Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You cannot get to the stars if you don't reach for them. Napoleons problem was he lacked the fuel to get there. Like many other great leaders, he did not know when to stop, thus giving birth to the unified European coalition that would eventually unseat him.
Western Civilisation is somewhat of a misnomer, we should probably be talking about western Culture. On this I will continue to argue for the primacy of Greece and Rome. Most western laws have much more in common with the Roman Imperial Code than the Code of Hammurabi. The familial institutions of the west are directly descended from the Greek and Roman notions of family as well as our more permissive attitude towards womens roles.I cant think of many cultural influences on the west that come from the Near East. Perhaps the Ten Commandments, but those proscriptions for the most part fit within Roman tradition as well and so tend to reinforce the Roman influence rather than add something new. Perhaps the most pervasive Near East influence is Christianity, which is a common cultural theme throughout the west.
Don,I tend to disagree with you to a point. I think it is important that the author have an opinion. What is a thesis after all but the authors opinion on the proper interpretation of events? However, I agree with you that the facts need to be presented in an impartial manner. This means facts that both support and disagree with your thesis. Opinion comes into it when the historian presents his interpretation.I also think dry emotionless writing defeats the purpose of historical writing at all. Why write history if nobody wants to read it because it puts them to sleep. One of the things that turn people away from history is the writing style used by most historians. I am a big fan of British historians, I just think they have a greater command of the English language and tend to present the same facts in a much more readable style than american authors do.Compare say the accounts of the Thirty Years War written by C.V. Wedgewood, a Brit, with that by the American, Geoffrey Parker. They write about the same thing but Wedgewood's account is simply easier and more pleasurable to to read. If no one reads history then it serves no purpose.
😛I suppose I went too far being tongue in cheek. 😛 But you do bring up a good point and probably one that deserves its own thread maybe two, although I don't know exactly where it would fit.
Why I am completely against this line of thinking is because it is genocide. I thought that was considered a war crime. ???
Playing devils advocate, what is a war crime? War crimes are a fairly new historical phenomenon dating only to the Napoleonic Wars. This may be hedging, Napoleon was declared an outlaw, he was never tried. Were the Romans then war criminals when they conquered Carthage, put it to the torch, sowed the ground with salt, killed all the men, and sold the women and children into slavery? War crimes are touchy, who defines them, by what standards, and who has the authority to prosecute. Nuremberg and the associated laws were created out of whole cloth at the end of WWI, by what right did the victors punish and execute the leadership of a sovereign state after they had been defeated. Hitler and his gang were acting within their legally constituted authority after all. They did nothing illegal under German law. Notice, I am not defending Hitler or the Nazis, I think what they did was unconscionable. I do however have grave concerns over the precedent set. A precedent that now will come back to haunt our own troops with the establishment of the international criminal court in The Hague.I am not actively advocating that we nuke the entirety of the Middle East. I don't particularly hold with genocide as a rule. However, the Jihadists would be perfectly happy f something of the sort were to happen in the west.
All I'm saying is impressionable youth, schooling, economies, etc. can be changed no matter the religion or nationality. We just have to know what we're doing when we try to change it.
By what right do we attempt to change another culture? I do not think we should change Islam. I think we should make attacks on the west so painful to the people who commit them and their supporters that they will not do it anymore. I am perfectly willing to buy their oil and let them live in their squalor provided they do not come to my house and attack me. Sometimes it seems that it is forgotten who attacked who. I think I have said before that I don't buy the economic imperialism argument. Here is why. At what point in the last 232 years has the US forced anyone in the Middle East or anywhere else to buy our products or to sell us theirs? The answer is never. It is only natural that we intervene to prop up regimes friendly to us, they would do the same if they had the ability. In the end the US can only look after American interests, if those are served by people we find distasteful then that is the nature of the beast. The real world is not always pretty, though we would like it to be that way.I have said again and again. People can live however they want and they will let them, within limits. The Jihadists and terrorists made their way of life our business 30 years ago by attacking us, we only chose to take up the gauntlet after the grievous harm they did us on 9/11. I can also see how Iraq fits into the larger war though I disagree with the entire premise for going to war. I don't like the argument but I can understand where the administration was coming from in deciding for war. Lastly, we are there now, we better finish it or it will come back to haunt us. The Jihadists will not quit because we do, they have now made Iraq as much a part of the GWOT as we did.Finally, I see your point. I just disagree that we should be attempting to change a society or culture. Contain yes, change no. I also did not mean to imply that I think you are an appeaser, I do not and apologize for the misunderstanding. I was simply making a point, not trying to point fingers. 🙁Sorry for being so long-winded.
