Well you can argue with Cambridge Online Dictionary on that one. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=57037&dict=CALD As for your other points....fair enough.
I never touch dictionaries that don't say Oxford on the cover. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, they were pagans according to the Oxford Online Dictionary too....of course there is room for struggling on that one.
Are you trying to denounce the western countries? Are you saying that European civilisation didn't produce the greatest (scientific) minds in history? Are you saying that Ottomans weren't brutal killers, murdering entire cities' populaces at times? I could tell you all about Islamic wonders and greatness or horrific inventions (such as slavery) and actions or those of Christianity or any other religion for that matter. The problem is in the nature of humen...
No. Western minds have indeed made some great contribution, especially in science. In general, because that, for several centuries, the Westerner have been more capable of doing either harm or good. Say since the discovery of guns /canon etc. I agree with you that doing evil is human characteristic when it is self beneficial and will not be punished. Even better, if the powers can persuade the masses that the evil is really in service of some great cause, like making the world safe for democracy or protecting freedom of the seas, converting the heathens, etc. (Few will go to war so the wealthy can become more so.) Thus in South America, armed with guns and wanting the yellow metal, Christian did terrible things because they could. I strongly suspect this had little to do with Christianity but more with who had the guns and who had the bow and arrows. What I am trying to point out is that many Americans are arrogant and ignorant. This combination often gets America into trouble and foreign ill-advised adventures. For example, American entered the Vietnam war AFTER the French were defeated, fully expecting to do much better even thought the French had been their much longer, knew the customs of the population, spoke the same language as the educated natives, etc. A more recent example is Iraq, but there are many historical examples of this arrogance and ignorance. Perhaps it was best summed up as "America's manifest destiny" - Arrogant phrase first proclaimed more than 100 years ago by a US President, I think, but forget which. Book of a couple decades ago also made the point I am trying to make. It was called: "The Ugly American." GWB has solidified this view in most of the world. Just to mention one item: his go-it-alone attitude on lots of things from Kyoto requirements to his US claims of the rights to make "regime change," or "targeted killings" where ever he deems it necessary.
But you just got through arguing that imperial hubris is a universal trait that any powerful group will display (a sentiment I'd tend to agree with). That implies that Americans get into trouble not because they're more arrogant and ignorant than others, but rather because they simply have the power to do so while others do not (i.e., France couldn't invade Iraq even if they did want to). Did not the French (and English, Portugese, Spaniards, Belgains, etc.) get themselves into similar fixes time and again during their powerful years? And does not their newfound "wisdom" about foreign adventures coincide exactly with the decline of their capacity to engage in them?
I agree that America currently has the power,* but in answer to your two questions, No and No; however, I am not completely sure the difference is due to some uniquely American characteristic instead of simply the current, more rapid, pace of the world. The second “No” is becaused they showed this “wisdom” when they did have the power. Now that they do not, we can not tell if they still have it or not. If you want to argue for a “Yes” answer to the first, please do so. I would like to be educated as to the Vietnam and Iraq like blunders these other nations made back when they were the most powerful. Americans invented "fast food" and in general do not want to take the time and trouble to learn the "inferior" local customs etc. (I view this as more evidence of their arrogance.) They tend to think that all the world will want to do things as America does them, have the same goals as America has for themselves, etc. will quickly fall into line with the American values and system, etc. This was so “obvious” in Iraq, that there was no need to plan for the post military victory phase! America lacks the patience for making successful "regime change." For example, the British made one in India, but it took about 100 years. America is almost out of patience in Iraq in less than 1000 days. America is proud to state that it has no intention to occupy the lands it has conquered, but most of the prior examples you cited succeeded precisely because the invaders stayed for the generations it is necessary to transform a country. WWII and Japan may be an exception, but I suspect that Japan "was ripe for change" anyway. I do not know the facts well enough to support this, but bet that even without a new constitution handed to them, the emporia would have no more real power today than the Queen of England has. Again, I admit that this difference in patience may be at least partially due to the pace of the modern world, but it does seem to be most strongly expressed in America, home of the "fast food" fast regime change etc. I do not think any other nation is so confident that they have the best form of government. Most educate their citizens with a more global view that their country is one of many and not "better" than the rest. I think most Americans believe America is better than the rest and are simply ignorant of facts like where educational levels are higher and life expectancies are longer etc. Again, my point is America needs to be a little less arrogant and less ignorant, for it own good. Do you know how much your children will pay for the Iraq adventure, which will probably result in a stronger Iran, Turkey in civil war as its Kurds try to join Kurdstan, oil production from that area continuing to be below the pre-invasion levels for decades etc.? ------------------------------------------------------------ *My last post even stated: “Westerner have been more capable of doing either harm or good” and of course America is the leading “western power” at the present time.
