McCain: 'In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations.'
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/13/mccain-21-century/
He's like Dubya squared!
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/13/mccain-21-century/
He's like Dubya squared!
Condosleezy Rice: International buffoon
- Thread starter Bang to Rights
- Start date
Every country is stupid given half a chance. America's post-WWII foreign policy has definitely resulted in some monstrous evils, but the Chinese, British, Thais, or anybody else would likely have been just as bad if they'd been top dog in the world for a few decades.
That kerfuffle around the temple on the Cambodian border is an incredibly stupid thing, but I don't think that means the Thai people are all fools...
Bang to Rights
Well-Known Member
No doubt about it.
It's actually this condition that proves your first statement beyond any doubt.
This is the part that has me "unable to decide either way"!
Bang to Rights
Well-Known Member
That's a bit of a catch 22, don't you think, Yossarian?
But what's your point/argument mate? I've not said any of the things you've mentioned in your post.
But i since you've made some new points, i'll respond to them. No, disagreed, not every country is stupid given half a chance. Or more to the point, not every country has a sufficiently stupid enough psyche to to attacking and maiming and killing off millions of humans around the world.
The british probably were as bad as the americans in their own empire days. Thailand have tended to be a compromising nation, so it's unlikely they could get up to the stupidity of empire-minded nations.
Did i ever say or even infer that all americans are stupid? In fact i've actually pointed out otherwise.
And this thread is about NOW, and about a major US politician. So i'm talking about those people in this time.
I speak out against anyone who is a menace to other humans, who smashes up human rights, and who causes suffering. I can't go on about anybody doing this in the past, because the past is 100% unalterable.
The biggest menace to the peoples of this world, IN THE CURRENT TIME, is the US, so it is they i spent more time banging on about.
I really do fail to see the point of your reply... unless it's simply to disagree with my post...! And if you're honest i reckon it must have been this. Coz i never said nor meant anything you have replied.
This is the part that has me "unable to decide either way"!
I think you'd be in a good position to say this. For me this is the hardest question i've found to try and answer in politics. That is, the link between what a set of political leaders do in comparison to the civilians of the same nation.
If we look at bush, do we see typical features and thinking and actions of typical americans?
If we look at thatcher or blair, do we see typical features and thinking and actions of typical britons?
Or, if typical americans are naive and uninterested in countries beyond its borders, can we say the same about many of its political leaders? And it is of course this question we're vexed over i think.
How would it be with new zealand, sweden, venezuela, cuba, senegal, and so on?
It is, and it's a hypothetical, but i think it's still relevant to the question we're trying to answer.
Arguably we already know about britain, coz they've done all their empire stuff.
Chinese empire? Not sure, a tiny one in the past? In the future? I don't think so, i really don't.
Thailand? No, too much of a compromiser nation, in a positive sense.
The Chinese had a huge empire - they've still got Xinjiang and Tibet, plus plenty of areas inhabited by other people in the south of the country. They ruled Vietnam with an iron fist for a thousand years.
The Thais are a historically warlike people - they wouldn't have a country if they weren't. They moved south from China in the 10th century and carved out what is today Thailand through the conquest and subjugation of other peoples. The people of Thailand may be inclined to compromise when it comes to interpersonal dealings but the nation is inclined towards aggressive nationalism when challenged - as seen in the temple dispute.
Empires don't become empires waiting to be challenged by others. They proactively go out and build themselves up. Most individuals and most nations will become aggressive if they're challenged, but that's again not really relevant here.
Look man, if you're going back to the 10th century, then wasn't just about everybody barbaric?!
What you've described about china doesn't come across as 'massive' in my book. Tiny compared to the british empire of yesteryear, or the american empire of today. Tiny.
In today's world my experience is much more aggression and 'warlikeness' from american or british people than thai people. Much much more.
Of course, make a thai lose face, attack him, and he may well become aggressive. But that's not what empires do. The attack first.
That's where I disagree - I don't think there's a country on Earth that, given sufficient power, wouldn't use it to assert its own interests worldwide as brutally as necessary. So while of course America has acted badly, I think the 'stupid strand' is in the human psyche, and has been since cavemen started banding together, rather than in the specifically American one.
By that standard, the Roman empire was tiny.
fela fan said:
That's individuals though, not nations. There's still plenty of 'lost' Thai territories out there some of the more rabid nationalists would like to reclaim, if they were to gain the upper hand and the balance of power in the region was to shift then I don't think it's too far-fetched to expect they'd move on Cambodia or Laos.
