I feel this "ingenuity/will power" talk ... is leading nowhere. And actually in a very dangerous corner, if you ask me. You know, white power and all that ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
  6. zegh8578

    zegh8578 Keeper of the trout Orderite

    Mar 11, 2012
    A lot of difference between civilisations comes down to geography, and more importantly - geography in the long-ago, giving our ancestors a push or a pull-back, depending.

    Europe and China are for example dominated by fertile, green river deltas. These give the inhabitants the oportunity to grow more food than they need, and therefore delegate community energy on research.

    The middle east evolved rapidly back when it was fertile, then it slowed up when it dried out. It has nothing to do with will or lazyness.

    Africa - the entire continent is raised on a plateau, where droughts are common, and fertile lands scarce and far between, and this kind of land supports a rapid progress up untill a certain point, where it will slow down. It has nothing to do with will or lazyness either.

    Scandinavia was covered in forest untill recently, and we had our bronze-age and iron-age a thousand stupid years AFTER the middle east and mediterranean. Was it because we were dumb and lazy? How does that work with us being awesomely western, and therefore full of white will to progress?
    And once we DID cut some of that lumber down, and learn how to melt metal, what about the celtic people on the isolated islands in the ocean, how come they weren't full of western progression?

    It's easy to dismiss nature and landscape today, when we have buses and supermarkets - but landscape can be a spring-board for success, or a hard uphill to climb, depending. Blaming it on "lazyness" or crediting "willpower" is incredibly unfair

    Edit: covering more bases: It is then the regions with a geographical advantage that will FURTHER make things difficult for those without. Once the landscape is allready challenging, life does not become much easyer when your rival is developing exponentially, compared to you, then comes to dominate you.
    Then people cry "white guilt, eh!" but they can fuck off, cus I'm Norwegian, and we only ever dominated other white people.
    Because of the difference in our history and foundation, we had an advantage over other populations, despite them being as white as we were. Lapps are also nicely western, northern, all the good stuff, but we dominated them none the less, and we still remind them of their place.

    Africa, to this day, is owned and dominated thanks to colonial era, and no ammount of "white-guilt!"-crying will change that. Afghanistan and the middle east WILL struggle for generations to come because of this "war on terror", and no ammount of snarky attitude will change that either.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
  7. Riven326

    Riven326 First time out of the vault

    74
    Dec 2, 2015
    I gave you my thoughts on the matter in the previous post I made. I talked about the lack of motivation to make things better, the corruption of the police and military forces, the schizophrenia regarding western involvement in the region, and how deeply rooted theocratic beliefs have stunted the development and cultural progression of middle eastern nations and their people. I'm afraid I don't have much else to add. I'm open to different ideas on the subject of course, but the idea of good or bad luck being a deciding factor is not one that I'm willing to entertain.
     
  8. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    The thing is, what you explained here are for the most part symptoms, like a lack of motivation, corruption, shizophrenia/rejection of the west, which you confuse with causes. The question is, WHY do people act like that, not how people act. We see how they act, pretty much daily. Trough violence, depression, apathy and all that. I am well aware that this is a highly complex topic. But really, it doesnt require a degree in rocket surgery to understand what a child might be like when it grows up, after his parents got killed by a french Dessault Rafaele flying trough the air, or an American drone attack, of whom all breach international law. Our actions, have consequences. And sometimes, those can go back as far as 50 years, 60 or 70 year old men today surely havn't forgot what happend during the 1950s and 60s in Iran, Iraq, Syriah, Israel and so on. They are not so dump that people can't count 1 and 1 together. Since they are sitting on a lot of Oil. Which our machinery, economy and mainly our military needs to work effeciently. Same with many resources mined in Africa. As seen how most of the Uranium mines are under French controll. Or water sources by western companies like Nestle. Actually, I am often surprised that we don't see even more terrorist attacks in the west ...

    For example, the last 150 years saw a large influence by western nations in several regions of the earth, like the middle east. But also Asia and of course Africa. Millions of people died just in the last 10-20 years for various reasons. This is not meant to blame anyone, other nations did similar things long before Europe was even a thing and while we still threw rocks at each other.