Well, how about Vietnam and Iraq? You yourself just mentioned how badly the French fared in Vietnam when trying to reassert their empire after WWII. Good info on the British empire in Iraq is available at: http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/iraq.htm Notably: "Britain's withdrawal from Iraq was a swift one. It came with the overthrow of the Hashemite regime that Britain had so assidiously cultivated over the years. The Hashemites had never fully gained legitimacy as rulers in the eyes of the Iraqis. They were regarded as little more than foreign rulers who followed every beck and call of their British masters. Constant tribal bickerings and uprisings weakened the government in outlying areas of Iraq, whereas in the main cities, political dissatisfaction was expressed in the ballot boxes and the free press that Britain had expressly created for the country. Political instability was a concern for the entire period of Hashemite rule, they regularly had to call upon the police and the military to maintain order in the country. " You should probably wait till the US actually withdraws from Iraq before counting up how long they lasted. But anyway, the United States has hundreds of foreign military bases in like 130 countries, many of which predate World War II. Besides Japan and Western Europe, there's South Korea, the Phillipines and Panama, just to name a few. And as far as patience goes, the US Navy is still in Cuba, 40 years after the whole thing blew up in our face...
Wrong, the british empire was, oz, america, india, canada, africa, no other empire spanned the world as ours did, your ottoman empire did not cover the expanse of oz or the states or canada, so your choice is wrong. I am happy to correct you, in this matter, and i wont be billing you neither, not this time, but i can not continue to correct you in many matters, without incurring charges in the future, regards Sir Vincent.
Oh really, you snob. Ive heard of geolgists, being killed by land slides, and poking around active volcanoe's how come its never you? Or are you a couch geologist wanabee, i urge you to stick your head down a active lava chute in hawaii, then let me know the temperature, if your still alive.
You are not exactly responding to my point. I agree that pre 1900 almost all of Africa and most of SE Asia, including even China, were ruled (at least indirectly if not actual colonies) by foreign powers of Europe. Germany had not gotten "its share" of the spoils (part of reason for WWI) with France and England (do not forget India) dominating although the smaller European nations generally had an amount proportional to their size. With few, if any exceptions, they are all gone now. Therefore, I obviously agree that the European lost their control of much of the Earth. That was not what I was speaking about when I asked for education about other "blunders" comparable to the US's in Vietnam or Iraq (I forgot to mention Bosnia and Somalia, "Black hawk Down" etc. where we got only costs, no gains) Since you have misunderstood my intent with "blunder" I will try to define it, but don't hold me to any precise definition - I am just trying to show that I was not talking about losing a colony etc. I consider it a national "blunder" (of the foreign adventure type - there are other kinds.) when a nation spends a lot of blood and treasure and in the end has only "egg on its face" and lessen power in the world to show for the "foreign adventure." The British may no longer "rule the waves" but I cannot think of any of their colonial losses that cost them more than the profits extracted. They really knew how to lose a colony (US included) with such grace that the former colony becomes a great ally - Even today, the sun never sets upon the British common wealth. The French were never as good as the British about getting out, but most if not all (Algeria may be a net negative) were far from "blunders" in sense that the wealth extracted exceeded the expenses. Often when they left a colony in Africa, they took the phones home with them. The French are not quite as ignorant as the Americans are, but they do not have to take second place when it comes to pride, and that is closely related to "arrogance." It is their huge pride that may have caused Algeria to be a net negative (and thus nearly meeting my "blunder" requirements) Rather than give Algeria up, it was considered to be "a part of France" - get born there then and you were a French citizen. One can argue that the cars burned recently in France are part of the "Algerian blunder" if one wants to claim it was a blunder. (I am not sure it was, but not well informed. I think Algeria supplies France with natural