Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My you are optimistic aren't you?
Yes, I am. Because the idiots from Brown (who voted for this clown twice) are beginning to see the light. The Tea Party Republicans will prevail....just wait and see. Rand Paul is looking like a hero even to the Left right now.
Rand Paul is bucking the GOP establishment when he does stuff like this. If we ever wants to be on an election ticket either as VP or President, he had better get with the program (note I don't want him to join the establishment I'm just saying).
Negative but unfortunately realistic comment. Was hoping Paul would encourage and change the GOP so the RINOs will be gone.
But I bet they all know about homosexuals, sex changes, and where to get an abortion. Just LOVE progressive education! ::)
I think part of the problem as well is the word is thrown around too often which makes it lose it's effectiveness. It's kind of like calling all those who oppose Obama racists.I also think there are only a few examples in history that can actually be defined as genocide...the Armenians, Jews, and Tutsis of Rwanda are the first that come to mind
Amazing what Olympic and Soccer World Cup money can buy these days. Maybe they want to nuke Venezuela or Argentina.
therefor I am a heartless, pitiless rogue because I object to tis use.
😀 😀You didn't answer the question. If not genocide, then what do you call it?
An increase in globalization can lead to more reasons for war as well. The Dutch were trading with British colonies and England didn't like that, plus England wanted more control of the sea, which led to the Anglo-Dutch wars in the 17th century.
The Democratic Peace Theory is very similar to what Smith is saying, that's why I'm comparing it.
I don't know the specific examples of the skirmishes you mention
The Anglo-Dutch WarsThe Boer WarsGibraltarThe numerous naval battles between the Portuguese, Dutch, and French over India.Most piracy during the Early Modern periodAnd yes, they were all major trading partners although VOC and the East India companies eventually became monopolies.
Genocide is an artificial term coined in the wake of WWII to justify prosecuting Nazis.
Then what else would you call a government sanctioned mass killing of another ethnic group?
I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically. Are these sovereign nations trading with one another that we're talking about? Or is this about British colonists trying to edge out African countries or India from sovereign claims to its own land?
I'm talking about all the wars and skirmishes between GB, the Dutch, France, Spain, and Germany over their colonies and ports. Smith's theory is as flawed as Kant's theory that democracies do not go to war with each other.
I would have to agree with Smith on this. The more invested a nation is in the international market, the harder it is to go to war (i.e. instigate a war). This does not make war impossible; just less likely.
I strongly disagree with Smith here. The more a nation is invested in the international market, the more likely they will take whatever means necessary to protect their investments. Current and past examples of European nations doing this: Africa, India.
They've been invested in international commerce since the Age of Sail.I don't think it will decresese the likelihood of war, maybe global war, but there have been and will be small wars worldwide. There has been and will be a battle for resources (precious metals, etc.) among capitalist nations and others.
