Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5969|...

rdx-fx wrote:

To counterbalance the above point; China will get by. China has been China for 10,000 years. They'll be there 10,000 years from now too.
10,000 years.  A longer lifespan than your British Empire, by far.
This is a misconception. Modern China has only existed since the communist revolution in the mid 40s. Before that were several dynasties which differed from eachother significantly in more ways than just geographically. Besides this, only the Han Chinese seem to be content living in China at the moment - that all the minorities in China were represented not by the minorities themselves but by Han Chinese dressing up as them at the Beijing Olympics in '08 is illustrative of this fact.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

European "World Wars" from 1915-1945?  10 million dead, including the Jewish Holocaust of 6 million.
Russia and China lost over 60 million people during WW-II alone.
For as much narcissistic 'storm and noise' as Europe makes about their self-destruction, the majority of the suffering was in Asia and Russia, NOT Europe.
Right okay, lemme correct this.

30 million people died on the eastern front alone in the European theatre, of which more than half were soldiers. 5 million soldiers and an unclear amount of civillians died on the western front, (considering the 'care' that was taken to avoid civillian casualties you can probably double the soldier number). As for the holocaust, let's not forget the 3-4 million polish/romanian/bulgarian 'sub humans' who suffered and died alongside the jews in the concentration camps yet have been completely forgotten for some reason. And while the human cost may have been less at the western front, the material cost probably was equal or even greater than at the eastern front; consider all the thousands of u-boots, sea-mines, ships, V-2 rockets and airplanes which were destroyed over the english channel. The human cost on the western front was thankfully 'low' only because a sea seperated the germans and british who fought just as hard as the soviets did.

Beyond the human cost, the infrastructure in some countries had been completely and utterly destroyed in the war. Worst hit were Germany itself, which had pretty much all of its major cities completely destroyed by either bombing or fighting at the end of the war, Ukraine, Poland, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Not to mention that most countries under nazi occupation were continuously plundered for the war effort, increasingly so when germany got pressured by the allies.

Need some pictures to illustrate what 'completely destroyed' actually meant?

Rotterdam, 1940

https://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/4/35406.jpg

Calais, 1940

https://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-383-0337-11_Frankreich_Calais_deutscher_Soldat_in_Ruinen-595x397.jpg

Dresden, 1945

https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lssyy8RdKv1qbml89o1_1280.jpg

and many more if you want to find them. After the war, industry was non existant on the continent. Formerly more or less prosperous countries were absorbed into the Soviet-Union with the result being quite clear. Just look at the state of East-Germany in 1991. Europe had indeed completely and utterly destroyed itself. A lot of shit went down in Asia but what happened in Europe caused the definitive end of European dominance in pretty much everything around the globe. Some countries are still recovering from the effects of a war that started over 60 years ago.

Not to mention that only 30 years earlier some parts of the continent were shot to shit even worse. Can you imagine what Belgium looked like after WW1 having been in the epicenter of the trench war for all 5 years that it lasted? Or the human cost of WW1 including the many millions in Europe who died as a result of the spanish flu directly after the war?

No storm and noise here, /story.

Last edited by Shocking (2013-03-02 10:35:28)

inane little opines
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
thanks for recycling some of your last term's history syllabus, but nobody is even talking about that. it was a figuration.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5969|...
Denoting the destruction of Europe as just some 'storm and noise' deserves a rebuttal if you ask me. And no uzi, this is the sort of stuff you're supposed to learn in highschool.
inane little opines
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i am not bothered at all about us creating israel. is it our "fault"? jesus i wouldn't say britain can take responsibility for zionist ideology. a messy partition, sure, but we proposed many state settlements that were far more amicable than the current situation. "fault" is a pretty ambiguous thing to place, here. but anyway, that's besides the point... i was never 'aggravated' by that. i literally do not give a shit about israel-palestine. nada.

and if i didn't mention a british reference, it's not because i'm "blind to it". britain, france, spain, whatever. it's all the same and all feeds into my same point. i'm not a closet british imperialist. i'll be just as freely critical of past british empire building - just so long as you american's temper your current enthusiasm for running the world with the same fair-minded approach.
I don't know if you've ever studied the Vietnam war, but that almost tore the country apart, in a literal sense.  Having some snide snobby British punk lecturing Americans on foreign intervention is pretty ironic.  Almost everyone in the USA had family members who were there, and probably also had family members who were against the war.  Don't remember there being any British civilians being killed in the name of an anti-war movement.  Maybe I'm wrong.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
why aren't you directing your invective at your own compatriots, who revel in the "america fuck yeah, cause we can" attitude? isn't that an insult to your legacy of vietnam civil disobedience?
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
What do you think me and plenty other Americans have been doing on these forums for the last 6 years?  Your knowledge of US internal politics is seriously lacking.  Come to my town and tell us how we're part of the "deep south", people will laugh at you in your face. 