    It is just to show where the resentment comes from, that many yellow press readers find so puzzling - "We are there to help them! Why do they hate us so much!". To give a short history lesson here, before the Brits and Americans decided to become involved in the middle east, the Ottomans have been in controll of the Arabian peninsula for hundreds of years, which is what actually helped the British and French to gain influence there, because the Arabian population absolutely hated the Ottomans. Once they realized that the French and British screwed them royaly, they also started to hate on them just as much.

    Yes, people can hold grudges for a very long time. See Laurence of Arabia, if you want some entertainment as well.

    And considering how many people are STILL dieing down there because of our military actions, I am sure that this, will still hunt us for a very long time. Decades at least. There is no sign that their hate regarding the west and it's values will stop any time soon. It might take several generations even before we see a real change ... How do I know about this? Because I am a Serbian. And believe it or not. But during the Yugoslavian Civil War many people actually had still a grudge that was going as far back as WW2 - and even before! One generation, is simply carrying over their hate to the next one, and so on. Don't understimate the irationality of fear and hate, because the Grandfather of someone killed your Grandfather in some war/camp/what ever 70 years ago.

    You have not give any reasonable explanation of why exactly the Europeans or Americans are actually more advanced compared to let us say the middle east or large parts of Africa. Particularly when you consider that the Arabian peninsula was for a relatively short time very advanced in the early forms of science, medicine, observation of stars, planetary movements, mathematics, and a lot more.

    Infact, most of what you can see today in the midle east or Africa was also true for Europe and the US not to long ago, historically speaking. At which point has the US become a dominant power? In the last 100 years after WW1? Maybe only really after WW2. When was industrialisation kicking in? 150-200 years ago? Before that, Europe got it's butt kicked a couple of times from the Ottomans and before that from Berbers invading Spain and holding it for nearly 700 years before the Reconquista ended in the 13th century.

    Europe is showing an incredible hubris and naivity regarding other nations. And this has sadly a very long tradition and is deeply rooted in our history.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
  9. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    And all I have been saying is it has been luck AND skill.

    Luck comes down to opportunity and skill comes down to what you do when luck comes.

    The ME was pretty damned advanced post Rome, much better off than Europe. But what happened after and why?

    The chinese were first to develope gunpowder and at one point, had a giant navy. Why didn't the chinese pioneer gun/cannon technology? Why did old China give up on its naval path?

    Europe was a den of warmongering for hundreds of years. How was it any different than the ME of today? By all accounts, the constant warring should have kept europe in a dark age shithole in perpetuity. Yet, the industrial revolution started in the UK.

    How did the Ottomans get to where they are?

    Hate, rivalries of various natures, war, thse have affected humanity as a WHOLE througout time itself. An english boy, whos parents were killed by french knights or cannon, hates no differently than an arab boy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
  10. Riven326

    Riven326 First time out of the vault

    74
    Dec 2, 2015
    Well, I think we're more advanced technologically because of a combination of things, such as the collapse of the British empire after WWII and the arms race that followed. These things combined with a willingness to move forward culturally and embrace science and education over superstition and the almost innate desire among western people to leave barbarism in the past where it belongs. Obviously the middle east's greatest commodity is oil. Saudi Arabia is a very rich country as a result. But despite this, the country is still culturally stagnant and mired in barbarism. So, the natural question to ask is, why is that?

    If you look at the middle east, it's clear that the gravest wounds are often self-inflicted. As I said before, most Muslims are killed by other Muslims. This is something that is downplayed by media sources because it doesn't fit the narrative that they're trying to sell to everyone. It's politically incorrect to say anything against Islam as well, which is a serious problem we face here in the west. Christianity and every other religion, or even non-religious groups, are open season all year long.

    But Islam is treated like an endangered species here in the States and especially in Europe. This is why we see world leaders here in the west constantly saying that Islamic Jihad has nothing to do with Islam and other absurd statements, which have indirectly led to a resurgence of nationalism and a general sense that western governments no longer represent the interest of the native population. It has also emboldened Islamic terrorists all over the world because they know that western leaders are too soft to call it what it is.