Armed Conflicts involving Thailand since 1800;
Cambodian Rebellion 1811-12
Siamese Conquest of Kedah 1821
Laotion Rebellion 1826-29
Siamese-Cambodian War 1831-34
Siamese-Vietnamese War 1841-45
Pahang Civil War 1857-63
Franco-Siamese Confrontation 1863
Siamese Invasion of Laos 1887
Franco-Siamese War 1893
Thai "Promoters" Coup 1932
Thai Military Coup 1933
Thai Royalist Revolt 1933
World War II 1939-45
Thai Coup d'Etat Group 1947
Thai Naval Revolt 1949
Thai Naval Revolt 1951
Thai Government Coup 1951 Thai Anti-Chinese Campaign 1952-55
Thai-Cambodian Border Clash 1958
CPT Insurgency: Thailand 1959-Present
Thai Government Coup 1971
Thai Students & Workers Revolt 1973
Cambodian Refugees: Thailand 1975-95
Khmer Raids: Thailand 1975-9
Thammasat Massacre: Thailand 1976
Thai Naval Coup 1976
Vietnamese Raids: Thailand 1979-88
Thai-Loation Patrol Boat Incident 1980
Thai Drug War 1982
Thai-Laotion Border Clash 1984
Thai Military Coup 1985
Thai-Laotion Border Clash 1987-88
Thai Military Coup 1991
Bangkok Massacre: Thailand 1992
Cambodian Rebellion 1811-12
Siamese Conquest of Kedah 1821
Laotion Rebellion 1826-29
Siamese-Cambodian War 1831-34
Siamese-Vietnamese War 1841-45
Pahang Civil War 1857-63
Franco-Siamese Confrontation 1863
Siamese Invasion of Laos 1887
Franco-Siamese War 1893
Thai "Promoters" Coup 1932
Thai Military Coup 1933
Thai Royalist Revolt 1933
World War II 1939-45
Thai Coup d'Etat Group 1947
Thai Naval Revolt 1949
Thai Naval Revolt 1951
Thai Government Coup 1951 Thai Anti-Chinese Campaign 1952-55
Thai-Cambodian Border Clash 1958
CPT Insurgency: Thailand 1959-Present
Thai Government Coup 1971
Thai Students & Workers Revolt 1973
Cambodian Refugees: Thailand 1975-95
Khmer Raids: Thailand 1975-9
Thammasat Massacre: Thailand 1976
Thai Naval Coup 1976
Vietnamese Raids: Thailand 1979-88
Thai-Loation Patrol Boat Incident 1980
Thai Drug War 1982
Thai-Laotion Border Clash 1984
Thai Military Coup 1985
Thai-Laotion Border Clash 1987-88
Thai Military Coup 1991
Bangkok Massacre: Thailand 1992
Yes, maybe hypothetically, given that power, maybe you're right.
And i find it easy to agree with you re the stupid gene in humans in general.
But, some countries chase that empire status, while others have no apparent urge or lust to make that attempt at empire-building. Nobody will ever be given sufficient power, they have to go after it. Some nations do this, others, that economically could do, don't.
Yeah, well c'mon mate, that's been my whole contribution just prior to you replying to me. I'm trying to look at the link between individuals, the general public, and their political leaders who act on behalf of their nation. I'm trying to establish whether leadership and the public are similar to each other, especially in ostensibly democractic nations.
It is precisely this link between individual behaviour and the behaviour of nations, ie their political leaders, that has always intrigued me.
I disagree with your prognosis on what thai political leaders would do to surrounding nations if they had their chance. Not the least because they're all part of a cozy club called ASEAN...
Eh? its one of historys biggest empires
the grammar of your sentence indicates you mean now.
How you have managed to come up with that idea, i just don't know. The US empire has military bases or presence in about two-thirds of all nations. I think it's about 130 countries. How does that compare to china? How many countries do they have military bases installed in? How many governments do they overthrow directly, or by indirect means?
My mistake.
Nonetheless, China was historically an expansionist imperial state that conquered its neighbours, a process continuing today with the occupation of Tibet and Xinjiang for example.
Okay, so we're back in history again! Well, i have to say that if we look at the empires of rome, greece, britain, france, spain, and so on, surely they all dwarf anything china have done? I think i'm right in saying china've never really gone anywhere much beyond their immediate borders.