The difference is, we don't presume to know more about British internal politics than you do.  We also don't really care, most of us anyway, but that is entirely another matter.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5969|...

rdx-fx wrote:

The lighter the touch needed to effect control, the better.

I'm not implying any value judgement on which is better or worse, British Empire or American Business.

American Business isn't about Empire at all.
They don't give a shit about colonies, about empire, about any of that.
It is about profit margins, stable supply chains, and a positive growth rate.

Sociopathic yuppie businessmen don't give a ratfuck about what a bunch of brown people are doing on the other side of an ocean, as long as Business gets done.
(to put it in words closer to their perspective).
It is a far colder, disinterested perspective than the British noble game of Empire and "taming the savages for their own good"



To a point, I think *some* people use the "'murka, fuck yeah" meme ironically, as a self-aware criticism.
Still, it's bound up with too much ignorance and narcissism for me to find any humor in it. Even ironically.
Empire all the same. The "white man's burden" was simply a weak excuse to conquer the planet and acquire access to the riches everyone else possessed. Disregarding my dislike of Chomsky he has provided strong arguments on U.S. neoimperialism.

Last edited by Shocking (2013-03-02 11:10:28)

inane little opines
rdx-fx
...
+955|6562

Shocking wrote:

Denoting the destruction of Europe as just some 'storm and noise' deserves a rebuttal if you ask me. And no uzi, this is the sort of stuff you're supposed to learn in highschool.
3 million Jews, plus 3 million Polish died in the Holocaust.
30 million Chinese, and 30 million Russians died in WW-2.

The point was that Europe and the West make a great deal of 'storm and noise' about how tragic and devastating the World Wars were, yet they neglect to mention how much worse the Chinese and Russians suffered.

Using the term 'storm and noise' was a reference to the 18th century European Sturm und Drang romantic/melodramatic literary and musical period.
Overblown, melodramatic, Eurocentric narcissism at its peak.
Kinda like the European history books regarding WW-II
(With an honorable mention to Günter Grass in there too, as a good "former" Nazi and current commentator on the European psyche)

1915-1945 was devastating for Europe, yes.
D-Day, the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, all of those were phenomenal undertakings.

BUT!

But they were an order of magnitude less than what Russia and China endured.
Yet Western history books ignore it.

They also don't much mention the effect of the World Wars on the culture and maps of the Middle East.
Other than the European wars spilling over into the Middle East, and Europeans redrawing their borders, there was plenty of internal upheaval in that region during that time.
Most of the current Middle Eastern nations had their "revolutionary wars of independence" during that time.
Barely a footnote in Western history books.
Pakistan's independence from India in 1930(?)
TE Lawrence "of Arabia" and that Arab revolt of 1918(?)
All the former French and English colonies becoming independent nations, with arbitrary and problematic borders..



'Storm and Noise' compared to what the rest of the world went through at the time, not as just saying "meh.. World Wars.. they were nothing" without qualification.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5969|...
Considering the historiography of the time it's not strange that western history books focused on... western history. Just like Russian and Chinese history books almost exclusively focus on Russian and Chinese participation in WW2. Much has been done to rectify this in the past 30-40 years though but highschool history seems to be a few decades behind in development, hence it (still) isn't touched on adequately and the majority of the people seem to have no idea of what actually happened in say, poland (where most of the fighting took place).

I wouldn't however say the russians or chinese suffered any magnitude more than anyone else really.
inane little opines
rdx-fx
...
+955|6562

Shocking wrote:

Disregarding my dislike of Chomsky he has provided strong arguments on U.S. neoimperialism.
Chomsky, that old self-important fossilized tweed-wearing shit-flinging ape, is in love with his self-written thesaurus and the smell of his own farts.


It is neoimperialism only so far as nobody had adequately defined what it was, so they stuck "neo" in front of the closest thing they could think of to describe it.

neoimperialism describes International Business about as well as "neo-sex" describes masturbation, or "a series of tubes" describes the Internet.
proto-terms used when there isn't a good perspective on something.

Call Chomsky a "postmodern neomarxist pseudointellectual", to borrow his word-fuckery.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225

Spearhead wrote:

What do you think me and plenty other Americans have been doing on these forums for the last 6 years?  Your knowledge of US internal politics is seriously lacking.  Come to my town and tell us how we're part of the "deep south", people will laugh at you in your face. 