    Bringing it back to the middle east. I truly believe that the greatest problem in the middle east today is a deep desire to live in a theocracy, and the dream of dragging humanity back to the times of Muhammad. It doesn't help either that any sort of move towards secularism or having a scientific education permitted in schools, is immediately and brutally cast down, often resulting in the death of anyone who is trying to implement it or is in favor of it. It has led to populations of people that are superstitious of outsiders, paranoid, uneducated, and often barbaric when confronted with new ideas or dealing with everyday problems. Obviously this is a recipe for stagnation and hopelessness for which there is no conceivable way out.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
  11. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    And those nations held grudges for a very long time. Took 2 world wars, and the fear of atomic annihilation, to change things.

    Kinda makes you think about it.

    Maybe we should really give every nation nuclear weapons, regardless which one. It seems to make people reconsider their position.
     
  12. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    Even if you, or I, or any poster here dies as a result of a terrorist getting access to a nuke?

    Yet war and violence, for its own sake, accomplishes nothing. Warlords and national leaders with petty grievances, and no vision have proven this time and time again.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
  13. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    You realize that by the definition of 'majority rules' there's no such thing as a true democracy?
     
  14. Riven326

    Riven326 First time out of the vault

    74
    Dec 2, 2015
    Oh, sure. Lets give nuclear weapons to people who already try their hardest to bring about Armageddon.
     
  15. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    While I would not want to see nuclear weapons in the hands of ISIS, Al Quaida and the like, I do also somewhat doubt that they would ever use them. Not really. Those people, are fanatics, the foot soldiers. The cannon fodder. They either can't, or don't want to think their actions trough. They get told to fight and die for Allah, and that's what they do. So they are not different to a blinded Hitler Youth kid wasting his life in the streets of Berlin in 1945 fighting thousands of tanks, for the End-Sieg aka ultimate victory.

    But, the leaders of those groups, are usually neither psychopaths, nor are they crazy. They are quite often one way or another highly intelligent. That's how they got into power in the first place.

    Think about it for a moment. Germany and Britain have been from 1939 to 1945 in war. For 6 years. Both nations, faced a totall colapse, the Brits in 1940/41 and the Germans, well lost the war. And Hitler is seen by many today as psychopath, even though that's wrong. But neither side, ever really used gas. Even though, both nations have been stock pilling it like crazy, for the case the other side would use it. The British even considered the use for a short time, if I remember correctly, that was when the Germans started using their V2 to hit Britain. But they decided not to do it, and just intensify their air strikes. No one, not even Hitler, forgot what gas in warefare does. Not to mention, with air superiority, it didn't take a genious to figure out what the Allies would have done to Berlin, if the Nazis ever used gas even once against enemy troops.

    The only nation up to this point that has ever used nuclear weapons, twice even, was the United States. And most people know what nuclear weapons do.

    Considering the targets most islamic groups have, I have my serious doubts that any of their leaders would be crazy enough to use those weapons. They seek power, controll, military force. Using nuclear weapons, would pretty much kill them all as well. You remember where they found Osama? Hidding, at some shack in Pakistan, not killing himself with explosives in the name of Allah. That's the job of the cannon fodder. Hitler didn't die in the streets of Berlin fighting Russian tanks either. He shot himself in his bunker while taking poison.

    But I was mainly talking about nations anyway. And it is totally crazy, I was more ironic and joking. Of course not all nations should get nuclear weapons. Albeit, one thing, is interesting:

    Let me take India as an example. In the two decades preceding India's first nuclear test in 1974, India fought 4 major wars (3 with Pakistan and 1 with China) and a couple of smaller wars (with Portugal and China). In the 4 decades post India's nuclear weapon acquisition, there has been no major wars and only one major 1 border conflict.

    And Pakistan, is one of those radical islamic states. More or less. And both nations enjoy a relative peace today. They hate each other from a distance now.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2015
  16. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    Obama kinda inherited the mess from Bush, even if he also didn't do enough to fix it.

    I mean, going to Afghanistan alone was a bad idea. The Soviets were way more ruthless than the Americans can afford to be in this day and age and still failed to pacify that country (thanks in large part to American aid but w/e). But at least I can get it to a degree, Americans wanted blood after 9/11, well they got blood. Hope they're proud of it. Ironically Bin Ladin was killed, not by armed forces in Afghanistan, but by a commando killing him in Pakistan, so if that was the aim the entire operation was pointless but I digress.