The same cannot be said at all for the european powers, and as for the US nowadays, the biggest empire ever.
purves grundy
ambient clown remix
I don't think it's a matter of the biggest territorial expansion = the most evil empires. You could assume, as many do, that all modern states have expansionist tendencies, but their ability to realise these depends upon the availability of resources. As China becomes increasingly well resourced, we see it mirroring the neo-colonial expansion and subsequent exploitation of western states, going into other parts of Asia and Africa. Russia, now the shock of the post-Soviet era is over and oil receipts are flooding in, has an increasingly stronger hand. Which means it can do what states naturally do - expand. The inherent nature of state-building overrides any influence that 'culture' might have.
I reckon such an idea explains some things quite well sometimes (especially when we're talking about major powers), but that's about it.
I reckon such an idea explains some things quite well sometimes (especially when we're talking about major powers), but that's about it.
The 'immediate borders' are the borders of the Empire - large parts of modern China were colonised by the Han Chinese, a process continuing today in Tibet and Xinjian.
But what do you mean by 'resources'? Because the meaning becomes blurred when you use it to describe the current process china is undergoing.
If you mean just wealth per se, then i have to disagree that states naturally expand.
There are plenty of very wealthy nations who do not do this expansion stuff. They appear to have no interest whatsoever.
And if i'm right, then it gets back to the nub of where this thread had been headed: is it human nature to expand and do empire-building if one can? And, is there a link between the people and the political leaders of democratic nations?
But to indirectly reply to the main point in your thread, i believe the US will be the last empire. I think we're going to follow the near-future demise of this empire with a up to about ten blocks in the world, that will all ensure no block can gain the upper hand. I believe this is the path to peace.
But getting there does require a fuller understanding of the link between people and leaders.
Even today britain has territories all half way round the world.
The US has well over a hundred nations in its hands.
It is a military, economic, cultural, and legal empire. Its reach is multi-faceted that truly makes it the largest empire in world history.
I think it will be the last one. I think china's empire-building has been relatively miniscule.
But in any case, it's really neither here nor there for this thread.
Not a clue. That kind of history is pretty lost on me.
But contexts change. I'm talking 'blocks' not nations.
I think the world will devolve into these blocks as a natural progression towards the only real objective the human world ought to have to match the incredible potential existence endowed us with: permanent peace replacing permanent war.
Eminent persons in the past have suggested this could only happen with one (world) government. But today's world won't see this happen. Instead i think a few blocks will be the alternative.
But look mate, this is tantamount to agreeing with me: they are immediate borders to china. Very close to it.
The US have gone all over the world and have conquered most nations militarily, economically, legally, and culturally.
In today's context of the world, an unrepeatable event.
I'm talking about up to ten blocks that represent the entire world. I don't think that was remotely the situation 100 years ago.
purves grundy
ambient clown remix
By resources I mean material resources or the means by which material resources can be acquired. These can create military resources by which a state can acquire more resources, rather than just protect what they've got.
And yes, whilst there are plenty of states which appear to not simply wish to expand through warmongering or territorial expansion, it's hard to imagine statesmen saying "We're satisfied with what we've got, let's just leave it there." Whilst the strategies by which states expand might be different, the preference to expand might be universal to all states. I say 'might be' because this expansionist outlook is most evident among the major powers, when they have so much to lose. Why would they risk not making the most of their opportunities when there's nothing stopping other states making the most of theirs? Differences in culture between USA, China, Russia, Japan add little of explanatory value here, imo.
Well, if there's nothing stopping other states doing this, then it's interesting to ask why they aren't doing it. In my view it will be largely down to a more mature people, how understand the notion of contentment. Or something like that.
But i have yet to really show strongly this link between people and their leaders.
Why are the five members of the UN InSecurity Council who they are? Is it coincidental they're all bloody powerful and bloody bad at human rights?
Why haven't we got japan, switzerland, new zealand, australia, and singapore instead?
But anyway mate, it really comes back to my vexed question about the link between political leaders and the people that form each nation. Because as you'll know some people and some peoples are indeed content with what they've got, that they have enough, so that's fine, no need for more. And i think that translates into their leaders too, so plenty wealthy nations do not think about expansion.
Probably just rampantly capitalist nations do this. This would likely explain china's recent interest in africa, coinciding with its return to fully-fledged blatant buying and selling.
As for having the economic resources to gain military resources: switzerland and new zealand i say to you, just for two examples. Funnily enough two outstandingly beautiful countries too...
Similar threads