I have actually cited my own published work in papers for school. Got a surprised comment from the professor too.
It is also well to remember that Napoleon was an outstanding legal theorist even though he was not trained as such. Much of France's current laws are based on the Napoleonic code with a leavening of leftovers from the Ancien Regime. Napoleon was not just a military genius, he was many talented like many of the greatest leaders throughout the ages.
And let's do WHATEVER IT TAKES to stop terrorism. Sometimes that “whetever it takes” may require a bit of humility, but it DEFINITELY requires a lot of cultural understanding on everyone's part.
You could go the opposite direction entirely and say that the Whatever it takes may require a lot of megatons. I am not averse to turning the Middle East into a parking lot. I don't care why the terrorists or Jihadists do what they do, I just want them to stop. As far as I am concerned the easiest way to permanently end terrorism is to kill the terrorists, bullets are relatively cheap after all. That is a simple and brutal way to put it. The long and short of it is that Islamic terrorists, at least, despise our very way of life and desire to change it, by force if necessary. They have made it abundantly clear that they don't want to talk. They desire our death or conversion to Islam, it is that simple. There are no socio-economic causes for terrorism, though these factors may contribute to the ease of recruitment. Violent Islam is the problem.Notice I am not claiming all Islam is bad, there are moderate Muslims. Just not many of them, and they are on the fringes of the Islamic mainstream. This is a fact many in the west simply refuse to acknowledge, much like many Europeans refused to acknowledge the threat Nazism represented until Germany was well on the way to rearmament. This is why many on the right liken liberals to appeasers. They are willing to do anything except fight, even though fighting is the only thing that is effective.
Donald,You must be a Rankean at heart. I dont think there is such a thing as emotionless or passion free writing. What people do is get so wrapped up in the fact of bias that they ignore any thesis presented because it must be biased.
Before you go I should be able to give you more specifics. I will have been in Europe for about a year then. I plan on traveling to England to visit family, my mom is English.
Nothing wrong with picking a side and sticking to it unless you become so dogmatic that you ignore evidence contrary to your opinion. The big problem I see is that people become so obsessed with seeing every side of an issue that they lose a sense of their own identity and stop thinking for themselves.I have probably fallen into this trap with ragard to the current wars in the Middle east. I am perhaps too anti-muslim and I know it. I can acknowledge intellectually that all muslims are not evil would-be terrorists but I have difficulty with that distinction on an emotional level. It is difficult to straddle the fence all the time.I also think that in scholoarly writing it is possible to be objective despite the calims of some current scholars and philosopher that objectivity is a myth.I think Phid hit the nail on the head here. What is needed is moderation and a willingness to listen, even when someone attacks a position we hold dear. Knee-jerk defensiveness is actually counterproductive to solving anything. What we need is informed, constructive, debate, by thoughtful people who do not rule out compromise but at the same time hold to certain core values and principles which by their nature cannot be compromised. Nobody agrees with eveything, but being open to new thoughts is what allows humanity to advance and prosper.
some questions:Do I just need one passport or do I need to do something special if travelling to two or three different countries in one trip?
One passport is all you need. Most of Europe is in the Schengen zone so most crossborder travel is just like travelling to a different state in the states.. you only need to stop at the border post if you want a stamp because they are cool.