gas still, but could be wrong about that. In any case, even if a blunder it is a minor one compared to the recent ones of the US.) As far as the French adventures in "French Indo- China" region is concerned, including their period of domination of Vietnam, I suspect rubber alone extracted more than paid the cost. Certainly it was not a "blunder" as I use this word. I cannot comment on all the European "foreign adventures" but most were far from blunders. The Belgium Congo was actually the personal property of the King, and a great source of income (diamonds and gold, etc.). The Dutch did very well years earlier. Etc. I suspect the US loss in blood in Iraq alone, not to mention the 50,000 or so in Vietnam, has already exceed the total of all the minor European nation's blood loss in conquest of their colonies. There is also another slight disconnect in our exchange: I was not concerned with how long the domination of the foreign land lasted, but with the net gain or loss associated with the "foreign adventure." However, the longer the land is controlled the easier it is for the "conquest costs" to be fully recovered. I will also admit that even the British have not always been exactly what I would call moral in their conquest methods. -I think they dominated China by the introduction of opium until the "boxer rebellion" ended that, but I am very weak on my history so may have it all wrong. Summary: Because of their ignorance (especially of the culture they are invading) and arrogance (especially "we are the best that can be" attitude), the Americans have end up with a very negative net result in recent years. We did better long ago when stealing land for the Indians or the Mexicans and even pulled off good deals in our "purchase expansions" at the expense of France and Russia, but US’s recent foreign adventures have been unprecedented disasters. I am still waiting for you to educate me on any blunders of some other nations that even come close.
I am not a snob, I am an elitist. Elitists are justified in their sense of superiority. Snobs are just deluded. I am sure with some effort you could make the latter. I am a geologist of the old school. The traditional method of accidental death is to be struck by a train while investigating a railway cutting. This has become increasingly difficult to engineer since Dr. Beeching.
In terms of sheer power, Mongols 100%. They took down the Chinese empire, the Persian Empire, the Turks, the Russians, the Koreans, the Indians, the sultanates of south east Asia, and I believe pushed as far west as Bulgaria. Europe was pretty much doomed, had not Ghengis died. What they did was truly amazing. In terms of most influential empire, probably the Romans.
British Empire, hands down they owned a quarter of the globe - more then any other even though they lasted a shorter time in power then say, the romans, this is due to the fact that they were a more modern empire
This thread is closed now!!!!!!!!!!! The last word is mine, the UK and no one else had the greatest & most powerful empire ever. Our empire spanned more countries & more land than any previous empire. Oz, America, Nz, canada, africa, india, can you comprehend the land mass. I dont want to hear about romans, mongrels, hippie's or anyone else. James R This is no longer a discussion, and the thread is now closed, Sir vincent has proved his point.
Vincent, when James closes a thread, you can't reply... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! History changes. One day there might be a galactic empire, and anything earthbound will seem tiny in comparison.
Does not seem to be closed. Quadraphonics and I were having a mutually educational exchange, perhaps of benefit to others. I hope he is given the opportunity to reply to my latest post. I admit that most of the other posts here are pretty worthless expressions of opinions, without much educational value, but see no reason to close this thread, which IMHO does have some usefulness. Most of the threads should be closed if the base for closure is that they are mainly repetitive expressions of opinions. I doubt Vencent28UK is really James R in disguise.
Vincent: I stated that the Ottoman Empire was the most powerful and expansive for ITS TIME, imbecile. I wasn't attempting the compare the Ottoman Empire at its peak to the British at their peak. When the Ottoman's were at their peak, their Empire was more expansive, more integrated, and more technologically advanced than any European country, INCLUDING the U.K. Don't forget who won the Crusades against the Turks... Although a quick thought. The British Empire may have been 'expansive' per se, but how much control did they have over their colonies