    Now, Irak? What kind of stupid comitee of warmongering simpletons decided, in the middle of a ''war on terror'', to topple one of the regimes in the Middle East that have the least connections with radical Islam? Why kick down the only establishment of a country full of religious and ethnic tensions kept in check, sadly, by Hussein? Why prove to the Muslim world that the only thing they can expect from America is bombs, thus throwing them into the loving arms of the power-hungry fanatics who want nothing more than to indoctrinate them? In one move the US invaded a sovereign country without any provocations, destabilized the already fragile peace of the region, caused a gigantic refugee crisis (as if we didn't have enough of those), created a situation that killed hundreds of thousands of people along with a highly fertile ground for radicalism, and helped tank their own economy with thousands of billions of war spendings.

    And after all that, some people still want to act like we're the good guys who know better than anyone what's good for them. My ass.

    Do I beneft from 20/20 hindsight here? Sure. But I distintly remember thinking that this was a terrible idea when they announced the invasion. So did my father. You kick down the hornet's nest, they're going to sting. And it turns, that was one big nest and a shedload of people are getting stung.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
  17. Riven326

    Riven326 First time out of the vault

    74
    Dec 2, 2015
    If Hitler had a nuclear weapon in 1945, and especially after the declaration of total war, he would have most certainly used it if only out of desperation. This is why any sort of war between the US and Russia would likely mean the end of the world. Whichever side is losing would be the first to push the red button and that would be the end. It wouldn't be done out of logic and reason, but out of desperation. This is why just recently when a Russian jet was shot down after entering Turkey air space, the UN called an emergency meeting to deescalate the situation.
     
  18. Radman

    Radman It Wandered In From the Wastes

    192
    Jul 12, 2007
    It wouldn't ever get that far between nuclear powers simply because THAT would be the likely outcome.

    For all of the near misses we had in the cold war had nuclear weapons never been invented or widely adopted amongst super powers WWIII would have happened by now along with numerous smaller conflicts involving world powers. The ONLY reason we haven't seen any further mass conflict on an international scale is because of the nuclear weapon, which effectively means the nuclear bomb has saved MILLIONS of lives - try explaining this to your typical far left anti-nuclear pacifist and they react with utter rage and contempt.

    I'm in the camp that the nuclear bomb is ultimately a good thing at stabilising the world and ensuring peace continues - the danger is not a world government using these weapons (bar perhaps N. Korea) but in these weapons falling into the wrong hands.

    I'd also argue war isn't necessarily a bad thing, well it is BAD but it isn't so bad for human progression - WWII brought us many things we take for granted today:

    - Radar
    - Antibiotics
    - Jet Engine
    - Rockets/Space Exploration (Satellites and all we use them for)
    - Nuclear Power
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2015
  19. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Actually, that's a myth. War is not a good inventor. Infact war even stops many inventions. Scientists, engineers and inventors have to focus their attention on areas that are important for the military and combat. Resources that could be usually used in many different areas, like for civilian use, are now used for the military. Those people can not do any real resarch, or invent new things on their own, soldiers can not stay at home getting educations. They are not part of the society and thus don't contribute to it.

    Wars mean also a huge strain to any economy. Many scientists and engineers also end up on the front lines, either to fight, or to serve there in various positions, like governing and maintaining equipment. Many engineers and scientists in WW2 changed from civilian research to military research. There is no doubt that technologies like radar, nuclear fission, jet engines etc. would have seen the day even without WW2.

    Why hasn't he used gas?

    It's a complicated topic. There are not many informations about it left. Sadly. Just eyewittnes for the most part, and those are not always reliable.

    However, Otto Skorzeny and Rochus Misch both say that Hitler was not a friend of Nuclear weapons. For the most part, in fear of the Allied answer. The Nazis estimated that the Allies have been between 6 or 9 months behind the German nuclear programm - the reality as we know, was differe though, but the Allies thought the Nazis have been a couple of months ahead of them so ... What Hitler maybe feared was 15 000 planes full of gas bombs, and using them over Germany, which would have been more devastating and causing more civilian casualties than any nuclear weapon. Berlin would have been a graveyard either way. What ever if Germany had the nuclear weapon in 1945 or not.

    All we know is, Germany never used gas in combat in WW2. Even though they had it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2015
  20. Sergeant Politeness

    Sergeant Politeness Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    413
    Jun 20, 2015