Where can I find the exchange rate for dollars to Euros? If I convert my money to Euros is it better to do that here or in Europe? (Ireland uses the Euro, right?)
Here is a good site to check exchange rates: http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic Remember you will not get the interbank rate. Banks charge a premium for converting currency. Avoid the airport exchange places if at all possible, they are rip-offs charging 5-10% more than elsewhere.
Is renting a car called "hiring a car" in Europe? If my auto insurance covers car rentals, would it cover it in Europe as well? Found out if you travel to Belfast in a rental, you need additional insurance. Need to find out how much more that is.
Not familiar with renting a car in Ireland, but you might want to look into getting an international drivers license. There is no test, and you should be able to get one at your local DMV or they can tell you where to go, where I live it as at the county clerk's and costs about $5.
Are the ATM's and use of credit cards pretty much the same as here?
Your ATM card should work at just about every machine. Credit cards are a different matter. In my experience, they are not widely accepted except in tourist areas. In France you can use your CC to pay tolls though. ATm fees are variable but also generally higher than in the states. An ATM fee of 5 Euro per transaction was standard 3 years ago but it may have went up since then, your bank will probably also charge you a percentage of foreign currency withdrawals as well, I would check with my bank first.Thats about all I can think of. Hope you have a good trip.
Ski,The mistake you are making is in thinking that the terrorist?s motivation should concern me. I am arguing that we in the West are not at fault for conditions in the Middle East. All of these states have been independent for at least 30 years. I don?t buy the economic imperialism argument either, most, although not all of the economic exploitation of Middle Eastern peoples is done by their own leadership not the West or Western corporations. That is a myth that needs to be exploded. AT what point do the former colonial peoples become responsible for their own condition. I refuse to fall into the self-flagellating trap of blaming everything wrong with the world on the West, which so many in the West do. The former colonial peoples are not children and nor should we treat them as such. Blaming their problems on us is discounting their own responsibility for their fate.I am not talking of government disapproval of terrorist methods; I am speaking of their popular support. There is little to no evidence of a popular backlash against either terrorist?s goals or methods. A few prison programs are but a drop in the sea against the wide popular support enjoyed by the terrorists and their anti-Western rhetoric and actions. It is only enlightened self-interest that leads the regimes in the region to combat extremist thought. They see the writing on the wall, if the terrorists succeed in their present aims, the current regimes in the region are next.
The Crimean War was the first time we see Italy in international cicles... nothing to gain by being involved except to be able to say they helped (and thus gain favors... French support by way of secret treaty) shows them part of the status-quo and then can call for support if needed.The treaty with France was the ace-in-the-hole Cavour needed to hold before he could challenge Austria for Lombardy and Venitia... a big step in the unification of Italy.
Good point, I had forgotten that this was Italy's first venture into the international arena as a unified state and the beginning of their quest for Great Power status.Yes, the overseas wars that involved Europeans should also be mentioned. I would not include the Boxer Rebellion except that it proved that all the nations of Europe could work together if the goals aligned.
I will not go into my opinion of the quality of research done by the modern media. The “reduce by 10” is my personal rule of thumb, and is based on my understanding of the logistical and command restraints of ancient and medieval armies.Think about it like this. How much food would be required for only the people of an army of 500,000? To get an idea look in your pantry, the average American household has enough food for about three to four days at home, including perishables. Now multiple what you have at home by whatever is need to reach 500,000 and imagine the huge amount that really is, and that is only enough for 3-4 days. You also have to consider fodder for animals. It is impossible to feed an army that size off the land without so much dispersal that they become ineffective. That was also before the advent of modern food preservation as well. I am not saying it could not be done. However, moving an army that large was a daunting task all by itself then, and still is. It is not as simple as just getting up and going. It must also be remembered that the Lombards were an entire society on the move with all that entails.