The difference is, we don't presume to know more about British internal politics than you do.  We also don't really care, most of us anyway, but that is entirely another matter.
okay so i direct some posts at a few specific posters with their explicit/outspoken views here.

and you criticize me for not knowing the local politics of your town.

ok thanks. great.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225

rdx-fx wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Disregarding my dislike of Chomsky he has provided strong arguments on U.S. neoimperialism.
Chomsky, that old self-important fossilized tweed-wearing shit-flinging ape, is in love with his self-written thesaurus and the smell of his own farts.


It is neoimperialism only so far as nobody had adequately defined what it was, so they stuck "neo" in front of the closest thing they could think of to describe it.

neoimperialism describes International Business about as well as "neo-sex" describes masturbation, or "a series of tubes" describes the Internet.
proto-terms used when there isn't a good perspective on something.

Call Chomsky a "postmodern neomarxist pseudointellectual", to borrow his word-fuckery.
except that neo-imperialism as a school of thought and ideology (a valid one) was actually invented and theorized mostly by a bunch of ex-oppressed people from former colonies, not tweed wearing linguists at prestigious ivy league schools.
rdx-fx
...
+955|6562

Shocking wrote:

I wouldn't however say the russians or chinese suffered any magnitude more than anyone else really.
I would.

Europe rebuilt.
They knew who they were, and knew what they were rebuilding, for the most part.

For Russia, China, and the Middle East, 1915-1945 fundamentally changed their worlds.
They didn't know who they were (politically, and with mixed ethnic groups inside arbitrary borders), they had to figure out what they were building, and they didn't have much outside help in building it.

Stalin, the transition from Imperial Russia to Soviet Union.  Gulags, purges, pogroms.

China, Chairman Mao, the reeducation camps.

Middle East, Israel, Palestine, arbitrary UN drawn borders containing hostile ethnic groups, Islamist versus secular governments.

Compared to all of that, Europe and the UK had a smooth rebuilding.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2013-03-02 11:39:51)

Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5969|...

rdx-fx wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Disregarding my dislike of Chomsky he has provided strong arguments on U.S. neoimperialism.
Chomsky, that old self-important fossilized tweed-wearing shit-flinging ape, is in love with his self-written thesaurus and the smell of his own farts.


It is neoimperialism only so far as nobody had adequately defined what it was, so they stuck "neo" in front of the closest thing they could think of to describe it.

neoimperialism describes International Business about as well as "neo-sex" describes masturbation, or "a series of tubes" describes the Internet.
proto-terms used when there isn't a good perspective on something.

Call Chomsky a "postmodern neomarxist pseudointellectual", to borrow his word-fuckery.
It's very simple really - the 'evolved' face of imperialism in the 20th/21st century. There are some rather depressing examples of the fact in my field of study. Most countries seem to show interest in UN peacekeeping missions only after lucrative economic ventures have been uncovered in its target country and contribute only as much is necessary to secure these. Peacekeeping or resolution seems to have little priority in their plans. Especially after the war in Iraq pretty much everyone is extremely skeptical of U.S. involvement anywhere, which is a problem that's only getting worse as an actual identifiable pattern of 'only get involved if oil is in the equation' is being uncovered. (I've argued against this in the past and still do, but there's not much you can say if it happens twice, three times, four times...)

Last edited by Shocking (2013-03-02 11:49:39)

inane little opines
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Shocking wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Disregarding my dislike of Chomsky he has provided strong arguments on U.S. neoimperialism.
Chomsky, that old self-important fossilized tweed-wearing shit-flinging ape, is in love with his self-written thesaurus and the smell of his own farts.


It is neoimperialism only so far as nobody had adequately defined what it was, so they stuck "neo" in front of the closest thing they could think of to describe it.

neoimperialism describes International Business about as well as "neo-sex" describes masturbation, or "a series of tubes" describes the Internet.
proto-terms used when there isn't a good perspective on something.

Call Chomsky a "postmodern neomarxist pseudointellectual", to borrow his word-fuckery.
It's very simple really - the 'evolved' face of imperialism in the 20th/21st century. There are some rather depressing examples of the fact in my field of study. Most countries seem to show interest in UN peacekeeping missions only after lucrative economic ventures have been uncovered in its target country and contribute only as much is necessary to secure these. Peacekeeping or resolution seems to have little priority in their plans. Especially after the war in Iraq pretty much everyone is extremely skeptical of U.S. involvement anywhere, which is a problem that's only getting worse as an actual identifiable pattern of 'only get involved if oil is in the equation' is being uncovered. (I've argued against this in the past and still do, but there's not much you can say if it happens twice, three times, four times...)
Shell is making billions off the Iraq war. Really shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5969|...
They are, though Iraq is the least of concerns when it comes to this. In several African countries now and in the past international corporations have actively supported and sustained conflict for either profit or acquisition of resources. If you actually see the effects of this for yourself it's very hard for any human with even the slightest shred of compassion not to care. You don't get much closer to 'pure evil'.
inane little opines
rdx-fx
...
+955|6562

Shocking wrote:

It's very simple really - the 'evolved' face of imperialism in the 20th/21st century. There are some rather depressing examples of the fact in my field of study. Most countries seem to show interest in UN peacekeeping missions only after lucrative economic ventures have been uncovered in its target country and contribute only as much is necessary to secure these. Peacekeeping or resolution seems to have little priority in their plans. Especially after the war in Iraq pretty much everyone is extremely skeptical of U.S. involvement anywhere, which is a problem that's only getting worse as an actual identifiable pattern of 'only get involved if oil is in the equation' is being uncovered. (I've argued against this in the past and still do, but there's not much you can say if it happens twice, three times, four times...)
That's pretty much the evidence at the core of my point.

It is imprecise to call it imperialism, empire, neoimperialism, or anything.
To do so references an international policy framework that it bears no real relationship to, other than being an international policy framework.
You can describe it in relation to a preceding era, but it isn't "neo"-something or "post"-something.

It is it's own unique flavor of bullshit.
You can trace it's evolution from imperialism, or neoimperialism.
But it is most definitely a unique beast now.


The modern international 'scene' is dominated by a singleminded (arguably sociopathic/psychotic) pursuit of International Business.
everything is a plus/minus on a balance sheet. 
Ethics, liability, profit, compassion as a marketing tool. 
It is insane and broken, but it is "just how things are" right now.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6686

Spearhead wrote:

Don't forget, Israel is the Brits fault.
so was pretty much setting up the genocide in burma, but who gives a shit about a bunch of brown asians anyway.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

Spearhead wrote:

Don't forget, Israel is the Brits fault.
No it isn't.

As for America not wanting a British-style commercial/military empire - Absolutely it does, the difference is instead of having men with moustaches and pith helmets running things locally its done by telephone.

When its time for a war all trading partners are expected to fall into line behind the 'world's only democracy', when it isn't we're expected to buy things like JSFs we don't need as some kind of tithe.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
rdx-fx
...
+955|6562
Dilbert, it's called "economy of scale"

Rather than have allies develop expensive aerospace technology independently, they can just buy our aircraft.

Worked fine for the F-15, F-16, and F-18.
Doesn't work so well for the F-22 and F-35, which are bloated, overpriced technology demonstrator showpieces.

Personally, I think the aerospace industry could've done a modern repeat of the F-16 and A-10.
Simple, straightforward, purpose-built aircraft, both of them.
Redo the F-16 with the engine from the F-22, a better intake, modern avionics, and thicker body chord (ala Japanese F-2) for internal fuel.
Redo the A-10 with modern kevlar composite wings, thicker body for internal weapons stores, and an updated turbofan engine with modern high-temp turbine cores.

Nope.. can't do that.  Too easy.  Not sexy.
Gotta do bleeding edge technology, so we can milk Uncle Sugar for as many billions as possible...
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5969|...
It's what happens when you have practically unlimited funds, people let their imagination run wild. Lockheed promised the USAF something that was pretty much impossible in the timeframe proposed and the DoD said yes anyway.
inane little opines
rdx-fx
...
+955|6562

Shocking wrote:

It's what happens when you have practically unlimited funds, people let their imagination run wild. Lockheed promised the USAF something that was pretty much impossible in the timeframe proposed and the DoD said yes anyway.
True.

Still surprising, though.

Anyone with more than a year of engineering management experience KNOWS that their two main tasks are to;
1) Keep their engineers from going too wild eyed and "pie in the sky" with cool "what-if" designs and
2) Keep their projects realistic, on time, on budget, and to spec.

Then again, I'm thinking like a civilian engineer.

Thinking with my military mind, yeah... DoD has little to no concept of reality or practicality, once General officers become involved in anything.
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|6161|Roma
but they both look awsome
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

rdx-fx wrote:

Shocking wrote:

It's what happens when you have practically unlimited funds, people let their imagination run wild. Lockheed promised the USAF something that was pretty much impossible in the timeframe proposed and the DoD said yes anyway.
True.

Still surprising, though.

Anyone with more than a year of engineering management experience KNOWS that their two main tasks are to;
1) Keep their engineers from going too wild eyed and "pie in the sky" with cool "what-if" designs and
2) Keep their projects realistic, on time, on budget, and to spec.

Then again, I'm thinking like a civilian engineer.

Thinking with my military mind, yeah... DoD has little to no concept of reality or practicality, once General officers become involved in anything.
KISS.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,053|6593|Little Bentcock
So, how bout dem drones.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard